Difference between revisions of "User:Tomt"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Removing all content from page)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{userboxtop|Tomt}}
 
{{User Block|2}}
 
{{User CPA1Blk}}
 
{{User NoArbBlk}}
 
{{User en-UK}}
 
{{User bothered}}
 
{{User Bible just book}}
 
{{User Evo}}
 
{{User bigbang}}
 
{{User guns harm}}
 
{{User noracists}}
 
{{User Interest}}
 
{{User evolutionScience}}
 
{{userboxbottom}}
 
An A level science (biology, chemistry, physics and maths) student from England, UK.  I am hoping to study veterinary medicine at the University of Cambridge, starting in October 2007.
 
  
I am atheist, but don't hold that against my contributions - I am tolerant of other's views but do not feel that opinions hold a place in a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' so will not express mine in any article and hope that others do not express theirs.
 
 
==Administrative Decisions==
 
Apparently, in a wiki (like Conservapedia) the deletion of entire articles without a reason is an administrative decision that is not any of my business.  Also, I asked why the Conservapedia talk page was removed and was not told.  I do not understand why there is not a page for making comments about this website - perhaps there were criticisms of the project on that page?  --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 12:40, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 
 
As those who look at my talk page will notice I have now been given an official warning for complaining about the rude comment made about myself by a Sysop.  However, the Sysop was not given a warning for making the rude comment in the first place.  I'll leave it at that.  --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 07:44, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
 
 
Since complaining about the warning I have been blocked.  My appeal to Mr. Schlafly was successful and I am grateful for the apology given to me by Ed Poor.  --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 09:17, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
 
 
==Evolution==
 
The [[evolution]] article on this website is a joke.  Not only did editors consistently remove the scientific views to make the article '''unbalanced''' and '''[[bias|biased]]''' but the Panel upheld this view.  Any website that claims to be a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" must make sure it has well written articles that can be trusted to show the views of all parties involved.
 
 
For more information see my rant on the [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution#Embarrassment|evolution discussion page]].  --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 
 
==Blocking==
 
As a few people have been aware, I was recently blocked by [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.plrd]] for no apparent reason.  I owe my thanks to [[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] for pointing out to Geo.plrd that I was actually correcting the vandalism that led to my blocking.  While I do not hold a grudge against Geo.plrd as we all make mistakes and he has made a very sincere apology, I feel that his method of blocking me without leaving any prior warning or even an explanation of the reason I was blocked is unacceptable.
 
 
Syspos should not go around blocking contributors without warning and '''must''' leave a reason on the user's page once they have been blocked.  My trust in the Conservapedia administration has been further dented by this very rude event.
 
 
==Bias==
 
This website is, unfortunately, becoming more and more biased towards conservative Christianity.  This should be stopped as soon as possible as I would not currently use many of the articles in a piece of research due to this bias.  --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 12:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 
 
:Please offer specific suggestions. I'm as pro-Christian as they come, but I have 5 years experience with neutral encyclopedia editing. How can I help? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 

Latest revision as of 16:02, 15 August 2007