User talk:BaldJesus
December 2022
[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- You may be jumping the gun here. Baldism is a legitimate new religion with a holy book, followers, and people who have been practicing it since inception. I understand that there are a lot of vandals who want to desecrate wikipedia - but that was not the intent here. I posted source links as well as references. As below.
- https://www.baldjesus.com
- https://vagobond.com/the-holy-bjble-council-of-aiea-v-0-1/
- https://www.amazon.com/dp/1939827280/
- https://medium.com/@vagobond/a-year-of-practicing-baldism-c88d3dd03baa
- https://opensea.io/assets/matic/0x2953399124f0cbb46d2cbacd8a89cf0599974963/34634632017087023982176273236947388604846201725872799140722985685627804057700
- If there are edits you would like to make or my formatting was incorrect, that is fine, let me know, but dismissing an entire faith as vandalism seems a bit extreme. BaldJesus (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)- My reason here is to make sure that Baldism is represented accurately. Nothing else. You are acting a bit like a bigot. You might want to take a look at the links and message I provided above. My suspicion is that your religion is clouding your judgment. BaldJesus (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
BaldJesus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As I explained on my user page, I am a practitioner of Baldism and have taken the name BaldJesus out of respect for the founder of our religion. We face a great deal of prejudice from Christians who believe they own the name Jesus, even though we've gone to great lengths to say that Bald Jesus is not Jesus Christ. I am here for one reason only to make sure that Baldism is represented accurately and that people who are curious about it can find an unbiased source of information on it. My suspicion is that the editor who blocked us is one of those misguided Christians who thinks he is protecting his faith by censoring us. It has happened on many platforms in the same way. Our trademark and patents were blocked by a Christian attorney at the USPTO, as one example. We don't bear malice towards Christians or people of any faith, but it is exhausting to be constantly discriminated against for our religious choices
Decline reason:
Your stated purpose in being here is the definition of WP:NOTHERE. You should use social media and your own website to provide information about your religion, where you can do that on your own terms and under your control. Wikipedia doesn't claim to be unbiased, as everyone has biases. Only when sources independent of your religion write about it, can an article exist which summarizes those sources. Until then, no. This is the case with any religion, not yours in particular. If you want to edit about something other than your religion, please tell what. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
BaldJesus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Baldism and Bald Jesus deserve an entry on Wikipedia. The above reviewer suggesting that Christians are not allowed to edit pages on Christianity is nonsense. We are being discriminated against by this censorship. We have used social media and our own website - of course. You are denying the world access to information. Who do you think you are protecting? The reviewer even goes so far as to suggest that they are biased and will not let us provide information. Has wikipedia been taken over by people who have an agenda? I thought it was a free and open source of information on any topic the world might inquire about?
Decline reason:
The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is outlined in the notability guideline. It is not whether you believe it deserves an entry. If your only goal is to have a page for your religion, you will not be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
- Re "I thought it was a free and open source of information on any topic the world might inquire about"; nope, it's not. See The Five Pillars. There is criteria for inclusion, as you have been told. And you twisted my words. A Christian can't proselytize and/or tell the world about Christianity here. They can summarize what independent reliable sources say about Christianity. The same goes for your religion or any religion, such as Flying Spaghetti Monster. It does not merit an article here unless independent reliable sources have written about it with significant coverage. We are denying nothing; your website and social media are online and available to the world. This is a privately operated website that can determine what appears on its computers. Yes, you won't be permitted to merely provide information, because that's not what we do here. It's not about protecting anyone. I said that Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased because we all have biases, you do too. Its the way things are. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
BaldJesus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There was nothing in my initial (nor any further edits) edit that qualified as vandalism. There was nothing in my edits that violated the five pillars of Wikipedia. There was no reason for my edit to be deleted nor was one given. There was no reason for my account to be limited nor was one given. I was respectful, I provided sources, I explained myself and then had that used as a reason for justifying the deletion of my intial and follow up edits and my blocking.
Decline reason:
Wikipedia isn't the place for this. Yamla (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
You are not blocked for vandalism. You are blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia- because you aren't. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The initial warning said my content was blocked for vandalism. There was nothing close to vandalism that warranted deleting the content I added. If anything the act of deleting my addition was actually vandalism. When I re-added my content, I was blocked for an additional reason after I tried to explain myself. On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
Vandalism ="The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There are, of course, more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism."
Also, on the subject of not being here to build an encyclopedia - which of these beahviors did I engage in. Baldism is not a business and as I stated, i was not trying to use Wikipedia to promote it. I was not using wikipedia to promote myself or anyone else. I was trying to add information that I know that people have searched for and not found. I was exactly trying to help build an encyclopedia and I was treated with prejudice by multiple editors. My words were twisted and the definitions of Wikipedia were used to justify hostile prejudice with ill intent against my entry. Which of these did I violate by respectfully entering information with references?
Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia[edit source] "WP:NOTHERE" redirects here. For information about leaving the project, see Wikipedia:Retiring. "WP:BADFAITH" redirects here. For the behavioral guideline, see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. For the humor essay, see Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. Shortcuts WP:NOTHERE WP:!HERE WP:CNH The following may indicate a user is not here to build an encyclopedia:
Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing (see WP:SPA). Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site A primary focus on Wikipedia as a social networking space (resumes, social media type pages, etc.). See WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK for more information. General pattern of disruptive behavior A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions. Trying to score brownie points outside of Wikipedia Edits intended for the sole purpose of impressing or amusing third parties outside of Wikipedia, without expecting the edit to remain in place or caring if it doesn't. Examples include edits to articles related to one's religion intended to score points with one's deity, or editing the name of one's significant other into an article for "beauty". Treating editing as a battleground Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia. If a user has a dispute, then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution. A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing. Dishonest and gaming behaviors Gaming the system, socking, and other forms of editorial dishonesty. Wikipedia broadly works on a basis of trust, and such activities undermine that trust and suggest other motives such as "lulz" (amusement at destructiveness or schadenfreude) or a complete lack of interest in good editing conduct practices. Little or no interest in working collaboratively Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and cooperatively with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns; interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict like disregarding polite behavior for baiting, blocking as a means of disagreeing, diverting dispute resolutions from objectives, driving away productive editors, or ownership of articles. Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Wikipedia-related activity. A user may espouse extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". However, some activities are by nature inconsistent with editing access, such as legal threats against other users, harassment, or actions off-site that suggest a grossly divergent intention or gross undermining of the project as a whole. Editors must be able to relax collegially together. Maintaining civility is essential in every exchange. There is a level of divergence of fundamental attitudes, whether in editing or to the project as a whole, at which this may not be reasonable to expect. Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to use editing rights only to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (i.e. engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia" as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"... when their words or actions indicate a longer-term motive inconsistent with "here to build an encyclopedia"). Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods This may include repeated chances and warnings, all of which were flouted upon return, or promises to change that proved insincere, were gamed, or otherwise the word or spirit was not actually kept. Interest in gaining as many user rights or "awards" as possible (or overly focusing on rights in general) The user wants to gain as many awards as possible or focuses a lot of attention on gaining user rights through gaming the principles. While having awards is not negative overall, claiming them and user access levels as a right and not a privilege is damaging and not the goal of these things. Editing only in user space The user is only interested in editing their own user space or in draft space with no sign of making the draft live.
BaldJesus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked and denied for invalid reasons and now 'Wikipedia is not the place for this' - not the place for what? Information on a new religion? Isn't that the page I edited and was deleted and blocked for? Please see above. This is all rather astounding for a site that claims on the first lines of its about page "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - apparently not.
Decline reason:
You've had four chances to make a policy-based unblock request. If you're not willing to read our guidelines and follow them, there's no point in entertaining more unblock requests that boil down to "I'm being persecuted". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.