User talk:FyzixFighter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Welcome

Hello, FyzixFighter/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy ^(talk) 21:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism article

The section on "Mormonism and Christianity" is deficient in many ways, particularly in its giving very limited reasons on why most Christians who have really studied Mormonism don't consider it Christian. The "plurality of gods" and "god/man" doctrines are major ways in which Mormonism differs from Christianity -- and the article ought to say so. That it's covered in greater depth elsewhere should not preclude its being included in a general overview article like this one. The pro-Mormon POV is pretty overt; could we have some balance? Thanks! RossweisseSTL (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

References for Joseph Smith, Jr. article

You may want to talk with User:Trödel, it seems like he was pretty active there. Another great resource, and I suspect has the longest history, would be User:Visorstuff. He is not only learned, but is great to work with; a depth of knowledge. Contact both of them and you will find your answers. Good Luck. Storm Rider 06:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Maybe when I've got a bit more time, and after the tempest of rhetoric has died down I'll devote more time and contact them. I noticed you took out the section on your talk page where I had placed some comments - hence me responding here. In the chance that you do look over here I hope you didn't mean to include me in the trolling comment. If you did, I'm sorry that my questions came across as such - it was never my intention to be inflammatory or annoying. --FyzixFighter 09:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read this, but it has been months since you made it; I apologize. I can assure you that you would never have been included in any kind of trolling accussation. I have always appreciated your level headed comments. Cheers! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joseph Smith, Jr., and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Dispute at anti-Mormon

In order to gain a consensus concerning the issue at anti-Mormon, would you please comment here? --uriah923^(talk) 04:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Temrec.png

Your imput was given at Wikipedia:Copyright problems regarding the image Temrec.png. The image is currently up for deletion, and thought you'd like to wiegh in your opinion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_December_5#Image:Temrec.png_.28talk_.7C_delete.29. Cheers. -Visorstuff 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism and Jesus as extra-terrestrial from Pleiades star cluster

I am in the process of addressing your referencing concerns on Talk:Mormonism --24.57.157.81 03:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Moses

Thanks for the extra reverts. I didn't even bother looking, though I probably should have. The Krunk 04:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "LDS Scriptures = pseudepigrapha" crusader

Hi FyzixFighter -

Our "pseudepigrapha" crusader is still at it - thanks for your help with him thus far. I commented on it at User_talk:Val42#Re._LDS_Scriptures_.3D_.22pseudepigrapha.22, in case you would also like to comment. Thanks. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 18:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to the article Book of Mormon

Hello FyzixFighter:

I'm putting this note here because I saw your name in the edit history of the Book of Mormon article. There have been two "batches" of changes to the article recently. As I explained in the Talk, I reversed these changes, not because of the substance of the changes but because of the "process". Talk:Book of Mormon#Reversal of Changes

I'm hoping you and others will look at the substance of these changes. I don't want the people who made the changes to think their efforts were reversed and then simply ignored. (And I'm not able to comment seriously on the proposed changes.)

The two batches of changes I'm referring to are the ones made on December 15 by 24.2.75.193, and on December 17 by DJ Clayworth. (Because the changes were reversed, the best place to see them is through the article history.)

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You might like to impress upon Wanderer57 not to reverse changes without cause. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted your edit

I reverted your last edit on the Criticism of Mormonism page - I would like to discuss though in order to avoid an edit war. Please review and let me know what you think. Descartes1979 (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Persons in the Book of Mormon and List of Book of Mormon people. You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon figures

I saw that you were undoing a bunch of my recent edits - just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. The reason why I started adding the phrase, "The historicity of <name> is not generally accepted by non-Mormon historians..." is because I saw it on some of the more major Book of Mormon figures such as the Nephi article, and the Nephites article - and I was trying to make them all consistent. If everyone agrees to a different standard for consistency I am on board for whatever.

Also, why are you removing the category Book of Mormon people?

In general, these articles are a mess and need a lot of cleanup - you may have already seen that I have been cleaning up the List of Book of Mormon people article, and the links and circular redirects and other problems there.

Let me know your thoughts, and maybe we can tag team this effort.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I was reverting the historicity remark was actually based in part on a previous discussion I was having with user:Salimfadhley over on Talk:Samuel the Lamanite, who I believe was one who originally added these statements. A standard was never agreed upon back then - User:Val42 tried to get some comment over on WP:LDS but no one responded. From looking at how other religious figures are handled from religious text like the Old Testament, such as those from Genesis or involved in the Exodus (both which have similar historicity issues as the BoM - look at most of the articles on the patriarchs b/n Adam and Noah), the standard appears to be to simply state "According to <religious text>...". Additional comments about historicity are usually only mentioned when specific to that subject, which is why I do think it's appropriate to have a historicity comment on the Nephite and Lamanite. When I recently sought input over on the village pump and WP:RELIGION, the responses (though few - two in fact) seems to agree that the pattern ("According to...") in the other religious figures articles is sufficient. It would definitely be worth getting some more input though.

As for the categorization, some of those were already in Category:Book of Mormon prophets which is a subcategory of Category:Book of Mormon people. Usually, articles need not appear in parent categories if they are already in the subcategory - there are exceptions, though I don't think these pages would qualify as such.

Oh, and I totally agree that a number of these articles are mess. The biggest problem I saw was the need for an expanded lead - IMO, in many cases the first paragraph/section, especially on the shorter articles, should be merged into the lead. I was also surprised that some of those articles even exist while other more notable (in terms of LDS culture and theology) don't have articles, like Hagoth. I think that's what for me makes for a more interesting article, not the story itself, but how the story has entered into the mormon mindset, culture, and teachings. I wouldn't mind tag-teaming, though I've got comps/quals coming up in about a week so really should be studying, but I might be able to throw in some effort in the meantime when my neurons glaze over from studying - curse you WP for making it so easy to distract myself from my studies! --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

FyzixFighter, there are no physics textbooks which say that centrifugal force is a term which applies to two different forces.

Secondly, centrifugal force is about the force which occurs in the centrifuge. It is about a force that can invoke Archimedes' principle.

It is not all about stationary objects as viewed from rotating frames of reference.

There are two distinct effects, but these are not the two that the article refers to.

You need to read the edits before you revert. The existing version is most unsatisfactory as it merely confuses the entire issue. David Tombe (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough

I have, Solomon-like, decided what the title of the thread is going to be. Please do not change the title of the thread again. You are disruptively edit warring. --barneca (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I apologize - my emotions got the better of me and I made a poor choice to continue that edit warring. However, does this mean that an administrator will now look into the original incident report of wikistalking? --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Situation reviewed. --barneca (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits on the LDS article

I saw you didn't like my edits on the main LDS article. I moved the discussion to the talk page - please weigh in on my proposal and help me understand your thoughts on why my edits are not acceptable. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a small thank you for your recent edits re: JSJr. NPOV is all about verifiable sources, no matter what they reveal - this recent stuff involves paragraph after paragraph of hearsay, which of course lessens the credibility of what everyone has done collectively. Best, A Sniper (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Informal Mediation Requested: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.

FYI. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Centrifugal force (planar motion)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Centrifugal force (planar motion), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrifugal force (planar motion). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

FyzixFighter, if you can give me the title of the chapter that your page 176 is on, I might be able to find the equivalent page in my 1980 edition. It would also be very interesting to know which edition you are using and who wrote the preface. Your quote from page 176 contradicts itself by referring back to the very section 3.3 which attributes the cause to centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The 2002 edition is the 3rd edition - preface written by Herbert Goldstein, Charles P. Poole, John L. Safko. Page 176 is in section 4.10 "The Criolis effect" in chapter 4 "The Kinematics of Rigid Body Motion". The reference back to section 3.3 is probably related to the part that also discusses angular momentum/effective potential energy there, and not the 1-D equivalent force equation:

By Eq. (3.15) the motion of the particle is r is that of a one dimensional problem with a fictitious potential energy: $V=V'+{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {l^{2}}{mr^{2}}}$

Eq. 3.15 is the conservation of energy equation with the theta-dot terms in the kinetic energy expressed in terms of l, the angular momentum and previously shown conserved quantity. That angular momentum is equivalent to centrifugal force is your own original synthesis. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, I didn't say that angular momentum was equivalent to centrifugal force. I said that the angular momentum explanation for why the planets stay up is equivalent to the centrifugal force explanation. Angular momentum gives rise to centrifugal force.

By the way, the quote in the 2002 edition is considerably amended from the one in the 1980 edition. You can see the older version on the centrifugal force talk page. David Tombe (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows Massacre PR

I note you've reversed several edits to the MMM Mormon PR page, particularly related to the destruction of the rock cairn, Governor Leavitt's order to re-inter the remains, and other objective, referenced information, claiming it's POV. Do you have a reference to support the assertion that "vandals" demolished the monument, or that it wasn't first done in the presence of Brigham Young? Seems to me that eliminating a documented report is inappropriate, and changing references to "some sources" is legitimate only if you have a competing reference. Otherwise, it appears that you're editing to support your own point of view.

If you have references that dispute the report that Brigham Young officiated at the 1861 destruction of the monument, why not present them, and let the article text incorporate them in a fair way?

If you have an argument for deleting the relevant, sourced reference to re-internment of the remains prior to completion of analysis, why not discuss it before deleting other peoples' work?

76.173.96.129 (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Radial equation

FyzixFighter, I'll finish my reply here. Nobody was actually doubting that the planetary orbtial situation was equivalent to the co-rotating frame. That point had already been agreed. The argument was that you don't actually need to involve frames of reference at all, since the angular velocity belongs to the planet. Goldstein provided a source which treated the Kepler problem in the absence of any mention of rotating frames of reference, the point being that centrifugal force is a topic which in general doesn't have to be considered within the restricted context of rotating frames of reference. The main thrust of the debate was on the radial equation, A = B + C Everybody was in agreemnet that C is centripetal force. But the argument went,

A is not an acceleration.

OK then, call it Peter. But when circular motion occurs, Peter will be zero. Hence, for circular motion, we have,

0 = B + C

Then they would say, 'but B is only centrifugal force in the rotating frame'.

OK then, call it Billy in the inertial frame, but nevertheless, circular motion cannot take place on the basis of C alone. Because if you get rid of Billy, then Alfred comes back again and so we don't have circular motion.

And by the way, I did look at your reference. He was quite wrong when he said that centripetal force disappears in the co-rotating frame. Centripetal force does not disappear in the co-rotating frame. David Tombe (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God

I have changed your edit and removed the word Christian from the nontrinitarian paragraph. Though it is indeed correct, the entire section is about Christianity (which should reasonably be enough to settle the entire debate anyway), and it seems there's no advantage in labouring the point, in view of the fact that even this concession will probably still be disputed by some of the editors who seem to have significant bias against identifying nontrinitarians as Christian at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As long as the "Most" at the beginning of the first paragraph remains, this is sufficient for me. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Stratton book

FyzixFighter, can you please go to the talk page on Faraday's law and discuss this matter. It is crucial as regards relating the two aspects of electromagnetic induction. We could perhaps find a better way of expressing the point. David Tombe (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, I managed to get a look at Stratton. I can't find anything that even remotely resembles the quote which I had purported to have been in Stratton. I was obviously misinformed by a secondary source. In section 23 of chapter 1 there was some related stuff, but it was quite distinct from the point that I was making.

The proof in question appears in a January 1984 paper written by myself, and published in a magazine called the Toth-Maatian Review. I was quite surprised when I read about Stratton in a recently published paper, and that a line which they quoted as being in Stratton, 1941, was an identical proof to what I had published in the Toth-Matian Review in 1984.

So you are correct that I misrepresented Stratton, and I apologize for doing so. But I was misinformed by a recently published article, and I am now investigating the matter. I have written to the authors in order to get them to clarify the reference. The proof in question is original research, but in many respects it's already there in front of us, in that the total time derivative version of Faraday's law contains both the partial time derivative version as per the modern Maxwell's equations, and the vXB term which appeared in Maxwell's original papers. David Tombe (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you still have access to the book, check Chapter 5 - problem 23, which is what I presume your secondary source was referring to. It's a problem though, so drawing extreme conclusions about what Stratton was saying is difficult. However, I still don't think this supports your argument but rather shows when the Maxwell-Faraday equation and the Lorentz force law are combined, that in the frame of the moving charge (where v=0), the curl of the electric field reduces to the full time derivative of the magnetic field (which is expected when dB/dt is expanded in terms of the partial derivatives, v=0 kills all but the ∂B/∂t term). Jackson, on pages 209-211 (in the 3rd edition), does a more complete derivation and explanation of what the problem is trying to teach as I understand it. I think most physicist would agree that the equation in question in Maxwell's original papers is simply the combination of the Maxwell-Faraday equation and the Lorentz force law, with E being understood as a "total measured electromotive force" including both the induced EMF (both tranformer and motional) and the electromotive force due to an already present electric field. Jackson was an interesting read for me on this topic; he is very explicit in stating that E and B in the M-F equation are defined to be in the same frame, and that when the equation is transformed to another inertial frame such that the conductor is moving, it takes the form that Maxwell original wrote, so I don't really see any vast coverup or hinky physics/math going on. Anyways, cheers. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, Thanks. That's interesting because the guys that quoted the Stratton reference were not in full approval of Stratton's slant on the issue. They were referring to it in a slightly derogatory tone. They had their own reasons for wanting to use total time derivatives in Maxwell's equations. But I instantly noticed that the quote from Stratton was mathematically identical to what I had published in 1984, whether or not the physical interpretation was the same. My attitude is simply that the flux rule with its total time derivative, incorporates both the partial time derivative, which is the Maxwell-Faraday law (terminology as per wikipedia) plus the vXB effect.

I'm sure you are aware that Maxwell didn't talk about charge. His electromotive force term is therefore not strictly identical to the modern electric field E, but it is close enough for the purposes of illustrating the link between the two aspects of EM induction in question. Theoretically we can write E = vXB. It's not a format which is in common use, but if we take the curl of E = vXB -(partial)dA/dt, we get -dB/dt. As to whether my interpretation is the same as Stratton's, well my interpretation would be that v is the velocity of a charged particle relative to Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices. So if a particle is at rest in that medium, v=0, and so Faraday's total derivative law reduces to the partial derivative Maxwell-Faraday law. Regarding the issue of cover up, the thing is, that this very simple classical approach totally undermines any need for the more complex relativistic approaches which are supposed to deal with a problem which doesn't really exist when we look at it all as per Maxwell's approach. I'll have a look at that Jackson reference too.

I still think that the debate going on at Faraday's law, regarding the Feynman quote and the issue of the two aspects, can best be illustrated by that analysis above. The problem of course is legitimacy over the question of sources.

Steve, doesn't like using the term 'Faraday's law' for the flux rule, but he acknowledges that many textbooks do. I think that can all be cleared up in an appendix of terminologies. Too many debates get stifled due to terminological tripwires. David Tombe (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the meaning of v. If I'm recalling Jackson's derivation correctly (sorry, don't have the text with me at the moment), it seem irrelevant what v is relative to; assuming a classical Galilean invariance is enough to say that v is the velocity of the conductor within the frame where E and B are measured, ie there is no need for an absolute frame. It's hard to know if Maxwell meant his v to be in reference to the molecular vortices or not, since by 1864 he reformulates his theory without any specific mechanism - using Lagrange's method to get around not knowing internal connections involved.

I'd also be careful to note that while Maxwell uses molecular vortices as a model to explain electromagnetic phenomena, he falls short of saying that the molecular vortices physically cause the phenomena. In other words, he uses the model of molecular vortices (and tiny idle wheels between the vortices) as a mode of connection which is mechanically conceivable, but does not put it forward as the true mechanism for the connection existing in nature; it's an analogy that explains electromagnetism, but doesn't purport to be physical reality. So I wouldn't say his 1861 paper gives two separate "physical" explanations for induction, but that the model/analogy has separate mechanisms for the two phenomena. Subtle I know, but IMO significant as Maxwell himself made the distinction.

If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend "Electrodynamics from Ampere to Einstein" by Olivier Darrigol, which looks to be a pretty exhaustive history of EM theory. I'm currently working my way through it and have found it quite enlightening. You also might find Ivan Tolstoy's biography of Maxwell, which I've only skimmed, but appeared to do a pretty good job of showing the evolution of Maxwell's ideas. --FyzixFighter (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, Thanks for that information. I wouldn't actually have been planning to put my own interpretation of the meaning of v into the article. It was more just a case of wanting to put the maths proof in, and leaving it for readers to make up their own minds as to what it meant.

As regards Maxwell and EM induction, there is a long section in the latter half of part II of his 1861 paper where he gives a detailed explanation of each of the two aspects in terms of those molecular vortices. The moving wire explanation is easy enough to follow. In a magnetic field, the vortices will be aligned. The wire will move in the equatorial plane of the vortices. The vortices will not go through the wire. They will go around the wire. The pressure in front of the motion will contract the vortices, whereas the rarefaction behind the wire will expand them. A kind of Kepler's second law comes into play in which the contraction pressure causes an angular acceleration in the vortices in front of the wire and an angular deceleration in the vortices behind the wire. This vortex gradient gives rise to a flow of aether along the wire at right angles to the direction of motion of the wire. The right angle deflection is no doubt tied up with the Coriolis force that compliments the angular acceleration as per Kepler's second law, except that it's Faraday's law because the angular momentum is not being conserved when the wire is being pushed through the field. That's where Lenz's law and work done comes into it. At any rate we get the Coriolis vXH coming into play, with H being the vorticity of the molecular vortices.

The time varying aspect is more about a wave of angular acceleration being transmitted as EM radiation and discharged at right angles into a wire. Hence it is the same effect. But it is formulated using the other side of the Kepler's second law coin. It is formulated using the angular force -(partial)dA/dt aspect. Where A is aether field momentum and curl A = B.

We can't really put all that in the article, but it can be noted legitimately that Maxwell did deal with this exact problem. If challenged, a few quotes can be produced.

Maxwell's weakness in my opinion was that he didn't specify the sources and sinks in his vortices. His electric particle idea came late, in part II. He didn't have those particles in his hydrodynamics section at part I. Hence he lost the full significance of the generation of charge under pressure, that comes out of those vortices when tangential force is applied. And he gave up. And as you rightly point out, Lagrangian is a fudge which ignores cause. It balances out energy. But coservation of energy is only an irrotational phenomenon. We lose all the information on the tangential forces, such as Coriolis force.

So we see these tangential terms vXH + (partial)dA/dt in Faraday's law and Kepler's second law. The latter concerns conservation of angular momentum, whereas the former is rate of change of angular momentum, or torque. Hence even in a kitchen sink, these two terms apply in the water as it swirls out. But not cyclonically of course. David Tombe (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal force

Do you a current best version of your proposed short section? Let's go ahead and replace the long Brews section with a short one, and try to keep Brews and David from messing up the article too much from there. If I don't hear from you, I'll try to do it from the one on the talk page and maybe a few edits. Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I nearly did put it in after Brews' "diatribe" which was just plain bad physics. However, some much more important real life issues (getting a couple of papers I'm co-authoring ready and submitted to journals) have taken precedence, to the point that I haven't even tried to follow any of the discussion since my last post. I'll try to find some time to review the current version, but I'm pretty sure that there won't be much that I can add if you and some of the other anti-bloat editors have been your usual excellent selves. I also never thanked you and some of the others for the feedback, support, and general words of encouragement - so thank you for that. I can't guarantee my ability to follow the editing or discussion in the next few months, but if the debate escalates to official or unofficial mediation or guided group dispute resolution, please be sure to let me know either here or via email so I can be sure to participate. Thanks again. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not participate in any further edit wars on Centrifugal force. Reverting another editor's contributions should be reserved for clear violations of policy, and the specific policy should be cited in the edit summary. It is often a good idea (and given this page's history of edit warring, always a good idea on this article) to discuss the revert on the talk page. I have urged all this article's editors to discuss BEFORE reverting, and again I implore you to adhere to this practice, in order to prevent further edit warring. Edit warring is not helpful to Wikipedia in any way. I have asked nicely on the article's talk page, now I am asking on specific editors' talk pages. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Wilhelm but I disagree with your assessment of the situation. The topic was still being discussed when David decided to insert the disputed text despite my very clear reservations. The relevant policies were stated in the initial reverts [1]. Attempts to discuss this topic in a civil manner resulted in the following interesting responses:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Such responses are completely uncivil and disregard WP:AGF. I'm willing to discuss sources and edits, but such discussion is pretty much pointless when the other editor throws out all modern sources as "rubbish" and refuses to engage in the appropriate dispute resolution channels. This is not a case of POV-suppression. David has yet to provide a reference that states explicitly that the non-reactive centrifugal force is real in the inertial (non-accelerating) frame. Whereas, we have multiple references going back over 100 years saying the opposite, that the centrifugal force arises not from the motion of the object but from the rotation of the reference frame. From the Roche article you removed:

I have identified at least three interpretations of centrifugal force in the literature: a valid meaning in physics, an entirely different but equally valid meaning in engineering, and a cluster of false meanings.

which he clarifies later:

There is, however, a valid concept of centrifugal force in physics. If the observer in a frame of reference rotating with the Earth pretends for mathematical convenience that it is an inertial frame, then it becomes necessary to postulate a fictitious outwards force on a geostationary satellite to explain why it does not plunge to Earth. This is the centrifugal force of physics, an entirely fictional force.

and from the Kobayashi reference:

The term centrifugal force simply implies the force away from the center of rotation and is therefore obscure. Let us consider the point mass moving in a circular path with respect to the inertial frame. The term centrifugal force then has two meanings: one is the inertial force due to the rotation of the noninertial frame relative to the inertial frame and the other is the reaction force of the centripetal force to produce acceleration toward the center of rotation.

As has been show by the various History of Physics type references, the Leibniz's concept of a real centrifugal force is seen as a result of his adopting a reference frame attached to the rotating body - ie, he was not using an inertial frame, but a co-rotating frame. The only POV not being expressed in the article is that Leibniz's centrifugal force and the rotating reference frame centrifugal force are different. However, no references have been provided that directly support this POV, and the multiple sources provided later in the article actually contradict this.

I also find it troubling that you placed the above warning on only the talk pages of the users on one side of the dispute and not on David's page nor on the anon that has rotating IP address. This does not help your appearance of being impartial. While I applaud your attempt to end the edit war, I disagree with your method which removed statements directly sourced to reliable sources. IMO the lead should be reverted to the consensus- and source-supported "two concept" sentence in the lead per WP:RS and WP:V. Besides attempting the edit war, do have any other reasons for removing the sourced statements? --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Look again at David's talk page and the anon IP user. I didn't just pick on one side. The problem I have with the statement in the lead, besides the fact that it is a limiting statement while sources do exist that suggest there is a third concept, is the history of the statement. It was first inserted saying that there were two concepts - one used in physics and one used in engineering (and one of those sources provided), but then the words "physics" and "engineering" were removed but the "two concepts" wording remained for some reason. When this was reworded and the second source added, it looked like the statement as it was later rendered was probably weakly supported (if at all) and the second source was added to prop up the first. Honestly, I don't know how well the statement is supported as I do not have these sources to refer to. The main problem I have with the sentence, by far, however, is the constant back and forth over it. I say let's find something we can agree on and come back to it. I think my edit history on this page bears out the fact that I have no agenda here but getting the editors to work together and produce the best possible article for the reader. If you have any suggestions on how I can better achieve that, I will always give equal weight to the comments and advice left on my talk page. I don't bear any hard feelings toward you or any of the other editors, I just want you all to find a way to work together. I have been trying to get David to come half way, but he feels like everyone else is united against him. I know you two have quite a checkered past, and I'm trying to be sensitive to that, but you guys really can't go around reverting each other (nor being rude to each other). I'll keep talking to David, and if he needs to be reminded about his role in all this, I will try to be there to remind him. I'm asking you to be as sensitive to his side of things as you want him to be to yours. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are favoring a side, but your warning to David made no mention of edit-warring - perhaps you meant it to be understood - I'd have appreciated everyone getting the exact same warning. What sources suggest there is a third concept distinct from the other two? None has been provided. There has been some discussion that the polar coordinates concept could be a third option, but no sources provided despite my request. Provided sources do treat this as a subset of the rotating frame. How can you say that the sentence is probably weakly supported when you haven't even checked the sources? I've provided the relevant quotes above. Where is the weakness in the above quotes? When have I ever been rude to David within the last several months of our interaction? Please, point them out to me so that I can correct my behavior. I think a comparison of David's comments and mine will reveal a great disparity in the level of civility we each show one other. Again, I do not think removal of a sourced statement is an acceptable way to end an edit-war. Additional reliable sources that directly support David's position is one acceptable way, or any of the other dispute resolution avenues - which David seems to have summarily dismissed. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It was not my intention to permanently and unilaterally strike the passage from the lead, but to at least temporarily remove the immediate source of controversy and declare a "time out" to get these differences worked out before we just continue reverting and re-reverting. I know you may feel like you've been slighted because your version of the passage was removed, but very likely the other side feels equally slighted because their version also was removed. Notice IP user 72... wasted little time reverting my edit although my intentions were stated in the edit summary. Also, to clarify, I did not mean to suggest you have been rude to David. I hope there are not serious hard feelings between you two, but I can tell David has been getting very frustrated and his civility has sometimes worn thin. I really think he has the potential to be an invaluable editor, but his methods are sometimes questionable. I think he sometimes puts the cart before the horse and then assumes that because there is consensus against the way he presents information in the article it must be a consensus against the material itself, but it doesn't do much to dispel his fears when some of the talk page comments bear this out. The long and the short of it is, there may be some irreconcilable differences between the ideas of the several editors here, but there is never a need for incivility and edit warring. I do not intend to give anyone a free pass on perpetuating these behaviors, not David, not the anon editors, not the major contributors. If my responses to different editors are somewhat varied, it is because they have displayed various behaviors. As to the sources for a third approach, I will let that dispute work itself out on the talk page. I was not so much disputing the references as acknowledging the dispute and moving to diffuse the edit war. I freely admit that I have not read the source passages. If you could quote them directly, on the article's talk page, you would do us all a service, and this could be a starting point for an obviously needed discussion over this disputed passage specifically. Again I will remind you that I did not merely remove your sourced statement. I also removed the IP editor's statement, and he too was apparently upset by this. If I have united everyone in disagreeing with me, at least I have given you all something to agree about. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In rereading my posts, I realize I may have been a little too short in my response. I apologize for that, and thank you for responding in a level manner. I am still though of the opinion that you are coddling David too much. From my view, the reason the centrifugal force debates are so heated is because David does not know how to act civilly with other editors. If people disagree with him, he immediately accuses them of being idiots or of being part of a conspiracy to suppress information (this isn't just limited to his interactions on physics pages either). For example, when a simple request for a source is met by this kind of response [5], I find it impossible to pursue any meaningful discussion with him. In fact, usually when I get this kind of response from David, I stop responding to him in that thread. You've called him on such behavior before. I'd like the discussion to move forward, but without such uncivil rants and such total disregard of WP:AGF. Since if any of us call him on it he'd ignore it, and since you think that David can become a meaningful contributor, would you mind reminding him again that such behavior is neither appropriate or helpful. Honestly, I'm getting sick of these repetitive rants of his, and am close to asking uninvolved admins to take a look at his behavior and take appropriate action but, out of respect for you and your recent attempts to help David, I'll wait to see if he'll respond to your guidance. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I go further, we know from his previous interactions on the other centrifugal and coriolis pages that he genuinely is a crank. The sole purpose for his presence here is simply to put his OR and other misunderstandings into the wikipedia. He contributes to no other pages, and he has been suspended and then banned multiple times; the last time was an indefinite ban. I disagree completely with the last administrator that took it upon himself to unban him; this is nothing but harmful for the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here. He's a nut, and nothing but disruptive. I think it's time for a community topic ban for him on CF-related articles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In case you're still watching this page Wilhelm, I'd rather put some comments here rather than trying to go point-counterpoint with David on your talk page or somewhere else where it would detract from that page's discussion. I see that David has made you aware of the current report and topic ban discussion over on ANI. I had no interaction with the editor that filed the report nor did I ask anyone to initiate such, but it appears that the report was precipitated by a report I made over on WP:WQA. Despite multiple warnings from sympathetic and neutral editors like yourself, David continues to behave in a manner that prevents and disrupts cooperative editing. This response is all that is needed to see that David is being hoisted by his own petard in this situation. Save him from himself if you can, but I fear that, like previous warnings, it will fall on deaf ears. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Reported to Administrator's Noticeboard

FyzixFighter, I'm just letting you know that I've reported you at the administrator's noticeboard for wiki-hounding. The evidence is quite clear cut. You have been putting false information into physics articles which I have been trying to improve. You tried to convert the centrifugal force in the radial planetary orbital equation into a centripetal force. And yesterday, you removed sourced edits of mine and replaced them with information which you now admit to be in error. It is not possible to write a coherent article when somebody like yourself is continually trampling over the edits and playing out some clever game with so called reliable sources while at the same time refusing to discuss the topic and claiming not to have opinions. David Tombe (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

You ae being discussed here [6] Cardamon (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The existence of the Muulekites

The existence of the Muulekites is completely rejected by non-Mormon historians, archaeologists, anthropologist and theologians. This is because there is no trace of them except in the Book of Mormon; they are supported by absolutely no external evidences at all and there is no mention of them until the 19th century.

How odd… this statement I made is completely accurate. Only those with an LDS slant accept the existence of theses storybook people. And until the “Prophet” from Palmyra, they had never even been heard of. But instead of countering, you in a very Gestapo act simply delete these facts.

None of the mythological book of Mormon people exist outside the book of Mormon, much the way Frodo never existed outside the Lord of the Rings. Therefore, instead of facing facts you attempt to sweep it away in a Stalin like action. Wow. Well I guess those who use Wikipedia are lucky to have such a dishonest nazi like you ready to edit truth when it threatens your fairy tales. (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.27.175 (talk)

Invitation

I invite you to read my comment (No. 48) to "Faraday's Law of Induction." Mike La Moreaux (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Faraday's Law

FyzixFighter, I never stated that there was anything wrong with the one of Maxwell's Laws responsible for transformer emf. That is not the version of Faraday's Law which is stated at the beginning of the article. The cutting of magnetic field lines occurs in the homopolar generator but not in the example of the toroidal transformer. But then, there is no emf induced in that example for just that reason. Mike La Moreaux (talk)

Then I guess I'm a little confused by which Faraday's Law you are saying is false. The form of the law mentioned at the beginning of the article covers both transformer (stationary circuit) and motional EMF, so the homopolar generator is not a counter-example of the law stated in the article. The toroidal transformer is definitely an interesting example, and my guess is that the line integral used to calculate the EMF or the flux does something weird at the slip-ring, it being a strange disconnect in the geometry. The best thing to do would be to find a reliable source that treats that problem to see whether or not modern physics sees it as a counter-example of Faraday's law.

But let me leave aside the toroidal example, and let's look at the homopolar generator. At the beginning of the article, Faraday's Law is stated in words (in the quote box) and in mathematical formula. Are we in agreement on the semantics that the presentations are identical? If so, then it can be shown that the vxB term that causes the current in the homopolar generator is hidden in the full time derivative of the flux in the equation for Faraday's Law:

${\mathcal {E}}=-{\frac {d\Phi _{B}}{dt}}$.

By the way, Jackson covers this proof on pp. 208-211 of his graduate text; unfortunately Griffiths' undergraduate text brushes the distinction under the rug, turning the full derivative into a partial derivative without commentary. So following Jackson's proof, the magnetic flux linking the circuit is defined by

$\Phi _{B}=\int _{S}\mathbf {B} \cdot \mathbf {n} da$

where S is the surface bounded by the circuit C.

We also have to make use of the identity:

${\frac {d}{dt}}={\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}+\mathbf {v} \cdot \mathbf {\nabla }$.

This leads to

${\frac {d\mathbf {B} }{dt}}={\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+(\mathbf {v} \cdot \mathbf {\nabla } )\mathbf {B} ={\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+\nabla \times (\mathbf {B} \times \mathbf {v} )+\mathbf {v} (\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} )$.

The third term gives the contribution of sources of the vector field, ie magnetic monopoles, swept over by the moving circuit. We can therefore rewrite the full time derivative of the flux as

${\frac {d}{dt}}\int _{S}\mathbf {B} \cdot \mathbf {n} da=\int _{S}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}\cdot \mathbf {n} da+\oint _{C}(\mathbf {B} \times \mathbf {v} )\cdot d\mathbf {l}$

where the v is the velocity of the element dl of the circuit. This gives us for Faraday's law that

${\mathcal {E}}=-\int _{S}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}\cdot \mathbf {n} da+\oint _{C}(\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {B} )\cdot d\mathbf {l}$.

The first term on the right gives the transformer EMF contribution (from electric fields induced by time-varying B-fields) and the second term is the motional EMF contribution. Again, this proof is essentially covered in Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" (3rd ed) pp.208-211. Therefore the homopolar generator, which relies on a motional EMF, is not a counter-example of Faraday's Law as it is first introduced in the article. Does this make sense? Are there any points in the proof where we would disagree?

As for the toroidal wrapping with slip-ring, I don't know how the math really would treat the slip-ring. It is an interesting example, but I'm sure someone has looked at it before and answered the question of whether or not it is a counter-example to Faraday's Law. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, we are in agreement that the verbal and mathematical presentations of Faraday's Law at the beginning of the article are identical. In the case of the homopolar generator, B is a constant and so is a. Therefore the flux is a constant. Therefore the time rate of change of the flux is zero. Faraday's Law only explicitly deals with the time rate of flux change. The thing is that in the operation of the homopolar generator, there is obviously no flux change. Therefore Faraday's Law gives an emf of zero. What is so difficult to understand about this? The problem with the derivation is that the fourth equation involves the curl of vxB. In the case of the homopolar generator, the curl of vxB is zero because vxB does not define an electric field. This is a perfect example both of not seeing the forest for the trees, but also of forgetting the physics in the pursuit of the mathematics. (Moment has the units pound feet, and work has the units foot pounds. They are mathematically identical and physically completely different. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

When we say time rate change of the flux, does "time rate of change" refer to a full derivative or a partial derivative? The distinction is very important as shown in the proof above. If it's a full derivative then Faraday's law as stated in the article does give a non-zero emf for the homopolar generator. This is because as the flux is an integral, a non-zero full time derivative of the flux can be achieved by motion of the boundary/surfacewhile the value of the flux itself remains constant. The homopolar generator is a special case where Phi_B is constant, (partial)dPhi_B/dt is zero, but (full)dPhi_B/dt is non-zero.

As for the fourth equation, it follows directly from the identity in the third equation. Do you disagree with this identity? The fourth equation is merely expanding the full derivative in terms of the partial derivatives. If you think that the curl Bxv should not be in the fourth equation, then you disagree with the understood relationship between partial and full derivatives. Also, I never said the vxB term defines an electric field - I was very cautious to not mention electric field at all during the derivation. I did talk about EMF, but EMF and a line integral of the electric field are not the same thing. Like you said, just because EMF and electric potential (which is a line integral of the electric field) have the same units, they are not the same thing. We can say that

${\mathcal {E}}=\oint _{C}\mathbf {E'} \cdot d\mathbf {l}$,

but in this definition of EMF, $\mathbf {E'}$ is the electric field in the rest frame of the element dl. However, convention is to define E and B in the same frame, so E and E' are the same in this equation only when the circuit is stationary. Looking at the final form of the EMF in fact shows that, if we interpret the EMF as the line integral of the force per unit charge, then only the first term has to be due to an induced electric field, which is what the Maxwell equations predict. Note that this is not an approach to the problem that I have used my own faculties to invent, but is what is found in a very well-known and standard graduate level EM textbook. Therefore, according to this reliable source (WP standard for inclusion), the motional EMF of the homopolar generator is not a counter-example of Faraday's Law as stated in the article. Do you have a reliable source that says that the homopolar generator is a counter-example of how Faraday's Law is stated in the article?

From my point of view, your claims that the article's presentation that Faraday's law is false is due to not paying close enough attention to the mathematics used to describe the physics. When you are careful about the distinction between partial and full derivatives, the homopolar generator is no longer a counter-example. The question then becomes a matter of semantics, ie does "time rate of change" mean a partial or full derivative. I imagine that something similar happens with regards to the toroidal transformer, that a complete and proper mathematical treatment of how the integral and full time derivative will yield a zero time rate of change of the flux. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If the time rate of change of the flux is zero by inspection of the physical situation, then it does not matter whether we are talking about the partial or total time derivative. They are both zero. In the homopolar generator, the circuit boundary/surface is fixed. Only the conductor moves. There is no electrostatic field here, so potential is not involved. In any case, the line integral of a static electric field strength around a closed path is always zero. emf is the line integral of the electric field strength around a closed path and can be non-zero. Richard Feynman states that the homopolar generator is a counter example to the "flux rule," which is what we are calling Faraday's Law, in his "Lectures on Physics." Mike La Moreaux (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we disagree on some very basic foundational principles, namely:

1. the significant difference between a partial and a full derivative and the relation between the two,
2. the definition of emf, the usual definition being the line integral of the electromagnetic force per unit charge (not of the electric field strength) around a closed path
3. what constitutes the boundary of the surface - in all references I've found, the conductor is the boundary, so if it's moving, the boundary is moving.

Therefore, it is pretty much pointless arguing from first principles and using rigorous mathematical analysis to respond to your assertion, so I won't argue math anymore, just reliable sources. Here are three sources I found pretty easily that clearly state that the homopolar generator can be explained by Faraday's Law and that define Faraday's Law as it is stated in the article:

1. "Magnetic fields: a comprehensive theoretical treatise for practical use", Heinz Knoepfel, pg 324 specifically [7]
2. "Introduction to electromagnetic theory: a modern perspective", Tai L. Chow, pp 183-184 [8]
3. "Electromotive force again", American Journal of Physics, vol 32 (1962) pp 209-310

The first one follows the proof above that I adapted from Jackson. The second and third one use a slightly different approach to show that when the circuit loop is not fudged, the total change in flux is not zero. To quote the third reference: "The 'homopolar generator' seems more complicated, but the essential physical situation becomes apparent...if the usual metal Faraday disk is replaced by an insulating disk with a single radial wire connecting the axis and the rim, with shich the external circuit makes a sliding contact. The results are unchanged by this modification of the usual experiment." What is the page number and quote from Feynman, I'd really like to compare these sources to see where the disconnect is. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not have access to a copy of "Lectures on Physics," but if you go to my comment, No. 48, "Faraday's Law is False!," on the discussion page to the article, Steve's link No. 1 in his comment of 15 September will take you to the relevant pages. The boundary of the surface of the circuit of the homopolar generator is fixed, while the conductor (the disk) moves. There is where Feynman states that the homopolar generator is a counter example to the "flux rule." I have not had time, yet, to check your referenced sources. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your second reference has a bogus calculation. It would have us believe that the flux increases without limit as the disk of the homopolar generator rotates - a clear absurdity. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I have to go along with FyzixFighter 100% on this issue. He has described the situation pretty well. I have had a tangle with both FyzixFighter and Steve Byrnes in the past over this issue, but it has been more over the manner of explaining the physics, rather than the physics itself, which none of us have been in disagreement with. FyzixFighter's mathematical proof above is correct. I would however have drastically simplified it at the point where he splits the total time derivative into the partial time derivative and the (v.grad)B term. I would simply have drawn attention to the fact that (v.grad)B is the curl of vXB. I know that you have argued that curl(vXB) is zero. It may well be. In fact it would certainly be zero for a constant magnetic field if we could have such a thing. But that doesn't in anyway undermine the fact the curl E = -(total)dB/dt covers for both the time varying case and the motionally induced case.

As for the toriodal/slip ring example, I am a bit confused about the geometry and so I can't really comment. I suspect that there will be some magnetic field, and that there will be a vXB force induced somewhere in the circuit if an EMF is induced. David Tombe (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter's point is that full attention must be paid to the distinction between the total time derivative and the partial time derivative. That is the crucial point that Mike doesn't seem to get. As long as v×B is non-zero, it doesn't matter if curl(v×B) =(v.grad)B = 0. Maxwell didn't actually have a Faraday's law in his original eight equations. Equation (D) in Maxwell's original eight was his equation for EMF. It read E = grad (phi) -(partial)dA/dt + v×B, where E was EMF, and hence it catered for both the time varying and the motionally induced kinds. Maxwell's EMF was actually a quantity that was closer to the modern electric field than it was to the modern EMF. The modern EMF is actually a voltage. Maxwell didn't use charge, but the relevant electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio was built into his equations and evaluated from the experiment in 1856 of Weber and Kohlrausch.

FyzixFighter was indeed very careful not to explicitly use the expression E = v×B at any stage of his manipulations. In my opinion, he wouldn't have been wrong if he had done so, but it wouldn't have been politically correct to have done so. Take the curl of Maxwell's equation (D) and you end up with the full total time derivative Faraday's law. David Tombe (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the homopolar generator, the magnetic field is constant. If the curl of E is zero, then the emf is zero. But we know there is a motional emf by inspection of the physical situation, and therefore Faraday's Law is proved wrong. Mike La Moreaux (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Toroidal transformer

To make this easier to follow I've added this subsection. Anyways, I think I've found the problem with the toroidal transformer and slip-ring scenario. However, this is my own thoughts not backed up yet by any reliable source. The problem with the scenario is that there is a huge disconnect in the geometry of the surface of the flux integral that occurs every time the wire goes around the slip ring. Essentially, a section of the surface is be pinched off and then removed, which places it outside the realm where Faraday's Law is even applicable. It's like have an elliptical loop of wire in a magnetic field normal to the plane of the loop, pinching the loop together in the middle and then cutting off and throwing away half of it. The flux in the circuit decreased (smaller area), but no one would try to apply Faraday's Law to this scenario to say that the reduction in flux caused by the pinch-and-cut induces an emf. As Steve already noted, the slip-ring is a geometry outside of Faraday's Law. I'm guessing thought that we'll disagree on this, though, so a reliable source is probably the only way to resolve this. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, This is interesting. Let's get it back to the Faraday's law talk page. I think I know what Mike is saying now. Also, in the toroidal scenario, I think you are correct in stating that it is a scenario which is outside the realms of Faraday's law. I'll make my views back on the Faraday's law talk page. David Tombe (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oustanding work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		An incredible display of consistent effort to improve and maintain the quality of Wikipedia. I tip my hat. StormRider 18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

John, that now makes 5 reverts within 24 hrs. Note that the 3RR policy states that "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the same material is involved." Therefore I have reported it at WP:ANEW. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that the 3RR rule was operative only for reversions of the same material, not different material on the same page. I'll be more careful in the future.--John Foxe (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For fighting the most insidious and furtive types of vandalism. Cheers! —Eustress talk 22:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you mormon?

@FyzixFighter:, Just wondering if you are mormon. Thanks Realphi (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Realphi: Normally I don't advertise my religious beliefs as I try to edit by the same rules that I hope other editors abide by regarding their own religious or non-religious beliefs. Editors who can't keep their bias in check almost always fail to abide by the basic behavioral expectations necessary for collaboration on wikipedia, so I find one's ability to follow the mutually agreed upon community expectations far more important than religious affiliation. Knowing another editor's religious beliefs is more often a distraction. Which is why I haven't in the past stated my religious affiliation - I hope that my edits and behavior can stand on their own.

That said, I find I care less what others think of me as I get older and I think it's pretty obvious from my editor history what I am. So, yes, I am a Mormon/LDS. I am also an electrical engineer/physicist, an avid reader of science fiction, and an Air Force brat. All of these can certainly affect my editing, but I think I do a decent job of keeping it all in check as well as the average wikipedian. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: I think Joseph Smith is absolutely right and revolutionary in pointing out logical inconsistencies in bible and correcting them for its followers. Some people think that real agenda of LDS church is to replace Christianity with Jainism!!!!!!! http://lifeafter.org/mormonism-and-jainism-compared/ --Realphi (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Grossly inappropriate question by Realphi. Very skilful and gracious answer by FyzixFighter. Realphi should be like the majority and focus on content. Dolphin (t) 22:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the reverting of 2015 alleged translation of the Caractors Document

I have contested your reverting of the alleged translation of the Caractors Document by Linguist Jerry Glover on the grounds of WP:RS. I have provided my reason of contestion on the relevant talk page.--134.204.0.90 (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Second Anointing...

I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so I don't know how this "talk page" stuff works and I don't know if I'm doing this right. But adding the fact that Tom Phillips and Hans Mattsson claim to have received the second anointing is very pertinent information for anyone wanting to know about the ordinance. There is no reason not to include it. Just as you, in previous edits, decided to leave the claim about Tom Phillips. I took out the information about the third party (Elder Rasband) because I agreed with your criticism of that particular edit. I don't agree with your claim that the Tom Phillips or Hans Mattsson Mormon Stories interviews do not fit the guidelines for WP sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deroque49 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Deroque49: Your apparent new-ness is why I also left the 3 revert warning on your talk page. You've now reverted the article four times in less than 24 hours, a clear violation of WP:3RR. If you don't want to possibly be temporarily blocked (by an uninvolved admin will take a look at the situation), please self-revert and go to the article's talk page (Talk:Second anointing or the "Talk" link at the top of the article page) and start a discussion. The question of whether or not the Mormon Stories podcast satisfies WP:V and WP:RS has been brought up before, although it doesn't look like a clear consensus was reached. Another venue to get a third outside opinion would be WP:RSN. Regardless, the best practice is to not assume bad faith of other editors (don't assume or immediately accuse other editors of editing based on "rank bias") and, if you're recent edit gets reverted, to dispute resolution and consensus building on the talk page prior to re-adding your edit (see WP:BRD). --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, FyzixFighter. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit of Wikipedia: Great Apostacy page

Why have you Censored my edit twice? My edit was exactly the same as the paragraph above it ehich you never removed. My edit was the inclusion to the page, of the fact that the Sedevacantist Catholics have an opinion on the interpretation of the 2 Thessalonians verse in question. You stated previously that my post is for a religious reason. I admit this is true. I would like to expose any and all( for a religious reason) to the FACT!!! that another interpretation exist. Pause for a moment(if you are capable, which I seriously doubt) and think about what is truly happening here. I am exposing the readers to a truth( that another interpretation exist) and you are preventing the readers from learning that another interpretation of those scriptures exist. Instead of expanding knowledge it seems you wish to limit information. What is your stake in this. I suspect there is one but we will never know. The paragraph I wrote was written exactly like the paragraph above that you did not edit out. What is your connection to the two groups in the paragraph above. It seems you only wish for their interpretation of a “future falling away” to be included on this Wikipedia page about the “Great Apostacy “ PhillipMH (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@PhillipMH: I thought about just deleting the rant above, but maybe you'll see this and figure out how to properly collaborate with other editors. First off, the proper place for this discussion is on the talk page where you already started the discussion. I've also commented there. Suffice to say here that, 1) I never said that your post was for a religious reason 2) my reasons for removing it include WP:UNDUE and WP:V 3) the previous paragraph is supported by sources in the body since the lede is supposed to summarize the body 4) see WP:TRUTH and 5) I have no connection to either group in the sentence as you can tell if you look a few conversations above where I clear state my religious leanings (which are completely irrelevant to my editing behavior. Unless you can raise the level of your discourse, expect any further interaction on my talk page to get deleted. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Mea Culpa

You are right! I reviewed the rule you pointed out and i see that my post should have been at best a “see also”. I apologize for my mischaracterization of your edit. A little Rant, if I may? In history I’m quite sure there have been times when a scarcely held opinion has been the correct one. ( for the record, I believe this is one of those cases) This subject, if you believe bible prophecy, is actually a case where the majority interpretation would be erroneous ( I.e. “Great Apostacy”). This makes Wikipedia rules of only giving credence to majority opinions, a rule that precludes Wikipedia from posting the answer to the question, “what is the Great Apostacy?” Kinda ironic. The Sedevacantist position in light of JESUS’ prophecy in Luke 18:8 (will HE find Faith?), like any scarcely held position, are the only interpretations that should be considered.

PhillipMH (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit reverts

Please cite with link the exact page in Wikipedia guidelines that states that using citations/ stating sources is considered NPOV/Editorializing. Otherwise you are violating edit rule too. Nao241 (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink

Hello, FyzixFighter. You have new messages at Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Message added 06:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Internet chapel

While I respect your right to edit, please note that the Internet Chapel you deleted is a legitimate chapel in operation for over 5 years. It is the first and only (to date) with the copyright of Internet Chapel. It reaches thousands of individuals who otherwise do not have access to church or a physical chapel. With that, I request leaving the Internet Chapel in its correct place and allow those who do not know it exists to have better access. Thank you. Russ Porter, Ph.D., Ed.D. (Past Graduate Student!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.21.168 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that it appears to be completely non-notable. There is no wikipedia page for it. There are no hits on it from a quick google news search. Also, it would appear that your pushing of it could be seen as a violation of WP:COI. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Take it up on the talk page of the article or on one of the administrative noticeboards if you think I have behaved inappropriately (but beware the boomerang). --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I defer to the issue on potential WP:COI. I have a valid case, but the greyness leaves the ethics for debate. I could continue to make the change with you back and forth, but I will give you the point you make. I do point out if you do a google search in general, you will find the Internet Chapel as it is found in Facebook. Again, I give you the point due to the ethics for debate. I am placing the Internet Chapel in a more general notation for those who are provided with a service, regardless of any connection I have to an Internet Chapel. If you want to continue to make the change by deleting it, that is the part of the Wikipedia that is your right (anyone can make changes regardless of the reliability - and again the ethics of it). This is my last point I will make on this issue, and if you think you must delete something that helps others - that is your choice. I will not respond.

You are at it again. Just because there is not a wikipedia page does not mean it is invalid and unreliable. If you want to delete something that is positive for others to know and have a specific mission for those with few ombudsman and supporters - so be it. I will leave it alone again and move on. You may respond again and I will not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.21.168 (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am "at it again" because your edits are still not inline with the purposes and guidelines of Wikipedia. In particular, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, and I would add WP:UNDUE. If the Internet Chapel and the IEC do not show up in any secondary sources then it just isn't that notable for inclusion in wikipedia, and it makes it difficult to indepedently verify any claims. Again, if you think I am acting inappropriately, please take it up on the appropriate administrative noticeboards. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Message from IP editor

Hello, hey man you keep removing my edits. May I ask why?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:A8C2:87E2:54DA:EF8F (talk • contribs)

I've left a message on that IP range's latest talk page summarizing a variety of relevant policies and guidelines, though not getting into specific applications. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Josaphat Kuntsevych‎. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Umm, how is the style I'm using unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand. Per MOS:POSTNOM, post-nominal initials are only used for "honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject". The post-nominal "OBSM" does not meet this criteria, imo, but rather an indication of an order someone belongs to - therefore I was deleting it. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, the Order of Saint Basil the Great is a widely-recognized organization that reliable sources (always) associate with the subject. I would expect that any religious institute fits this description. Otherwise, do you wish to quibble about each one individually? Elizium23 (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: But association with a religious institute is not a category allowed by MOS:POSTNOM. The association can be stated in the lead such as "fulan is a member of the Order of ..." and satisfies the need to state the subjects association with the noted and widely-recognized organization. However, post-nominal initials, per the MOS, are for honors or appointments not merely associations. There is then no need to quibble each individual one, because religious institution associations do not satisfy the criterion to begin with. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, the consensus recently visited at MOS:POSTNOM would disagree with you. Religious institute post-nominals are permitted in the infobox and lede sentence. Elizium23 (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Certainly the discussion was happening, but the MOS was never modified and a mature consensus does not appear to have been reached, possibly due to the limited number of participants. Until the MOS officially changes,I don't see how religious postnomials satisfy the conditions of the existing MOS and removal of such postnomials does not violate the MOS. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, there is an implicit and explicit consensus for including them. You are denying consensus? Elizium23 (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: In this case, yes, or rather, I am denying that the discussion established a consensus because the policy was never updated or changed, and the discussion only involved three editors. As one of the editors noted, according to our current standards (which have not been updated), the use of such post-nominals are improper. Based on the current MOS, as written, are "OBSM" and other religious post-nominals honors or appointments? --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Bishop honorific

Re this edit. In this case "bishop" is not honorific, it's introducing the person and their job to provide context. Like saying "historian John Doe" or "actress Jane Smith". It becomes honorific if reused later (as in the 3rd instance of Bishop Bartulis). Renata (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Renata3: Thanks for the feedback. I do think this is a hazy area as "Bishop" is also an ecclesiastical title in the Catholic Church. In the first instance in the edit you refer to, because "Bishop" was capitalized it looks like an ecclesiastical title imo. I think the easiest solution would be to list the "Bishop" title to after the person's name, like is done for Tyszkiewicz and Bartulis in the subsection in question. For comparison, in the LDS WP manual of style, it says explicitly to avoid using ecclesiastical titles - it would seem odd to me that different style standards apply to different denominations. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

John D. Lee at Mountain Meadows Massacre - infobox

I don't necessarily disagree with your changes to the infobox and maybe you already know all this but just wanted to mention some things about John D. Lee. He was an early member of the LDS movement, joining in 1838, He was one of the "adopted sons" of Brigham Young, a personal friend of Joseph Smith, and also the official scribe of the Council of Fifty. So he wasn't just a local leader - he was very well-connected to the top hierarchy of the church. Perhaps my phrasing could have been more elegant (and apparently wasn't according to the parameters at MOS:LDS - "community" is certainly better wording than "Mormon church") but Lee was a man of influence within the entire LDS community and in the movement at large. I think that's why his participation in the Massacre, his eventual conviction, and his execution could all be considered to be so shocking. That's all. Shearonink (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

how do you archive. Apha9 (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Reversion in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Regarding your reversion, WP:NOTSEEALSO says you should not add red links; this is where common sense comes in. You did not only remove a red link, but ten sources, including ones from Antena 3 (Spanish TV channel) and Telecinco. Would you undo your reversion, create a tiny stub for Denis Vashurin, and let me edit the article? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources are not cited in a See Also section. I can find no example of an article that does so. Style guidelines use different wording for a suggested but nonbinding guidance versus a standard rule, "should" being the latter. Also, as the guideline places extra emphasis on the "not" portion (should not), I read that as a strong indication that red links are not to be included in this section. Create the article first, if it sticks and survive other editorial attention, then possibly add it to this article. As I do not think it is appropriate per the guidelines, I will not undo my removal. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Since you are unwilling to help, I will undo your action when the article is created. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not that I'm unwilling to help, it's that I don't think your actions were in line with the guidance in MOS:NOTSEEALSO. I also don't think that the individual is notable enough, per WP:NBIO, to merit an article. Why should I create an article if I don't think the subject is notable enough? Other editors may feel the same way so don't be surprised if the article gets nominated for AfD. Make sure you read and understand WP:NBIO. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your position makes sense. This is my request for creation. Why would WP:NBIO apply? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Because Vashurin is a real person, in particular a real living person. Remember that famous is not the same as notable. The genetic disease individuals have may be notable, but not everyone who has the disease may be notable. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

What about Highlander syndrome? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello. I wanted to briefly thank you for your recent efforts in discovering and reporting recent sock puppet nonsensical edits slandering me personally and containg false and inaccurate information about me and members of my family. I must have somehow ruffled someone's feathers, and this is not the first time I've been targeted on Wikipedia this way in 2020. I was gratified to see that you had my back on this matter, since I know we may not have always seen eye-to-eyw here a few times over the years. I appreciate you! Jgstokes (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixing saint articles

Hey Fyzix, I wanted to leave you a note of thanks for coming behind me in the female saint articles I've improved or created and fixing the honorifics. I appreciate it, because even though I'm a long-time editor, I'm relatively new to writing and editing about saints. I promise to try and do better as I go farther. BTW, all my activity is due, in part, to our forced isolation, and a relatively new wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject 1000 Women in Religion. It's a very exciting project; we have monthly committee meetings and monthly edit sessions/edit-a-thons, through Zoom. You're welcome to participate, of course. Keep up the good work, and happy holidays. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mormonism (2)

In the Christianity article, I cited a passage from a scholarly article in a journal published by the Mormon History Association. On page 275, Mormonism is clearly described as a henotheistic religion. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23288660?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3Af9d87a7d92258b8415a6c2aa2505e3cb&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents It is offensive for you to call that "OR Editorializing." (talk)

I wouldn't call your citation an scholarly article - is a review of a recently published book. I'm going to paraphrase some things I said many years ago in one of those discussions. There are numerous statements in uniquely LDS scripture that describe a belief in "one God" (eg 2 Nephi 31:21, Mosiah 15:1-5, Alma 11:26-37, Mormon 7:7, D&C 20:28, Moses 1:20). I don't see the theological arguments that the LDS go through to reconcile their scriptures with their concept of the members of the Godhead/Trinity also being separate beings any more invalid than those used in the creeds of the early Christian church. Additionally, there a few modern quotes that show that the LDS self-identify as monotheists. For example, Bruce R. McConkie in "Mormon Doctrine":

"Monotheism is the doctrine or belief that there is but one God. If this is properly interpreted to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — each of whom is a separate and distinct godly personage — are one God, meaning one Godhead, then true saints are monotheists."

Also, Robert Millet, as the LDS co-author in "Claiming Christ":

"We believe that each of the members of the Godhead posses all of the attributes and qualities of godliness in perfection. We believe that the love and unity that exist among the three persons in the Godhead constitute a divine community that is occasionally referred to simply as “God” (see 2 Nephi 31:21; Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7). In other words, we have no problem speaking of a Mormon monotheism in the sense that we believe in one God, one Godhead, one Trinity, one collection of divine persons who oversee and bless and save the human family."

Certainly Mormons are not strict monotheists (which also excludes mainstream Christianity) nor traditional Christian (Trinitarian) monotheists, but they are "explicitly and clearly monotheistic in the aim of their worship" (Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, Volume 2, pg 687). --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "Abrahamic Religions" Section on wikipedia article "Monotheism"

Refrain from supporting biased and malicious-motivated editing such as when you reverted my edit in Monotheism article. I didn't remove too much info but freed it from biased especially concerning Wikipedia's Neutrality policy.

It is biased-filled and why the begin with "Why the Jews and moslems do not aknowledge Christian Trinity Monotheistic."?

It is biased due because the same "Jewish and Moslem rejection" is being repeated in "Judaism" Section and "Islam" section within this Article.

Call it 'mass-removal of POV-filled sources' but I improved it by making the "Abrahamic Religions" Section free from Apologetics and Missionary-motivated editing. Royalistandlegitimist (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on Zedekiah

I understand you have a Mormon bias and want to police articles but can you show me any non-Mormon scholarly source ie Josephus or Philo or any ancient historical source which mentions any such sons of Zedekiah? There is no source Greek nor Roman either which provides any evidence of this such a son or people known as the Mulekites and is meaningless in Hebrew. I do not know any non-Mormon scholar or historian who takes the Book of Mormon as having any historical value. Why would you revert to such a provision? This is a Judaic article concerning a Jewish historical religious personality that has nothing to do with Mormonism. DeusImperator (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: There was some discussion a few years ago whether a statement like what you are advocating needed to be added to every Book of Mormon-relate article. When this was brought up on the WP:RELIGION talk page here, where it was advised that the "According to the Book of Mormon,...." phrasing was sufficient to meet NPOV and the extra wording was not needed or entirely appropriate. We are not stating in wikivoice that Zedekiah had a son named Mulek, but we are clearly attributing the claim of such a son to the Book of Mormon. Additionally, we should also avoid "it should be noted" language in article text. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Good faith?

This good faith? I doubt it. It happened after a careful explanation [9] and, two days later, a third level mos-warning [10] on their talk page. It seems to be their only purpose in life. Have a look at their edit history and talk page. I have given a final warning [11]. Next time I will report it. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on my talk page

Hello, FyzixFighther. Hope all is well with you. I saw that we had another GeraldFord1980 sockpuppet investigation come up (which has been a long-term recurring issue here, as you know). I see that the user in question has been blocked. Since you made the report of the sockpuppet activity, I thought it might be helpful for me to let you know that, at some point during the course of that sockpuppet investigation, the user account in question copied the sockpuppet note you'd posted on the talk page for that user and published that message verbatim, including using your signature and timestamp to my talk page to make it seem as if you were telling me I was the individual against which a sockpuppet investigation had been launched. Yoou can view that message on my talk page, specifically in the revision that was created by the sock with the timestamp "Revision as of 13:19, 31 May 2021 ". ChristensenMJ reverted the edits as unconstructive. By the time I discovered that addition and subsequent deletion, it was too late to note that detail on the sockpuppet investigation against that user. Just wanted to make sure you knew about the escalation of this user's conduct that occurred just prior to the applied block. It appears that I have somehow upset someone with my recent Wikipedia edits, and that this may have been attempted retaliation for that. Thought you'd like to know. Please let me know if you need further clarification on anything I've said here, or if there is anyone else to whom you'd recommend I give th information. Thanks for your continued diligence with these anonying socks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jgstokes: Yeah, I saw that bit of trolling. No worries, it's pretty clear from the page history who put the notifications there and I've actually stopped putting notifications on the sockpuppets' talk pages per advice at one of the recent SPI instances for this troll. A couple years ago this troll created a sock called "PhysicsBrawler" in an attempt to troll me. Another editor I was in a dispute with once created a sock called "FyzixFighter2" to make it look like I recanted my arguments in the dispute. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last time. Troll's thrive on attention, so the minimum response to socktroll1980 is the best thing - revert, report (point to RD#2 if needed), and wait for the block. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

It's ok to keep "his" lowercase, I just put "His" because it is also proper/ popular to capitalize it for the Son of God. It is also appropriate to hyperlink the Divine Heart to the Sacred Heart (it's the same Heart)... "Jesus knew and loved us each and all during his life, his agony and his Passion, and gave himself up for each one of us: 'The Son of God. . . loved me and gave himself for me.' He has loved us all with a human heart. For this reason, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced by our sins and for our salvation (Jn 19:34: '...one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water...') 'is quite rightly considered the chief sign and symbol of that. . . love with which the divine Redeemer continually loves the eternal Father and all human beings' without exception." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. par. 478. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p1.htm#478) That is much like the wording in the Divine Mercy Chaplet, in which the Son is offered to the Eternal Father. St. Faustina also wrote the term "Sacred Heart" (when referring to her Divine Mercy devotion) in her Diary: "O Most Sacred Heart, Fount of Mercy from which gush forth rays of inconceivable graces upon the entire human race, I beg of You light for poor sinners." (par. 72. https://www.thedivinemercy.org/articles/saint-faustina-and-sacred-heart). I capitalize "His" for the same reason we capitalize "You" when referring to God. Anyway, just wanted to bring you the joy of realizing the connection between the Sacred Heart and Divine Mercy devotion. Now you know! :) God loves you so much. Peace be with you! Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Rush Limbaugh § Presidential Medal of Freedom

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rush Limbaugh § Presidential Medal of Freedom. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows Massacre...

Re: the content that Arynataway is adding in various permutations, as in [12]... I think it would be perhaps more appropriate to add it at one of the sub-articles, especially Mountain Meadows Massacre and Mormon theology or even Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre. In my opinion the content they've been adding doesn't seem to be directly tied to the Massacre, but I've left them a note re: their edits on their talkpage, perhaps they will open a discussion at Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre and an editorial consensus can be reached. Shearonink (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shearonink: As long as we are pulling from secondary sources to establish the connection, I'm good with that. I severely dislike creating a narrative based solely on primary sources and long quote blocks. Especially when the primary quotes do not directly mention MMM, we need a secondary source to establish context and relevance. I think Quinn might have made some statements in his books that make the connection, but it's been awhile since I've dug into MMM secondary sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Edits involving Catholic Churches or figures

When editing articles related to the Catholic Church, please be sure to use the appropriate titles when referring to members of the Catholic clergy. --Jjfun3695 (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jjfun3695: I'm sorry but that is generally contrary to MOS:HON. Some clergy titles that are identical to job titles, such as Archbishop, Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope, are acceptable, but other honorific titles, such as Monsignor, Father, Saint, Blessed, or Reverend, are not job titles and therefore generally not acceptable. We don't allow it for other churches, such as "Elder" for Latter-day Saint religious leaders, so we don't allow it for the Catholics. Please review the MOS. Wikipedia is not required to follow the style guides of particular organizations, and in many instances goes contrary to it as in religious topics that are often capitalized elsewhere but not on WP (see MOS:ISMCAPS). --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Well this is something that should be brought to a discussion board, because it is extremely disrespectful and offensive. Catholic theology, unlike many other religions, says that its sacred ministers are configured to Jesus Christ in a very special way, which separates them from the lay faithful. The titles are used to denote this. --Jjfun3695 (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jjfun3695: I get that you are offended, but your view is based on your own POV and bias. The Latter-day Saints feel similarly about their religious leaders, but don't get to use "Elder", "Apostle", or "Prophet". Muslims are offended by the lack of PBUH, SAWW, and "Prophet" honorific for Muhammad. Wikipedia's MOS takes precedence over external style guidelines. Please do not continue to edit against the established and accepted Wikipedia MOS after it has been pointed out and explained to you. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to bring this up at a discussion board, you are more than welcome to. However, until the consensus changes regarding the MOS, the article texts should follow the existing MOS. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Enough is Enough, stop going through every single Roman Catholic related page and removing people's titles. No one else has done this for the 20 plus years these pages were up. The titles do not affect the credibility of the articles. There is nothing biased about putting a person's official title in an article. SO STOP. Jjfun3695 (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jjfun3695: Put simply, no. If you think my edits are disruptive, please report me at WP:ANI. Until the MOS changes, I will continue to make edits that bring articles into accordance with the wikipedia style guidelines. --FyzixFighter (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If I may just make a point here, as I noticed you started a discussion on the MOS page. I would say Brother, Sister are job titles given that their vocation is actually as a brother or sister, whereas as a priest, their job title is priest not father. I would also note that in the case of priests, legally they would be known as Rev. outside the Church. Jjfun3695 (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jjfun3695: One of the main issues I have with your edits and your reasoning above is the "The Reverend" is explicitly mentioned in MOS:HON as an honorific prefix to not use. Why do you believe that these instances do not fall under the MOS? Or do you simply disagree with the MOS and are ignoring the MOS in your edits? --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: What I don't understand is why you have to be such a hall monitor. These issues have not been addressed for years, they were left alone because they weren't bothering anyone. You seem to be the only one who is obsessed with MOS for clergy titles. I don't know who is it offending. Is it offending non-catholics? Jjfun3695 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jjfun3695: You didn't answer my questions above. Instead you provided arguments why I shouldn't be removing these honorific prefixes.

1. That the issues have not been addressed for years therefore should stay. That text has existed for awhile is not sufficient reason to keep it, especially when it is contradictory to the established MOS. By this argument, then I should be fine to remove the honorifics from Parish of Annunciation-Our Lady of Fatima, which has only existed for a little more than a month, but I don't think you would agree with that. Therefore, this seems like a strawman argument.
2. That it's not offending anyone. I never said it offended me, nor given that reason for why it should be removed. WP keeps a lot of things in articles that offend people or groups (eg Images of Muhammad). Rather, the honorifics should be removed because this is not a Catholic encyclopedia - it is a secular encyclopedia and therefore should not be favoring one group over another when it comes to honorific prefixes. Just like WP doesn't allow honorifics for other religious groups, it shouldn't make exceptions for Catholics. The MOS was created by the community after discussion, and "The Reverend" was specifically brought up and the consensus was that it should be avoided, which is why it is explicitly called out.

Instead, please answer the questions: Why do you believe that these instances do not fall under the MOS? Or do you simply disagree with the MOS and are ignoring the MOS in your edits? --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: How did you even find the Parish of Annunciation-Our Lady of Fatima page? It's such an obscure page. Jjfun3695 (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jjfun3695: To answer your question, I frequently do searches for phrases or word combinations that should be avoided based on MOS's. For example, in the last year I did searches for "Mormon Church" and its variants per MOS:LDS. I was doing a search for "rt rev" when that page came up.

You still haven't answered my questions. And it looks like you're been discussed on ANI now and your disregard for the MOS is part of that discussion. You probably should have a good answer for those questions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Common Attributes" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Common Attributes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 17#Common Attributes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.95 (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I was not doing original reserch

I don’t want to go through this again. But the source I’m using is a published source that exists. I even have the page where it says Adam was made of red earth(according to Josephus). If you disagree and have other reasons please let me know. I’m all ears.Teertrevo (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catholic resistance to Nazi Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jean Bernard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

"Don't look up"?

Hi, I would like your opinion on what I wrote here. I was thinking of adding it as a section titled "the really scary part" at Don't Look Up (2021 film) as a bold edit just to see the response. I would prefer to have someone with some physics background and more experience editing Wikipedia review it to make sure I didn't miss something before I make a fool of myself.

What do you think? Annette Maon (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Personal information

Hi FyzixFighter, thanks for reporting the account CigaretteJames to AIV [13]. In the future, if you encounter further edits like this that add someone's phone number or other personal information on Wikipedia, I would encourage you to contact the oversight team (such as by using Special:EmailUser/Oversight or by directly emailing oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org) so that the sensitive information can be suppressed. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks again, Mz7 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ultronomicon

Greetings, is there a way to direct message an admin on the Ultronomicon? If not, is this an appropriate forum to discuss 11441? Donutcity (talk)

@Donutcity: What do you mean by "11441"? I've got a few admin rights over on the Ultronomicon, but your better bet is to either post on the UQM forums or email Sdvb directly if it's about the machinery/code behind the Ultronomicon. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I logged in and it says i was banned by you for infinity! "block ID is #11441". No hard feelings here, and i am hoping to to work this one out. Will try the forum. Donutcity (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Let me take a look... --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Donutcity: I don't see a block on your account directly - I wonder if you got caught up in an IP/IP range block intended for some of the recent spam accounts? I think Svdb is your best bet at this point. Sorry I can't help more. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a really helpful explanation, thanks so much. I will reach out to them! Donutcity (talk)

Patriarchs are said to be called as well as ordained

Hi, Your recent change stated that patriarchs are not a leadership calling however they are indeed described as being called and not only ordained, and the sources and related Wikipedia pages do mention this. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Altanner1991: Being called and ordained does not necessarily indicate a leadership calling. Within the Church's lexicon, any member of the priesthood is "ordained" to an office, even those without leadership roles - for example, generally all new Melchizedek priesthood holders are ordained to the office of Elder. Priesthood keys are a better indicator of a leadership calling or role within the priesthood - Patriarchs do not hold keys. What statements in sources that do you believe indicate Patriarch is a leadership calling? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Called and ordained are two very separate terms and would likely not be confused, while the term "called" is generally the same as "leadership calling" in these contexts.

Secondly, Patriarchs are indeed described as being "called as stake patriarchs".

Finally, as for keys, the mention of priesthood keys goes back to the first patriarch, Joseph Smith Sr. From the Prince reference, second chapter, on the Melchizedek (LDS) Wiki page:

He shall be called a prince over his posterity; holding the keys of the patriarchal priesthood over the kingdom of God on earth, even of [p.74]the Latter Day Saints, and he shall sit in the general assembly of patriarchs, even in council with the Ancient of Days, when he shall sit and all the patriarchs with him, and shall enjoy his right and authority under the direction of the Ancient of Days. And blessed also is my mother, for she is a mother in Israel, and shall be a partaker with my father in all his patriarchal blessings.

...

And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William be appointed, ordained, and anointed, as counselor unto my servant Joseph, in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right; That from henceforth he shall hold the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people,

Altanner1991 (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Altanner1991: Yes, I am aware that there is a difference between "calling" and "ordained" and even "conferred". Leadership callings are a subset of callings, eg quorum instructors and secretaries are called but do not hold leadership callings. So Patriarchs being both called and ordained still does not indicate leadership. Joseph Smith Sr was the Presiding Patriarch of the Church which may explain why he had keys - I'm not sure on this point but I'll take a look through my sources. However the office of Presiding Patriarch no longer exists as a church-wide position. The current stake patriarchs are a different office and are not listed as one holding keys in section 3.4.1.1 in the Church Handbook. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the explanation. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Notifications

Please check your notifications. I have notified you for discussion since that is what you want. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Calm down. As you can see, I was working on a response to one of the active discussions after making my edit and posted it only a minute after your message above. Sometimes people take time to collect and review their thoughts before posting the comments (it's not perfect - I still find typos and incomplete thoughts). Patience, rapaz. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS:HON

Hi FyzixFighter! In recent edits you removed several times the word "Saint" with regard to MOS:HON. In my opinion, there are contexts where the sheer mentioning of the fact that someone was called a saint seems to be justified, for example when in the article of a monastery his "most famous" novice is mentioned or when it is explained that the early confessor of a person who has later been beatified was saint. Don't you think so? Greetings,--Medusahead (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Medusahead: Honestly, no I don't think so. But then again, I'm not Catholic. But what matters more is the community consensus which is reflected in the current MOS and other style guides, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Style Guidelines. Styles like "Venerable", "Blessed" or "Saint" should not be used for individuals generally for the sake of NPOV. I think they should also be avoided in instances like those I recently removed because the individual had not been given that honorific at the time of the events mentioned in the text. It seems strange to me to apply honorifics retroactively. We don't allow other religious honorifics and I don't think the argument "important for the reader to know" is sufficient to not follow this standard in these instances. There are parts of certain MOS's that I disagree with, but until there is community consensus to change them, I will follow the relevant MOS despite my personal objections and I recommend other editors do likewise. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I shall not object against a consensus nor restore the "Saints". However, just for the sake of claritiy, I would like to correct a common misunderstandig: the Church's statement that someone was a Saint (or Blessed) and practised heroic virtue naturally refers to the person while he or she was alive (what else?).--Medusahead (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Meat regulation on Word of Wisdom article

Hi, if you want to provide information that reverses or partially reverses the proscription on meat it will need to be from a better source... the current example seems to only imply the context of their arguments, not the church policy as a whole. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Excellent article on the topic... https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/getting-into-the-meat-of-the-word-of-wisdom/ Altanner1991 (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked user

Hi, sadly enough a new incarnation of the blocked user Lucifernam is back, it is User:SSPXMANILENSIS. He immediately followed the traces of his former alter ego User:CATHOLICUM. As I feel I (technically) cannot operate the Sock puppet investigations page, may I ask you kindly to do it? Reasons for the suspect are self-evident. Thank you very much.--Medusahead (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC) PS: At last, I tried to fill it in but I do not know if it is correct.--Medusahead (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Saw you are editing that article too...

I don't have the patience for it atm. Life interferes. ...I don't have a problem with disagreeing with someone else's editing and them disagreeing with mine. I *do* have a problem when editors denigrate other's contributions and cast aspersions. This is what is looked like when I first edited it and I got it to a GA last August but whatever. I'm done, took it off my watchlist. Good luck. Shearonink (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of the

Very interesting. I note that the page you linked to, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) and the related Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), are about the titles of articles rather than how to use names in the middle of a sentence. None the less, I see that The is almost always capitalized on Wikipedia in text and titles about the LDS, e.g. History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (more here).

I'm aware that Ohio State University which strongly pushes the capitalization of The is used as an example in our Manual of Style where it says "The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage (researchers at the Ohio State University not researchers at The Ohio State University)."

Today I haven't the energy to bring it up what would probably be a controversial topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters, but if I do in the future, I'll ping you. Do you know if Wikipedia changes its general rule for any other organization? Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That section Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) is about whether to include "The" at the front of article titles. It has no bearing on the question of whether to cap "the" in ohter contexts. Surely we're not going to make any rule that makes the capitalization of "the" in non-initial position different between titles and sentences. That would be weird and completely unprecedented, except for that sleeper clause at MOS:LDS that was snuck in 15 years or so ago. and needs to be fixed, whether or not we decide that "The Church of..." is an exception to the usual rules. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad that you now appreciate and acknowledge the difference between and article title naming convention and a general article text MOS. Yes, I agree now that my use of WP:THE for reverting the change in article text was incorrect. We are not making a new rule, the guideline for the potential difference between titles and sentences already exists. I am not arguing for a special exception just for the Church, I'm arguing that an exception is already built into the existing guidance and this fits that exception. There are several articles which have made use of this pattern so there has been long standing precedent for the status quo. I don't think you can declare consensus based on three days of discussion and only the participation of a half-dozen other editors, none of which have been involved in previous discussions related to this on MOS:LDS or on MOS:LDS changes in general. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be completely missing my point about titles using sentence case. There are no special rules for capitalization in titles, except to cap the first letter. I don't know of any place that makes an exception, other than MOS:LDS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Saint names

I don't think you understand that in Catholicism, the "honorific title" Saint becomes part of the person's "name" when they are canonized. For example, you don't refer to Saint Jude as "Jude." "Saint Jude" is his "name." As a Catholic you don't say, "I'm wearing a pendant of Jude," or "I'm reading a book about Jude," like you would say about someone else with a title that can be dropped when referring to them, such as, "I'm reading a book about Jonas Salk" or "I'm fascinated by Alexander Fleming's work." You COULD say "Sir Alexander Fleming" or "Dr. Jonas Salk" but it is not necessary unlike with SAINTS. Are you Catholic? Instead of undoing all my edits, it would have been the decent thing to do to write to me first and discuss it. Templeton8012 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Templeton8012: No, I am not Catholic, nor is Wikipedia a Catholic encyclopedia. It is a secular encyclopedia and therefore follows a generally secular styleguide. For NPOV purposes we actually avoid the use of honorifics related to sainthood. We mention the titles because they are important biographical information but they are not part of the individuals name per WP, as seen by the fact that most of the articles are under the individuals name sans the honorific. The infobox saints template has parameters for the titles and suffixes. We should use those. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I was modeling my edits off of other entries on saints that already existed on Wikipedia. There are thousands of saints, so good luck going through all of them. I'm relatively new here, but I know that proper etiquette would have been saying something first to me, so both my time and your time wouldn't have been wasted (with me doing edits and you undoing them). By the way, you completely missed my point when I asked if you're Catholic. People are supposed to make edits based on subjects they know! I was not referring to Wikipedia being a "Catholic encyclopedia." Anyway, carry on. Templeton8012 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on this diff, you appear not to understand WP:HONORIFIC. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps because WP first started out in the USA, it generally seems to follow American conventions for the use of political titles, and I suppose that also holds true for the application and use of religious titles as well. Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Supervote not close

Hi, just wanted to let you know that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato you made a WP:SUPERVOTE and not a proper close. This discussion is per the Move review procedure and if you do not voluntarily revert so that another editor can make a proper close (almost certainly with the same outcome) I will be bringing this close there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Um, I didn't close that discussion. User:Liz did. I did effect the merger about 36 hours after the closure and the notices were placed by the closer, but I don't think my performing the merger was contrary to policy and seemed to be inline with the wording of the AFD-merge to tag. Again, not sure what you'd be bringing up over at the move review since I didn't close the discussion. Can you be more specific? --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad... I got confused. I've never seen the proposer of an AfD vote for a merge in their opening statement. Something new every day. My apologies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Jesus in Christianity

Apologies for my half-baked edit, I tried to improve it, is it ok now? Strecosaurus (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

FTL Physics Forum FAQ post

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superluminal_communication#FTL_communication - this link no longer works. Do you have any more information about this topic? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.162.253 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Try this updated link or this thread off the same post. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, may I ask why do you revert an edit every time someone adds a calligraphy to a prophet's page?

For example prophet Idris (peace be upon him) and Prophet Shuaib (peace be upon him) pages[14][15] Mustafakhalaf-wkp (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mustafakhalaf-wkp: As I noted in my edit summaries, MOS:CALLIGRAPHY discourages the use of user-created calligraphy images in these instances. There are some cases where a calligraphy is acceptable, such as the page for Muhammad, but that is not a user-created image and has significance outside of wikipedia. I hope this helps. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi! Regarding your edit summary here, do you mind elaborating on what MIG IP sock refers to? I'm unfamiliar and wanted to ensure that, if socking is suspected here, I can bring it up in the relevant space. Thanks for your hard work and feel free to ping me! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I use MIG as a shorthand for the LTA sockmaster Mark Imanuel Granados. There's a lot of socks that he has created in the past. With regards to the most recent activity, I think it is fairly obvious that CoptEgypt136 is the same individual as the recent 136.158.82.XXX and 2001:XX IPs based on the editing patterns and reverts performed. I think there is also good evidence (based on edit histories and a few unique word/format/grammar choices) that links the 136.158.82.XXX IPs to previous MIG socks. I usually don't worry too much about the IPs since SPI checkuser requests cannot be used on anonymous IPs, but when the evidence becomes pretty blatant for registered accounts, I'll usually report them when they becoming frustratingly persistent. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If you don't mind, I may ask for your opinion in the future if I encounter behavior similar to that detailed in the previous reports. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Dang. You do a lot of cleanup. Thanks for what you do to keep it NPOV. Epachamo (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assumptionists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Augustinian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Appreciating your work on saint-related articles!

The tone and style of articles imported wholesale from the Catholic Encyclopedia drives me up the wall, and it's so nice to see someone doing some spot fixes on them. Thanks for all you do in that vein! — Moriwen (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Historical Jesus article

Yes indeed there are more than four. I will take your advice, but please give me about 15 minutes. Would that be OK?

Thanks,

Warren aka Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will give it a go once more then. Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

All yours now. Thanks for the wait. Will look forward to seeing what you think about it.

Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lighthumormonger: I appreciate your attempts to improve the article, but as indicated by the note at the top of the page when you go to edit, the "lead paragraphs and infobox were created by consensus after considerable discussion by a variety of editors. Out of courtesy for this process, please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page before editing it." I would strongly advise that you self-revert back to the status quo version and raise your proposed improvements on the talk page. I do have concerns with some of the changes, not the least of which is that you modified the wording of quoted text, which should not be done 99.9% of the time. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)