Conservapedia talk:Locks and Blocks

Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks Discussion

• Sysops, please remember this has been approved by Andy. Therefore, it is basically not to be edited or changed, changing any meanings to his approved text, without fist checking with him privately. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:00, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

# Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block only for ideological reasons.

Isn't this rather badly phrased? If conservapedia does not block only for ideological reasons, then presumably it blocks for other ideas in addition to ideological reasons. I'm sure that this is not the intent of the instruction- but it's what it says.--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

• What the phrase is meant to convey is that CP, unlike WP, will not block users for their ideology only. We do block users for repeatedly changing the ideology of an article to be something it wasn't intended to be, contrary to the CP Commandments, etc. I think the recent change might clear that up. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:00, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it makes sense now.--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:12, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

More than two warnings, a user may be blocked as appropriate to the violation.

I'm sorry to be pedantic here, and I would correct this myself, but as it has all been reviewed and checked and approved by everybody and everything I'm reluctant to touch it. The thing is that the above quote isn't, grammatically speaking, a sentence. It's not as bad as the "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block only for ideological reasons.", as this one more-or-less makes sense. But, still, it should be correctly written if it's part of the rules shouldn't it? --bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:59, 19 May 2007 (EDT)