548
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 107:
Line 107: + + +
no edit summary
This is my first post after my block has expired, and yes Mr. Crocoite, it is geared towards "improving Conservapedia". Such abuses of power will not help this encyclopedia. Punishing editors for writing constructive criticism will only turn this encyclopedia into a 'cult of personality' for the Sysops that abuse their power. I fully expect to be blocked again for pointing out the obvious problems that are occurring here, but then again, maybe that won't happen. We shall see. --Jimmy 00:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
This is my first post after my block has expired, and yes Mr. Crocoite, it is geared towards "improving Conservapedia". Such abuses of power will not help this encyclopedia. Punishing editors for writing constructive criticism will only turn this encyclopedia into a 'cult of personality' for the Sysops that abuse their power. I fully expect to be blocked again for pointing out the obvious problems that are occurring here, but then again, maybe that won't happen. We shall see. --Jimmy 00:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)