User talk:B Fizz/2011

This page is an archive of User talk:B Fizz for threads that concluded during the year 2011.

Joseph Franklin Rutherford

Hi Fizz, if you have the time, you might like to have a quick look at what's going on at the above page. A slow-mo edit war is under way between a current Jehovah's Witness and a member of a Bible Student group on whether JF Rutherford, the second president of the Watch Tower Society, was the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses. The debate began here; I've made a proposal a little further down the page, which I think overcomes the problem, but I'm just kinda tired of dealing with it heavily at the moment. One book I read recently (self-published, unfortunately, so not really usable as a source) states that members of Bible Student groups do follow the line that Rutherford founded Jehovah's Witnesses, while the conventional claim in external sources, and generally (vaguely) portrayed in WTS publications, is that Charles Taze Russell founded it.

There's also an edit war going on over the issue of whether a particular source (Walter Salter) stated that Rutherford was a heavy drinker, which is also in contention. The discussion is also on the page. You've offered valuable help in past spats at JW pages, and a fresh set of eyes wouldn't hurt here. BlackCab(talk) 04:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; thanks for informing me. Feel free to grab my attention if discussions get interesting. I haven't been paying as much attention to JW articles lately but am always willing to help where I can. ...comments? ~BF izz 04:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles R. Forbes

I had made changes to the article. Do you have an expected time to finish the review? What other areas need to be worked on? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly be done in 2 weeks; possibly within 1 week. I'll keep noting the things I find that need work, but the article is looking really good so far and you've been very responsive about the little things that I have noted. I tried to check out Privileged Characters from the library, but apparently wrote the wrong call number and couldn't find it. I'll try again soon; I want to at least verify with that book in print, and the others I will probably just use google books or the links provided to verify the information cited. ...comments? ~BF izz 00:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a free link at Internet Archive: Privileged characters

Thanks BFizz for your valued suggestions to improve the article. I can address your concerns and/or suggestions in the review. Thanks for reviewing the article and giving the article good status. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could help. I just followed the criteria, and as far as I can tell, the article satisfies the criteria. Simple as that. :) Keep up the good work. ...comments? ~BF izz 20:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith, Jr. GA nomination

Unfortunately the artcile is not a pass at this time. It honestly requires so much work I cannot see placing a hold. I am however. not giving up on the article and will continue to attempt fixes on the images where I can and work on references etc. I am sorry it couldn't pass at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you can help us move in the right direction, then the review has served its purpose. Thank you for your effort. ...comments? ~BF izz 19:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stained glass window image copyright

Dont worry about that copyright issue. It's fine!

Wikimedia Commons policy, photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet or in a book

Y. Although many materials such as stained glass and fabric possess some three-dimensional texture, at ordinary viewing distances this texture is essentially invisible. As long as the surface is not noticeably curved or tattered/broken, and the original work is old enough to have entered the public domain, it is considered a faithful reproduction of the original with no original contribution.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on that. ...comments? ~BF izz 01:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated

First of all, I would like to thank you for bringing the Emma Hale Smith caption topic to a (possible) close. I personally like it a lot. On another subject, I've noticed that you keep linking to this and I keep thinking that it is accessible online. Silly me. Thanks again, Firinne ^talk 17:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you feel my change was a step in the right direction. It is tiresome to see almost all of my attempts at compromise and ingenuity being quashed by the status-quo-keepers; I think I'm due for awikibreak. ...comments? ~BF izz 01:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat new to this atmosphere, but I quite enjoy it, although it can be very frustating at times. Reverts are like a slap in the face, so I know what you mean about taking a break. I hope that you don't, though, because the fight for true neutrality would be much tougher without your help. Thanks again, Firinne ^talk 11:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011 Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joseph Smith, Jr.. Users are expected tocollaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporarypage protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will refrain from editing the article for at least a few days. ...comments?~BF izz 01:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice regarding the arbitration request

Hey BFizz,

Duke is accusing me offensively in the arbirtration. He writes,

"Canadiandy (if he doesn't post under one of his alter egos, which are numerous)"

I would like to be fair to the process, but I also want to know where I should go to refute this accusation. I am not sure how to make a statement in the arbitration page.

Any advice?

Thanks,

Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy[reply]

Making a note on his user page was probably the best course of action for that. The arbitration request is about Duke, not you, so you probably don't need to disprove the accusation. If you'd like to make a statement anyways (focused on Duke's behavior), here's what you do:

Click the edit link for the section "Statement by {Party 4}"

It should say

===Statement by {Party 4}===

replace that with

===Statement by [[User:Canadiandy1|]]===

(followed by a blank line)

(and then your statement, and signature)

(another blank line)

===Statement by {Party 5}===

If you mess up the format, it doesn't matter; I or someone else can help fix it. ...comments? ~BF izz 02:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help fix it up, and you definitely should comment, Canadiandy. I've accused you of sockpuppetry in the past, but you never shy away from identifying yourself even when you are posting without being logged in- so it's more of a technical thing. tedder (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Hi, Your last edit seems to have included a glitch where you dropped some text into the middle of other wording - I removed it, but don't know where you meant to put it! PamD (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that! Guess I forgot to check the diff before I saved that one. Sometimes my hand accidentally grazes my laptop's touchpad while I'm typing, and suddenly I've "clicked" somewhere and am typing in the wrong place. That fragment looks like part of what I was going to say at first, but then I completely changed my approach to saying it; it was fine to just delete it. ...comments? ~BF izz 15:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank your for your help! I completely failed to notice the new link at the top for "New Sections." I'm hoping to be of more help in the near future. TerraNirvana (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! A request for your input

Per wp:CANVASSING, this is a neutrally worded notice being sent, without any type of "selection" bias, to everyone that edited fairly recently the MOS page about how to term the Latter Day Saints denominations on Wikipedia in the belief that your various and collective expertise or expertises, if that's a plural, can help us improve its wording, if possible. a bit. The most pertinent section ishere. And the issue is to what degree the terms "Mormon church" and "LDS church" relate to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in specific, and to what kind of sourcing should be used to document this. Thanks, if you find time and the interest to look into the matter and offer your opinion or commentary.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Bot template page

Hi B Fizz. Just wondered if you would like to comment on the Bot template page where a discussion about the change of the icon that trial bots use has been started. I feel more input is required before consensus is reached. You are reciving this message as you are signed up for theRFC service. Thank you. Cj005257 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks a million for the tips

I was wondering how to indent. Now I don't have to look like a noob. My tilde-ing came about before I understood how to sign off w/o logging in and people started accusing me of sockpuppeting or something like that. I just wanted to be safe.

Really helpful, thanks for taking the time!

I will sign off now w/o tildes! —Preceding unsignedcomment added by Canadiandy1 (talk •contribs) 04:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, check out my amazing signature.--Canadiandy talk 04:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added byCanadiandy1 (talk • contribs)[reply]

Yikes, I'm a sockpuppet! When I try to click on my user, Canadiandy, it tells me it is a sockpuppet of Canadiandy1 (I had a tough time editing my user one time and somehow had to create Canadiandy1 (or maybe it was the other way around). Surely nobody is being deceived by my name usage, but how do I fix this?--Canadiandy talk 04:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk •contribs) [reply]

It gets more confusing. I actually don't get the notification until I click on my name, then click on the discussion tab. Than it tells me my page is a sockpuppet for 'Candiandy' <sic> which I never used as a signature. The warning states, This account is a sock puppet of Candiandy1 and has been blocked indefinitely.Please refer to editing habits, contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful. I rarely use my talk page anyway, but any quick ideas?--Canadiandy talk 04:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it is going to your old account's talk page. If you go to User talk:Canadiandy1, then you will see your own page again. You should link User:Canadiandy1 and User talk:Canadiandy1 in your signatures, since that is the account you actually use. Since you link to your old account in your signature, and not your current account, apparently SineBot thinks you haven't signed at all....comments? ~BF izz 06:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]