Conservapedia: Difference between revisions
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: removed a silly one, + RW isn't explicitly a "liberal" site
(→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: removed a silly one, + RW isn't explicitly a "liberal" site) |
|||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
* Be wary of disagreeing with a sysop. They may block you for disagreeing, though this may be unlikely if you are following all the other rules (including 90/10). | * Be wary of disagreeing with a sysop. They may block you for disagreeing, though this may be unlikely if you are following all the other rules (including 90/10). | ||
* Be wary of an abundant use of <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags on articles, especially if you could add the citations yourself. This practice is often viewed as "ideologically-motivated tagging", and is frowned upon on Conservapedia. | * Be wary of an abundant use of <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags on articles, especially if you could add the citations yourself. This practice is often viewed as "ideologically-motivated tagging", and is frowned upon on Conservapedia. | ||
* Conservapedia is a conservative, creationist encyclopedia. As such, it is best not to post anything that might be construed as "liberally biased" or "pro-evolution". Even if you feel pro evolution arguments are flawed saying so can lead to a block. | * Conservapedia is a conservative, creationist encyclopedia. As such, it is best not to post anything that might be construed as "liberally biased" or "pro-evolution". Even if you feel pro-evolution arguments are flawed saying so can lead to a block. | ||
* Do not write rude or offensive material about another user, especially don't disparage a sysop. Do not imitate users in high standing who [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=78585&diff=592439&oldid=592419 can be very critical]. Ordinary users do not have the same freedom. | * Do not write rude or offensive material about another user, especially don't disparage a sysop. Do not imitate users in high standing who [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=78585&diff=592439&oldid=592419 can be very critical]. Ordinary users do not have the same freedom. | ||
* If you get blocked for any of these reasons and you think the block was unfair, '''do not''' create a new account. Instead, email the administrator or user who blocked you and appeal for a second chance. Most users are granted leniency and are allowed to edit again. This applies especially to those who did not know they did anything wrong since many get blocked without realizing they did anything wrong. | * If you get blocked for any of these reasons and you think the block was unfair, '''do not''' create a new account. Instead, email the administrator or user who blocked you and appeal for a second chance. Most users are granted leniency and are allowed to edit again. This applies especially to those who did not know they did anything wrong since many get blocked without realizing they did anything wrong. | ||
** If the sysop who blocked you does not have email enabled, you can appeal to another sysop. This is against their [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse#TK new policy], but the worst they can do is block you for all eternity. | ** If the sysop who blocked you does not have email enabled, you can appeal to another sysop. This is against their [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse#TK new policy], but the worst they can do is block you for all eternity. | ||
* | * Avoid posting using the same user name as you use on any site critical of Conservapedia, '''especially''' [[RationalWiki]]. That can be [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:StevenB&action=history a banning offense], despite the fact [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia they claim not to do that (#15)]. | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||