281
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 366:
Line 366: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation (view source)
Revision as of 10:28, May 11, 2007
, 10:28, May 11, 2007→Ed Poor sysop needs a refresher in net ettiquette
I have no idea who you are asking that question of, Patriot, but IMO, no, it isn't. It is standard practice at most all websites. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 23:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I have no idea who you are asking that question of, Patriot, but IMO, no, it isn't. It is standard practice at most all websites. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 23:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
==I Second This==
For the past couple of days I have spent many hours researching and writing articles about British Comedy of the 50s 60s and 70s. I wrote articles on Carry On Films, and Tony Hancock, one of the all time British Comedy Greats. In doing that, I created articles about Sid James and Kenneth Williams who were in the original Hancock's half hour series along with Hattie Jacques. I spent a long time writing synopses of Hancock episodes, and finding clips. Some of these entries were about 2000 words in length.
I went on to write bios of some of the other Carry on stars including Barbara Windsor and Charles Hawtrey. Ed Poor saw my entry on Hawtrey, which youched up the fact that he was very camp and a noted homosexual, a fact well known and totally uncontraversial. He saw this and not only deleted that article without any discussion whasoever, but then went on to delte the whole body of work, on the grounds that "we dont want a whole load of articles glorifying the homosexual lifestyle". If he had read any of the articles he would have realised that (a) Only Williams and Hawtrey were homosexuals (Williams always claimed he was celibate AND tortured himself for being gay - hardly glorifying it), and (b) Neither Tony Hancock nor Sid James were homosexual, and the other two were women, and (c) The Tony Hancock article was unchanged from when it had been copyedited by Philip Rayment
Interestingly, Ed Poor also removed an article on Hattie Jacques which I had not written, but merely linked to one of my articles from it.
All of this I believe is Abuse. Abuse of Power, and abuse of contributors who contribute their work in good faith. There is a system for Articles for Deletion OR even articles for speedy deletion which Ed Poor seems to be totally disregarding and thus behaving in a completely high-handed and unreasonable and totally arbitrary manner.
The work that I contributed has now disappeared and I do not have any copy of it. I feel totally aggrieved and if one of my work colleagues had behaved in this manner I would be taking out a grievance procedure against him. I would vote that he be suspended from SySop-ship until he learns some modicum of self-control and reasonableness
--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 06:28, 11 May 2007 (EDT)