User talk:NewCrusader
From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NewCrusader (Talk | contribs) at 19:36, October 31, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Block reason
You have been blocked for subverting the spam filter and your inappropriate comments have been reverted. Remember, this is a "family friendly" encyclopedia and you must follow these rules. --DeanStalk 17:17, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
- My appologies. I merely considered it odd that the word 'anal' was blocked, considering the debate topic was discussing the level to which Conservapedia should self-censor, and made use of a temporary workaround until the issue could be addressed. I also found it confusing that I was unable to use a word which several other commenters had used previously.
- Please sign your posts with ~~~~ (four tildes) or use the signature button on the toolbar above the editbox (10th button from left). BrianCo 11:49, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ah, so that's how to do it! I've been trying to figure that out... I knew there was some type of sequence. Thanks... and testing: NewCrusader 12:42, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
- Please sign your posts with ~~~~ (four tildes) or use the signature button on the toolbar above the editbox (10th button from left). BrianCo 11:49, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Satan Block
Just for the record, I was blocked by DeanS for one week for reason 'Parodist' following my edits to the article on Satan. I'm not sure why this is, looking back at my edits, I made three very minor changes, all of which look acceptable.
Debate: Do we put enough emphasis on homosexuality?
I thought you'd like to know that "Debate: Do we put enough emphasis on homosexuality?" is back open for business, at Rat ion alWiki. --Martina 17:30, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
- Doesn't surprise me. I started it to draw attention to the apparent facination Conservapedia contributors have with homosexuality, and it's exactly the type of thing 'that wiki' would mock them for. Also, Aschlafly... this is my talk page. Don't just revert someone's comment before I have even had a chance to see it, that was very confusing. If Martina broke a rule (Are users forbidden from acknowledging the existance of other wikis?), then at least have the manners to say in exactly what way while deleting her comment. It's very annoying when an admin acts without stateing which rule was broken - I still cannot understand which of my edits to the Satan article were mistaken for parody. NewCrusader 15:36, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
