User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Archive5

Hey Jeff
Feeling pressured? . I don't think that was actually trolling, I think it was sincere. You might not want to talk about it, or you might prefer to stick to the article talk, or take it to some kind of mediation, but let's not assume he's evil just yet, eh? It seemed innocent enough to me. Maybe there's some history I don't know about, drop me a mail perhaps.

I had a long talk with Phaedriel on irc yesterday, I will send her my suggestions as to how to structure mediation re the Cherokee stuff. I have some ideas.

Love the tiger :-) Guy (Help!) 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I look forward to the suggestions.  OK, I'll ignore it for now.  I am trying to prevent these idealogical debates from spilling over to this page.  As for the tiger, I thought it best to notice any visitors what lives behind this user page. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Before adding a new article to mainspace you can work on a draft in your userspace by creating your very own sandbox. :) - Mr.Gurü ( talk/contribs ) 06:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page re: Mormon men in black
Firstly, removing warnings from your talk page is bad. And don't worry, the warning details show up in your history so it's moot anyway. Ok, now that that issue is disposed with, let's break this down clear cut and dried. To demonstrate COI on the part of another editor, you would have to show a clear history of contributions by the user to articles relating to the subject matter at issue. If you'd look at my editing history, you know full well you simply couldn't even come close to making the required standard for such a claim. You will see that I rarely stroll into those articles just so I can maintain a balanced perspective without accusations of any editorial or pre-disposed bias. Secondly, the issue of the article clearly goes to policy as noted by the closing admin. Your article did not make the grade for Wikipedia in the current form, and clearly was an attack page. Thirdly, you just noted in my comments while I was writing this that you are trying to claim I have spammed your talk page. Again, you can't substantiate that. I was issuing you with legitimate and totally justified warning templates for your article and subsequent conduct which was not in good faith. Please, if you're going to sit around being a Wikitroll, then please be a good one. Thewinchester (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I can understand your reactions. You stated your father is a bishop in the Church.  I could certainly see how someone posting an article regarding this group and their activities who are operating within the Church would cause concern and shock.  I sincerely apologize for creating such emotional distress.   Please accept my apology.  As for repeatedly posting what appeared to be an automated spam message accusing me of posting libel, Please consider a friendly question instead, as this is always better.  Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeffrey, I would ask that you assume good faith of fellow editors. As someone with absolutely nothing to do with the LDS (I'm somewhat shy of all religions personally due to my own experiences during adolescence in a "word faith" church) but I could see that it was an unreferenced claim that some organisation within a church is fleecing old women of their money, and that when that claim is removed, there really isn't an article. Furthermore, a Google and Factiva search failed to find anything of note (Factiva, representing the world's newspapers, did not in fact return a single match for either "Mormon men in black" or the supposed official title of the organisation). Re warnings, my understanding is you can remove them as they appear in article history. Orderinchaos 05:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried very hard in that article to represent both views, the church's beliefs about what it is doing and the reactions of the family members.  I made certain to post original research tags in the text until I could start placing citations to court cases and companies involved in this affair.  I did not view it as an attack page, nor was such my intent.  I was writing about a controversial group operating in Utah Valley.  I travel in the circles of the wealthy here and this group is well known there and a lot of local controversy surrounds it.  I will work on more reliable sources.  If they objected to the content, they have an edit button like anyone else and can insert disputed tags and/or remove sections of text.  I fail to see why this should involve such panic -- unless of course its all true .... Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If it was true, I doubt a Perth (Australia) editor would have much stake in keeping it from the masses. As far as I can see, though, the complete lack of any reference in Factiva, suggesting it's never been printed in a newspaper, is a problem though (esp re the "known" and controversy part). Orderinchaos 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You make a very good point. I am in process of collecting copies of the letters sent by Gordon B. Hinkley to these rich widows and other materials on this group.  I did locate a reference to them on the LDS Church website.  I will vet these materials more thoroughly.  Given the obvious reaction to these reports, perhaps I should place this article on a back shelf somewhere and work on it at a later time.  Disclosure of these materials appears to elicit a powerful and shocked response from LDS editors.  My apologies. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You could always work on it in userspace until it's ready to go live (I see Mr Guru's made a similar suggestion above while I was typing), then get a couple of admins to review it before bringing it into mainspace again. That would be my suggestion with any controversial issue or matter. The only reason I suggest admins is that they've been vetted by the community and have to deal with policy all the time, so they are in a good position to comment on policy matters. Orderinchaos 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an excellent suggestion and I think I will do so. Can you retrieve a copy of the text from the deleted article and post it  here.  Thanks.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. BTW have disabled categories as it is in userspace. Orderinchaos 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I will start adding references.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What we do
Wikipedia's job is to (1)repeat content that has (2)already been published in (3)sources with objective editorial control (4)mostly (we can quote a nonobjective source for what it says about itself). To the extent you know stuff that has yet to be published in a reliable (objective editor controlled) source, it can't go directly into wikipedia - ya gotta get it published elsewhere first. Otherwise you break our rule called "no original research". We don't do "truth"; we do "attribution" (aka "verifiability"). This is necessary due to our "anyone can edit" process. WAS 4.250 06:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously I was obtuse and lacked complete understanding on some items. It sounds like my talk pages (even though they too are scraped by Google) can be used for my drafts and article research.  Thank you for clarifying for me. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My turn to be obtuse. I'm not sure what you mean. But let me just say that I use my user subpages for many things; but when they contain copyright violations cuz I dumped a text there to work on; or put unsourced (so far) seemingly libelous stuff there then often I store it in history (save, blank) while I'm not working on it so it is not "live". I'm not aware of any policy mandating this. It's just what I do. WAS 4.250 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

LDS
You need to tone down the rhetoric on the LDS stuff, Jeff. You will achieve more if you follow WP:ATT and attribute, with citations, all opinions to independent authorities, who must be recognised as authorities. We know the LDS are kinda creepy, but there is no way we can say that in article space, and we should be careful on talk pages as well. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jeffrey, only dropping by to endorse what Guy has to say about dealing with topics like the LDS. Gwen Gale 13:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Gwen, I have been dealing with LDS people for almost twenty years. I have endured crooked judges in the local courts in Utah, ward members trying to run me and my family out of neighborhoods, my children being isolated and ostracized, crooked and dishonest business dealings where members of the priesthood gang up on you in business deals and try to steal all the stock and money because they are taught screwing over non-mormons is ok so long as the money ends up in the churches hands.  I know how to deal with mormons, and deal with them very effectively.  You cannot reason with any LDS person any more than you can reason with any other religious extremist.  They are brainwashed and programmed -- most of them since birth.  Even if you present all of the evidence the Book of Abraham is a fraud, they won't accept it any more than an Al-queda suicide bomber does not believe they will go to the bosom of Allah if they kill infidels.  Religious extremism and belief are powerful and have shaped world history for a long time.  I stay in Utah because its a beautiful state, and because the more of us who put down roots here, the weaker their hold becomes.  Provo has already been taken over by the Hispanic community and have ousted most of the LDS council members.  Salt Lake City is nearly free of their stranglehold.  They still have control of the Courts here but that will also change in the next 20 years.  One day, freedom may again ring through Utah and we can proclaim its America again.  As it stands, if you want to visit America and you live in Utah, you can drive 200 miles in any direction to any of Utah's borders and visit the United States of America. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, plus, you're not going to "fix" a series of articles that big by making great big edits as a lone editor. You need to take the slow and steady approach, and work with others who have an interest in the topic.  There are plenty, on both sides of the debate.  I think you're able to do this, if you exercise some self-control. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK Guy. It does appear I made a mistake in posting an article too early.  Since it appears to be considered appropriate to work on unsourced materials off my talk page that's what I am doing.   When we write articles about some of these radio television preachers who scam money, like Jim Baker, I do not see a "thundering herd" of editors rushing to delete and point fingers.  I had placed a tag in the header of the article stating it was in process.  It appears this was the wrong thing to do.  In the future, I'll work off my local talk page with articles which have not met the requirements of full sources and attribution.  I am enjoying working on LDS articles, BTW, during the lull between Native American Articles.  Also, there appear to be some sleeper LDS admins prowling around that may be in need of desysoping.  Take a look at these POV edits and abuse of admin tools after I had the page protected over disputes over the POV content. .   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Merkey
.


 * I've also responded to your note at Talk:Mormon_teachings_about_extraterrestrial_life and your second note on my talk page. I think the discussion is worth continuing, as you have a lot of potential as an editor, but need to find a better way to work within the wikipedia culture. -Visorstuff 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opinions are much appreciated. I have responded to your use of hate speech on Wikipedia to classify sources.  Please do not use the term anti-mormon when referring to my edits or any reputable sources.  Thank you. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my response on my talk pages. As used by me, "Anti-Mormon activism" describes behavior not a person. You'll notice my urging other editors to adopt my usage many other places. It is definitly not hate speech any more than "political activism" or "Anti-semite behavior." -Visorstuff 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)