User talk:Verifiabledetails

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

History of the LDS Movement
May I make a suggestion? As your entire history of editing is on one article, I would suggest that it is the wrong article for what you are attempting to achieve. The focus of the article is meant to be about the movement, not the LDS Church. I understand that it would appear that these are one & the same, but actually you'll note that the only reason this article exists is that it is not meant to be the same as the other history article (hence why it has never been merged). It is meant to be an overview of the Latter Day Saint Restorationism as manifest in not only the church up until Smith's death but also mentioning the many churches that came out of 1844, one way or the other. Lots of editors have used the term Latter Day Saint Movement as a compromise when dealing with the wider issue of which church had what authority, etc., and has been a unifying tool for editors. Using the Tanners as sources and that sort of POV thing aside, I would also suggest that major changes in such a short blast of edit work, should come to the talk page so that the long-term editors within the LDS Portal can discuss. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To A Sniper: I now agree that some of what I posted over a three day period (all of which you deleted) was too much detail for the article "History of the LDS Movement". I'm new to editing Wiki, so please forgive my error in that regard. I have since corrected just a few of the totally inaccurate and misleading statements in the original article, but you have deleted them as well. Surely you don't want the words "without resistance" in the article under the heading of "Death of Joseph Smith", given that there was most definitely resistance by Joseph Smith when he injured men with a smuggled pistol. And, surely you don't want to imply that Joseph Smith had only one widow left behind, since he had many. All of Joseph Smith's wives are a huge part of the LDS movement, and desereve at least a brief mention. Thirdly, perhaps the most important part of the LDS movement in Illinois was the rejection of some of Joseph Smith's practices by not only non-mormons as the article implies. The fact that William Law was a high-ranking member of the Church, having been chosen as such by Joseph Smith, and who later criticized Smith's practices, which ultimately lead to Smith's death, is not clear to the casual reader who does not click on related links. The article as written, without such details, is misleading. You have indicated that you are only attempting to be fair, but it appears that you are indeed rejecting words of truth that are very important to an accurate understanding of the LDS movement. Please refrain from future references to the changes I made over a three-day period. They are all gone, and I most certainly will not make any future attempts to do other than include details that are indeed CRITICAL to a complete and accurate article about the LDS movement. Please reply. Verifiabledetails (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As it seems you want the other user to reply, please consider using a Template:talkback on their page. The help template is for questions in general.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not use the helpme template on others' userpages when requesting help from them alone. The help template is for requesting general help with Wikipedia, not for a specific user's reply.  fetch  comms  ☛ 22:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To A Sniper: I now agree that some of what I posted over a three day period (all of which you deleted) was too much detail for the article "History of the LDS Movement". I'm new to editing Wiki, so please forgive my error in that regard. I have since corrected just a few of the totally inaccurate and misleading statements in the original article, but you have deleted them as well. Surely you don't want the words "without resistance" in the article under the heading of "Death of Joseph Smith", given that there was most definitely resistance by Joseph Smith when he injured men with a smuggled pistol. And, surely you don't want to imply that Joseph Smith had only one widow left behind, since he had many. All of Joseph Smith's wives are a huge part of the LDS movement, and desereve at least a brief mention. Thirdly, perhaps the most important part of the LDS movement in Illinois was the rejection of some of Joseph Smith's practices by not only non-mormons as the article implies. The fact that William Law was a high-ranking member of the Church, having been chosen as such by Joseph Smith, and who later criticized Smith's practices, which ultimately lead to Smith's death, is not clear to the casual reader who does not click on related links. The article as written, without such details, is misleading. You have indicated that you are only attempting to be fair, but it appears that you are indeed rejecting words of truth that are very important to an accurate understanding of the LDS movement. Please refrain from future references to the changes I made over a three-day period. They are all gone, and I most certainly will not make any future attempts to do other than include details that are indeed CRITICAL to a complete and accurate article about the LDS movement. Please reply. Verifiabledetails (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verifiabledetails (talk • contribs)

Verifiabledetails (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you are a newbie, and also respect that you've jumped right in there to edit. However, there are a core group of dedicated editors in the Latter Day Saint Portal, from all backgrounds. We work hard to support the concept of NPOV (neutral point of view), using bona fide references.
 * Per your note, whether or not Smith had a gun smuggled in, being in a confined space in which a mob were coming to kill him still constitutes an assassination. This is the word that has been placed there by the consensus of a multitude of editors. If you want to add detail re: Smith, go to the Joseph Smith page - you'll find that there are a crew of editors of varied background who monitor every single word that goes in.  RE: how many 'widows' Smith had, the law only recognized one.
 * This article is not meant to be a complete history of the LDS Church (there is an article for that), or even about Smith's death...but rather a quick overview of the aspect of movement for which this was but one part of Christian Restorationism. I would suggest that you focus on the other articles that may indeed require more details. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sniper: Thank you for your patience with regard to my novice status with Wikipedia. The problem with your response is that you responded to only a small part of my points, while ignoring the rest. Having researched history, I know that is a common response by those who wish to avoid issues. I'm sorry that you may be offended by that statement, but, in this case, it is so obvious. You and what you refer to as your "community" editors have defended partial truths and outright lies. e.g.) Your represtation that Joseph Smith was attacked in the Carthage jail "without resistance" is historically incorrect. LDS tour guides at the Carthage jail have repeatedly preached that myth for decades. I suspect that you must be under tremendous pressure to defend institutional status quo by those who place demands on you... perhaps members of your Church...but you must look beyond those demands in the name of accuracy. I am not anti-Mormon...I am pro-truth. I have tremendous respect for the pratices of the many very respectable members of the LDS Church, and I deplore vandals who post obscene entries to Wikipedia. Please be civil enough to, at the very least, allow removal of historically incorrect statements from publicly accessed information. If you do not, you might very well be engaging in "vandalism" of the Wikipedia article by repeatedly posting information that is easily verifiable as incorrect. Persistent you may be, but so is history. History will, of course, prevail.Verifiabledetails (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, where do you get off stating that I am LDS? I am a Wikipedia editor. Concentrate on the edtiing and not on the editor. "Tremendous pressure"?  The only pressure I am under is dealing with newbies who insist on spending 24/7 in front of their computers making endless edits in a concentrated period of time, requiring complete rollbacks to before their first edit. Sadly the occasional decent edit gets lost with the majority of waste. A Sniper (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_Sniper"Verifiabledetails (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I undid your most recent edit to History of the Latter Day Saint movement and noted your comment about vandalism. This kind of accusation, to an established editor, in an edit summary or on a talk page is most inappropriate within the Wikipedia community, see Civility.  I would urge you to reread, without any chip on your shoulder, the fine advice given above.  The LDS articles here need careful, patient editors who have done more than, how did you say it, "researched history" (whatever that means).  Find your sources, review them carefully, investigate the history of the authors, look over their bibliography -- than you have some material to work with when it comes to editing articles.  We have summary articles, like this one, designed to give an overview of LDS history, organizations and topics, and many, many more articles with detailed information about related issues.  Even as a recent addition to Wikipedia's edit cadre, you need to learn how this place works.  Take some time -- read some articles -- and review the rules.  Even so ... best wishes and hope that you become more constructive in your efforts.  WBardwin (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your patience as I learn about Wikipedia editing. I am, however, surprised that an "established editor" continues to use the verifiably incorrect words "without resistance" in the article, without addressing the reasoning for doing so. Please, in the interest of having an accurate article, let's put aside everything else for now and deal with just the words "without resistance". To be perfectly honest with you, it was that incorrect language... just those two words in the article... that prompted me to start editing. So, please respond to me concerning why you repeatedly insist upon using them. If you do not correct this issue, the use of those two words will become an issue that editors at the highest level, and other individuals, will end up addressing. On the other hand, if those two incorrect words are removed from the article, you will find that I will actually spend very little of my time editing, because I really do have other things that I would rather be doing. Thank you again. I am quite sincere. Verifiabledetails (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To "A sniper": As we discussed on the talk page: I thank you for your first comment indicating that my initial edits were, perhaps, "too much too fast", even though they were in good faith and generally properly cited. Although I was initially shocked that you reverted everything I edited, I agreed with most of what you said, especially with regard to possibly using other articles for such detail. I pointed out that I had never before edited a Wikipedia article, and asked you to forgive me.

I, in turn, accept your apology for your initial removal of "things of merit", as you call them. However, we then had discussion on the talk page about which "things of merit" should be allowed in the article. You responded concerning some of those things, so, once again, I accepted your reversion related to those points. However, you didn't respond concerning two incorrect words contained in the article about the death of Joseph Smith. Those two words are used in a sentence, stating that Joseph Smith was attacked "without resistance". As I pointed out to you before, the separate "main article" on the death of Joseph Smith goes into great detail (all of which is well-documented and cited) about how Joseph Smith used a "six-shooter" handgun, which had been smuggled to him inside the jail, to resist his attackers. In absence of an argument from you with regard to that matter, and in the interest of making the article more accurate, I deleted the two words: "without resistance", and noted the reason in my edit summary. Without relevant explanation, those two incorrect words were added back into the article.

To "WBardwin": You came to the defense of "A Sniper" by adding the two incorrect words back into the article. You left me a message on the talk page telling me that you had done so, you acknowledged that I was totally new to editing, and you warned me that I "...need to learn how this place works." You did not, however, address whether the two words were correct. I replied to your message, thanking you, and asked for comment specifically with regard to the two incorrect words. Although you and "A Sniper" were always very quick to restore the two incorrect words to the article, two days have passed since I have asked for an explanation, and I haven't heard or seen an explanation from anyone. I have indeed been learning how this place works, and I will continue to learn. Quoting directly from Wikipedia:

"Revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort (Emphasis added). Edit warring is prohibited. See three-revert rule. Editors should provide an explanation when reverting. It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. (Emphasis added) A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the identified problem. The result will be an improved article and a more knowledgeable editor."

As I asked before, please reply specifically with regard to whether you feel that the words "without resistance" are correct or incorrect, with your full reasoning for same. While other comments from you, if civil, are welcome, please do not avoid the issue. Best regards, Verifiabledetails (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't care less whether or not 'without resistance' is in the article, as it isn't an article about JSJr. I thought it was common knowledge that JSJr had been given a small pistol for protection, and used it as the mob advanced. I would be careful in interjecting that guides at Carthage lie about it - that reveals your own POV, doesn't it? When i edited you I was reverting everything, not just that one edit.  Take your time. Concentrate on each edit, and give a breather so that other editors can ratify each edit - that is what we do with each other.  best, A Sniper (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To "A Sniper": Thank you for responding, even though you seem quite upset. Please keep in mind the Wikipdeia guidelines about civility. Obviously, one of us has made a huge error. I am genuinely interested in accuracy in the article about the LDS Movement, and I hope that you are as well. If I am wrong, as I have been to a limited extent in the past, I will immediately dismiss the issue... and apologize, just as I have done in the past. So, please, remain civil. You stated: "I couldn't care less whether or not "without resistance" is in the article, as it isn't an article about JSJr (Joseph Smith, Jr.)." You further stated, "I thought it was common knowledge that JSJr had been given a "small" pistol for protection, and used it as the mob advanced." Which of us is mistaken about who Joseph Smith, Jr. is? Joseph Smith, Jr. is the person whom the LDS Church claims as their prophet, and the person who wrote the Book of Mormon, upon which is the foundation of the LDS Church. Neither the article about the History of LDS movement, or the article about the handgun being used, is about his father, Joseph Smith, Sr., or his son, Joseph Smith, III. Joseph Smith, Jr. is the same person referred to in both the article about the History of the LDS Movement, who, according to the article, was attacked "without resistance", and the article about the Death of Joseph Smith, Jr., which makes clear his resistance via use of the six-shooter handgun. Are you okay? What you said makes no sense. Also, as I expected, you continually make references to my multiple edits which I made last week, and which I have long since dismissed in pursuit of accuracy about this one remaining issue. Your most recent reversions were to my one and only recent edit, which referenced only the two incorrect words: "without resistance". As I said, one of us has made a huge error. Please, let's get this cleared up right away. Please respond. Thank you. Verifiabledetails (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your rant. It is very hard to follow your train of thought. Why you are mentioning JSJr, his father and his son, I have no clue. My point is this: I couldn't care less whether or not the article states that JSJr. had a gun, didn't have a gun, or held a bouquet of roses - if you want to make a simple edit removing the term about resisting, GO AHEAD. If editors wish to challenge it, they will, and if you want to bolster it, add the reference. There should be no big deal about this. Getting back to why this whole thing started, you did a dozen edits, adding way too much info to this overview article. I mentioned it, and you responded. End of story. Now go ahead and edit, but please take your time and deal with each edit carefully...and slowly...and check out all the other articles on overlapping subjects. I think this now ends the dialogue on this matter. A Sniper (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement"