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)

When has Wikipedia blocked someone "only for ideological reasons", rather than something they edited? --Gulik3 17:43, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

• Check with Ed Poor. I assume you know of him? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 14:56, 20 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)

• One cannot, in all cases, make specific those things which come from subjective judgements, eh? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:34, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

• Yes, "eh?" indeed. Is this your response to my pointing out that the "sentence" "More than two warnings, a user may be blocked as appropriate to the violation." is not a sentence? Are you trying to be surreal or or have you misunderstood my point? It would be very easy to correct it, but the page says it may not be changed without top-level authorization. --bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:24, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

• On locked pages, it is our custom here, for users to make the suggested correction on this page. So what is your recommendation? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 15:04, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

To make the sentence grammatically correct it should read, "After more than two warnings a user may be blocked ...". To be honest, the termination "as appropriate to the violation." is not particularly elegant either, but at least it doesn't jump off the page as being part of an incomplete sentence.--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 17:35, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

• BillM, people might get the idea your soul purpose for being here is to criticize others, and make snide, not particularly friendly remarks. I am sure that isn't your intention, right? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I almost never engage in talk pages, so that's hardly my soul (sic) reason for being here. I saw that the mistakes in these pages couldn't be corrected without reference to the powers that be, so I mentioned it here. I'm sorry if that was inappropriate behavior and I won't do it again. --bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:23, 22 May 2007 (EDT)