User talk:B Fizz/2010

This page is an archive of User talk:B Fizz for threads that concluded during the year 2010.

There's already enough drama at marriage

Forcing stability on the page should be done on the basis of content. The passage has been endlessly controversial and simply removing it is not unreasonable. If you think the passage needs to stay, then argue for it. Mangoe (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, personally, detest excessive use of the shiny "undo" button, and I felt rather icky when I used it twice within the space of 5 minutes. You do have a point. I will try to make myself clear on Talk:Marriage about what material I think should stay and why. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the boxed off Confucius quote. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

RE: Your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors.

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly burdensome bottleneck or problem, or who identifies a means to improve Wikipedia in a profound way. This barnstar is gratefully awarded to B Fizz for or your great idea about deletion. Thank you. Ikip 09:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

This may be your cup of tea. :) I would be happy to see you there.

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Hello, B Fizz. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip 09:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenID

A few months ago, you suggested an OpenID userbox, what do you think of User:Awg1010/OpenID. Its an early draft and I could use some input. Thanks, Awg1010 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good already. I've started using it. =) The links are good, as is the text. I'm not a big fan of the orange background; you might consider changing the image background and the text background to be the same color, or shades of the same. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 03:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've switched it to a light yellow background that looks better with the text and link colors. By the way, I have no idea how to Categorize the box or those who use it. Thanks, Awg1010 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to do that either, but I'll look into it and see what I can do to help. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 00:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Site and no 11

Maybe we should remove some sites, I agree with you...--Automyte (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there B Fizz, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:B Fizz. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was in response to me placing a fair-use image that I had uploaded in the image gallery on my user page. I should have realized it wasn't fair use to also have it on my user page; thanks for the reminder. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 07:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism

Hi BFizz - I noticed you made the edit I had proposed on the Mormonism discussion page re: the NPOV introductory statement. Thanks for stepping in - I'll check back in a couple of days on it just in case somebody disagrees. Cheers. 76.173.253.120 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning that. I intended to also explain myself on the talk page but apparently forgot. ...comments? ~BF izz 02:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BFizz-Thank you for your insights into the Mormonism article and for your additions of relevant information.DeltoidNoob (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest 'action' against me

I responded to you on that page, but would like to point out that you have a habit of avoiding issues that I bring up. Why is that ? Simply not responding does not make them less relevent. But what do you think ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[refactored] you have a habit of avoiding issues that I bring up - I would tend to say the same of you. Regarding my behavior: usually I don't comment when I don't have anything valuable to add to discussion. If I strongly agree or disagree, have something relevant to say, or wish to make my own point, then I speak up. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I've changed my mind and decided that I do kind of like your old signature and, since you've abandoned it, will be using it; if you have any copyright or 'intellectual property' issues with that, please let me know. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally despise the concept of Intellectual property; you may consider my old signature to be "public domain" if it concerns you. Bold, italics, and underline is a bit much, though. I also recommend the <small> tag. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicating StormRider's comment directly below itself was redundant and added little value to the discussion. It wasn't even formatted correctly. ...comments? ~BF izz 02:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

Thank you for your prompt attetntion to User:Tmtlouslouse's concerns. One reason for my vagueness is, User tmt apparently edits under is true life identity. The "Hatfield and McCoy" type dispute between RationalWiki editors and Conservpadia editors now approaches its fourth year. User tmt & myself rather uniquely among these editors have enjoyed respectful and conscientious discussions in the past. However now, after a recent series of outrageous behavior by RationalWiki editors (see for example [1]) it is perhaps time to bring some semblance of NPOV to WP's Conservapedia related articles. My fear is user tmt does not fully understand WP:DR and particularly how it relates to a user editing under his real name. So I've proceeded with caution.

Does this help illuminate some of the problems I've had proceeding under Wikipedia:BFAQ#ATTACK? Thank you. nobs (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sid 3050 and User:Nobs01 exchange a few words

Nobs, you have been keeping it up for more than two weeks now (here and on RationalWiki). Dispute Resolution is about content. We repeatedly asked you how the article violates NPOV and why you want to hang POV tags, but to the best of my knowledge, you never moved beyond assertions and accusations (oh, and ArbCom threats). We also asked you what you wanted to change, but your best answers were (heavily summarized) "The entire RW section should be removed because RW is non-notable and/or because the source is inaccurate" (the former reason was shown to be false, and I tried to discuss the latter issue, but I honestly don't recall where Nobs engaged me in a discussion about this - it certainly wasn't on my RW user talk page or in the CP talk page section I especially made for this) and "It violates NPOV because Dr. Lipson is not labeled as a partisan political critic" (this is OR interpretation and goes WAY beyond what any RS says).

The CP talk page and Archive 15 are full of you trying to attack RationalWiki, its presence on WP and its editors again and again (plus some more on the RationalWiki talk page, the COI Noticeboard, the NPOV Noticeboard, at least three talk pages on RationalWiki, plus maybe other stuff I forgot right now). At the same time, you kept claiming that you were trying to engage us in Dispute Resolution (repeatedly trying to drag the discussion off-wiki and later into a private forum) - while openly ignoring discussion attempts right on the talk pages. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, thank you so much, Sid. I hadn't realized the whole section regarding RationalWiki editors behavior covered under "brusque and offensive" had been restored to the Archived Talk page. Last I looked on March 30, it was removed. [2] Now, if you can figure out a way to get a response I made on the talk page last night (and if tmt won't revert my comments either), we may be able to proceed.

Remember, per Wikipedia:BFAQ#ATTACK it is supposed to unproblematic to defend an institution under attack; the record shows a pretty clear track of hostility, incivility, and trolling directed at me. As a RationalWiki founder, do you have any influence over the conduct of these users who are intent on ridiculing and making life miserable for Conservapedia editors who are also fellow Wikipedians? Thank you. nobs (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "archiving", Nobs. The bot removed it and placed it in the archive within the same minute. And nothing was ever removed from the archive. Unless you completely fail at getting how archiving works, you seem to be implying that somebody simply removed a talk page section at some point. Please clarify.

"Now, if you can figure out a way to get a response I made on the talk page last night" - which comment? The one where you again ignored the request for content discussion and insisted on Dispute Resolution somewhere where few Wikipedians will bother to look once you drag me to ArbCom like you threatened? Or was it the one where you tried to defend your complete unwillingness to discuss content by citing an incident where Tmt was openly harassed by one or more anonymous editors? Or maybe the one where you asserted that RationalWikians inserted anti-Semitic vandalism into CP? Please clarify. And while you're at it, clarify why you have time for playing victim, but not for engaging us in content discussions.

Your cited rule section applies to organizations that are attacked in articles. Are you saying that (1) we have to treat you with kids' gloves for two weeks while you engage in unconstructive and non-stop bickering and (2) that you are absolutely free to openly attack RationalWiki, its article and its editors? Defending your precious organization is not done by endlessly digging for dirt so that you can spread smears about critics. If you feel that RationalWiki controlled the content and that we - or anybody else - inserted something bad into the article, specify what part of the article violates what rules and why. You already had made three tries (which are buried somewhere in the CP talk page and its archive):

You tried the "RW/Lipson is not notable and the section should be removed" route. You were told that WP:NNC applies and (later, during your second attempt) that the RW AfD ended with Keep (and was then merged into the CP article) and is thus not as non-notable as you claim.
You tried to argue that the LA Times article is not accurate and that without it, the RW section would be unsourced and should be removed. I tried to discuss this with you (here and on RW), but you never engaged me or anybody else in this discussion.
You tried to paint Dr. Lipson as the founder of RW so you could insert your Original Research in the article (and claimed that the section violates NPOV unless this OR is included). We pointed out that Lipson is not the founder and that OR is OR, regardless of his status.

The entire rest of the time was spent by you piling on more and more accusations that had nothing to do with the article, claiming that you were engaging in Dispute Resolution (without discussing content), and threatening me and other with ArbCom, the Sockpuppet Noticeboard and what-else-not.

Any perceived trolling or incivility is simply the result of people (including the COI Noticeboard members) losing their patience because you openly refuse to work on improving the article. I dare anybody to go through what we went through and still Assume Good Faith about you:

Oh, and as for you suddenly portraying me as "a founder" of RationalWiki: Drop it. RW has a founder, and it's not me, nor is it Dr. Lipson. You can assert that as often as you like, but that won't make it more true. We were early members, and that's it. I don't control anybody. Heck, not even Trent controls anybody, and he currently hosts the site.

Here, I'll give you a hint: Around the same time you started this issue, you managed to get one content change of the CP article through with absolutely no opposition ("Factual inaccuracies" section, Archive 15). Nobody questioned your motives or your COI, nobody told you you were wrong, nobody made a big fuss. Do you know why? It's because (1) you identified a specific issue in the article (McCarthy's name in that list), (2) gave a concise reason why said issue was a problem (McCarthy's name wasn't mentioned in the sources for this sentence) and (3) even helped with fixing a link to one of the sources. Try to be more like that and there won't be any problems at all. Even as we speak, Tmt is openly inviting you to do just that on Talk:CP.

Bottom line: Either make a good argument (preferably one that hasn't been refuted several times already) about what part of the article violates which rule and how it should be corrected, or stop wasting everybody's time. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sid, this page is for communicating with me, not with Nobs. While I agree with your concluding 2 paragraphs, "losing your patience" isn't a good excuse for assuming a combative attitude. My question for both of you is how can I help? I've skimmed the CP article, and it seems reasonable, though I could understand a request for NPOV-ing a few sections. It doesn't look like the article is "under attack"; if it was at some point in time, editors have apparently addressed the serious issues. Nobs, I've created a section on the CP article talk page to allow you a place to freely (and non-vaguely) express your specific concerns. Please do so, and rest assured that any inappropriate retaliation by or against you will be reported to administrators. ...comments? ~BF izz 01:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of discussion

I don't understand this disruption to a constructive mediation user:Tmtloulouse and user:Nobs01 both agreed to. [3] nobs (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were many comments that were not related to the article added into the section aside from yours, mine, and Tmt's, which is why the admin archived the discussion. I agree, though, it was a little annoying to have the discussion interrupted like that. If you have further content concerns, start a new section on the talk page and I'll help mediate as necessary. If you have non-content concerns, let me know on my talk page and I'd be glad to help you find the proper admin noticeboards and processes for dealing with them. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved privacy issues

I've been informed another editor has an unresolved Oversight Request outstanding on two pages. Can we get some action? Thank you. nobs (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd also like to have some closure, I'm not quite sure what you want BFizz to do here. It's in the hands of the Oversight panel.

And unless I'm completely misinformed, the Oversight Request is of no issue to the current CP article, and nothing is stopping you from making content proposals. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I must disagree. I've been told the agrieved editor made a plea at Rationalwiki only days ago to please stop attempting to out his alleged real life identity. Then here in WP, while mediating in good faith, his alleged true life identity is spilled on, not one, but two talk pages. This was totally unnecessary. No one was discussing using his name in the mainspace article. The editor who posted his real life identity must have been aware this Wikipedia user did not wish to be outed. The editor than cut and pasted the information from one talk page to another.

So, how am I to proceed discussing content issues when these actions at a minimum can only be described as not in good faith? nobs (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no ability to aid you in this issue beyond pointing you towards the admin noticeboards, but it seems you've already found the right noticeboard for the job. I'm not an admin, nor do I have any rights other than those of an auto-confirmed editor. ...comments? ~BF izz 02:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BFizz. My point is, it's awfully difficult to discuss real content issues that need attention when editors use it as pretext to spill unnecessary personal information about other Wikipedia editors whom they know would prefer not to have information made public. nobs (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sid 3050 and User:Nobs01 exchange words; User:TK-CP respectfully chimes in

Nobs, I added two important words to your post to prevent you from outing him. If I was acting in bad faith as you and him accuse me of, I would've simply used your candid admission against him. I suggest you are more careful in the future.

Regarding the accusation, I didn't out anybody - I just quoted two names from the LA Times article in a section where you and I were discussing about which of the named parties in the article are indicated to be sysops and which ones aren't. There was no mention of WP or CP user names, and there was no linking to anybody. The sole hint that one of the names may be linked to the editor in question was when he suddenly cried out (in public... in two places...) that I'm outing him.

His request moves way beyond "Don't out me!" and straight into the territory where I should be blocked simply for citing a name from a public Reliable Source.

Lastly, why are you as an uninvolved party spreading the word about an Oversight Issue regarding personal information? These things should be handled as quietly as possible to avoid people from looking for the info in question - why do you think does the Oversight panel operate in private? --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a game, Sid. I raised the problem of privacy rights per all named individuals in the Stephanie Simon article; Rationalwiki sockpuppets and meatpuppets steamrolled a consensus once again and convinced a neutral Admin to mark the issue "Resolved" before I even submitted non-public details for review. And I was acting to prevent primarily the privacy rights of Rationalwiki editors from being cited as known malicious cybervandals by a WP:RS.

Seizing the opportunity, you posted the name of an editor you (1) knew did not wish to be identified, (2) posted it on two pages, (3) used personal information completely irrelevent to the context of discussion, and (4) posted personal information after the issue under discussion was marked resolved. nobs (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are getting more and more ridiculous. I have nothing more to say except for one thing: You just outed him again by stating that I indeed posted the name of the editor in question. I corrected you the first time, but since you're apparently so eager to out him, I'll just leave it stand this time. Still kinda funny how you are free to repeatedly verify that what I posted was indeed his real name while I'm not even allowed to say the name in any way. --Sid 3050 (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This ultimately is a failure of NPOV. It's supposed to be unproblematic to defend an organization that's been defamed. That RW founders since it's inception have admitted to engaging in vandalism (Stephanie Simon says "malicious" vandalism) is indisputable. That Conservapedia has been defamed by an editor who admitted in RW to malicious vandalism by posting a supposed "parody" of a Hit List of United States Senators marked for assassination in CP is a matter of public record. That RW founders have come under criticism for this is a matter of record.

When a CP editor with a declared COI attempts to defend these malicious attacks by the Wikipedia editors who have controlled the Conservapedia content for three years is forced to use the name of CP editor (in this instance with the editors permisssion) as a bargaining chip to get NPOV is extraordinarily problematic. So I have to propose, your guy in, our guy in; privacy becomes a concern, so I propose no name in. I get shouted down by socks and meats and a steamrolled consensus requires both names in. The issue is resolved, supposedly.

But User: Sid 3050 takes a dead issue as a pretext to post extraneous information about a Wikipedia user he knows would rather not have his name anywhere on a Wikipedia talk page. This is outrageous. nobs (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is outrageous is the post-facto spinning or wiki-lawyering if you will, of User: Sid 3050, to make the claim he was merely "quoting" an article with two names, when there wasn't even a need to do so, let alone copy-paste it to an Admins page as well. What is outrageous is the prevaricator then wagging his finger at those calling him on his actions and also running around the wiki being "helpful" by removing the posting of the same information by others with the edit note "You are not helping the problem", as if the info he introduced himself was not to blame. I would say that at some point Wikipedia's Board of Directors and Administrators have to stop hiding behind clever rules interpretation and parsing and instead address the issues of truth, fairness and justice which should always trump arbitrary rules and de novo procedures. This demands attention in an expedited manner because ignoring users "gaming" your own rules to be clever by half is tantamount to endorsing their actions. In other words, absent PC jargon, at some point WP must call a spade a spade, or publicly renounce its own goals and rules. What is outrageous is it has been two days since I emailed "Oversight" and other high-level Administrators with the pertinent links and my requests. Still no response from a mailbox Wikipedia says is monitored 24/7. One would think the courtesy of some response, if only to say the user's request is being considered, or outright rejected would be the normal procedure. Outrageous doesn't even come close to describing how this is being handled by the "very busy" WP Bureaucrats.

Respectfully, --TK-CP (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. Now really, people. If you have some specific reason for contacting me, I'd be more than happy to help where I can. If I want you to clarify what another person has said to me on my talk page, I'll ask. Please stop using my talk page as a battleground/whining vent zone.

p.s. its kinda creepy how some of you have shown up to respond to what others have said on my talk page despite never having edited it previously. ...comments? ~BF izz 01:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: the refactored section that follows was written prior to this comment] To wit, "some of you" referred to TK-CP and Sid. I hope you don't take my accusation of being "kinda creepy" too seriously. If you really, really feel the need to clarify something posted to me by someone else on my talk page, please create a new section and address me directly. Thanks. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from watchlist

Not wanting to be labeled "creepy stalking guy" because of my site ignorance, I have removed this page from my watchlist. Foolishly I assumed administrators here wouldn't ignore issues in clear violation of site rules, and we all know what assume means! I do respectfully suggest, B Fizz, that in the future you might just remove what you don't want on your talk page, rather than complain if personal attacks are answered when it was you who allowed them to remain. Just saying.... --TK-CP (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. I might clean this page up someday. ...comments? ~BF izz 01:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: small continuation of discussion on TK-CP's talk page. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LTSally name change

FYI, I have changed my user name from LTSally to BlackCab to avoid the tiresome, but entirely reasonable, false assumptions about my gender. BlackCab (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for telling me. I made the same false assumption when I first started interacting with you. ...comments? ~BF izz 04:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silencing discussion on article's adherence to core WP policy

User:Hipocrite has quashed the response to your question on NPOV and W:RS discussion. [4][5] nobs (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting link to quash (no article there, just a pointer to wiktionary). I've commented on Talk:Conservapedia regarding the issue. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of monuments and memorials of Joseph Smith, Jr.

I have nominated List of monuments and memorials of Joseph Smith, Jr., an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monuments and memorials of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith peer review

I was removing the peer review status on the Jordan River article I've been working on when I saw the Joseph Smith article. I'm not a reviewer... I'd be horrible at it, but wanted to make some comments. I'll read it closer later but what hit me was wikilink overload. Generally, something should only be wikilinked once. There are alot of instances where the same word is wikilinked multiple times, including in the same paragraph... Prophet, seer stone, Anointed Quorum, etc. I also used the DabLink tool and found several disambiguation wikilinks. Go BYU Bgwhite (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll look into that. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about lds mormons

Hi Bfizz, I just made this account on wikipedia so I could ask you and other some general questions about mormons. 1' Did Smith ever teach the Adam is God theory? 2' Did Emma betray the Church after Smith died? 3' What do you think of the controversial translation of the book of Abraham? 4' When it comes to 2 Nephi did Smith just copy parts of Isaiah out of his king james version? 5' Did Smith drink wine a lot? Thanks. Steve --Stevemccardell (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stevemccardell. To briefly answer your "general" questions,

1. Kinda sorta maybe. See Adam-God theory#Reputed teaching by Joseph Smith, Jr. Quotes that go beyond the extent that "Adam was a god" to say that "Adam is our God" are (almost?) exclusively attributed to Brigham Young.

2. Define "betray". Did she leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Yes (ish). Did she claim her husband's property as her own, thus taking some property away from the Church that perhaps should have been owned by the Church? Yes. Did she do anything terrible to or attempt to destroy the Church? Not that I'm aware of.

3. I personally believe Joseph Smith, Jr. to be a true prophet of God, and the Book of Abraham to be divinely inspired writing. My opinion falls in line with apologists who assert that the translation was based on portions of the papyri that were lost. I do not force these beliefs or opinions on others as The Truth, but do myself believe them to be true.

4. I do not believe that to be true.

5. Colloquially, I've heard that he always carried a flask of wine. In all honesty, I've no idea. If anybody tried to put that into his article on Wikipedia, I'd demand a few good sources before letting it in.

If you want me to go into more depth with any of these answers, just let me know. Disclaimer: I am not necessarily authorized to make official statements on behalf of the LDS Church or LDS Mormons as a whole. I've just stated my own opinions and beliefs, and most LDS Mormons would probably agree with these views. Now that I've answered, let me ask you a question. Why do you ask? ...comments? ~BF izz 17:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your honest answers. I am studying the Mormon church right now. I understand some of the basic principles, but I do not know a lot about the history of the LDS church. If I have any further questions I will inquire of you. Thanks. Steve --Stevemccardell (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical note: User:Stevemccardell was apparently a sockpuppet, supposedly the same person as User:Anti Foxe. I have no idea what his motives truly were in asking me these things, but I stand by my answers. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good writing

Your comments at the vandalfighter RIP hit the mark exactly: I look forward to reading your work in future. Regards - Pointillist (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For this edit; very well said and also really sad! Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pointillist and look forward to interacting with you in future. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. If there is any interesting discussion of new policy, be sure to let me know. In the meantime I'll gradually work on expressing my various thoughts. See User:B Fizz/subpages if you are interested in reading my 2 cents on a few WP-related topics. ...comments? ~BF izz 15:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas S. Monson

Hello, B Fizz. You have new messages at Talk:Thomas S. Monson.
Message added --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 20:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Warning (Sept 2010)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors." It was the particular edits that I was labeling as ridiculous and lazy; I'm sure that both you and Foxe are typically sensible and productive. You have my apologies that my comment came across as a personal attack.

Historical note: Duke was referring to this comment of mine. ...comments? ~BF izz 17:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

warning users

Hi- make sure to warn users like this. It certainly makes blocking them easier when they persist. Cheers, tedder (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I was in mindless undo-vandalism mode and neglected to realize that a potentially valuable Wikipedian was behind the edit. ...comments? ~BF izz 16:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "potentially valuable Wikipedian" was behind the edit? tedder (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the anon in question has the potential to become interested in productive editing. I should have reached out and explained rather than simply reverting. ...comments? ~BF izz 04:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Yeah, templates are nice for "hey! that isn't appreciated!" and also for "you might try.." type behavior. It's all good- and thanks for the translation. My human-to-tedder rosetta is a little narrow in meanings. tedder (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of your comments

You said this on another talk page:

"Note that I'm not nominating your "paradise of skepticism" essay because it is directly relevant to Wikipedia. ...comments? ~BF izz 04:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

If you hit some of the links on that page you will see, indeed, that it is also an attack page. Cheers Duke53 | ^Talk 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. However, the reason I nominated the "why its true" page is because it is not directly relevant to Wikipedia. 99% of it was simply the presentation of apologetic views. The skepticism page, however, is clearly an essay regarding Wikipedia, so shouldn't be deleted under the same criteria. If it offends you, feel free to take it through an MFD based on NPA or whatever other policy you believe it violates. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I will file away the info you have provided: an attack page disguised as an essay is allowable at WP. Should come in handy in the future. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't twist my words. I never said it was allowable. I only said I wouldn't be the one for prosecuting that issue, and made clear that the two issues were distinct. ...comments?~BF izz 19:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have imagined that the italicized "under the same criteria" would have prevented your eager misinterpretation of my words. ...comments? ~BF izz 19:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By saying "because it is directly relevant to Wikipedia" you have tacitly said that it is allowable (or at least that will be his argument). By the way, any page attacking other editors isnot 'directly relevant' to WP. Cheers. Duke53 |^Talk 19:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not continue this discussion here. If you have problems with the particular essay, then send it through MFD. It's really quite simple to do, especially with Twinkle. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]