User talk:Fraasrd

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Joseph Smith, Jr, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Today you deleted an addition that I made to the Joseph Smith, Jr. page which was constructive and informative. I did not delete any content, I merely added a statement. It was not vandalism. Instead if you had a question you should have contacted me about it first so we could discuss it. I can support what I wrote with evidence.

--fraasrd

edit If you troll me again I will block you. --Trödel 09:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for a period of time. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. --Trödel 20:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Trödel 20:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, you seem to think that its vandalism for me to go on your "talk" page and ask why you posted a warning on my "talk" page? First of all, what is the "talk" page for if not for voicing concerns and questions? You've given me more reason to block you than I have to you. Is this a case of "I gotcha first?" You have been completely unreasonable and have not even offered an explanation for blocking me. Please explain how your behavior is not vandalism, (not to mention hostility to a new member.)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fraasrd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This page should be unblocked. The blocking was done without so much as an explanation. This blocking is vandalism.

Decline reason:

Clear trolling. User added statements to articles (and challenges on talk pages) in order to illicit a response from other users. That's the very definition. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your block log explains why you were blocked. Not for vandalism, for trolling. ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling?

Where is "Trolling" defined, or given as a grounds for blocking? What I posted on Trödel's talk page was not trolling. I was asking for discussion on content, not an angry response. The content that I had posted on Wikipedia does not fit the definition of vandalism for Wikipedia. It constituted a good-faith attempt to improve wikipedia by adding content (verifiable, I might add). Trödel was wrong to warn me for vandalism. If he disagreed with the content he should have initiated a content dispute.

When I posted on his "talk" page, I simply asked him why he thought my editing was vandalism. He responded by accusing me of "trolling", and warning to block me if I "trolled" his page again. At the time I didn't know what this word meant, so I asked. He then blocked me.

Trödel is violating the policies of Wikipedia by blocking to get an edge in a content dispute. His actions need to be reviewed.

--Riley

If you continue to mischaracterize disputes (i.e. troll) you will be blocked longer. Please review the basic polices and pages linked from there. We would like all to become valuable contributors, but you are starting off on the wrong foot. I urge you to understand these before throwing around terms and misapplying them. --Trödel 03:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Trödel,

Nothing that I have posted fits the definition of vandalism, and "trolling" is not even listed on the Wikipedia official policy pages. The policy on vandalism states:

"The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated...

Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right, or false but well-intentioned, or outright vandalism."

None of what I have posted on Wikipedia was vandalism. See the above definition. All of what I posted was verifiable. If I post something simlilar again I will make sure to cite reliable sources. Based on this policy, if you disagreed with something I wrote, you should not have accused me with vandalism. You may have had a content dispute, but that is something different.

If you disagree with this, in other words you think I committed vandalism or otherwise violated the Wikipedia policies, please tell me how you think I did so so we can discuss civilly. It is completely unreasonable for you to throw words at me like "vandalism", "trolling", etc. and not say why or how what I posted constitues such. Please do not abuse your privileges to gain an edge if you have a content dispute.

--Riley

See Wikipedia:What is a troll. I left a polite but firm message that clearly identified your edit as not constructive. I felt that your communications on my talk page were "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt." If you continue to claim that this edit was not vandalism and attempt to argue that it is by disrupting my talk page or other pages on wikipedia, I won't hesitate to block you again.

However, if you honestly believe that adding that edit was "ok" but now you know better, I believe you! Additionally, I will not engage you in any discussion regarding its truthfulness or appropriateness on Wikipedia. If you still think that it is neutral and attributable to a reliables source, I suggest you carefully read those three links. I think then you will understand.

I apologize for any hard feelings I created in you. I look forward to seeing your productive edits. --Trödel 04:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Trödel,

Regarding the definition of the word, "trolling", the definition you cite does not actually define it, however it does make clear that trolling is a subjective claim and therefore cannot be used as grounds for punitive action. I ask that you keep this policy in mind.

Regarding the edit you cited on the Joseph Smith, Jr. page, it consisted of a propositional statement within the theme and flow of the paragraph in question that "Joseph Smith's teachings have led hundreds of thousands of people to hell." This is a factual statement verified by the Holy Bible, for example the Apostle Paul who said over 1700 years prior to Joseph Smith, Jr.'s birth,

Galatians 1:8-9 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The word "accursed" here is a translation of the Greek term, "anathema", which refers to an eternal and irrevocable curse. Hell is defined in God's word as the place where condemned souls suffer God's wrath and curse. (Matthew 25:41)

Now certainly you would not dispute that hundreds of thousands of people have died while believing Joseph Smith's new teachings on Jesus and the gospel, would you? In fact it is probably in the millions by now. Regarding neutrality, there can be no more unbiased, neutral, and objective point of reference than God's own perspective revealed in His word. Only God has a neutral, "God's eye view" as it were. If you think there is a more neutral source I challenge you to point out what it is.

The statement "Joseph Smith's teachings have led hundreds of thousands of people to hell." is a propositional statement which is verified in the most reliable source available. I added it in a genuine effort to improve the educational quality of the entry on Joseph Smith. If you choose not to dispute this with me, that is your choice, but you cannot simply accuse me of vandalism because you disagree. That is an abuse of privilege.

And after having reviewed carefully the Wikipedia policy guidelines, it is clear, and I think you will have to concede that you may not simply block me for making a rational argument to support my edit and posting it on Wikipedia talk pages, which is what they are there for in the first place.

sincerely,

Fraasrd 06:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not communicate with me about this again or a will block you again. As for a definition of trolling: See your response to my offer to accept your statement in good faith above. --Trödel 06:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello Fraasrd, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your recent edit to Latter Day Saint movement, one of the articles that is part of the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject. We welcome your contributions and hope that you will stay and contribute more. Here are some links that I found helpful:

If you run into a dispute, please use the Talk pages and the Latter Day Saint movement project talk page to discuss subjects (especially controversial ones) to help reach consensus. But don't be afraid to be bold!! Also, as new Mormonism-related articles are created, please make sure to add them to List of articles about Mormonism.

Remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my Talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Visorstuff 08:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You comments on the page were specific to certain demonimations within the Latter Day Saint movement, and not the entire movment. For example, the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) accept the doctrine of the Trinity, while The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) does not. -Visorstuff 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block and Last Warning

I do not care what your personal belief system is. Pointless ridiculing of other's beliefs and points of view is not tolerable, as it is in contempt of one of our highest policies. Not only this, but by all appearances you are attempting actively to get a rise out of other editors such as Trödel. I've given you a 38 hour block, after which you are more than welcome to come back to make constructive contributions. If you continue editing in the concerning ways that I outlined, however, your next block will be longer. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is NPOV?

NPOV is one the main policies in regards to writing articles here on wikipedia. NPOV stands for "Neutral point of view." (see WP:NPOV) That means, in short, that we cannot accept one groups point of view over that of another group's point of view. We can make statements such as "Group X believes Y" but if Y is part of a religious/controversial belief system, then that means we can't simply state Y as fact.

This policy isn't here to oppresses religions... actually far from it. This allows us to represent the views of all religions in a fair way. It also guides us in discussing other belief systems such as political parties, opposing scientific views and even the so mundane as TV shows.

I accept that you fully believe what your saying, and that your acting on what you believe is right... but please accept that not everyone believes the same things as you. ---J.S ^(T/C) 11:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]