User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Archive7

CfD nomination of Category:Pejoratives and_Hate_Speech
I have nominated category for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Vassyana 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I could not find a specific category for hate speech, so I created one.  If its redundant, then this is ok.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the quotes, but as I predicted, this in no way helps establish the current LDS Church's "official position" towards use of the word "anti-Mormon", (None of the sources you cited constitute current official LDS doctrine.) -SESmith 05:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tone and OR
Jeff, a quick note to say I appreciate the change in tone. Also, a quick question: when you contribute material to an article and immediately label it "original research", what's your intent? Shouldn't the material be immediately removed due to WP:NOR? I don't exactly understand why you'd intentionally add original research to an article and label it as such. Seems rather like adding POV material and labeling it as POV -- wouldn't it be best not to post it in WP at all, but put it on a personal blog or something? alanyst /talk/ 13:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I do that because there are many times other editors may have sources for such materials or other research I or others may be unaware of. Its ok to have those types of materials in WP, provided they are tagged and other editors have a chance to review them and possibly provide additional sources.  They can always be reviewed by other editors and moved to a talk page and discussed.  It's called COLLABORATION.  I noted on that particular section there were other editors and sources who are involved in parallel efforts.  Reformed Egyption seems to me to be an entire article of "Original Research" since there is absolutely no evidence such a language ever existed.  It may be probable Smith had access to ancient written materials of an extinct Southern Iroquoian Dialects which were written and he either co-opted them into his cosmology or in fact he did come into possession of some ancient writings from North America.  At a minimum, your very presence on my talk page indicates that posting such materials and placing OR tags does foster discussion of the materials, which is a very good thing.  I would like to see some discussion in this area and I will translate the left column for interested readers on the talk page from the word fragments that appear on that document.  At the time of its writing, be aware that the Sequoyah Syllabary had been in existence for over 15 years, and some of the characters resemble it.  Some of them are very close to the pre-Sequoyah Syllabary, and in fact, as written produce legible words (???).  May be part of Smith's story was accurate? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I thought you might have been using it as a way to solicit input, but I just wanted to make sure. Have you considered posting the material to the talk page instead?  Seems that would be a way to attract the sort of discussion you want, without putting the article into a questionable state, even if you intend that state to be short-lived.  Because Wikipedia is mirrored and spidered so much, I think that material that isn't quite ready for prime time, so to speak, is better hashed out on a discussion page or a user sandbox, so that there's less of a risk of the web ending up with lots of copies of the problematic material.  What do you think of that idea? alanyst /talk/ 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good suggestion. I would like to see the research of others into this document.  The current evidence (and based on my telphonic discussions with the folks in Missouri) Smith may have had access to our materials.  However, the dates do not add up.  Based on the current record, he had these materials before making any visits to Missouri based upon the dates of this document.  I was a little shocked to see similar characters to both the Sequoyah Syllabary and the pre-Sequoyah Syllabary in the same document.  Wow.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian
The message above is quite intimidating and I think a little over the top.


 * Tough. There have been some very harassing postings here in the past.  The doormat at the top of the page reminds everyone a tiger lives here -- just so there is no confusion. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I just wanted to bring up a simple issue, reading the above made me extremely hesitant to even post here which is not good in my opinion. I understand the reason for the troll-fee comment/warning (at least now I do, but one has to do a lot of digging to figure out what is going on here), but I think it could be worded in a much less confrontational fashion. At this point I think the above message has the effect of discouraging friendly communication, which is why I came here. Just my thoughts for JzG (who apparently wrote the message) or any other admin who comes across this.

To Jeff, you've made an enormous number of edits to the Reformed Egyptian article recently (including moving the page title, which I don't think was necessarily desirable--I was surprised to see that it had been moved with no discussion whatsoever on the talk page. It's good to be bold and all, but running the idea by others may have been good too). I have not even begun to wade through your edits but will try to do that later (I'm interested in the article only in a peripheral way) but I had a couple of requests. 1) Please use edit summaries, it makes it much easier to figure out what you are doing.  Just today (the 14th) there have been nearly 60 edits by my count (between you and another user) and it would be nice to know which ones are substantive and which ones are minor.  2)  You archived the entire talk page, but some discussion (certainly the last couple of sections) was probably still ongoing. I posted a talk page note about an edit I made on June 5th and was still hoping for a reply at some point (or at least wanted it there so people could so what I did). I don't know if it's kosher or not, but could you un-archive the last few posts from archive 002? I would recommend doing everything from "reformed egyptian" on down (which I don't think is too cumbersome and which is only topics discussed in 2007) but less would be okay too. It's just that the way you archived may have cut off a conversation. Thanks!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the materials which may have been contentious. Diff is a useful tool.  You may wish to try it.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do know about diffs obviously and use them often. I was just asking you (as a favor) to try to use edit summaries more which I think is a reasonable request. I'm confused about your note that you "removed the materials which may have been contentious."  Are you referring to the talk page or the article?  If the former, there was contentious stuff on the talk page (there always is) but it was quite constructive and civil and as I said the last couple of sections were part of a discussion that perhaps was not concluded.  So I guess I'm not sure what you are getting at, could you elaborate?


 * Also I do understand the need for the opening message and am fine with that, I was just wondering if it could be reworded a bit or maybe simply carry an additional sentence along the lines of "Constructive comments or questions are of course welcome." Personally I think that would be helpful.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 22:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will use edit summaries more thoroughly in the future. As for the welcome message it was posted by an admin, and it stays unless this admin wishes to change it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to pop in, but I'm just offering a suggestion. If you go to 'My preferences', then the 'Editing' tab, there is a checkbox for 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary'. It can be a helpful reminder for edit summaries. Cheers! Vassyana 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the suggestion. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New categories are proposed for deletion
Merkey, just thought I would make you aware that I proposed that both of your new categories that you applied to LDS beliefs and doctrin as mythology for deletion. We do not create categories for Christian churches and target their categories as mythology; it is not done for any other Christian church. I found your application to be highly POV and an unfortunate contination of your lack of understanding of NPOV. Just a heads up. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires collaboration
People have objected to your category. Don't just put it back! This is disruptive editing. Instead of edit warring to get your way, you need to collaborate with others. Friday (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A person has objected, I am not certain people have?  I have already posted my views on the attempts to delete the category, where else should we discuss this? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Friday, Based upon your edits and reversions, I feel WP:COI is involved here. Please ask another non-LDS admin to review these materials and refrain from following me around the site to revert edits.  I am preparing an RFC to address this issues (and if you are found to be LDS I will ask for desysopping as well).  It may include a request for you to divulge why you have interest in this area and following me around. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, go ahead and RFC. I'm keeping an eye out because you've been a problem editor.  And I don't see that it's getting better. Friday (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I create a category for classifying accurately materials on our projects and you characterize this as a "problem editor"?  I think you are a problem admin.  In fact, your modus operendi reminds me of this admin User:Fvw.  I'll address this to the Foundation directly.  In the meantime, please stop hovering around me.  The only disruptive reversions I have seen are from your account. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tags
Disputed tags are for when there is a specific, not-yet-resolved problem with an article (or, preferably, a specific part of an article). It's not a general purpose means of complaint about the subject of the article, nor is it meant to be used just because you've had past disagreements with some of the other editors. If you're going to use this tag, you have to explain specifically the dispute, and it has to involve the contents of the article. Friday (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. If that doesn't make sense, here's another way of saying the same thing: On Wikipedia, we're always a level or two separated from the "real world". If someone asks you what's wrong with an article, don't respond by talking about what's wrong with the real world. I noticed this happening before- I was trying to find out what your objections to the article were, and you responded with irrelevant reasons why you disapprove of the LDS church. It doesn't matter- it's a distraction from what's really relevant. Wikipedia is not a panel discussion, it's an encyclopedia. I (probably) object to various parts of LDS doctrine for several of the same reasons you do, but notice I don't go around talking about it here because it's not relevant to the encyclopedia. We should always keep discussion tightly focused on how to improve the article because anything else is just spinning our wheels. Friday (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles about non-existent mythological beliefs, like an imaginary language, should be treated as mythology. We call the Norse Religion "mythology".  We refer to the ancient religions of Greece and Rome as "mythology".  However, with these articles in question, we even have editors adding reformed egyptian into categories of actual languages and treating these subjects as serious matter of research.   The materials appear to fall under the same classification relative to other religious myths and legends.  They should be treated as such.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't necessarily have to call it mythology (which anyhow conjures up a rich classical tradition,) but it certainly doesn't belong in any category which designates it as a "language." I'm not certain what purpose is served by Category:Religious language in the first place, but "Reformed Egyptian" definitely doesn't belong there.Proabivouac 06:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Mythology" and "imaginary" are not coextensive or synonymous—this misunderstanding seems to be part of your problem. It is not the job of Wikipedia to demonstrate that others' personal religious beliefs are "false". And are you suggesting that Norse mythology is not a "serious matter of research"? I have academic friends who would be surprised to hear that as they take their research very seriously. Similarly, some people take research into the alleged Reformed Egyptian language very seriously. You are not the judge of what it legitimate and illegitimate outside of your own little world. -SESmith 10:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The only people with any misunderstanding IMHO are those who persists in listing mythological languages in our project and tagging them as real. As for the other comments, then why are real religions practiced by my people tagged this way See Cherokee Mythology?   Why do Christianity and Mormonism get to claim fantasy languages, fables, fairly tales, and other materials can be published as "facts" because enough people wikiality them into existence?   Reformed Egyptian is about mythology, along with Joseph Smith's proven frauds and hoaxes.  They should all be labeled as such -- that's all I am saying.  This is an encyclopedia, not an extension of the LDS Church website.  If Native American beliefs are tagged as mythology, then so are Smith's unproven claims.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * These topics are already clearly identified as being part of LDS religious belief. By all means make specific suggestions for improvement on the talk page, but you shouldn't use the disputed tag when all you've got are nonspecific objections to the subject matter.  Remember, talk pages are for talking about the article, not the subject of the article.  Friday (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad.
This diff is not helpful. The request was a reasonable one, not trolling, and the status of the user is completely irrelevant. It would help your standing here for you to state that you have no intention of carrying out the threat you issued. Please give this your full consideration. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. WMG is a C Corporation, and is not me personally.   Under US Laws, C Corporations are a "person" under the law, and have the same rights as a person and are legally classified as such.  WMG has a management team, employees, and other members who run it, including a legal team.  I am a member of the Board and I do own almost 100% of the common stock.   Although I own a large percentge of WMG, I am not in control of it.  Companies in the US also have certain rights -- one of them is the right to not have its business interefered with.  If someone on Wikipedia or any other website engages in activities which are intended and designed to harm this business enterprise, the employees of such a company have a fiduciary duty to protect the companies investements.  If say for example, someone on Wikipedia, in some misguided attempt to attack me, took some actions which they knew would harm WMG, the company could take actions against both them and the foundation (and would probably win enormous damages under the Doctrine of Tortious Interference).   There is no threat or implied threat here from me as WMG is a "person" under US Law and its not a "person" I am in control of.  This user should address WMG directly if they have an issue.  Although I am a Board member, I am not an officer, and I do not control the legal team of the company.  To my knowledge, there are no legal actions planned or considered at this time, and even if there were, they do not involve me personally, nor is it likely I would even be consulted in such a matter.  The only edict I have issued at the Board level of WMG is to protect my significant financial investments from being tortiously interfered with by competitors and other self-interested parties.  This was a general directive requiring the company to adhere to the laws and legal requirements of fiduciary duty.  It was not directed at anyone in particular and seems like business 101.  Given these facts, there are no legal threats of any kind outstanding from me.  If this user has done something to WMG I would suggest he write a letter to WMG's attorney and inquire if there are issues.  I am unaware of any, but as I said, I do not run WMG anymore.  He can write to Andrew McCollough in Murray, Utah (I  do not have his exact address - this user will have to look it up).  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I contacted the other Board members for WMG who are running the company. From what I understand, the only current outstanding actions have to do with the dismmissal of the current CEO in May of this year for several conflict of interest issues. The company is undergoing restructuring and product launch very soon. There have been reams of hate mail and garbage from the trolls received (as usual) but all of it has been ignored since there is little point to responding to a "school of guppies trying to gum us to death" (the report I received). As I previously stated, due to issues raised by folks on the English Wikipedia, I stepped out of both WMG and Solera Networks to move forward on several personal companies and projects I am working on. WMG is a "person" under the law. If you or anyone else have future inquiries about WMG, they should be directed to WMG directly and not me since its a distinct "person" from me. I am just the schmuck who paid the bills until the venture started creating its own revenues. I would mark up this whole affair as unnecessary drama and a non-controversy which does not involve me. For future reference, its a really bad idea to go to a Board member of a company and demand explanations for something the company did or did not do -- they may not know or be able to respond intelligently. If on the other hand the question was to clarify my statements concerning WMG, I believe I said I was taking the following actions to remove artificial hurdles. Just to clarify, I will state them again so there is no misunderstanding.


 * 1. All donations to Wikimedia were terminated as of May 2007 based on concerns raised by editors they felt "their faces were being rubbed in it".
 * 2. An Educational Trust intended to fund Wikipedia contributors in new businesses which I setup with Brad Patrick last year was dissolved the same date and the moneys wired back to Bermuda based on concerns it could be misconstrued as "buying privileges".   This program would have allowed accredation of Wikipedia content and a vehicle to fund Wikipedia projects as with essentially a venture fund.  I do not fund disasters, problems, or controversy.  As such, this trust was dissolved after the eruption that occurred.
 * 3. I directed WMG to set sail on its own, terminated any additional funding to the company, and directed the company to start acting like a real business, including taking actions to protect its business.  I also resigned from all positions of responsibility at WMG.  I have not directed or been heavily involved in WMG since.
 * 4. I resigned from Solera Networks May 8, 2007 to focus on these new opportunities with John Noorda, the owner of the Canopy Group.
 * 5. Based upon our review of Wikipedia and what we feel are significant business liabilities and risks with funding Wikipedia projects, neither John or myself are willing to invest in Wikipedia directly due to the complete lack of acountability of the Wikipedia Community to the Foundation and vice versa.  I feel the project has many positive goals and activities, however, there is no framework of accountability for venture projects.  Given the challenges with Wikia, it seems like a very speculative investement.
 * 6. My only contributions are content based at this point, which makes me just like everyone else here.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I think the question was indeed simply to clarify your earlier statement, not explain or justify any actions by WMG. Personally I didn't see anything, in any diffs or history that indicates this was ever explicitly stated by you and I'm guessing that the above can be summarized as you are not directing anyone to do anything, correct?--Isotope23 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct, I am unaware any such statements were ever made. As I previously stated when I removed the comments, they appear to be trolling and needless drama by a user involved in some unrelated matter using me as a lightening rod for their own controversies.   I would presume this matter is closed as to my involvement.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds that way, but it's expressed in an extremely lawyerly way. *Dan T.* 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ???  I have no idea where you get that from those statements.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee heritage groups alternative
Jeffrey,

I still don't understand the Cherokee heritage groups article. The title itself is based loosely on one quote, and there aren't any sources that discuss things called "Cherokee heritage groups" (google gets no non-WP hits). I'd like to work with you to get something worked out regarding this. Garoutte uses the term "self-identified Indian" (in the paragraph quoted here: User:Smmurphy/Stream of conscious); perhaps the article should be titled "self-identified Cherokee". The idea is to create a space where Wikipedia can discuss the large amount of literature on Cherokee that are not "federally recognized," that is to say the literature on people of Cherokee heritage who do not belong to a tribe. I just noticed that someone did create a Cherokee identity article. That too could be such a place. I guess what I am saying is that your heritage groups article isn't really about anything encyclopedic, in my mind. But people of Cherokee heritage who are not in a tribe are encyclopedic.

Before, when I have brought this up, you have been dismissive (or you created that article). But I do believe that there are plenty of sources for an article on this, an article which follows the spirit and letter of Phaedriel's proposal, and I would like you help picking a place for that article, be it "Cherokee identity," "self-identified Cherokee," or somewhere else. If you think "self-identified Cherokee" works, by the way, do you think that the Cherokee identity or Cherokee heritage groups article might do well to be moved/merged/redirected there? Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk) 23:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A person cannot identify themselves as a Cherokee Indian if they are not verifiable as such (i.e. not a member of one of the three Federally recognized Cherokee groups or other compelling and exceptional evidence).  It is a violation of Federal Law to fraudulently claim to be a member of an Indian Tribe.   Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has no authority from the Congress of the United States or the BIA to recognize Indian Tribes or Individuals of purported Indian Ancestry who do not appear on Federal Indian Rolls.  As such, any materials which cannot be traced to Federal Indian Rolls could be WP:OR and may not belong here, since it is unverifiable.   Such material must also be tagged to indicate they are not about recognized groups. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, its verifiable if it has reliable sources.  Recognize has multiple meanings; of course Wikipedia doesn't have the authority to give groups official status, and no one is trying to do this. I'm just asking if you have a preference for the location of the material, based in multiple, respected sources.  As Cherokee identity and Cherokee heritage groups are both (borderline?) POV Forks, I don't want to move or support either (although I have advocated for the creation of the identity article) without discussing it with you, first.  Of course it will be tagged per Phaedriel's suggestions.  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 06:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unverifiable materials and OR may be removed.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeffrey, you know you are not answering my question. I have told you before that I do not find your Cherokee heritage groups article an appropriate place to discuss these people.  You are claiming that Cherokee identity is a POV fork, and thus wiki-etiquette suggests that a consensus be reached before I start editing there.  I'm not suggesting amending or changing Phaedriel's proposal in any way.  I'm just asking your advice on whether you feel there is a better place where these materials belong. I guess barring a solution between us, I'll go ahead and comment at the AfD, and make edits based on the results there.  Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk) 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unverifiable materials about people claiming to be indians who are not does not belong on Wikipedia since it's original research. Such materials are subject to removal. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I see that Cherokee identity has been deleted. The basic material based in the references we've discussed probably has a place somewhere, but I still don't see Cherokee heritage groups as being that place. As I've discussed this with you before, and you don't seem to have any reliable sources that such things are notable, I think we can probably AfD that article as OR and SYNTH (and 0 ghits to boot). Do you disagree? For now, I think I'll userfy the Cherokee identity materials to User:smmurphy/self-identified Cherokee, although the material is broader, and might likely fit at a different article title (Cherokee identity continues to be the best thing I can come up with, or perhaps, "Who is Cherokee" based on Who is Jewish). Smmurphy(Talk) 03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment
Just a courtesy note - your Talk page was left on my watchlist after your misunderstanding at that recent Mormon/little green men AfD. It popped up when I logged in this morning, and when I came to remove it one of the comments here prompted me to follow along to List of State Recognized American Indian Tribal Entities, where I did some cleanup. I just thought you'd want to know, since from the history here seems to be some sort of ongoing situation with a group of other editors, and you might otherwise have misinterpreted my editing the article. Quietvoice 06:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A simple request
I would appreciate it if you would stop writing posts on discussion pages (like the one here) claiming I am a member of a specific faith group in an apparent attempt to establish WP:COI. As I've tried to explain to you before, I do not self-identify as LDS or Mormon. Whatever you have heard or read elsewhere is incorrect. I don't think being a Mormon is a bad thing or something anyone should be ashamed of, but I would appreciate it if you would stop speaking for me in this manner. I am an academic historian of religion whose work focuses on the Latter Day Saint movement, which is why my edits focus on articles in this area. If you could please stop making posts which claim otherwise, I would appreciate it. You have a regrettable knee-jerk reaction to anyone who disagrees with your views of Mormonism to label that person a Mormon. That is unfortunate, but maybe you can overcome your prejudice someday. -SESmith 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * pre-judice or pre-judgement implies a person who makes judgments before collecting and reviewing evidence. I can assure you, my views of Mormonism are not based on pre-judgement, but judgement based upon careful and thorough review of facts.   WP:COI applies in these cases -- esspecially with what I have seen go on with LDS articles.  My 14 year study of Mormonism leaves no doubt its the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on this contitnent and it is truly unfortunate a lot of these garbage materials have ended up in our project on Wikipedia -- materials which are far from neutral and are little more than marketing materials to dupe the ignorant into supporting this monstrous hoax with money and perpetuating it.  You are LDS and have admitted it to me in previous posts.  No, it's not a knee jerk reaction, its a reaction to one-sided garbage materials placed into our project by a mob of LDS editors who act as a single entity.  A non-LDS editor cannot even add a picture to one of these articles.  The stated basis for includion of materials by yourself and other editors has not been based on the rules of WIkipedia, but statements and edit summaries which indicate "Church Doctrine" is the basis for inclusion.  This is a complete violation of every rule of this project.  I am saddened that all these LDS editors seem so brainwashed and mind-controlled to the point you are incapable of seeing your own behavior.  I will continue to point out WP:COI violations by this group if I feel they are a problem (which they are).  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * EXCUSE ME, but I will claim what religious affiliation I choose. I am not LDS and you must have my "admission" confused with someone else's. Applying a religious label to someone who is disavowing it does not say much to your claimed dispassionate "careful and thorough review of facts" in other areas. Or can't you hear yourself? I request that you please stop attributing to me—a person whom you know nothing about—a personal system of belief. Thanks. If that's too much to ask, you are truly pathetic. Have some decency, for God's sake. –SESmith 15:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the rest of your comments—hm, sounds like POV-pushing to me on your part. You're as guilty as anyone in that regard. -SESmith 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems a little heated.  Have a great day.  Also, I am aware of the LDS teachings that teach its members "lying to protect God or the Church" is OK to do.  DO you have any specific comments for me on this Church Doctrine that encourages members to lie to the general public in order to defend the faith.  This doctrine was taught by Brigham Young and has been perpetuated by all subsequent prophets.  I have numerous citiations for these teachings  . Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you would understand being "heated" if someone was repeatedly trying to tell you what religion you belonged to, or native american tribe, or whatever. "Hey Jeff, you are a Blackfoot. No really, you are! You told me once! And besides, it's obvious from the content of your edits." Maybe you can tell me my favorite color next?


 * I'm not clear on what type of comments you are looking for. I'm well aware of the teachings you refer to, but am also aware that they have been disavowed by LDS church leaders recently in general conference sermons. Not clear on how this relates to my request, unless you are sarcastically implying that I am lying for some reason....?? If so, you should probably be reminded that sarcasm doesn't translate well in typed material, and you just come off sounding demented instead. -SESmith 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing I've noticed about your "research" is that you are good on digging old teachings and doctrine up, but not so good at analyzing how these teachings are treated in the modern LDS Church. Things change in religion, and when something is taught and believed in the past it does not necessarily mean they still are in religion today. Otherwise most Christians would still be killing Muslims and Jews on sight. PS: "14 years" of research does not sound very impressive to people who have spent a 50+ year career studying the same things. -SESmith 15:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for verifying this. I ran across Brigham Young's teachings in this regard, and I am curious if these doctrines are still practiced.  Do you know if this is still taught?  I have not heard this taught in recent times, but it is part of the official teachings of the LDS Church. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, as someone you also accused of having a pro-LDS conflict of interest, I have to agree: It's not helpful for you to go around making accusations at whoever disagrees with you. If you are unable to leave your personal biases out when editing LDS-related topics, I suggest you avoid them altogether. Also you should probably avoid personal remarks of any kind directed at other editors- if you think someone is LDS, keep it to yourself. Friday (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Friday, I think you should go look in a mirror if you are going to accuse an editor of bias and start slinging around accusations. I do not "think someone is LDS".  This editor made statements they were in several edit summaries and comments.  I fail to understand why its such a big deal.  Just because someone is an admin does not give them the right to ignore the same rules that apply to everyone else (this is ike the part where some admins threaten users, then in the same breath lecture others about being civil) .  Your lightening fast response indicates you are hovering around me and ghosting me on this site.  I would appreciate you keeing your comments to yourself about what you think my inner thoughts are -- you are dead wrong, BTW.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? Who has said anything about anyone being an admin?  It doesn't matter who's an admin or not.  We're all editors.  And you need to stop making accusation at other editors.  It's not helpful.  Either be useful, or move on.  Wikipedia is not a battleground.  Friday (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but who posted accusations on this talk page and initiated this trollfest of allgations directed at me? Claims I am prejudiced?  Claims I am a POV pusher?   Does any of this sound a little offensive to you?  How would you feel if I posted such allegations on your talk page.  From my perspective, after being mobbed by this group, subjected to frivilous RFC's from them, and watching their POV pushing, you show up and defend it.  This is like me walking down the street and witnessing a murder, and Friday walks up with a gun poked into my back saying "keep your mouth shut or else".  How about all of you go back and think about this then come back and apologize, or at a minimum take these self-serving trollfest debates to an actual article talk page.  The Look there's Elvis tactics do not work with me (but I can see where they may work with the ignorant). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I came here to ask you to please stop being so accusatory against other editors. I've said my piece, have a nice day.  Friday (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no accusations against editors. There have been issues raised about WP:COI based upon documented evidence of their activities.  I will raise such issues if I feel they are harming the quality of our content -- neither you or anyone else can change my views by threats or implied threats.   You can change them by civil dialouge and reason.  Now given this is the second time you have resorted to threats, I suggest you remove my talk page from your "watchlist" and find someone else to attempt to intimidate into not reporting rule-breakers. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

American Indian identity
Hey Jeffrey, I've put that article I mentioned into a collection of notes/rough draft that is somewhat legible. If you want to look at it, its at User:Smmurphy/American Indian identity. Feel free to make edits or comments (of course). Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 05:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a large amount of original research. Additionally, Wikipedia has no authority to recognize individuals or groups of indians.  These materials may not meet Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Feel free to discuss particulars at the article's (future) talk page, and to follow the discussion at WP:IPNA.  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on Salvia dorrii
Jeff, I'm sincerely impressed with your work at Salvia dorrii. It's a great addition to Wikipedia. Nice job. alanyst /talk/ 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AN/I thread
Per a request on the AN/I noticeboard, here's a heads-up that a thread about you has begun here. -- MarcoTolo 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw it, its just more trolling from the SCOX trolls. I am fairly certain there is a similiar deluge of postings at the SCOX message board planning it.  I responded to it and now I am going to ignore this troll and his antics.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a troll-free zone.

This editor has full permission to remove, without replying, any comments he feels are likely to inflame dispute. If you have a problem with this editor, you are invited to bring that concern to the attention of User:JzG or another member of the administrator community, but please bear in mind that we have a zero-tolerance approach to harassment. Constructive dialogue is always welcome, but if your message is removed it is safe to assume that Jeff has read it and chooses not to debate with you at this time.

Legal threats
Please remove your legal threat on the workshop page. Wikipedia does not allow editors to make legal threats. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop and think
How will conducting a smear campaign against the arbitrators and admins here help? Yoy are doing yourself no favours here. It looks like you are deliberately trying to get yourself blocked. Is that the case? You need to calm it down. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No that is not the case. I am tired of being harrassed and perpetually the center of controversy because of a bunch of trolls and stalkers.  What these trolls are attempting to do is get all of us riled up and are trying to create a situation where we are at each others throats and where I get backed into a corner with a lot of money tied up in it and am forced to sue the Foundation and them.  They want to be sued and have been baiting me for years, posting comments begging for it.  It's how they become famous "martyrs".  These people are seriously sick and disturbed.  Their attacks are planned and well orchestrated.  They are playing all of you like harps from hell.  They are doing it so they can sit back and cheer and enjoy the drama.  The arbcom should reject the case.  Deny them their pleasure.  Check out the SCOX message board today?  You should.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But by trying to smear some of the arbitrators you are playing exactly into thier hands. You are not conduction your defence at all well. In fact you are helping your accusers. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The accusers were allowed to file the case. It was well established they were trolls.  It does not appear they need my help, they seem to have plenty of folks willing to side with them already. What's the point, really? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There was every point. Filing a case is the first stage, the arbiters voting is the last. Between the two you have a chance to convince them that you are not a problem editor. You edits to the workshop page look likely to have the opposite effect. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)