Difference between revisions of "User talk:CSGuy"
(fact tags) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Please don't insert ideological "fact" tags. Instead, look for the reference that you think is necessary. It's often not hard to find. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 14 November 2008 (EST) | Please don't insert ideological "fact" tags. Instead, look for the reference that you think is necessary. It's often not hard to find. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 14 November 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Unclude== | ||
| + | If there was an ''unclude'' what would you like it to mean? :-)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 01:17, November 16, 2008
Thanks
Thanks for the comment on the name. :-) I like your outlook (most articles on Conservapedia are horribly narrow-minded and Conservo-centric). I've tried to make some minor edits to combat this (i.e., changing the first line in the article "God" from "God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist" to "In most monotheistic religions (and in particular the three Judeo-Christian religions), God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist"). I feel like a lot of people here are a bit blunt though (especially the serious arguments that people have about whether or not people should make a cure for homosexuality). Overall it's both funny and frustrating to see things like that, but I think I'm content creating and editing more secular pages (right now I'm obsessing over pages involving New York City). -Ilikecake 21:02, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Please don't insert ideological "fact" tags. Instead, look for the reference that you think is necessary. It's often not hard to find. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:52, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Unclude
If there was an unclude what would you like it to mean? :-)AlanE 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)