User talk:69.152.35.54

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Temple Lot

Instead of just reverting others' edits, perhaps you could (1) discuss things on the talk page, where an editor has expressed concern with your deletion; and (2) look at the reference which states what you are saying is not true. Snocrates 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As I just pointed out on page history, I already DID look at the reference, which states that what YOU are saying is not true. Jeez guy, talk to any Mormon historian, they'll laugh at your claim that Oliver Cowdery received a vision/revelation about the New Jerusalem, and then Joseph Smith took it from there. That is a MISCONCEPTION on your part, and it is NOT supported by the Marquadt article. If you revert again (and you probably already have), I'll report you for violating the 3RR rule. 69.152.35.54 (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Take it to the talk page, champ. You don't just revert someone's cited edit without discussion, especially when discussion is going on. If you would care to contribute there, you would see that we're discussing that very issue. Also, you could make edits without reverting all useful edits, like the edits which were a clean-up of your messy referencing. Snocrates 04:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by the term "champ?" Please do not mess up my talk page with disrespectful comments. I didn't revert your uncited edit without discussion, I explained why I reverted it...it's because you have misunderstood the cite, and keep adding what is a ludicrous claim on your part: that Oliver Cowdery received the first revelation about a New Jerusalem. This evidently is the sentence in the Marquardt article you have misunderstood: "In a revelation originating at Fayette, New York, Oliver Cowdery, the second elder next to Joseph Smith, was called to "go unto the Lamanites [Indians] and preach" the gospel, and cause the church to be established among them."
Again, regardless of what you decide, please do not flame me at my Talk Page or at the article's talk page. 69.152.35.54 (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, champ, but you also managed to revert other edits. Why not just change "Oliver Cowdery" to "Joseph Smith" if that's the real issue? I call everyone "champ", especially those who insist on using ALL CAPS for certain words. Snocrates 04:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
My other edits I reverted were for the same reason: You had removed verifiable information and inserted false, unverifiable information. Anyone can see that, by reviewing the page's history. I don't want to argue with you, you seem spiteful and dishonest. 69.152.35.54 (talk)
Lol—they were formatting edits .... Lol. Snocrates 04:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
yes, the formatting edits were necessarily shunted aside because you kept using those as an excuse to insert blatantly false claims about Olivery Cowdery, and other figures in the 'Latter Day Saint movement.' Now that you've realized your error, do I get an apology? No, just more immature "lols." 69.152.35.54 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This illustrates the problem with making changes via reversion. You don't revert unless everything in the edit needs to be reverted. I'm sorry if you don't understand that. But you're taking it all and yourself a little bit too seriously, IMO. It appears to have been a misunderstanding about a source; if you were a little less aggressive in your comments and edit style, others' would be less likely to react adversely. Snocrates 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I gotcha: Instead of clicking "undo" and reverting the whole paragraph, I should have carefully corrected the specific error only. Alright then, from now on, I'll be careful not to disrupt the formatting edits when correcting a factual error. 69.152.35.54 (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)