nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 334:
Line 334: − − == Why was I blocked? == − − This is for the Administrator "TK." I just wondered why he blocked me after I made a ''very'' minor edit to this page Wednesday night. First, since I'm new and this was my first edit, I suppose I should explain something. I am a Fiscal, Religious, and Economic Conservative (hence my username). I think George W. Bush is possibly one of the best - certainly one of the better - Presidents the USA has had. − − Now, about my edit. All I really wanted to edit was grammar. in the article, there was a sentence that said basically "Anthrax - a deadly..." and continued without ever inserting the closing en-dash. I fixed this problem by adding the final en-dash after the interrupter. I can't see how I'd be banned for this, so the problem must have been the second thing I edited. Still, the grammar edit was removed too, and I find that annoying. − − The second thing I did was, in my opinion, the minor part of my edit. As I read this talk page before my edit, I noticed a comment on how a statement like "many people feel the President's faith is sincere" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia-style article. This is true, so I simply edited the phrase to something like "the President claims to be a committed Christian." Because of this, I was blocked for supposed "POV editing/removal of valid content/editing without sources." This is silly. First, the only thing ''anyone'' can write without a "point of view" is a math equation. My statement was no more "POV" than the one it replaced. Second, (I'll skip to the last one temporarily) "editing without sources" isn't a valid reason to block me either; the phrase about "many people" had no source either, and to top it off, my phrase is more testable! Perhaps I should have looked for a source, but you can't legitimately fault me for not sourcing it if you're just going to go back to another unsourced comment. Third, how can one set of material be more "valid" than another if ''neither'' is sourced, except by personal opinion? It's extremely valid that Bush claims to be a Christian...and if you provide evidence the statement "many people feel his faith is sincere" is valid, too. − − In short, instead of outright blocking me, I think the editor (ie, TK) should have perhaps come up with a compromise; something like "President Bush claims to be a committed Christian, and many people feel...". Then, he could have looked (or asked me or someone else to look) for sources for ''both'' the statements. − − Now, to finish my protest, I'd like to point out that the block he enacted ''would'' have ended last night, and I would have said this then, but apparently he reinstated the block yesterday afternoon - for the same reasons, and with no justification. How could I possibly have done anything yesterday afternoon, if I was blocked until yesterday night? I consider this a gross miscarriage of justice. − − [[User:FREConservative|FREConservative]] 17:16, 16 January 2009 (EST)
→Why was I blocked?: comment moved to user's talk page, where it belongs
This is a good and valid point, but it needs references. Please cite a scource for both things. It'd be nice if you could get some quotes from more prominent liberals.--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 15:36, 11 December 2008 (EST)
This is a good and valid point, but it needs references. Please cite a scource for both things. It'd be nice if you could get some quotes from more prominent liberals.--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 15:36, 11 December 2008 (EST)