User talk:OtruT

I bet you thought you were pretty clever. That behavior isn't acceptable here. -- Jose83

What behavior? I simply had a small concern about an article, and wanted to discuss it in the hope that it could be resolved. OtruT 22:25, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Deceit is a tactic often employed by liberals such as yourself. Secretly calling the creator of this site a "retard" is not an effective way of resolving an issue. -- Jose83

I'm sorry, but you seem to be looking for some excuse to accuse me of something. If you look for a coincidence hard enough, you'll find one, whether or not it's there. OtruT 22:32, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I highly doubt that was a coincidence. I also see that you've attempted to cover your tracks. [[1]] You'll be banned soon enough. -- Jose83

I was simply rephrasing my remark to avoid any confusion as to my intent. I don't want other people trying to come up with the same trick to try and get me banned or something. -Otru ~~ OtruT

Welcome

Once you return, and assuming that you will be contributing...

Useful links

• How to edit a wiki
• CP Commandments
• CP Guidelines
• Style Manual
• Editing Etiquette
• How to create and maintain high-quality articles
• Report Problems
• List of Templates

Welcome!

Hello, OtruT, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, OtruT!

Philip J. Rayment 09:59, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Heh, he's a self-confessed sock from RW. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 10:02, 1 January 2008 (EST)

"Sock"? Of an existing editor here? Or simply someone who also has an account, umm, elsewhere? If the latter, and if he does contribute in a positive way, that's okay. But yeah, I'd be sceptical. Philip J. Rayment

Not sure what "RW" is (you guys need a glossary or something), but I thought he made a valid point: The Evangelical atheist article looks a bit... far out in the current form, and that's coming from somebody who isn't even remotely a fan of such people. --JakeC 10:15, 1 January 2008 (EST)