300
edits
Changes
no edit summary
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)
== Index item - Bible is for Cunts ==
== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==
I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.
I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.
== Abuse by Crocoite ==
Once again I believe Crocoite has abused his position as a Conservapedia Sysop. Yesterday DHayes mentioned several articles that blatantly violated the Conservapedia commandments and guidelines, then stated his honest opinion that such articles do not belong in a trustworthy encyclopedia. Seven minutes after helping and receiving thanks from Conservative for pointing out a problem with a link in an article, Crocoite blocked DHayes for one day. After I told Conservative about the block, Crocoite did the same thing to me. But it doesn't stop there. TomMoore was also blocked for a day when he pointed out Crocoite's abuse of power.
When will it end? Crocoite has blocked me twice so far and I never even violated any of the guidelines and commandments linked from the main page. Even when following the editing guidelines on his talk page, '''''(''If the article is not protected'' Don't just complain on the talk pages. You're an editor... make the changes)''''' I managed to violate an unwritten rule that he apparently made up on the spot. My efforts to confirm these unwritten rules with Mr. Schlafly were unsuccessful.
As of 14:49, 15 March, there is a new rule posted on Crocoite's talk page. ''''' "Some of the editors on Conservapedia will see one of their buddies get banned and they will rush to their defense. You will receive a 1 day ban if I ban another user and you "tattle" to another sysop or post your tattle to other talk pages. After you return from your block, you should concern yourself with improving Conservapedia or your next block will be longer." ''''' By the way, DHayes is not a buddy of mine. Unfortunately I was blocked at 00:37, over 14 hours prior to this new rule being posted on his talk page. Maybe I am being unreasonable, but I think it is common sense to post a change in the rules and then start the enforcement. But that's just me. According to the guidelines page, the only rules are on the commandment and guidelines pages, not Crocoite's talk page. Yet apparently this sysop has determined that he can add rules to suit his personal taste whenever he wants. I have unfortunately run afoul of two of these rules.
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)