User talk:Descartes1979/archive2

Speedy deletion of Michael R. Ash
A tag has been placed on Michael R. Ash requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV inputs at 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation requested
Descartes1979, Your NPOV inputs to the articles 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation would be greatly appreciated. The 1831 polygamy revelation article in particular is receiving a lot of attention since its appearance on the DYK section of the main page, and many recent editors appear to be fixated on endowing it with a particular POV and deleting relevant cited information from reliable sources. If you are knowledgeable about this subject, please feel free to edit these articles yourself, or invite other editors to do so. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see this section for an illustration of the problem. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
Descartes1979, Re: the merge proposal. I'm writing to ask you to reconsider your views on merging these articles. There are just too many important details for both the 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation articles that could easily be edited out as irrelevant were they to be placed in an article focusing on Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy alone. There are important historical details pertaining to doctrine that occurred long after Smith was murdered, there are statements by Hyrum Smith repudiating the 1843 polygamy revelation (please see recent edits at this page). There is the scholarly question of the provenance of the 1831 polygamy revelation, which occurred long after Smith's murder. I could go on. I'm afraid that the actual reason behind many editors who support this proposal may be to ensure that these historical details are buried or deleted. These articles are logically independent and stand independently from the related article Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy. Certainly a terse relevant portion from each article has a place there, but merging them entirely would be unwise. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see your points, and they are valid - however, I still think from the perspective of a disinterested party reading these articles on the internets, they would want to have it all in one place. Remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and even with all of the information put together into one article as is, the article wouldn't be that long.  When people think about Joseph Smith and polygamy, even people who know about the different revelations, they don't think of them as seperate subjects, but components to a bigger picture.  I agree that some of the editors might be voting for the merge in order to bury some of the information, and as I said, I am willing to help you defend some of these details.  The statements by Hyrum Smith are still pertinent I think, as is the provenance of the 1831 revelation, and those are two details that I think should be included.  Hope that helps you understand where I am coming from.  I still think rather strongly the articles should be merged. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response -- you do make some good points. I'd like to mull this over the weekend, and ask you to do the same. I am concerned about the ultimate size: a quick count shows that a merged article would be over 75 KB, and Splitting says "> 60 KB 	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)," so right away, such a merged articles is large by Wiki standards, and a candidate for splitting! Or others could come in and just demand that certain facts be deleted because the article is too big. Please think about this over the weekend. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I thought about it. I'm willing to try and WP:AGF and work with the other editors to get a compromise article at Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy. Have at it. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your hard work. Please see my response at my talk page. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy project
Bummer that you're no longer a practicing Mormon, but thanks for taking the bull by the horns vis-à-vis the polygamy project. By the way, I worked for a Big 4 firm until last fall -- if you're still doing that, I feel your pain. :) Regards, --TrustTruth (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL - thanks for the sympathy :). I will probably be leaving Big 4 in the next year to head to MBA school, looking for a career shift. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Brigham Young University Collaboration for July 2008
Thanks to all those who helped out with BYU-related articles this last month, and a big thank you to Wrad for helping get June's Collaboration (BYU Jerusalem Center) to GA status. I look forward to working with you on this month's article. Go BYU! --Eustress (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear spelling Nazi:
I reverted your edit to User:Twunchy, without knowing whether you two might be buddies: --Jerzy•t 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Bad practice in general, and interferes with user-page vandalism patrol
 * 2) Easily mistaken for harassment, unless the victim is sure you're a buddy
 * 3) Check out American and British English spelling differences; i was specifically taught in Yank grade school in a single lesson, that with argument and judgment both are acceptable (and i'm surprised that only one of them is listed in that article); i've made some effort to change my spelling of them bcz it makes my Nazi spell-checker more useful if i don't provoke false positives with them. If you're going to be a spelling Nazi, you've got to rely on more than your gut.
 * I stand corrected - thanks Jerzy, and sorry Twunchy - it was meant in good faith, not vandalism. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Abortion allegations of Smith's polygamous children at Talk:Joseph_Smith, Jr.
Please see the new section at Talk:Joseph_Smith, Jr.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Écrasez l'infâme (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

New Template based on your work
Descartes1979, you may find the template Template:LDSPluralwifeinfo useful—I based it upon your article List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr. To see an example usage, see this article. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV edits at the Book of Mormon Requested
Your NPOV inputs to the article the Book of Mormon would be greatly appreciated. I added highly relevant verifiable facts from reliable sources summarizing the origin of the Book of Mormon in the section Origin of the Book of Mormon, namely Smith's method of translation and the role of the Harris's, yet two editors are deleting this information without justification. It appears that this is being done in violation of WP:PRESERVE, and possibly in violation of WP:OWN based upon the discussion at the talk page, in which one editor appears to demand that all edits be cleared by him first. Please take a look if you have a chance—it looks like a group effort to keep some facts off of the page. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for personal contact
For me, our discussion is not complete without going further into my spiritual perspective, which I think has a kind of scientific and logical component, although it's largely personal. So if you're not tired of this conversation, and you will allow me to go into this further discussion, you can send me an e-mail or provide your e-mail address for me. My e-mail address is in a user box on my user page. --WikiWes77 (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A thousand apologies
I have been working on the JSJr., List of the Wives of JSJr., Children of JSJr., and Origin of articles for three weeks straight, including getting beyond the edit war with Écrasez l'infâme, the locking for days of the Children of JSJr article by an admin, etc. For me, June 30 is like a year ago. I completely forgot about the whole discussion and then 'discovered' the (forgotten, since it has hardly been utilized during this period) Polygamy and the LDS movement article. Late at night my first reaction was merge. Apologies - I will remove the tag at Origin, and if you don't mind, will remove both our comments as if my tag never happened. :( A Sniper (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem - I suspected that was the case. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Much appreciated! --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What makes a linguist?
Descartes, you asked me on my talk page:

What exactly is the bar that you would have someone jump over to be a "linguist"? Richard Pakham studied linguistics his entire life - got a Masters degree in German, nearly finished his doctorate (opted out of his own accord) after studying dozens of languages. I guess I don't see why you are bent out of shape in calling him a "linguist" - he certainly seems like one to me. I think you would also agree that he is notable as a prominent ex-Mormon who advocates his views on the Internet. Can you explain a little better why you disagree with me, because I just don't understand, and it seems like you are trying to attack his credibility in a POV manner. Please correct me if I am wrong.--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nayatwa"

Linguistics is an entirely separate discipline from learning any particular language or any number of languages. Richard Packham does not have a single degree in linguistics. The closest he got was to take linguistic classes. I am happy to hear him called an attorney, because he apparently got a law degree and was admitted to a bar. Somebody who took a lot of law classes, but never got a law degree is not an attorney. Similarly, someone who has never obtained a single degree in linguistics should not be called a linguist. Your undo of my edit in which you call him a "Noted linguist" because he is supposedly a "notable critic" of the church is surprising for someone who claims to be promoting NPOV. Nayatwa (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the corrections at the Linguistics article, upon reflection, I agree with your thinking, and I may have been too quick to edit. I like the wording as it stands now. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RS
Our discussion on spirituality is over. However, whether or not you believe in the need for Reliable sources, or whatever your concept of reliability is, I hope you will follow the policy. --WikiWes77 (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats too bad WikiWes, I would love to talk to you more. Either way, I consistently strive to use reliable sources, and if you find otherwise, please let me know! --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being a good sport. --WikiWes77 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Brigham Young University Collaboration for August 2008
Thanks to all those who helped out with BYU-related articles this last month, and a big thank you to Wrad for helping make some big strides on July's Collaboration (BYU Hawaii). I look forward to working with you on this month's article. Go BYU! --Eustress (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

LDS archaeology
Hey, just wanted to let you know that I (and I'm sure others, as well) appreciate your hard work on the LDS-related archaeology and history articles. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do to, but I'm worried about the LDS archaeology article as my comment on the talk page shows. Doug Weller (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Brigham Young
Yeah, I think protection might be too much. I expect to unprotect the page as soon as users explain this on the talk page, or maybe sooner.

I realize the one edit was not a true revert, but I assume that user made a mistake and only intended to revert the dates again. I don't understand why this is going on at all, and hope the talk page is used before edit warring resumes. Cool Hand Luke 05:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at it again, you're absolutely right. The edit history looked worse from the summaries. Cool Hand Luke 05:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re; Using the Undo feature
You last revert at Brigham Young removed a ton of information regarding polygamy with no explanation in the edit summary. I am guessing it was a mistake based on the description you gave. Try to be a little more careful with your use of the undo feature. I reverted the edit - please take a look and make the specific change you originally intended, rather than reverting all intermediate edits. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Descartes, you are correct that what I did on that page was a mistake. I don't want you to get the wrong impression about me, so, just to clear the air, I want you to know that I never intended to revert the helpful material you added. It was purely accidental. I had been involved with a minor edit dispute with another editor about the appropriate template for Young's date listings as Church President, Quorum of the Twelve President, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. This editor asserted in his/her revert of a change I had previously made that since the year template was used, day and month should not be included. My intention was to leave your edits as they were, since I fully concurred with them, and merely change the dates back to month, day, and year, since that seems to be the way ALL the dates are listed for WP pages about leaders of the LDS Church. But it got to the point yesterday where I somehow managed to forget that undoing one edit from a while back would revert all the previous edits. As soon as I had realized what I'd accidentally done, I attempted to undo it myself straight away, but there was an edit conflict. I suspect that this was the point at which you made the revert you spoke of. My reasoning behind going back to that version to reinclude the dates was the fact that at that point, I was far too lazy to look up the correct dates myself. However, when I ran into that edit conflict, I did look up the dates to ensure their accuracy, and they were reincluded. At this point, all I can offer you is my humblest apologies. I respect the work I've seen you do on WP, and before I accidentally wiped it all out, I had admired it. It was well-written and well-structured, and greatly added to the content of the article. I again assure you that I in no way intended to undo all your changes along with the one I disliked. I just had one of those momentary brain lapses I've become somewhat notorious for here on WP. I'm sure that I must have been warned by the WP undo feature that undoing this one change would also undo all intermediate edits, but it somehow didn't register this time. And, as I said, I did try to revert myself. However, by that time, you had reverted me already, thus resulting in an edit conflict. The dates are accurate now. That's taken care of. I hope my explanation (dumb and feeble-sounding even to me) helps you understand what happened. Again, please accept my most profound and sincere apologies for this, and rest assured that I never intended to do what I accidentally did do. Thanks for taking the time to remind me to be cautious about the undo feature. I usually am. But this time, I just acted before my brain fully comprehended the message I got when I attempted this change. Please keep me posted if I ever do anything else wrong. My only excuse is that I'm human, just as prone to mistakes as anyone else. Hope all this helps. Thanks in advance for understanding. Best wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop your attacks on my edits
It is bad enough that you constantly attack my edits on Book of Mormon archeology. Now you are attacking the article on Alejandro Sarabia because there is not a "third party source". What reference there is to something that Mr. Sarabia controlled?
 * (The above comment was added by User:Johnpacklambert)--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, I have tried to understand that last sentence, and it makes no sense - can you clarify what you are saying? Second of all, no offense is intended with my edits, I just think that an article on this man is not notable enough for wikipedia (please review WP:Notability. If you think otherwise, then prove it and I will gladly allow the article to remain.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Clayton
I respect you as an editor and I didn't mean anything negative personally with my snippity edit summaries - sorry for those. However, I am always concerned when it comes to the Clayton Journals, mostly due to the later editing of the original journals by Clayton himself (once in Utah - see George D Smith's book), his family's editing for the first publication (1921), and all the third-hand stuff floating on the net. Quoting Clayton, at the very least, has to be qualified by stating where it was obtained. Like so many things hidden in the vaults of SLC, one cannot know what has been altered, edited, or obliterated unless reputable sources have examined originals, and even then the Hoffman saga has illustrated that even looks can be deceiving. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, with the insertion of Packham as a source (over at the JST/IV article), you're kind of moving away from your usual neutral vibe, aren't you? This isn't some disinterested, neutral expert in linguistics, I discovered at his article and various pages. I'm neither a Mormon nor an ex-Mormon, but this gentleman appears to have placed himself firmly in one camp over the other, making his self-publishing a bit hard to take seriously, despite whatever merits it may contain. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it isn't necessarily a neutral edit per se, I have just been reading up on a bunch of anachronisms in LDS scriptures, and that one came up, so I threw it in there. I will attempt to dig up some more references. I think it is, however, neutral enough to say he is a "critic". --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I understand what it means to get caught up in reading on this subject - something I've been doing since youth. We all have to be somewhat suspect of the ax-grinders, even if they make sense or have nuggets of fact to uncover...'ex' members of anything usually have an agenda, whereas the agenda you & I have is getting at the truth and finding the right NPOV references. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fanny Alger
I take your point about speedy deletion of the article, which actually wasn't my intention (I forgot that proposed deletion works in almost the same time frame as speedy). In any case, I nominated the article for deletion at AfD, so that anyone can have a say in the discussion. I would mention that this ISN'T something I would do for, say, the Eliza Snow article - Snow made the claim she was a polygamous wife (Alger never did), Snow made contributions in creativity and activism (Alger didn't), and there appears to be a consensus among historians that Snow was a plural wife (there isn't with Alger). It all adds up to JSJr. may have had a sexual tryst with Alger, and this has been called a marriage long after the fact, but this isn't clear by any stretch...and, besides that, where is the notoriety? The article itself infers everything is based on a) rumors, b) the letter of a disgruntled, estranged church member (which doesn't actually say marriage), and c) a hearsay letter written 70 odd years after events may or may not have occurred. Oh, and of course the speculation of the eager Todd Compton and the exaggerating Fawn Brodie. I'm just saying... :)   A Sniper (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A sincere THANKS
That was a very nice gesture to bestow that award - thank you so much. If I could drive due south 1000 miles today, I'd meet you for a milkshake and a cool conversation. I know I come from an odd angle re: JSJr., in that I'm not LDS, ex-LDS or anti-LDS, which means I usually challenge most viewpoints, but I do strive for NPOV. I value your work and, even if we don't always agree, hope you count me in as one of the reliable editors. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why?
Are you really greatly limiting your editing? That would be a colossal shame. :( A Sniper (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your kind words - however, I find that Wikipedia sucks far too much of my time away from other pursuits that are more important to me. I am applying for grad school, and juggling a family and a career, and finally had to choose what to focus on - Wikipedia got the axe. I will still be lurking about from time to time, but I just cut out about 90% of my watchlist, and expect to go large chunks of time without any editing in the future. Unless of course I get sucked in - but I am committed to resisting that temptation :). See you around.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I just reached the same conclusion for myself this evening and I came around to your page to try and rip-off your marvelous 'semi-retired' notice. I wish you well. I am a college lecturer and feel I'm getting too emotionally drawn to the edits - not just the consumption of time, but feeling a yucky lump in my belly because I actually believe in my edits and, at least for now, it doesn't seem worth it. All the best, A Sniper (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * xxx - that would be cool...you can drop me a line at xxx and I'l respond with real world info. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Adam God doctrine/theory
There is a discussion here relating to your original comment that Adam God theory ought to be renamed as doctrine. I thought you might be interested. CO GDEN  22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)