Fizzos98

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please put the four tildes on every comment you make on a talk page. Thanks! Bytebear (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Dear Fizzos98,

You have added the same material to the article on Christianity five times and been reverted by three different editors. This behaviour is edit warring. Please do not do it: discuss the edits on the talk page (where I have commented on them) but do not keep inserting them. Edit warring is a blockable offence even if you do not exceed 3RR although in this case I would not be the blocking admin as I did one of the reverts. --BozMo talk 17:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fizz, as a fellow LDS, I am a bit puzzled by your actions on the Christianity article. I think I understand your motivation, but as editors of Wikipedia we must be aware of its policies and function within its framework. If we were writing for a LDS website a specific tone could be used; however, here we strive for NPOV and balance.

The biggest reason your language has been reverted repeatedly is that is too much information on a group that is relatively small. Given the purpose of the article it necessarily must focus on the majority view and then filled out with minority views. Does this make sense to you?

Please let me know if you have any questions. I would enjoy working with you. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The truth on Wikipedia

Based on some of your recent comments, I think you may be frustrated editing Wikipedia if you think that it should have "the Truth" on it rather than verifiable information backed by reliable sources. I suggest you read through those links. Truth is very often subject to the point of view of the advocate, that is why one of the fundamental tenants of Wikipedia is to be neutral and the standards are not based on truth. If something is "true" there will be plenty of reliable sources and few, if any, reliable sources to the contrary. See for example Sky for the truth that the sky is blue, "During daylight the sky of Earth has the appearance of a deep blue surface, as the result of the air's scattering of sunlight." Notice that there are 4 references to this comment even though nearly every person knows this from their own first hand experience. --Trödel 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)