User talk:Écrasez l'infâme

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Écrasez l'infâme, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --KeithB 22:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Don't vandalize the pages, d00d. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobizón (talk • contribs)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

I just reverted your recent edit on the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. I chose to revert for a couple of reasons. Stating that the revelation came from "Jesus Christ, himself" may be true (!) but it is clearly quite POV by Wikipedia standards. In addition, this article is very long, and as it grows we editors extract material into other more specific articles. Any large addition, such as the D&C quote, should be carefully considered and discussed on the talk page. Sections of this quote, for example, might be better suited to the plural marriage article. Nonetheless, thank you for your interest in the article. You might want to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement and look over our project guidelines and objectives. Best wishes. WBardwin 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1831

You are attributing 'revelation' to Smith that is neither canonized nor where a definitive interpretation, should this information be true, exists among Smith historians. Inserting this material as if it is fact, as opposed to theory, is not encyclopedic. Before I begin editing, I would ask you to please be specific that this is not a widely known, nor proven issue. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the cited attribution to Smith's scribe and church elder W. W. Phelps from the end of the sentence introducing the 1831 polygamy revelation to the beginning to make the attribution clearer. I also include the following citations, one a published book, and one a photograph of W. W. Phelps' copy of the 1831 revelation that resides in the LDS historical department:

H. Michael Marquardt (1999). The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary. Signature Books.
"A photograph of W. W. Phelps' copy of the 1831 revelation which commands Mormons to marry Indians so that their posterity would become "white."". Retrieved 2008-06-20. A photograph of the important part of W. W. Phelps' copy of the 1831 revelation which commands Mormons to marry Indians so that their posterity would become "white." The original is in the LDS historical department.

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Your edits are fine but it still needs qualification that this is not proven nor clear-cut. Your presentation takes for granted that a) it actually occurred, b) Phelps is reliable, c) this is a 'revelation', d) that the date is correct, etc. I believe that a wider circle of editors needs to be brought into this, especially LDS users who are keen on keeping the POV down to a minimum. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning - Book of Mormon article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made two reversions here and here in the past 24 hours. I have also contacted [[User:Taivo about avoiding an edit war. Please indicate any more reversions than these two in the past 24 hours, or retract immediately the accusation that I am engaged in an edit war. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Écrasez, maybe you should take it easy on the Book of Mormon authorship edits. The version to which StormRider reverted back to several times is pretty neutral as far as I can tell. I am also skeptical of the BOM and its origins, but you have to at least recognize that there are people out there who don't think it was "authored" by him, strictly speaking. Consider taking a break from editing the article for a little while and come back to it and prove to StormRider and Taivo that you are making edits in good faith. Hope we can collaborate in the future. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an article as highly charged as the BOM article you MUST tread with great care. We have worked very hard to get that article as NPOV as possible among both members and nonmember of the LDS church. You MUST respect that care and the time we have taken. You are coming in here like a knight on a crusade and your efforts are not completely appreciated among those of us who have labored with great care for the last year. YOU are the one in violation of Wikipedia principles of consensus building. Perhaps you need to review the spirit of Wikipedia and stop your edit war. (Taivo (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Taivo, please justify your deletions based upon their content. Furthermore, please provide substantive reasons for deleting this material based on its content. Your justification "Your edits seem too POV on the surface" and the demand that editors discuss edits at the talk page first appears to be in violation of the Wikipedia policies violate WP:PRESERVE, WP:NPA, WP:DE, and WP:AGF. Finally, your accusations of edit warring are provably false, and you have now been notified that they are false. Please retract your false accusation, or back it up with proof. Making false accusations is a violation of WP:CIV. It is not appropriate to violate Wikipedia editing and civility policies for the apparent purpose of blocking factual, cited, and highly relevant material from appearing in an article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is being uncivil to you. You are being asked to respect the hard work of those editors who have been laboring over the content and wording of the Book of Mormon article for about a year. You have been asked by SEVERAL of the editors (not just me) to talk the issues out FIRST on the Talk page before making edits to the text. This is a highly charged text and consensus must be reached FIRST. We have asked you to respect that process, but you refuse. Citing Wikipedia policy is useless since you are violating the first principle of Wikipedia content: CONSENSUS. (Taivo (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing actually characterizes your editing of an emotionally charged article. Once consensus is reached, we can insert the carefully crafted compromise language. But your solo edits, no matter how well-sourced are disruptive since there is no such thing as a "neutral" edit on this page or a "neutral" reference. That's why we are so careful about it. (Taivo (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Taivo, please read my comments very carefully. You have accused me falsely of edit warring. I have informed you that this accusation is false and unsubstantiated, and requested that you withdraw it. You have not yet done so. According to Wikipedia policy on incivility, your behavior adheres to the very definition of incivility:

Ill-considered accusations of impropriety

For now I will continue to assume good faith and that you simply made a mistake in making these false accusations. But now that you have been informed that they are false, you are obligated to acknowledge your mistake. I recommend that the most civil and wisest course of action is for you to retract your false accusation promptly. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done nothing more than ask you to respect the editors of the Book of Mormon article who have gone before you and GET CONSENSUS BEFORE YOU MAKE CHANGES to a contentious article. I'm not going to apologize for that. I might even agree with you on the facts, but you never asked those of us who have struggled over every word in this article for a year to get it NPOV. The reason we protect this article (both members and nonmembers, remember) is that it is so vulnerable to POV editing. To me, your edits look POV. But that's EXACTLY why we MUST discuss every edit BEFORE it goes on the page--so that we reach consensus. This is all that I have asked of you throughout. It is what I will continue to ask of you until you understand that the Book of Mormon page is NOT like the blue iguana page. (Taivo (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There can be no constructive outcome in discussion with someone who engages openly in incivil behavior and seeks to have my account blocked based upon patently false accusations. Please acknowledge your mistaken and false accusation and retract it, and we may then discuss other matters. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ecrasez--I feel that your edits to the BoM page at times are a negative point of view. Please try to be careful to be fair and NPOV, and to not cite certain sources as definitive and the only answer. Thank you. 66.182.89.5 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 23 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1831_polygamy_revelation, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polygamy: To merge or not to merge...

Hey Écrasez, just wondering if you could explain a little better for me why you are opposing the merge between 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation to Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy. It seems like a pretty clear case for a merge since there is quite a bit of duplication across all three articles. Remember that his merge would have nothing to do with removal of content. I actually agree with some of your edits and would be willing to help you defend them from some of the other editors. However, I think that a merge should be first priority. If you can change your vote on the merge, we can get it executed before the day is out, and then we can haggle all we want on the content of the article. Let me know what you think. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You read my mind, just finished a comment on your page! Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at my talk page. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merge from 1831 polygamy revelation is complete. I think we have preserved most everything, though some of it was condensed. Please take a look. The other merge is still forthcoming (maybe tomorrow if I have time) --Descartes1979 (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits in the 1831 polygamy section

In an effort to make the section concise, without wandering from the point, I made a bunch of edits condensing that section. I know you were worried about loss of information, and I think I did a good job of keeping all of the information there. Please review. I am hoping we can get to a stable section that everyone can agree on, but does not omit any of the uncomfortable details on both sides. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a quick look, and I'd say that you've done an excellent job with a difficult project. I like how you moved several of the authoritative quotes to the notes. The only thing I see is a few references that didn't make it to that section, so I'll go a do a quick Ctrl-F to find them and copy there. Good job, and thanks for your efforts. A couple of other quick points:

When you merge the 1843 polygamy revelation, I believe that relevant material there should appear twice in the article, the first time of course in the section on the 1840s, but also a second time in a (very brief) subsection that describes the deadly controversy that arose from the polygamy and other charges published in the Nauvoo Expositor.
In fairness and completeness, there should be a (very brief) section that describes subsequent Mormon polygamy doctrine, both in the 1890 Manifesto, the Second Manifesto, and both modern doctrine the the original doctrine's legacy today, including references not just to the LDS church but also to the FLDS churches, Rulon Jeffs, and April 2008 raid on the YFZ ranch in Texas, which after all are making the news a lot recently. I suggest that section should appear as the final one in the article.

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with a radical inclusion of post-Smith polygamy practices. The article is spefically about Joseph Smith and Polygamy. There should be (and probably is) a much more inclusive article on polygamy in the LDS movement. Adding a laundry list of late 19th century and later polygamy issues and scandals just clouds the issue. A reference at the end of the article should say, "Polygamy continued to be an important issue in 19th century Mormonism" with a good wikilink to whatever the name of the other Mormonism and Polygamy article is called. (Taivo (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with Ecrasez on this one - there should be at least some mention of the post Joseph Smith polygamy - of course not a large exposition on the topic, but enough to give context and describe the fall out of this doctrine started by Joseph Smith. Lets see how that develops.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Taivo's comments about avoiding laundry list of controversies, as appears in the article now, and rather significantly. I don't believe that the current structure is NPOV (every aspect of this subject is controversial, but so what?), historically written, or frankly very interesting to read. Each of the subjects in this article deserves its place, but structuring them as "controversies" misses the point of the article. What this section really should be is a (terse) historic description of the legacy of Smith and polygamy. I'll post something to the talk page about this. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finished merge of 1843 polygamy revelation

Just an FYI - I just finished merge of 1843 polygamy revelation to Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy (formerly Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy) Please take a look. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another excellent job. Your organization into the 1830s, 40s, and 50s improves the article a great deal. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith page

The subject of weasel words and the title of the paragraph aside, the whole idea of having several other pages on the subject was so that it would only be mentioned briefly in the main article, not giving the subject itself WP:undue weight. I don't know who named the paragraph, or what weasel words you are referring to, but I agree that 'other marriages' needed fixing and just renamed it to mention polygamy, and ended it with a clear statement as to evidence. However, my issue is still that there does not have to be a long, detailed explanation on JSJr. & polygamy as that is why the links are prominently featured and the pages containing so much information for those who click through. You'll note that the other editors (LDS and non) did not challenge the complete trimming of the polygamy section for this very reason. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Newell 1994 p 111.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Newell 1994 p 111.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Smith 1971 p 113.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Smith 1971 p 113.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Joseph Smith DNA project

A tag has been placed on Joseph Smith DNA project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Scapler (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sarah M. Pratt

A tag has been placed on Sarah M. Pratt 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 {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Out of curiosity, what is the meaning of your username? alanyst ^/talk/ 16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Infamous Crusher - but that is my limited French, aided by an online dictionary :) --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be "the one who crushes the infamous"? Or, "the one who is infamous for crushing"? Maybe Écrasez can help with the interpretation. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess - see Voltaire#Prose. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta watch that conjugation. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might have missed it...

In case you missed it, I posed a question to you here. Have a look, and please reply. Cheers, alanyst ^/talk/ 12:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste

I really don't mean to be on your case, and I mean this in a friendly way, but could you consider undoing your multiple copy-pastes of the citation? It's too overwhelming when you repeat the same large chunk of material over and over. Consider linking or referencing to a single location where you put the material, for the sake of page size and also for the sake of those who read the pages. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 21:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I foul up? I intended to put a few bytes worth of a cite article as here in a couple relevant sections. Do you mind pointing out the large chunks, and I'll revert. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; when I wrote the above I was looking at the wikitext via diffs, which made it seem to take up more space than it actually does in the text. I do think that putting the same thing in multiple sections and pages is excessive (a simple "please see [diff] above for a relevant cite" would be preferable to copy-and-paste) but I do sincerely beg your pardon for incorrectly making an issue of the size of what you inserted. Cheers, alanyst ^/talk/ 04:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done with construction of Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late 19th century, could use your help

Per the restructuring initiative, I have finished my first cut at the new article Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late 19th century, and could really use some help in filling out the content for things that I have missed, and general wiki style article revision. There are also two sections that I don't have as much info on right now, (you will see them towards the end of the article) which, again, I could use some help filling out. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? A Sniper (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Declared to be" a plural wife

You've recently used the term "declared" to characterize Sarah Pratt as a plural wife of Joseph Smith. Can you point me to a source or quote that supports this, or explain more fully what you mean? I wasn't aware that Pratt was ever regarded to have been a plural wife of anyone besides Orson Pratt. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 17:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Pratt was "given" to Smith as "one of [his] spiritual wives" by "The Lord," at least according to Smith, as is staed in the article:

'Sister Pratt, the Lord has given you to me as one of my spiritual wives. I have the blessings of Jacob granted me, as he granted holy men of old, and I have long looked upon you with favor, and hope you will not repulse or deny me.'

Von Wagoner 1986 is one source. Maybe we should say "declared to be by God, according to Smith, …" in the article, though I believe that this point is already clear, as is the point that Pratt denied Smith's proposal and claims. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm reading this as a proposal ("you should be my wife") and not a wedding ceremony ("you are now my wife"); do you agree? Given that she rejected him, I think it would be inaccurate to say that she ever was one of Joseph's plural wives. Certainly they were never sealed to each other. What do you think? alanyst ^/talk/ 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She should be listed as someone who refused Smith's claim that she was his polygamous wife. It is standard to take widely accepted Prophets of God, as certainly Joseph Smith is, at their word when representing the Word of God. So when Smith says that God says that He had "given" (past tense) Pratt to Smith as one of his plural wives, it's a done deal in God's eyes—no "should be Smith's wife" about that. So according to Smith, she was his wife. Of course all this must be qualified because she refused, and therefore no human being or reliable source historian would list her as a Smith wife, but someone who was declared to be a Smith wife by Smith but refused. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Sarah Pratt's recollection of what Joseph Smith said though, not an authoritative direct quotation from Joseph Smith. Relying on her account to conclude as a factual matter that Joseph regarded her as already wedded to him is a novel synthesis; if no historian has drawn such a conclusion, I don't think Wikipedia should be doing so either. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point that Smith's quote should be clearly attributed to her—I'll go do that. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick correction: looking at Van Wagoner, page 72, it's Bennett's account, not Pratt's. And Van Wagoner does not take Bennett's word for it; he uses phrases like "according to Bennett" and "if one believes Bennett's account," suggesting that we too should not treat the account as historical fact. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question about the fact that Pratt asserted Smith declared her to be one his wives—Orson Pratt confronted Smith about this and he was excommunicated. So the account of the wording is Bennett's, but if you look later in the paper on page 83 you'll see that Sarah Pratt says that Bennett's "principle statements [on Mormonism] are true". So attributing this claim and account to Sarah Pratt is unquestionably correct. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Principle statements are true" does not equate to "all details are true", and that purported quote of Joseph's can hardly be called a principle statement, so you're leaping to conclusions there. Regarding Orson Pratt, the account of the confrontation again comes from Bennett, but the Van Wagoner quote does not support a conclusion that Orson thought Joseph believed a de facto marriage had already taken place—all we know is that the confrontation was over the proposition, not what Orson knew of the substance of the proposition. Indeed, Van Wagoner explicitly says that "full details of the confrontation between the two men have not been uncovered", so the Orson Pratt confrontation doesn't bolster the notion that Joseph declared that Sarah was his wife. Wymetal's account of Sarah's testimony phrases it as "Joseph made his propositions to me", not "Joseph declared I was his wife". So, you still have only Bennett for the claim you seek to establish as fact. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith's alleged statements to Pratt are consistent in details with dozens of other such statements to other women, according to independent sources, so you're reaching here. What's your proposal? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer that, I'll edit Sarah Pratt to address my primary concerns, and you can see what I've changed. Then, if you like, you can revert me wholesale, or you can tweak what I've done, and then we might have a good basis for further discussion if it appears we still don't see eye to eye. I grant you the right to revert or edit me, so don't worry that this will turn into an edit war—I pledge to discuss any reverts or tweaks you make of my changes. Sound good? alanyst ^/talk/ 21:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Sallright. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchens

Écrasez l'infâme, I have reverted the addition of the Hitchens material to the JSJr. article, not to challenge it but merely because so much is covered in one paragraph. It deals with periods contained in various parts of the article and needs to be chopped up and inserted where appropriate. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up and explanation. I'll address when I grab a chance, and you are of course welcome to edit or add to address for balance or correct any mistakes I may make. Specificaly, this text needs the D&C citation and account of the same facts, which I have not yet looked up. Perhaps you would add this, or point to someone who could. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. However, don't rely too much on Hitchens when noting issues of revelation and the history of Mormon religious issues...I mean, if he states something controversial, I would figure it will be challenged by the regular contributors who will cite mainstream historians on the matter. Example, the Book of Mormon has dozens of noted scholars from varying points as to the history of its publications and Smith's claims, I mean besides Christopher Hitchens! Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though Hitchens is certainly WP:RS—I've also added a reference and Wikilinks to Doctrine and Covenants, Section 3 and Section 10. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against Hitchens - only that he's certainly not in the mainstream. Also, D & C references are tricky, as there are a few editions - pre & post-1844, and from the two largest branches within the Latter Day Saint movement, who reference differently. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I am concerned that your messages to Duke53, Juden, and Descartes1979 regarding the Book of Mormon article may be a violation of the canvassing guideline, in that you have selected a partisan audience for your invitation (vote stacking) and biased your message toward your own point of view (campaigning). To remedy this, please consider inviting the participation of editors with diverse views on the subject (including those with which you would likely disagree), not just those whose views most closely align with yours, and do not include your arguments as part of your invitation. Cheers, alanyst ^/talk/ 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) For clarity: I am requesting that you extend a neutral version of your recent invitation to a wider spectrum of editors; this is not just advice for some future time. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no vote to canvass for. These editors have all edited the article in the past, and I am simply requesting NPOV inputs, in compliance with WP:3O. Also I have not finished requesting these inputs, which I just began (minutes?) ago, and do not appreciate the insinuation. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the guideline: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." Where the appropriateness of edits, sources, etc. is often determined by consensus, a biased invitation to a partisan group can result in a biased set of voices, leading to a false sense of consensus (or lack thereof); thus it is a problem even if there is technically no "vote" being conducted. I saw that you invited those three in quick succession, and waited a little while to see if you would invite any others. I posted my message when it seemed that you were done with your invitations; your invitation to Visorstuff quickly followed my request above, but as you assert, it may have been your intention all along to continue to notify other editors. I do still take issue with the substance of your invitation, which presents a view of the dispute that highly favors your position and implies improper behavior on the part of your opposition. Please be sportsmanlike, for want of a better term, in how you approach disputes. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"your invitation to Visorstuff quickly followed my request above"(!) Your message prompted me to continue cutting and pasting a request on multiple open tabs! You obviously cannot be satisfied here, and it appears that if I invite others you'll ascribe some foul motive to that. So why don't you just consider yourself invited to the discussion. Would you please provide substantive criticism on the facts that are being deleted from the Book of Mormon article, if you have any? Also please feel free to comment on the issues of WP:PRESERVE and WP:OWN that have been raised, specifically, as I put in my request:

… 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'infâme (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Joseph_Smith_Seer_Stones_Hat.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Joseph_Smith_Seer_Stones_Hat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Twunchy (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the image you have posted of Joseph Smith and the Seer stones is an unnecessary use of a copywritten image. This image is not a unique depiction of the event, there are most certainly others out there, but regardless it is not an irreplaceable piece of art or a photograph that must be used to depict this such as this image: Image:Vietnamescape.jpg of the Fall of Saigon...this is an appropriate use of fair-use; it is very constrained in quality and an absolutely irreplaceable depiction of an event. The photo you uploaded is more akin to an artists representation of an event, not an irreplaceable documentation of it. It is also of questionable quality in my opinion, it seems more appropriate for a kids coloring book than for an encyclopedia. Just my 2 cents though. Twunchy (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a comic book, but the journal Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought for the article Walker, Steve (Summer 1982). "Joseph Smith: "The Gift of Seeing"". Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. 15 (2): 48–68. {{cite journal}}: Missing |author1= (help); Unknown parameter |First= ignored (|first= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Last= ignored (|last= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

I understand the source...and I also did not say comic book, I said coloring book...as in if I printed this out and gave it to my 3 year old with a crayon, it would look better after he was done. Twunchy (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good fight

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		" ... to march into hell for a heavenly cause. " Duke53 \| ^Talk 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith seer stones image

You have attempted to get around the copyright issues with the Joseph Smith image by creating commons:Image:Joseph Smith Seer Stones Hat Mosaic.jpg as a photomosaic. You might not realize it, but by doing so you have infringed the copyright of the original image (and perhaps the many images that make up the mosaic too). You are not authorized to prepare derivative works of a copyrighted image without express permission from the creator. As a sign of your willingness to abide by Wikipedia policy and copyright law, you should tag the Commons image as a copyvio and remove links to it that you placed here on Wikipedia. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 15:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rats. I see that you are correct. Consider it done. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I appreciate how you have quickly acknowledged and corrected the problem. Sometimes such things turn into battles here, so your immediate cooperation was a great relief. :) alanyst ^/talk/ 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

Are you aware of the three revert rule which you have just violated at Book of Mormon? Doing so gets you an automatic 24 hour block. If you revert your own change immediately I will not ask for it to be enforced. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiight. Check the links. These are all for different issues. First it was length, which was fixed. Then it was for "balance", in which this editor replaced with an easily checked error. Then it was a different reason for another editor. These are not reverts, but attempts to edit in WP:VF from WP:RS while addressing concerns raised while doing so. Then another editor accuses you of "tag teaming and swarming." Then your warning is really a threat. Good luck with this. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Great job with your edits on the Mormon related articles over the last couple of weeks. While some of your edits have been a little controversial, I am constantly amazed at the information you dig up to support your edits, a lot of which are quite convincing. Cheers! Descartes1979 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Mormon stuff is embarrassingly easy because there are newspaper and eyewitness interview accounts for just about everything. Just wait until we move on to more "mainstream" older movements. I've seen the Israeli archaeological sites where some have attempted almost desperately to find any evidence for the events described in Exodus and turned up a Big Zero. Lots of great references on this fact. Nevertheless, I still love The Ten Commandments, and appreciate its release in 1956 to solidify American support for a newly independent Israel. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objective evaluation of your contributions

I call your attention to a neutral administrator's objective evaluation of your contributions, which I requested in light of ongoing concerns about your editing behavior. Please see User talk:Gwen Gale#Request for an objective look, especially the section called "My take as an admin", and please respond to the concerns expressed so we can work on resolving them. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 15:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV problems

You really must make more of an effort to ensure that your contributions sound neutral. I have temporarily removed very similar sounding contributions on Bible, Biblical archeology and Ten Commandments. Your perspective is probably valid, and I support the inclusion of opposing viewpoints to the traditionalist perspective, but your contributions were obviously intended to persuade rather than inform the reader. I am unfamiliar with the sources, so I will not comment on your choice of Finkelstein and Herzog (I understand Finkelstein is somewhat controversial). JFW | T@lk 16:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that my edits adhere to both the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV. If it is your personal opinion that these sources are biased, please bear in mind Wikipedia's "non-negotiable" WP:NPOV policy:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

Here are the significant and relevant WP:RS citations, whose conclusions I believe that I fairly represented:

Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2001), [[The Bible Unearthed|The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts]], New York: Simon and Schuster, ISBN 0743223381 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help).
Herzog, Ze'ev (October 29, 1999), Deconstructing the walls of Jericho, Ha'aretz{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).

Please correct me if you disagree. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to repeat the policy back to me. I was asking you to have a close look at the language you are using, and perhaps toning down the "wow, look at this, boys - the Bible is WRONG!" kind of phrases. I don't think that is unreasonable, and I will ask you again to not simply reinsert your work but rather take my request as a challenge to improve the content you are writing.

On a separate note, don't you think that it's generally a bad idea to cut and paste the same content over various pages, especially when it is 3,578 bytes long and could probably be shortened, with regard for the context in each article, to less than half that size? JFW | T@lk 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the f/b. Here is my attempt at an WP:RS WP:NPOV representation of their views:

Extensive archaeological research and findings contradicts the Bible's main historical account given in Exodus,<ref name=Herzog/><ref name=Finkelstein/> which describes ancient Israelites' bondage in Egypt, accepting monotheism and The Ten Commandments upon their exodus, wandering in the desert for forty years, conquering the Land of Israel and founding a great empire ruled by King David and Solomon, resulting in the general historical conclusions reached by a consensus of several prominent archaeologists who have studied the record: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the Land of Israel in a military campaign, did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel, there is no evidence of the existence of David's or Solomon's conquests, kingdom, or vast empire, and Jewish monotheism appeared in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.<ref name=Herzog/><ref name=Finkelstein/>

I'll reinsert, and please criticize where appropriate. (Also, most of that length is a full quote, which is not necessary everywhere.) Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I don't disagree with your sources (although Herzog's scholarly work might be more suitable than a newspaper article) or even with the fact that we need to represent this viewpoint. What does strike me is that you're still writing on a generic piece of content to be deployed "at well" on Bible articles. For instance, the content about David and Salomon is patently irrelevant on the Ten Commandments page, while probably being quite relevant on the Biblical archaeology article. Essentially, it would need adapting to the particular context where you are using it. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being accused of copyright infringement, I will copy here, verbatim, a paragraph from a reliable source on the Bible, that is, the introduction of Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties from Gleason Archer.

Whenever historical accounts of the Bible are called in question on the basis of alleged disagreement with the findings of archaeology or the testimony of ancient non-Hebrew documents, always remember that the Bible is itself an archaeological document of the highest caliber. It is simply crass bias for critics to hold that whenever a pagan record disagrees with the biblical account, it must be the Hebrew author that was in error. Pagan kings practiced self-laudatory propaganda, just as their modern counterparts do; and it is incredibly naive to suppose that because a statement was written in Assyrian cuneiform or Egyptian hieroglyphics it was more trustworthy and factual than the Word of God composed in Hebrew.

So if you want an NPOV wording on the fact there is no archaeological evidence of this or that part of the Bible narrative, you must take into account Archer's position. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much can be said to a biblical inerrantist like Archer, but your point is well taken that the Bible is an archaeological document. Like any other such document, if you go dig a bunch of holes in an attempt to unearth confirmation of that document, but instead find that the results contradict that document, then one is compelled to certain conclusions, some stronger than others. The cited WP:RS rely mainly on stuff they dug up, or didn't dig up where and when it should have been to agree with the Bible, and the pagan record, though relevant is secondary—but even no non-Biblical record even mentions any the Exodus events, so you don't even have a case of disagreement, but one of nonexistence. Furthermore, this is a relatively recent problem for biblical inerrantists (after Archer), as these archaeological conclusions have been reached in the last thirty years or so, while Israel has been busy attempting to establish an archaeological argument for their occupation of the entire Land of Israel. I'll also add that the Illiad too is a archaeological document, and I personally am a fervent Illiad inerrantist, which is why I refrain from editing this subject to avoid WP:COI. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bible. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm at my limit today. Let's avoid WP:EW and hash this out. Your deletions violate WP:NPOV. The text is a fair representation of verifiable facts from two reliable sources: even if it is your personal opinion that these sources are biased, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's "non-negotiable" WP:NPOV policy:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

Rather than edit warring, please justify your deletion of these verifiable facts from reliable sources based on Wikipedia policy. I will argue that your deletion, or perhaps suppression, of these facts violates WP:NPOV. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You say that you've inserted verifiable facts. Let's see:

the Israelites were never in Egypt: can you or your sources verify that with absolute certainty? Of course not. Therefore, not a fact, but a conclusion.
did not wander in the desert: can you or your sources verify that with absolute certainty? Of course not. Therefore, not a fact, but a conclusion.
did not conquer the Land of Israel in a military campaign: can you or your sources verify that with absolute certainty? Of course not. Therefore, not a fact, but a conclusion.
did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel: can you or your sources verify that with absolute certainty? Of course not. Therefore, not a fact, but a conclusion.
there is no evidence of the existence of David's or Solomon's conquests, kingdom, or vast empire: can you or your sources verify that with absolute certainty? Of course not. Therefore, not a fact, but a conclusion.
and Jewish monotheism appeared in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai: can you or your sources verify that with absolute certainty? Of course not. Therefore, not a fact, but a conclusion.

Now where are those verifiable facts you were talking about? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are conclusions expressed in the reliable sources:

Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2001), [[The Bible Unearthed|The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts]], New York: Simon and Schuster, ISBN 0743223381 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help).
Herzog, Ze'ev (October 29, 1999), Deconstructing the walls of Jericho, Ha'aretz{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).

These are distinguished archaeologists who have published their conclusions in peer reviewed literature, books, and the popular press. Professor Israel Finkelstein is the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze Age and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University and is also the co-director of excavations at Megiddo in northern Israel. Professor Ze'ev Herzog is at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University, and the director of The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology since 2005. This is precisely what verifiable facts from reliable sources means. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say, These are conclusions expressed in (...). That's all I need to know to conclude that they do not qualify as verifiable fact. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 10:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the verifiable fact: that prominent archaeologists who have studied the record arrived at these conclusions. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the problem right there: your wording does not make it clear that this is a conclusion, not a fact by itself. No mention of dissidence either. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would be interested to know that Finkelstein himself acknowledges that his views do not represent a consensus. See here. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, that's a review of Finkelstein's book appearing a journal specializing in Zionist history and ideas by Raanan Eichler, a graduate student at a Jewish college specializing in Zionist history and ideas—Finkelstein himself says no such thing. This is not to say that Eichler is necessarily wrong, but it would be more convincing to cite a reliable source archaeologist like Ze'ev Herzog, who does portray Finkelstein's conclusions as a consensus among many prominent archaeologists. Eichler, like you, are entitled to your opinions, but you've offered nothing solid to back them up. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: en-dash (–) required between verses, not a hyphen (-)

It's a nice idea to force en-dashes, but that's not in the hands of the PHP script, which effects nothing in the Wikipedia page rendering (the requests back and forth would hinder the page loading a little bit much). So for this we would require a function template which performs a character substitution, which afaik does not exist and may be impossible... And I'm glad you appreciate the script, even if it's long been in need of a rewrite. Something I might get to once a certain thesis has been handed in.

WP:VF

Before you invoke WP:VF, you should take a look at what it is about. Apparently not what you think. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking request by Blanchardb

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 05:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Écrasez l'infâme (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Edits are constructive and I believe strictly adhere to WP:3RR and WP:DR. See RfC here, WQA here, WP:CONSENSUS talk here, and linked edits at user talk page.

Decline reason:

you're block expired some 21 hours ago. No need to have this unblock request active anymore. You should be free to edit. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:3RR: Last three versions of deleted material:

link reversion 25 July
link reversion 25 July
link reversion 25 July

Prior edit that implements WP:CONSENSUS discussion here from 23–25 July:

link edit based on extensive WP:CONSENSUS talk here between 23–25 July

WP:DR: These edits, and my attempts at WP:DR here, here, and here, satisfy the letter and spirit of WP:3RR and WP:DR, and represent a dispute about article content, a case in which blocking may not be used. Furthermore, if anyone believes that my edits of 25 July do not satisfy WP:3RR, I was never issued a warning or explanation, inconsistent with WP:BP. It is true that I mistakenly violated WP:3RR on 23 July and was warned about this above; this was a mistake that I acknowledged, and resolved not to miscount again, as I've shown here. However, this block is for edits made on 25 July, which I've done my best to ensure satisfy WP:3RR and WP:DR. Therefore, I believe that this block is inconsistent with WP:BP and request that it be overturned in accordance with that policy. Finally, I would like to point out that these edits revert repeated deletions by Blanchardb of verifiable facts from reliable sources on Wikipedia's Bible article that were discussed at length here where WP:CONSENSUS was achieved. This user has already been warned about "willy-nilly" deletions by the admin Shirahadasha before on this talk page here. Rather than engaging in WP:DR, Blanchardb has mischaracterized my edits and put them on the notice board here, resulting in my blocking. I am not versed in Wikipedia administrative policy, but would ask a neutral admin if Blanchardb's conduct in requesting a block based on a mischaracterization of my edits rather than enage in dispute resolution conforms to policy and would not itself warrant disciplinary action. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from being an expert in the topic at hand, but in the instances where you say there's consensus for your changes, like this one, it appears there's actually a lack thereof (citing WP:UNDUE as one of the primary objections). Additionally, your block was for edit warring— not three revert rule violations. You were warned— twice I might add— on the 23rd for edit warring. 3RR isn't a quota that you're allowed to fill, and doing so repeatedly is frequently considered gaming the system; and, if you repeatedly make the same edits that multiple editors clearly disagree with, it's still edit warring and/or disruptive. --slakr^\ talk / 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was issued one justified warning here on the 23d for WP:3RR. The other warning you refer to is unjustified and was made be a user who uses "false accusations as a tool in intimidating others and casting doubts on other editors' reputations," an accusation made by another user here. This dispute is over over content with a single user Blanchardb, as shown by the links above. And you're right about gaming the system: Blanchardb misrepresented this content dispute at the notice board in an attempt to avoid the dispute resolution mechanisms like the RfC already in place. For the record, I was issued a single justified warning here on the 23d for WP:3RR, admitted my mistake, ceased editing, and engaged in extensive discussions on the talk page. The result was a consensus reached by me, Fcsuper, Shirahadasha and apparently Blanchardb after he was warned about "willy-nilly" deletions by the admin Shirahadasha here. Immediately after I edited in the text we agreed upon, Blanchardb deleted most of it. I restored edits suggested by Fcsuper and Shirahadasha here, not the original text, which technically isn't a reversion. After Blanchardb deleted these, I reverted and comment on talk. After Blanchardb deleted these again, I requested an RfC and reverted again. That's strictly two reversions, a whole lot of talk and attempt at WP:DR, which hardly can be counted as edit warring. I also note that you have not addressed the other important issues I raised above. The real issue here is an attempt to keep the disputed WP:VER WP:RS paragraph from Wikipedia's Bible article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In support of my assertion that my edit history has been misrepresented, I have included the original report here, with my dated comments in bold red.

Note that the reported violation is for a "Three-revert rule violation," as I've demonstrated above is not true, and admin slakr now says was not the reason for the block.
Note that Blanchardb says, "Although not technically all reverts to the same revision, they are, for the most part, rewordings of the same initial edit." This is a half-truth, as half of the edits were made as part of the standard WP:BRD cycle, requesting and incorporating feedback from other editors at the talk page.

A fair representation of these edits shows 2 reverts and 2 WP:BRD edits on 22–23 July, 2 reverts and 1 WP:BRD edit on 26 July. I have acknowledged that the four edits on 22–23 July violated the spirit of WP:3RR, but as 2 of these are in fact WP:BRD, and almost every edit was made by listening to and incorporating feedback, this is clearly not edit warring; every attempt has been made to achieve consensus and resolve disputes with other editors. The same is true of the edits on 26 July. This is a content dispute, not edit warring. I understand slakr's initial decision given the misrepresentation shown below, but this is a misrepresentation, and therefore request that the charges of WP:3RR violation and edit warring be dismissed as unjustified.

User:Écrasez l'infâme reported by User:Blanchardb (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Time reported: 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

1st revert: [2] 13:47 22 July: revert Blanchardb deletion with comment "unbiased sources are WP:RS; see talk, WP:NPOV, WP:PRESERVE"
2nd revert: [3] 15:13 22 July: WP:BRD with comment "see talk: implement f/b on chronology, also {{fact}} not because disputed, but does need citation"
3rd revert: [4] 17:24 22 July: WP:BRD with comment "Thanks for the f/b. I've rewritten, and hope that you agree this fairly WP:NPOV represents the WP:RS views. If not, please criticize."
4th revert: [5] 00:34 23 July: revert deletion with comment "see talk"
5th revert: [6] 00:45 26 July: WP:BRD with comment "significant WP:NPOV/WP:VF/WP:RS representation of archaeological dating of monotheism, WP:NPOV/WP:VF conclusion per talk"
6th revert: [7] 01:07 26 July: revert deletion with comment "pls don't delete WP:RS fair WP:NPOV WP:VF; also WP:PRESERVE"
7th revert: [8] 02:52 26 July: revert deletion with comment "pls don't delete WP:RS WP:NPOV WP:VER; see talk RfC"

Diff of 3RR warning: [9]

Although not technically all reverts to the same revision, they are, for the most part, rewordings of the same initial edit. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 05:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar - the Polygamy series has ended up being an awful lot of work, and your recognition is much appreciated! --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:LDSPluralwifeinfo

Template:LDSPluralwifeinfo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]