User talk:Jacobalbee

October 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Black people and Mormonism has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Black people and Mormonism was changed by Jacobalbee (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.934997 on 2020-10-12T07:05:15+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobalbee, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jacobalbee! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Black people and Mormonism, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to do some good

I have to admit I feel very strongly on the topic of black people and Mormonism. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as is my wife. My wife is African-American. In some ways I get too frustrated by this topic. I have just added some more recent material on BYU and African-Americans. Such as the election in 1976 as Stevenson as a BYU student body vice president. Stevenson was African-American and his election was covered in the New York Times. I almost think we could find enough information to create an article on him. I believe there was at some point in the 1980s or 1990s an article on him in the Ensign, and I believe I saw some coverage of his far too early death a few years ago. Most of this is not in sourcing that some editors in Wikipedia would like, but we do have a full fledged article on him in the New York Times. I also added some material on Robert Foster being elected. That actually received mainly coverage only in Utah. I have to admit I know I am going to find as many things to frustrate me as to encourage me, so I am not sure if I want to dig much deeper. I really thought having the article only reflect the situation over 50 years ago was unreasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! It is from the February 1992 Ensign. Here it is [1]. One of the other people mentioned in the article David W. Eka already has an article in Wikipedia, but this had not be a used source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts as well! I think it's important that this information of the church's past discriminatory actions be made available, but I feel that the Wikipedia article overlooked anything positive and emphasized only negative perspectives, and some editors seem to me to almost be actively trying to suppress any information that might put the church in a positive light. Many edits of my own that have been supported by numerous secondary sources are suddenly deleted with no explanation. Jacobalbee (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Your recent editing history at Book of Mormon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | tålk 07:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning

Hi again, Jacobalbee. You are edit warring against two other users at Endowment (Mormonism) in an attempt to include some pretty obviously undue content. Please stop, and engage on the talkpage, where Epachamo has started a discussion. Bluntly, I don't want to have to protect all the LDS articles you edit because of your disruption, and I'm coming quite close to blocking you instead. Bishonen | tålk 11:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I have to object. I undid one edit by Epachamo and one by GoodOlFactory, and left comments under each revision stating why I did, while also resolving the issues they stated they had with the content (namely improper sourcing). The rule is 3. I also don't believe they were undone within 24 hours of each other anyway, and so the point is mute. And I have to object to your description of my edition as undue content. There is no reason for that accusation. The section Judeo-Christian parallels was already there. I added an additional description of parallels to the endowment ceremony that were found in ancient Christian and Jewish texts and traditions. I was by no means making the claim that the endowment ceremony is in any way related, nor did I state any religious beliefs as fact, but rather stated that it parallels earlier traditions, which is exactly the type of content that section of the article needed. The Judeo-Christian parallels section was very short before I made additions, only consisting of a single paragraph. Since then, I added additional content supported by various books, university publications, and the Institute of Interreligious Studies that compared the endowment ceremony to ancient practices. Once again, I am not stating that it is related to them, but that there are parallels. I would appreciate if you would please reconsider your accusations against me as I don't believe I've done anything wrong concerning the Endowment article.Jacobalbee (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point is not moot. Edit warring is disruptive even if you don't break the "bright-line" three-revert rule. See WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring... The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". Bolding in the original. Two experienced users reverted your long addition. Instead of re-reverting them, you should have gone to Talk. This is the same conduct as you displayed at Book of Mormon: you argue for your version at Talk — that's fine — but simultaneously, you edit war to push it willy-nilly into the article. Persisting in such a pattern becomes disruptive quite quickly. As for the relevance of the content, I pointed you to WP:UNDUE above. Did you read it? Bishonen | tålk 20:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I won't argue on the first point, though I'm still not sure if my actions on that page really constituted edit warring. I have read the undue section you pointed me to. However, could you explain how my additions fall into that category? My additions were a comparative analysis of various religious traditions? Nothing I said could be considered controversial or even a minority point of view, as it was simply a comparison and pointed out a few parallels.Jacobalbee (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's far, far too long and detailed and unbalances the section, which was a reasonable length before. Your statement "Judeo-Christian parallels was already a section on this article. I merely added a few paragraphs comparing early Christian and Jewish traditions with the modern endowment ceremony" ignores the little matter of length and detail and makes a misleading impression ("merely"... "a few paragraphs"). The section was originally 104 words; you added another 854. That definitely raises the question of apologetics, as pointed out by Epachamo on Talk. You need to have some consideration for the balance of the article as a whole. Also, see Wikipedia:Summary style. I think I have explained sufficiently; I'm probably done here. My warning stands. Feel free to have the last word. Bishonen | tålk 09:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]