User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Archive1

osiyo. dohitsu! kanohedi ahane. wado.[edit]

Welcome back Jeff! --Duk 22:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, it's Jeff Merkey, defender of indigenous Americans! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

v-v wado. :-) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGadugi[edit]

It needs some cleaning http://en.wikigadugi.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges --Kebron 10:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually ok. That site is a mirror of the English Wikipedia, and everytime a database dump is posted or a new release of MediaWiki, the database on that site is purged and reloaded. If vandalbots want to deface that wiki, its fine, since their edits will get purged eventually anyway --typically every 2-3 weeks. That site is a test wiki for machine translation, and the english version is just a mirror with all the images. The Native Cherokee version on the other hand gets a database lock when the vandalbots are too invasive. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs and whatnot[edit]

Please do not perform copy-paste moves, make the redirect you created an AfD, as well as other issues. Please do not lead to another ban on your account because of your inability to work with our project with our rules, policies, and guidelines.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me that procedure for AFD. I followed the directions in the templates. You say cut and paste into the Sioux name is not correct? I do not understand. I moved the content from an inaccurate Cherokee name into the original Sioux name, then literally translated the Cherokee name into its proper syntax. Some words in Cherokee are proper, some are not for straight phonetic translation. White Cloud should be a proper name, not a phonetic translation. I am not certain you know our language, so I can understand why you would not know the difference. Also please refrain from making threats. They are uncivil. I respond much better to sincere criticism and guidance about the current rules on this project. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff. I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding. Ryulong is not claiming to know the language better, or disputing your content changes. Rather, I think he wanted to tell you that in the future, when moving content from one name to another, please simply use the "move" button at the top of the page, rather than cutting and pasting the content to the correct title and creating a redirect at the old title. This will have the same effect, except that it will also preserve the page history, which is necessary for proper attribution of the authorship (and helpful, too). All history should be available at the page where the content it. Please see Help:Moving a page for more information on moving. Cut and paste moves have to be fixed by administrators, which is what Ryulong did here. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This account is newer than 4 days, and as such, there is no move button at the top of my article panel. I was unable to move it or I would have done so. I actually know MediaWiki probably as well or better than most of the admins here, given what I am doing. :-) That's why I did it that way. I would have moved it if I could. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yeah, as a foundation-l reader, I thought you would, but I tried explaining anyway. :-) I hadn't even realized that this account was new; usually the account age necessary for page moves is reached fairly quickly, because of the rate of account creation, so it should only be a matter of days until the tab appears. In any case, feel free to ask me, or any other user (older than a week ;-)) to move it for you until then. Dmcdevit·t 08:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will avail myself to some good discussions with you. Sounds interesting. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored comment[edit]

Hi there. I removed the {{sockpuppet}} tag that you put in the ANI section recently WP:ANI#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey because that tags the whole page as being a sockpuppet. I moved the name of the sockpuppet to the bold comment you left. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was not certain how to tag that. I appreciate it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilant[edit]

Hi Jeff,

I've left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey and User talk:64.139.4.129. If he keeps following you around he'll be blocked.

There are several others and all of them are trolls from SCOX. You can visit the SCOX message board if you want to watch them plan their forays over here to harrass me. Some interesting reading. Go to Yahoo and type "SCOX" then select message board and look for my name on the headers of postings they place on that board. They are even using the same account names in both places. You will also find they are making legal threats over there against us and me. These are all of them I know about that are still active. Tony Sidaway blocked a bunch of them a while back:

Their sole purpose here is to either roost on my article and vandalize it and post libel (Wales used this word not me) or pursue and harrass me. Vigilant runs botnets and uses them to attack WP, BTW. Take a look at the history of my user page and look at the vandalism from Vigilant with one of his socks. I leave that to your call. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me... Why am I on this list? I notice you are removing lots of links and comment on it. Once again, baseless accusations... you live in your own reality Sir. --Kebron 18:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no Vigilant ID on the Yahoo! SCOX board. Another blatant fabrication.

Then why are you following me around the site to every article I edit, and trolling? Stop following me around and trying to disrupt every edit I make. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, what does my following you have to do with the Yahoo SCOX board? Is there a Kebron userid from Yahoo ? Please do not make baseless accusations.--Kebron 19:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it begs the question why are they doing this. In the case of Vigilant, he is the former CTO of TRG (I will not disclose his name) that I fired for lying on his resume. The rest of them are his associates from the Linux Community and/or Novell employees who run various anti-SCO websites or work for Novell and view me as a competitive threat. When I fired this person in 2000, he made it clear he would wage a personal "war" for destroying his reputation (which he did himself by lying). At any rate, most of them are in their 40's, 50's, and 60's. I had over 500 people reporting to me when I was Chief Scientist of Novell, and I fired a whole bunch of deadbeats or layed them off while I was there. Many of these folks are people I fired or layed off or friends or spouses of people I fired or layed off. Getting fired by the Chief Scientist of Novell back in the mid-1990s was pretty much a career ending event at Novell and other places in the industry, so this explains these folks burning hatred of me. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never worked for Novell. Don't know Jeff personally. Don't know any of the others in his list. Hang out on the Yahoo! SCOX Business and Finance board. As a Linux user I have a bit of interest in The SCO Group(aka Caldera). Jeff got my dander up by attempting to intimidate me with threats (never followed through on) and a feeble attempt at internet stalking by finding my websites on google and making juvenile comments about me. Jeff was removed from that board for those threats and others he made. *I* intend to follow the rules of wikipedia and I expect other editors to do the same. Jerry (Talk) 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I,m sorry, but these statements are not accurate. Please stay off my talk page and away from me. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the disputed text from Talk:Eric E. Schmidt is still un-sourced. I'm going to remove it per wp:blp. Feel free to re-add to the talk page once you have references. --Duk 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Duk, that's fine on Eric Schmidt. I have inside knowledge from Novell about that whole situation, and most of it can be sourced, but given the controversy, I thought it best to allow someone else to source it. If no one else is willing to do so, its probably best to remove it. I had hoped someone would want to collect $1000.00 for the Foundation. :-) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt images[edit]

I have deleted the three images that you have uploaded for their use in the article on Daniel Brandt. The images are not really encyclopedic and the source and copyright on them is questionable, as Brandt created them himself and as far as I know did not release them into the public domain, nor under the GFDL. They are also not in any way related to the subject of the article, which is the man himself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. I see what you mean. How did I do on the article otherwise? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you removed those images. After sleeping on it, I think this was the right decision. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Whitecloud-ND.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Whitecloud-ND.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA phonecall[edit]

Jeff, is this really you and the GNAA? I thought the GNAA people were supposed to be clever. These people were idiots - you owned them.

They called my house twice and apparently recorded the call. Yes, that's me. It's a very good interview. Perhaps notable for inclusion in my article. After all, how many people are considered important enough for the GNAA to call them at home and record them. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow, did they ask you if you were Rob Levin? When was this? Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last year sometime. I do not remember exactly when -- I have senior moment now -- it sucks to have them. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thats, umm, a little less creepy. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gourd Dance[edit]

I am certainly not copying from Gathering of Nations or Golden State Gourd Clan or any other website. Gathering of Nations, especially, isn't what I would consider an authority on what is an important dance to my tribe; something I've been exposed to since I was a baby. I cited Kiowa Gourd Clan, second edition, published in 1996, and will send scans of my copy if you would like, and spent a lot of time putting it into my own format. The reason it might seemed "plagiarized" is because it is a reliable source and many are compelled to cite it as varifiable information. I feel this source IS impartial, as it does discuss the evolution of the gourd dance from "origins" (however much this may pooh-poohed by) to decline to revival without pointing fingers. Whatever happens after that can be left for others to add to according to varying traditions and maybe added as tribal or societal specific information under each heading, and I felt my revisions left it open to those additions. However, this dance did not appear out of nowhere, did not evolve from the NAC (it was around WAY before that became an organized intertribal religion as it is known today). The history of the original Kiowa Gourd Societies and their revival should be the starting point for this article. As it is, the only reference to any Gourd Society is not one of the three. Furthermore, I am very well acquainted with the descendents of the reorganizers of the Gourd Societies, and it is not at all "New Age," and are the closest thing to the real deal you will find. I also argue impartiality in the case of veterans. It is not a veteran's dance. It is associated with what was once a warrior society, and some societies may choose to restrict it to vets, but being a veteran isn't a requirement to join the original societies. I believe this article presents random variations of the purest form of the gourd dance as the concrete truth. Hopefully we will find a way to compromise on this, because I believe the information of the establishing tribe is being greatly treaded upon here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bella39 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Actually, you are using a copyrighted 1996 publication, which several paragraphs were from and I found them on that website. The credits on the text had a clear statement "reprinted with permission", You also referenced the same book this text was taken from. It's ok to cite a book, and even take the information and write something new, but copying from it is not allowed. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Policy on Native American Tribes[edit]

This may clear up some of the issues:

Wikipedia:Native American Tribes

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haa, Marúawe, haitsi Jeff![edit]

Dear Jeff, it is a distinctive pleasure to see you active and editing, as your expertise will be a huge benefit in an area that desperately needs editors of your caliber. As a matter of fact, with this same purpose in mind, I created the Wikiproject:Indigenous peoples of North America last year, and although I haven't been doing much work there in the last months because of an extended wikibreak, we have achieved much - but as you know all too well, organizing and maintaining all the vast topics under our scope is a never ending task. You are, of course, more than welcome to join us there, and we'd be honored to work at your side.

On a side note, I just noticed your proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Native American Tribes. The general idea is good, but as I just commented at its talk page, I fear for many articles about different Tribes, Nations, Bands and Groups that have a well-documented history and have failed too attain Federal Recognition so far; good examples of this are the Yuchi, the Abenaki, the Duwamish and the Narragansett, as I said in my comment there. So I thought it'd be better to approach you, and ask you a few questions in order to discuss the extension of this guideline directly with you. Basically, you're proposing that any group that cannot assert Federal Recognition cannot have an article as Native American? Or rather that groups claiming to pertain to a federally recognized Native one, but that has not received such recognition for itself, should not be placed in the article about the main Group? (like the situation with the Lenape and the Cherokee in Oklahoma until 1996)

The second is the case. The general idea here is to flush out what are clearly fake groups and place them in separate articles to avoid offendings and pissing off the real tribes. This does not apply to tribes who have never been recognized. It's just another tool in our arsenal of dealing with groups who may be misrepresenting themselves as indian tribes, and running roughshod over the rights of real tribes. The way I worded it is we can still basically allow articles on these other groups, but we can keep them out of the articles on Federal Tribes, since most of the Federal Tribes realy take offense at these groups inserting their blood sucking proboscises into their necks and misrepresenting their cultures. View it as another means of protecting native cultures from misrepresentation. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess to you I dislike the idea, but I'm more than willing to hear your ideas and discuss them, and hopefully find a wording that would ensure that your fears of seeing Wikipedia misused while at the same time allowing lots of good material to remain for everyone to consult and enjoy. It's so nice to meet you, and I hope we talk very often :) Have a great day! Phaedriel - 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah![edit]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For Merkey for his apparently successful negotiations with Mr. Brandt. I hope to see that this conflict comes to an end. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That goes in the front page. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Links[edit]

Please do not remove links until the discussion "Regarding the practice of negating/alienating Cherokee descendants and federally recognized Cherokee Nation members" has reached a conclusion. --Kebron 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith[edit]

Jeff, accusing people of being spammers violates WP:AGF. I don't think you have consensus to be making these deletions. They seem very high handed. Many anthropologists assert the right of these people to be known as Cherokee tribes. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 03:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia history demonstrates that those who accuse others of AGF are typically not observing it themsevles. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:NorthAmNativeUnverified[edit]

Template:NorthAmNativeUnverified has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — alanyst ^/talk/ 13:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nomination. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting this as bad faith is either from ignorance or malice. This was a one-man show and has virtually no support. Please familiarize yourself with the processes before casting assertions of bad faith etc. --Kevin Murray 15:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about you famaliarize yourself with the laws in the United States and the negative impacts on the Foundation for placing false information into Wikipedia on Native Tribes. All it takes is one tribe to raise these issues and the Foundation may experience yet another round of adverse publicity. The lack of a such a policy creates significant liablities for the Foundation and the project as a whole. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate a rationale for characterizing my actions as "bad faith", or else a retraction and apology. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move the discussion to FoundationL. This is a legal and credibility issue with major repercussions for the Foundation and is not subject to "Wikiality" concensus. There are significent legal issues with allowing these fake groups to misrepresent themselves on Wikipedia. 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means, discuss the proposed policy and its implications where you like. But you have imputed bad faith to me, and I would appreciate an explanation or retraction to be posted either here or on my talk page. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 16:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three comments a four days of discussion to close discussion on a proposed policy then nomination of all associated materials seems like bad faith to me. At a minimum, proposed policies should remain open for 30 days to allow all possible discussion. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 6 editors (not counting yourself) left responses and more than a dozen comments --- not that anyone is counting --Jerry (Talk) 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that you can disagree with the reasons given for closing this so soon, but I was not the one who closed this as rejected. So for you to suggest that I'm acting in bad faith implies that I'm trying to subvert Wikipedia processes, when in fact I'm taking the rejection notice at face value (assuming good faith of User:Kevin Murray) and acting accordingly by nominating the templates based on the failed policy proposal for deletion. I've also been careful to give you proper notice of the nomination so you have an opportunity to respond. Given this information, I kindly ask that you consider retracting your accusation of bad faith, per basic politeness and WP:AGF. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your salient and thoughtful response. It appears this was not a bad faith gesture, but an action taken by well meaning and sincere, but misguided editors. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that; I do appreciate it. Might I trouble you just a bit further, to strike those comments here and at the deletion nomination page that accused me of bad faith? I'd do it myself but I'm not comfortable with striking parts of other editors' comments, so I feel it's best if you do it for your own comments. Thanks again, alanyst ^/talk/ 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and of {{NorthAmNativeVerified}}[edit]

I've nominated this one too. Feel free to comment. -Amarkov moo! 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions[edit]

Hello there. I have a couple of questions about recent edits of yours. One concerns the creation of Category:Massacres by Mormons and its placement on Mountain Meadows massacre. My question is, are you aware of any other massacres by Mormons? If not, I don't see how a category that applies to only one article can be considered at all useful, and I will nominate the category for deletion.

Second question: I have noticed that you have labeled several user accounts as being sockpuppets of the banned User:Vigilant. Some of the time you have stated that they are verified sockpuppets, but I have seen no Checkuser requests from you, which is the standard way to verify sockpuppetry. My question is, how specifically have you verified that these people are sockpuppets and not just people who happen to disagree with you -- what is your evidence? If you are making accusations without evidence, after all, it's a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. No doubt there are trolls and sockpuppets about -- it's a known problem on Wikipedia -- but to throw such accusations about when there are substantive arguments being made against your position suggests an unwillingness to address the real arguments. I'm aware of what's going on over at the SCOX board, and I think the baiting and nasty comments over there are juvenile, but I think you may be reacting here against users who may not actually be involved over there. If you can prove sockpuppetry or trolling, fine, but mere suspicion based on the cheering of the SCOX mob doesn't seem to cut it. So, again, do you have evidence for your accusations? If not, please retract them. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They will not be retracted because these accounts are trolls from SCOX. All one needs do and review their planned forays on the message board to see it. And the account Dusky Cowboy is Vigilant. No matter, I will simply endure more of their harrassment until there is enough proof, then they will be blocked. Yes, I know you are a mormon, and I live among mormons. Massacres by Mormons, there were several, including the mass murder of piaute bands here by mormons. I'll get around to adding them as well as some commentary on your 19th record about indian history. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I have seen the messages on SCOX about pestering you here, but I don't know how you can differentiate between those who are here to pester you and those who are legitimately editing and trying to improve Wikipedia, without either showing proof of bad faith (examples of personal attacks, incivility, baiting) or else asking for a checkuser to be performed on the accounts you suspect. As far as the "massacres by Mormons" category is concerned, if there are multiple articles about other Mormon-perpetrated massacres and they are supported by reliable sources, then the category is warranted in my opinion. If only one or two articles can objectively be assigned to the category, though, then I fail to see any utility in the category, and it comes across as more of a POV jab against Mormons. Your last sentence above seems to telegraph an effort to add your POV to what I'm guessing is articles related to Mormonism (specifically the Book of Mormon); I would simply urge extreme care in adhering to NPOV if you plan to go in that direction, as personal commentary really shouldn't be made part of WP articles. I hope it's not just a way to attack me for questioning you here; I reiterate that I'm not trying to bait you or get you riled up, just expressing concerns about things I feel are detrimental to Wikipedia. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is a category "Massacres by Indians". Go look at the article with a category by that name. Talk about POV. From the Indians viewpoint, they were repelling terrorists and invaders from their territory, not committing "massacres". Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The POV-ness is in creating the category for only one or two articles to make a point (see WP:Overcategorization), not in whether an event can be characterized as a massacre; that issue is dependent on how reliable sources describe the event. Category:Massacres by Native Americans has twenty articles that belong to it; whether these are all justifiably placed in the category depends on the reliable sources cited within. Again, if there are enough articles on Mormon-perpetrated massacres to justify the category, I have no problem with it existing. If there's only one or two such articles, I just don't think it's useful, and the continued existence of a non-useful category suggests that it exists for some other reason, which may reasonably be inferred to be to convey a POV since it targets a specific religious group. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to enter the realm of WP:COI since you are a church member. I will write those articles in my time, not yours. You are free to nominate it of course for deletion, and if and when I add those articles, it can be replaced. Both categories can also simply be renamed as "Armed Conflicts involving (Group X)" as well, since this removes the POV from both categories. Calling them Massacres does invoke a certain POV, and I can understand how you feel, since I react the same way to the characterization. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have no problem with the Mountain Meadows massacre being characterized as a massacre, regardless of my religious beliefs; it's hard to dispute that it was indeed a massacre. I just see no need at this point for the category. And I'm sure you'd object to WP:COI applying to all members of a group editing articles related to that group, as that would certainly exclude you from editing many of the articles that you have interest in, no? alanyst ^/talk/ 18:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that comes down to whether or not you classify mormonisn as a "religion" or as a "business". Wikimedia Foundation policies bar discrimination on the basis of race for editing. I am not certain Mormom articles are in the same category, but they might be. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Attention of the admin community has been drawn to some of your recent comments, which are threatening and may imply legal threats in particular. I know you have strong opinions, but please resist the temptation to throw your weight around or lose your temper with those you consider to be pushing an agenda. May I invite you to read this essay: WP:TIGERS - it expresses quite nicely the effect you may be having on other editors. You may not care, because you obviously feel you are right and they are wrong. In at least some case you probably are right, in which case you will prevail because of policy - verifiability, neutrality. Consensus cannot trump policy, and straw polls are not consensus anyway. But please do not behave like a bull in a china shop because it will just get you re-blocked, and that won't help anyone.

Thanks for listening, Guy (Help!) 18:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. These SCOX trolls are attempting to goad and bait me to exactly the place you describe. I think I responded effectively to the comments of one of these disruptive accounts regarding this matter. I think since the article is locked til May 20 (thank you), it matters little to continue feeding the trolls. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read tigers. I don't feel I am in the same category as I do fine on Wikipedia so long as 100+ Linux trolls and botnet operators from the SCOX Message Board were not following me all over the site reverting every edit simply to make life and participation here misreable. Given that, I am probably one of the most unbiased and level people around -- provided I am without the external harassment. I am passionate but I am able level myself out and get a sort of balance quite easily. That focus is lost when abusive socks of these trolls are around just to harass. I wish I were an admin, because I could deal with them myself without the community being bothered to wait til they convince someone not on their receiving end who cannot identify them. When one of these folks is around, my sixth sense goes off. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, no offense, but you're not being unbiased and level when you create categories in violation of WP:POINT, try to argue legal theories on a wikipedia talk page, and threaten to have tribal authorities force the foundation to edit an article to look the way you want it to. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I wouldn't want there to be admins around who block users based on their "sixth sense" rather than on objective, verifiable application of facts and policy. *Dan T.* 18:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I also guess I take offense to community members throwing around their wikiality opinions as accusations, particularly when I am one of the main people paying for your servers and hosting costs. How about saying thank you instead. It's odd, when you go up against a wikiality based cabal viewpoint, like "all wannabees can be wikipedia indians" and a 24 year old can be a fake professor, and enough people want it to be that way, you get dogpiled. You folks take all of this far too seriously. It's a website, an open forum. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, no one cares how much $ you've donated. This is not a forum, paid or otherwise, it's an encyclopedia. JzG and myself gave you good advice. Take it or leave it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it from that perspective. I raise these issues because I do not want large sums of money I donate to pay for servers and hosting being used to pay people to answer the phone about complaints or in needless fees in other areas just because a bunch of folks want to engage in Wikiality and create yet another run of bad publicity for the project. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wouldnt say nobody cares how much $ you have donated. Being a charity wikipedia is dependent on donations, SqueakBox 18:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, the only reason those phones are going to have to be answered is because you basically said you were going to alert tribal authorities and have them call and complain. Wouldn't you be saving money if you just talked about it on the talk page like everyone else does? You don't convince anyone you are right by punching them, you only convince them that you're either strong (if you win) or that you hit like a girl (if you lose). Trust me - on this one, you will lose if you don't change your tactics, and everyone will think you hit like a girl. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such comments were ever made. Why would I have to notify tribal authorities? They can read Wikipedia like anyone else. And they DO READ IT. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If they really have a problem with using federal counts of native americans, I'm certain they'll express their distatste through official channels. Untill then, let's follow WP:ATT, and put in all the information we can cite to reliable sources (like the us government), with whatever relevent information about the methodology used to collect that data? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also follow WP:V and remove materials about unverified Indian Groups. Let's also follow WP:HARRASS and start blocking these troll accounts earlier. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donations are listed under Wolf Mountain Group, BTW. And I had Danny make them anonymnous. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have it both ways. Either you're making your donations anonymously (in which case you shouldn't be boasting about them or using them to claim special privileges or status) or you're doing it openly (in which case you should have let your name be placed on them so that your claims are verifiable; this still shouldn't give you any special status with respect to policy). *Dan T.* 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am being told how I can have it. Wow. Thanks Dan. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Talk:Cherokee[edit]

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. *Dan T.* 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try Dan with the wikistalking and harassment. Let's try an arbcom case with you staying away from me. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cherokee-diversity.pdf listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cherokee-diversity.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

Let me know (by email if you wish) if there is anything I can do while you are on break. As Cherokee leaves protection, you know from our discussion what I'll try to advocate over there, and hopefully I (and the article) adhere to an interpretation of WP:RS and WP:V as well as WP:WEIGHT that is as nearly acceptable by all as possible. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. As for this image (pdf file actually), it has been replaced by the two png files, which I extracted with Gimp and scaled down as smaller images, so this one can be deleted and its ok. The other two appear fine and the article needs them. I have been rather busy this weekend and I thank you for handling this. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee victims at MM[edit]

If you could provide verifiable sources as to Cherokee ancestry of some of the MMM victims, that would be helpful. I've seen some thin commentary on that in the past but nothing sufficiently substantiating (the identities of many of the victims are widely known, so if they had significant Cherokee ancestry it shouldn't be too hard to find multiple genealogical confirmations). As for members of the Mormon church participating in the massacre, the article opens with a statement that the killings were done by Mormon militia and Paiutes, so the wording you added was both redundant and needlessly PoV for a controversial article. Again, please feel free to provide some citations on any Cherokee ancestries. Gwen Gale 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that reference I placed into the article about verified results of DNA TESTING with the victims remains which is verified you did not see. Try reading it again. Our history also records groups of Arkansas Cherokee being murdered by mormons under the Mormon Churches "Law of Blood Vengence" doctrine esspoused in the Doctrine and Covenants. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait just a minute, Jeff. DNA testing is proof of Cherokee ancestry when you're talking about being a victim, but it's not good enough to show that someone living is a Cherokee? How about your statement from Talk:Cherokee, "those persons who claim Cherokee ancestry are not members of Federally recognized tribes cannot be verified as being Cherokee." So, before you can claim that there were Cherokee victims at MM, you need to get names, and make sure they are on the BIA rolls. Otherwise, they are, to paraphrase your own words, "Wannabee Fake Indians." 70.57.59.45 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Meanwhile you're making some radical changes to the article content. It might be more helpful if you'd discuss them on the talk page first: This is a controversial topic and a very heavily supported and cited article. While I deeply respect your perspective on this, you can't make these changes on assertion alone, or they'll likely be reverted. Gwen Gale 05:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we have contradictory sources. On one hand, we have Mormon Church "Journal of Discourses" citations littered through, which are about as fictional as it gets, then we have DNA based evidence. Which one do you think is more credible? Any references to Journal of Discourses or other mormon literature may be removed as failing WP:V and WP:POV. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to have a conflict with you. Please have a look at the article's reference section. Thanks :) Gwen Gale 05:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did look over it. Again, a lot of POV Mormon Historians. I promise to go through all of these references completedly and weight each one. There are a lot of contradictory citations and denials on all sides. DNA evidence pretty much trumps verbal or written history where they are in conflict. My DNA test results show I am not from Israel, BTW. :-) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind, this is Wikipedia, not your personal blog. Other editors watch and work on this article and either way, you'll have to work with them and follow WP policy. Also, please be careful about original research. For example, you can't interpret DNA results yourself, even if you're qualified to do so. Rather, you must cite a published interpretation in a verifiable source. No need to go on about this, I only wanted to have a word about it and I have done. Thanks for listening. Gwen Gale 05:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is not subject to compromise. It either is verifiable or it is not. If it is not or a group (such as the paiute) claim the mormon view is false, then a changes may be necessary. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Massacres by Mormons has been nominated for deletion[edit]

I have nominated Category:Massacres by Mormons for deletion. I invite you to join the discussion there if you are so inclined. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

If you cannot remain civil with me, you will be blocked. this edit summary is totally unnaceptable. You are not in the position to call me a "troll." My accidental removal of your comment is due to what we call an Help:Edit conflict. I await your immediate apology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a comment from a talk page then disguised it as a request for page protection. I tend to see things the way they are rather than how people wish to see them. You are trolling, IMHO. Troll elsewhere and stop wikistalking me. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess the time you removed a bunch of people's comments and gave an incorrect edit summary about removing a banned editor's comment was a different matter entirely? *Dan T.* 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not ascertain which comments were from legitimate editors are which were from sockpuppets of a banned user. As it turned out, the straw poll was instigated by a banned user and the resulting votes (most of them) were from sockpuppets of this user. I cannot chracterize it as a valid poll if the same person posts the poll then votes three times. Also, Dan, I believe you have been asked by me and others to stop trolling me, and you are ignoring these requests. Please consider finding another subject to entertain your time than me. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment that he removed that was ascribed to me was not mine, but was rather entered there by another user, who took an earlier comment of mine to be a !vote. Copying that edit and putting it there was a misrepresentation of my opinion. It was not a !vote, I would have removed it if Jeff hadn't, and I appreciate his having removed it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK... fair enough. I'm guilty of not assuming good faith on Merkey's part... I apologize. *Dan T.* 21:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Welcome to our family Dan. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image sources[edit]

I was unable to find sources for the images Image:Cpgate.jpg and Image:Indahood.jpg. If you could provide exact locations where you got those images, that would be helpful. If you cannot, they will eventually be deleted. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you did not look for the source. You just tagged them without taking the time. I will correct the precise URL, since you seem unable to find the source. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem rather contradictory that you've simultaneously tagged the images as "placed into public domain without any notices by author" and as copyrighted images used under fair use... the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, if the images were created or first published in 1978 or later, the absence of a copyright notice does not indicate public domain status; the copyright law that went into effect then had the effect of eliminating the former loss of copyright for lack of notice. However, your fair use argument seems good, where use in the cartoonist's biography is concerned. One might argue whether both images are needed instead of just one of them, but that's a minor quibble. *Dan T.* 17:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, how should I do this in the future? Political cartoons distributed without copyright seem to almost be in their own category, but I am hesitant to expose Wikipedia to these characterizations when fair use is a stronger argument. How would you propose doing this in the future? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just make the fair use claim, as you did, without clouding the issue by claiming the image also to be in the public domain unless the author explicitly declared it to be. *Dan T.* 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith?[edit]

Just a friendly note. You've been calling a lot of things "bad faith" recently. You said that User:Hipocrite was acting in bad faith and you said that User:alanyst was acting in bad faith. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to go and think about this one. I had an epiphany today about interactions on Wikipedia and FYCTravis opened my eyes on some issues about words. "Bad Faith" is a legal term and the legal definition does not correllate with the definition used on Wikipedia. In legal circles "bad faith" indciates someone has an agenda and their words do not line up with their actions. By way of exmaple, if an editor is compiling a "hit list" like this one User:Hipocrite/Merk then talking out of the other side of their mouth they wish to "help you" or "help Wikipedia" and their actions are clearly self-serving, this is bad faith in dealings with other. Wikipedia's definition is different. In Wikipedia, Bad Faith means not following the rules of the English Wikipedia or the "rules of engagement" which is a completely different interpretation. I agree I need to refrain from using this phrase until I understand this place better. I understand MediaWiki technology and how all this works -- its the subtle issues with the English Wikipedia pecking order I need to learn. Please note I have gone back and removed many of these statements where it is clear I lack understanding. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the simple answer is to assume that everybody is working towards the same goal. If you find a situation where you think somebody is not working towards the same goal then ask them for clarification instead of labeling their actions. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is very good advice. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'hit list' you point to there, was Hipocrite's draft for posting to the community sanctions page. He was merely making sure not to have any massive howlers in it first. Now, admittedly, it's not very nice to have your name dragged out for community sanctions, but that's irrelevant.

What is relevant is that you should have been aware of the fact it was merely a draft when you posted your comment about it being a hitlist, as User:Hipocrite had told you so half an hour before you posted. It's possible you didn't know, but since the pair of you had been arguing at 1 minute intervals on his talk page I find that unlikely.

Also, how did you find out about the page itself? Surely not a full-WP search for User:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey? Such behaviour could be construed as actively seeking conflict, actively seeking ammunition with which to paint others as acting in bad faith, actively seeking to be the victim.

All user contribs are publicly avaialable and checking the contribs of any other user perfectly legitimate good faith activity, SqueakBox 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community sanction[edit]

You are being discussed here, SqueakBox 18:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I responded. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]