240
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 3:
Line 3: − + Line 55:
Line 55: − +
Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements? (view source)
Revision as of 19:33, December 30, 2007
, 19:33, December 30, 2007"nowiki" tags for the "fact" calls since they weren't used to actually specify something that needs to be cited. This debate title also led to the category table having odd dimensions.
==Yes==
==Yes==
If im to be asked, i have seen few pretty questionable bans, but i can now remember only two specific ones that fit the queastion. Those are the bans of Catwatcher and Jacobin when editing article Deceit. Both where banned for 3 days, if i remember correctly. Jacobin for deleting the uncited claim that liberalists dont teach that deceit is wrong and Catwathcher from adding {{fact}} to the claims in the article. Didn't know where to search for the logs anymore, but if anyone can find those and provide more about the reason of the bans, please feel free.
If im to be asked, i have seen few pretty questionable bans, but i can now remember only two specific ones that fit the queastion. Those are the bans of Catwatcher and Jacobin when editing article Deceit. Both where banned for 3 days, if i remember correctly. Jacobin for deleting the uncited claim that liberalists dont teach that deceit is wrong and Catwathcher from adding <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> to the claims in the article. Didn't know where to search for the logs anymore, but if anyone can find those and provide more about the reason of the bans, please feel free.
Furthermore i think the 90%/10% rule is used here mostly to shut up the people presenting inconvient questions or atleast scare them to be quiet. and i think examples from that are plenty. Most reasent in my opinnion is Mr. Aschlafly:s response to Hacker at his talk page regarding the series of questions Hacker made. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:00, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Furthermore i think the 90%/10% rule is used here mostly to shut up the people presenting inconvient questions or atleast scare them to be quiet. and i think examples from that are plenty. Most reasent in my opinnion is Mr. Aschlafly:s response to Hacker at his talk page regarding the series of questions Hacker made. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:00, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Please see [[:Conservapedia:Guidelines]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Please see [[:Conservapedia:Guidelines]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:''As far as I know, not a single person has ever been "blocked" for expressing disagreement with a conservative position. Conservapedia welcomes opposing views.'' Honestly, mr. Poor, have you seen the history of the [[Deceit]] page? Were the blockings of Jacobin, Catwatcher and AmesG at all unrelated to them removing or adding "{{fact}}" to the unsubstantiated claims made in that article? Or am I entirely mistaken here? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:''As far as I know, not a single person has ever been "blocked" for expressing disagreement with a conservative position. Conservapedia welcomes opposing views.'' Honestly, mr. Poor, have you seen the history of the [[Deceit]] page? Were the blockings of Jacobin, Catwatcher and AmesG at all unrelated to them removing or adding "<nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>" to the unsubstantiated claims made in that article? Or am I entirely mistaken here? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::Golly, I'm pinned down behind enemy lines and taking fire. Now what'll I do? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::Golly, I'm pinned down behind enemy lines and taking fire. Now what'll I do? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)