User talk:Freedominthought

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Freedominthought, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kukini 07:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] what is a bcatt...

lol...I had a nice giggle at this. B is an initial and Catt is an alias surname and a play on "cat"...put them together and you get a bcatt :). Welcome to Wikipedia, it's good to see that you apparently haven't let bad manners scare you off...some of us us do genuinely look forward to your input and contributions. Hope to see you around. bcatt 10:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It is entertaining to see the effect of some truth on the article and to watch people implode. Good to hear from a fellow free thinker!

--FreedominThought 10:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cease your personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, --⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, libel is a term in the English language, not just applying to Wikipedia. And my context of the word was quite clear. The written comments about me have been deliberately defamatory and an attack on my character in a childish attempt to silence my voice. That is clearly against Wiki policy but you don't mention that, do you. I don't see how objecting to blatant personal defamation is a personal attack when I am simply defending myself. I will continue to defend myself with vigor as is my right. Pointing out violations of policy, however embarrassing to the guilty, is not a personal attack. --FreedominThought 18:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Thinking

No doubt! I am really glad to no longer be the only truth seeker who can handle sticking around to address these issues properly. There is far too strong a biased presence at that article and all of its subs...I mean, we all have biases, it's just that some of us are capable of recognizing our own biases and putting them aside in the interest of NPOV, and some of us aren't. I now have hope that I won't be the only one flogging away at trying to make an honest and balanced article out of that thing. I noticed this morning that your edits were promptly reverted...don't let this deter you. Mine were also. They wouldn't even allow me to add a template stating that the neutrality of the article was disputed...even though I was the forth person to raise that concern since January...which is a considerable amount if you take into account that very few non-followers are going to bother going to the article in the first place, nevermind care enough to say something about it. What are some of your other interests? bcatt 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characterisations of comments as "libelous"

Please bear in mind Wikipedia:No legal threats. Alai 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall FreedominThought saying "I am going to take legal action"...s/he simply pointed out that the comments being made about him/her were defamatory...there is a difference. bcatt 09:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there's a difference, but it's an uncomfortably slender one. I said "please bear in mind", not "you are already in violation of". And while I'm link-farming, I'll also throw in WP:CIVIL. Asserting someone is in breach of the civil law (no pun intended) is not generally a good recipe for engendering reasoned and meaured discourse. Alai 09:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Asserting a claim of libel is different than protesting an alleged defamation of character. Hollering "libel" when there is none is uncomfortably close to "I WILL SUE YOU IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON NEW JERSEY!" ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 09:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As "defamation" is the legal jargon where I hail from, the latter isn't necessarily much better, to my ears... Alai 09:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Not sure where that is, but what matters on Wikipedia is Florida law (and as parent to that, US Federal law). Libel is always a type of defamation, but defamation doesn't necessarily imply libel. This isn't really the place for a legal debate however. I was just saying the point that while it's not a quid pro quo legal threat, it's still a false legal accusation and very close to the line. All it takes is some other user to say "Libel huh? Whatcha gonna do, sue me?" and bam. It becomes a legal threat. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 09:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Said jurisdiction isn't necessarily pertinent unless it's specifically Wikipedia being sued, whereas the connotation of "you've slandered/defamed/libelled" me is surely suing each other. In Scots law, defamation is libel and slander, collectively as one statute. Anyway, my point is, it would be desirable to avoid the whole legal-terminology food group, when the essential thrust is presumably, "I feel hurt/unreasonably insulted by such-and-such a comment". Alai 09:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Writing and posting false derogatory comments regarding my character is what it is. Asserting the use of legal terms implies a threat of legal action is completely fallacutical logic. The reason the terms are used in law is because they are precise. Tell THEM to stop! I don't see that happening. Blaming me, the victim, is pretty offensive. I am not the only person they have done this to. Sorry if you think that insinuating I am a fraud and a liar and attempting to ruin my reputation at Wiki is something I am "unreasonably insulted" by. This whole conversation here is little more than a red herring argument to avoid the real issue. --FreedominThought 18:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Assuming you're signing with ~~~~, I imagine you've checked the "Raw signature" box in preferences, but not provided a replacement link in the box above. Simplest fix would be to uncheck that. Alai 04:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My comment from JS talk page: "Please click my preferences, and uncheck the raw signature box. Or alternatively use wikilinks in the nickname i.e. something like [[User:Freedominthought|Freedom]][[User talk:Freedominthought|inthought]] (which will make your sig Freedominthought) and leave the raw link box checked. Trödel 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)"

Thank you very much guys! It works! That is a pretty obscure setting. I looked around the preferences yesterday and didn't see anything that made sense. --FreedominThought 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

no problem Trödel 01:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Smith, Jr.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joseph Smith, Jr., and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Hi FreedominThought, I have responded on my talk page...I do have much more to say on this matter, but I have other things going on at the moment. I will come back to it soon. bcatt 07:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi FreedominThought - thanks again for working with us on the article. I do want it to be as NPOV as possible. I think we have the potential to make Joseph Smith, Jr. a stable article in the near future.

In any case, can you respond either positively or negatively on the mediation request? I do think we need to get those issues behind us formally and decided upon by others for us to move forward. All of the other active Wikipedians involved have agreed to participate in the mediation - whether they were major players or not - except you and Bcatt. Please understand I'm not placing blame, but looking for outside help on two sides of a heated argument. We'll make it through it and the article will be better for it. I would like to invite you once again to join WP:LDS, as your mormon cultural knowledge and your viewpoint on the church could be very helpful to combat POV that creeps in.

I appreciate your response in advance. -Visorstuff 17:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/User_talk%7EFreedominthought_6489.html"