User talk:FyzixFighter

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

This good faith? I doubt it. It happened after a careful explanation [1] and, two days later, a third level mos-warning [2] 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 [3]. Next time I will report it. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Re: the content that Arynataway is adding in various permutations, as in [4]... 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi FyzixFighter, thanks for reporting the account CigaretteJames to AIV [5]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

For example prophet Idris (peace be upon him) and Prophet Shuaib (peace be upon him) pages[6][7] Mustafakhalaf-wkp (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

It is dishonest to say that the head of legal council, when writing an analysis of Mormon history, is doing it from an objective position. Please, be honest. Personification of Myself (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Personification of Myself: Head of legal council - based on what? Oaks was a full professor at the University of Chicago law school in 1965 when he wrote that legal analysis. It was published in a secular, academic journal with a peer review process. So, no, the "apologist" descriptor does not apply. Also, calling another editor a "POV warrior" is not helpful and is likely a violation of WP:NPA (or very close to one). --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Noleander and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Noleander clarification request, in which you were listed as an involved editor, has been closed and archived. The request was related to that case's principle 9, which states:

Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.

Among the participating Arbitrators, there was a rough consensus that this principle remains true with current policies and guidelines and that there is not an exemption from this principle for asserting that an editor has a conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say I felt like the talk page over on the Nauvoo Expositor, you were ganged up on a bit, and accused of bad faith. I have not always agreed with you, but I always KNOW that you are editing in good faith. You have contributed SO MUCH to Wikipedia over the years, cleaning up vandalism, and improving pages, etc. I for one very much appreciate your impact, and hope you continue editing for decades to come. Epachamo (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]