SkipCaptcha
3,682
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 235:
Line 235: − − == The concept of a homosexual agenda == − − A blocked user wrote (in part): − − :I made several edits to this page which either eliminated the presentation of personal opinion as fact or which placed notes that statements were not verifiable and were not accompanied by a citation. I find the article as a whole fairly interesting because whether or not an actual homosexual agenda exists, the concept of a homosexual agenda most definitely exists either as an actual agenda held by gay activists or as a perceived agenda by those who oppose acceptance or expansion of rights. − − :None of the changes I made changed the fundamental content of the article, but simply attempted to enhance the article by removing or noting items that lacked references to verifiable data or which were expressions of personal opinion (both of which are forbidden by the conservapedia commandments). This was met with immediate reversion of the edits (which is fine) and blocking of my account from making further changes and blocking of the IP address from which I logged in (which is unacceptable). As you can see on the history page, this was done by user Markman. − − :I understand that a site such as conservapedia is probably subjected to significant attempts at sabotage, but it is unfortunate that the sight has become inhospitable to legitamate attempts to improve the quality of the site by removing mere statements of personal opinion which are un-referenced, un-substantiated, and and un-verifiable. − − :Conservapedia could have been a great resource, but it has, unfortunately, allowed itself to become nothing more than a site that presents propaganda and opinion as fact in violation of its own commandments. − − Overlooking for the moment the apparent admission that you have logged in under a new username to evade a block, your unsigned comment gives no particulars such as a "diff" to support your complaints. Please use the proper channels if you want a more substantial response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:57, 22 February 2013 (EST) − − Please do not jump to conclusions. I did not create a new account to evade a block. I checked the previous username this morning and it was no longer blocked. The user that blocked me (Markman) gave as one of the reasons for the block, that I had used a user name which violated conservapedia policy (a policy which I searched for but could not find). Out of respect for Marman's complaint about my user name, I created a new acount in order to comply with the conservapedia policy on usernames (which, again, I could not find). I am sorry, but I am not familiar with this forum and I don't really know what "diff" means. Finally, I also do not know what would be the proper channel for this commentary. I read (in its entirety) the page linked as "conservapedia commandments" and all the pages linked to from that page. Im also not sure what you mean by "unsigned". I was logged in when I made the original comments and I didnt realize that a signature was needed in addition to being logged in. Also, I did not intend to use inflammatory language in the initial post. It was more a reaction to being blocked under false pretenses and I did not mean to offend anyone. Sorry about my ingorance of this forum, but I am new to the entire wiki process. Is there some sort of tutorial or guidelines available on the site? Thanks, Mikers. − − :Here's the [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&action=historysubmit&diff=1035658&oldid=1035638 diff] of Markman reverting this user's edits. Mikers is right that at least some of the sentences he deleted are in clear violation of Conservapedia guidelines. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 13:07, 22 February 2013 (EST) − − One last point, Ed. In the message you sent me you stated that I should not hesitate to point out editorial problems with conservapedia as long as I avoid inflammatory language. However when I pointed out editorial problems with this page and edited the page to resolve them, I was immediately blocked. There does not seem to be a way to appeal blocks and without an appeals process, conservapedia does not encourage the free exchange of ideas which it claims to be encouraging. There should be a mechanism for appealing and complaining about those members who arbitrarily block users who simply disagree with ideology or because they point out serious problems with articles (such as lack of evidence or citations to back up personal opinions presented as fact in violation of conservapedia commandments 1 and 5). It would seem to be impossible to point out members who inappropriately block users without creating a different acount which is a violation of conservapedia policy. It seems that the conservapedia system is constructed to prevent fair and thoughtful challenges to articles which present personal opinion as fact without evidence or challenges to facts presented in the articles. What would you suggest a user do if he or she is blocked simply for making a reasonable edit to a page? What would you suggest for a user who believes that he or she was inappropriately blocked by a user without sufficient basis? Thanks in advance for your input, Mikers.
Talk:Homosexual Agenda (view source)
Revision as of 00:52, February 23, 2013
, 00:52, February 23, 2013→The concept of a homosexual agenda: Deleted some trash
Also cannot find anything on Hunter Madsen (pen name "Erastes Pill")[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)
Also cannot find anything on Hunter Madsen (pen name "Erastes Pill")[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)