User:VodkaChronic

The agents in 'charge' of editing links, history and facts related to Latter day Saints are biased. If someone wants me deleted I am quite sure they are apologist of said and prefer a more favorable account of their beliefs and history. The evidence is clear and this action affirms the obvious 'tending' of the view of the church. This medium should be unbiased as possible and this attack is an obvious effort to eliminate those who hope to show the church and all of its true documented history. Thank you. VK

Speedy deletion nomination of User:VodkaChronic

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) --VodkaChronic (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC) The agents in 'charge' of editing links, history and facts related to Latter day Saints are biased. If someone wants me deleted I am quite sure they are apologist of said and prefer a more favorable account of their beliefs and history. The evidence is clear and this action affirms the obvious 'tending' of the view of the church. This medium should be unbiased as possible and this attack is an obvious effort to eliminate those who hope to show the church and all of its true documented history. Thank you. VK Comment by Adjwilley

Please excuse me for butting in. I came here out of curiosity because I don't get many people making edits in my sandbox. I was surprised to find a page dedicated to me. I don't know if the LDS Church has "agents", but if it does, I can assure you that I am not one of them. My revert of your edit to the Lead of the Joseph Smith article was because some of the information you were adding was inaccurate (for instance, I know of no evidence that he was trying to take over the government, it's unclear if he even made a White Horse Prophecy, and I know of no published reliable source saying that the church counts dead people as part of their membership statistics). If you feel that I was mistaken in reverting you, please feel free to start a discussion on the talk page. I apologize for any distress I may have caused you, but I cannot apologize for trying to maintain a neutral point of view at the Joseph Smith article. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in any way, as Wikipedia is always looking for new editors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Comment by Vodkachronic

Excuse me but, there is no reliable, published source that can prove Golden Plates. There is no reliable, published source that can prove Moroni spoke to Smith. There is no reliable, published source that can prove nearly all of Smith's claims. Yet, many hours have been spent on those claims. You are very well spoken and clearly know your way around this site. I could be wrong but, after careful search I believe you be to an apologist of the church and therefore an agent. If your church were true, Smith's legacy would not be under incredible amounts of scrutiny. Thank you. VodkaChronic (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Vodkachronic I actually agree with you completely about there being no reliable published sources that can prove Smith's visions, teachings, or claims. On the other hand, when somebody says they've seen an angel, that's something very hard to disprove as well. In my opinion, Wikipedia's purpose is not to prove or disprove any of Smith's claims. We should try to report what he did and said in a neutral manner. ("Smith said he saw an angel"... or ..."Smith said he translated golden plates.") The reader, of course, is free to decide what he/she wants to believe. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [1]. Thank you. ~Crazytales (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Comment by Vodkachronic

My relative newness to this platform will show my illiteracy within and I apologize in advance. Under no circumstances can someone of LdS faith be neutral in this matter. Adjwilley uses phrases like 'we' and 'in my opinion' at his convenience. My curiosity is if said gets to use these words to describe his version of this description, why can't I? Who decides what is neutral? His comment that "The reader, of course, is free to decide what he/she wants to believe" is virtually impossible if both sides are not presented. It is simply my opinion that 'agents' of the Church are in cooperation to maintain a favorable view of Smith and his Church. On no level is this a personal attack. Again, asking me to leave, or banning me will prove in my mind and others, my opinion is fact. If someone with no knowledge of Smith or his Church were considering joining the Church, they would be mislead by the description. Plenty of equally reliable sources show Smith as a less than desirable person in his time, which would be unclear to someone using this site as barometer of his life and legacy. VodkaChronic (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)vodkachronic Hi, friend

You're a newcomer to Wikipedia I see. Welcome. NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW is one of the most important things to learn about making contributions here. You'd be advised not to just read that, but to read it three times, think about it, understand it, accept it... If you come in here wanting to "prove" this or that about Mormonism or any other contentious topic, wanting to do battle with opponents to "control" the tone of an article, you're 100% missing the point. One should be able to write dispassionately, or one shouldn't write at all. A Wikipedia article is not going to resolve anything about Joseph Smith. That's not its purpose. Wikipedia's purpose is to collect published information about various topics, to present it broadly and dispassionately, and to let readers make up their own minds about controversial matters. Writing here requires detachment above all else. I would suggest you pick another topic altogether and write about that for a while... —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA /// Carrite (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Comment by Vodkachronic

It is obvious that the agents far outnumber those that strive for fairness. Suggesting 'pick another topic' is laughable at best. Comment by Vodkachronic

You (them/they) carelessly claim that the Nauvoo City Council ordered the Kirkland bank destroyed. The Nauvoo City Council WAS JOSEPH SMITH. Mayor, commander of the Legion. I would suggest you join the others and get your facts straight, stop attempting to paint Smith as Abe Lincoln and add the documented crook and opportunist and write about that for awhile. Don't see any text that says Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA is in charge of truthyness. -Truth Seeker (Vodka Chronic), Honesty, USA VodkaChronic (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)VodkaChronicVodkaChronic (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)VodkaChronic