User talk:FREConservative
Welcome!
Hello, FREConservative, and welcome to Conservapedia!
We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.
At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!
Thanks for reading, FREConservative!
Why was I blocked?
This is for the Administrator "TK." I just wondered why he blocked me after I made a very minor edit to this page Wednesday night. First, since I'm new and this was my first edit, I suppose I should explain something. I am a Fiscal, Religious, and Economic Conservative (hence my username). I think George W. Bush is possibly one of the best - certainly one of the better - Presidents the USA has had.
Now, about my edit. All I really wanted to edit was grammar. in the article, there was a sentence that said basically "Anthrax - a deadly..." and continued without ever inserting the closing en-dash. I fixed this problem by adding the final en-dash after the interrupter. I can't see how I'd be banned for this, so the problem must have been the second thing I edited. Still, the grammar edit was removed too, and I find that annoying.
The second thing I did was, in my opinion, the minor part of my edit. As I read this talk page before my edit, I noticed a comment on how a statement like "many people feel the President's faith is sincere" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia-style article. This is true, so I simply edited the phrase to something like "the President claims to be a committed Christian." Because of this, I was blocked for supposed "POV editing/removal of valid content/editing without sources." This is silly. First, the only thing anyone can write without a "point of view" is a math equation. My statement was no more "POV" than the one it replaced. Second, (I'll skip to the last one temporarily) "editing without sources" isn't a valid reason to block me either; the phrase about "many people" had no source either, and to top it off, my phrase is more testable! Perhaps I should have looked for a source, but you can't legitimately fault me for not sourcing it if you're just going to go back to another unsourced comment. Third, how can one set of material be more "valid" than another if neither is sourced, except by personal opinion? It's extremely valid that Bush claims to be a Christian...and if you provide evidence the statement "many people feel his faith is sincere" is valid, too.
In short, instead of outright blocking me, I think the editor (ie, TK) should have perhaps come up with a compromise; something like "President Bush claims to be a committed Christian, and many people feel...". Then, he could have looked (or asked me or someone else to look) for sources for both the statements.
Now, to finish my protest, I'd like to point out that the block he enacted would have ended last night, and I would have said this then, but apparently he reinstated the block yesterday afternoon - for the same reasons, and with no justification. How could I possibly have done anything yesterday afternoon, if I was blocked until yesterday night? I consider this a gross miscarriage of justice.
FREConservative 17:16, 16 January 2009 (EST)
9:31, 14 January 2009 TK blocked FREConservative (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) (POV editing/Removal of valid content/Adding material without citation)
- If you are indeed a fiscal, religious and economic conservative one would think you would not be prone to hysterics or bombastic, over-the-top speaking as well, which are liberal traits.
- You inserted a modifier, "claims to be" which is indicative of ideologues of both the far left and right, which is intended to cast doubt on accepted fact, being George W. Bush is a Christian. Your block was for one day, and the fact you are editing and posted your comment shows your block wasn't extended or modified in any form whatsoever. Your statement about it being extended is false. Why do you say it would have ended last night? We don't allow editing after 11:00PM or so, Eastern Time, except for those trusted users especially granted those rights, which, if you had bothered to familiarize yourself with our rules, you would have known. I look forward to your substantive edits. Please remember this is a conservative, Christian=friendly encyclopedia, and we are not here to 'compromise' those tenets. --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:36, 16 January 2009 (EST)
I would like to apologize if the tone of my message came across that way. The "over the topness" is probably just how I normally write (people have said that before). As to "hysterics or bombastic," the tone was meant to be "upset but conciliatory." I'm very sorry.
The modifier "claims to be" is in my opinion accurate, as he literally claims to be. I didn't mean to imply anything by it, it's simply (in my opinion) a factual word. It does, I'll admit, have negative connotations nowadays, but I can't think of a better word.
I have read the rules very carefully, and your insinuation that I haven't is perplexing. I am quite correct in saying it was extended; when I logged on yesterday at around 5:00, I found you blocked me at 22:31, Jan. 14th. The block was said to last until 22:31, Jan. 15, so, I logged off and waited. At 22:33, I logged on again, and saw a new message saying I was blocked, starting at around 16:00 (I don't remember the exact time), Jan. 15th and ending at somewhere around 16:00, Jan 16th. Maybe it was an accident, but you did extend it.
And as I am a Conservative, and a Protestant Fundamentalist Christian, I do appreciate this site, and find it refreshing after Wikipedia. Please, don't question my religion or views until you get to know me better. I hope to be on friendly terms with you, and I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.
FREConservative 17:58, 16 January 2009 (EST)
