User talk:Fizzackerly

Hello Fizzackerly, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Silly rabbit (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Silly rabbit (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic[edit]

"Iceberg, right ahead!!" dialog[edit]

Is there any evidence for the dialog between the iceberg watchers and the bridge quoted in the article or was it just lifted from the '97 film? Just curious to know. It doesn't read like real dialog (and therefore does read like JCameron dialog) - for a start there's no swearing. If I saw the ship was bearing down on an iceberg as big as the ship, the air would be blue!Fizzackerly 16:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes - http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq15Fleet01.php - Testimony of Frederick Fleet (lookout) at British Inquiry Question 17286 WhaleyTim 10:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/AmInq04Fleet01.php - Testimony of Frederick Fleet (lookout) at US Inquiry WhaleyTim 11:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Hello, I hope you dont mind but I reverted your recent edit to the lead section of this page because it does not have reference. The lead paragraph is supposed to be a brief summary of the articles contents. Your comments really need to have a reliable reference to be able to be included in the article. While it is true that the Church does hold a conservative point of view and has sometimes been slow with apologies, I am not sure there is a reference that would meet WP:RS to be able to include those comments. If you take a look at the history section in modernity, these criticisms are addressed as factual statements that we were able to find reliable references for. Please come take a look at this section and if you have any recommendations for improving the article, come to the talk page and try to get a consensus of editors to support your view if you have a reference please. Thanks for your time and effort. NancyHeise (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you might not want my edits included given your personal beliefs. However, if you agree, as you apparently do, that what I state is true, then why would you want to delete it. There are a huge number of 'facts' in this article alone which are stated without supporting references, virtually every sentence contains one! My guess is your personal position on the value of the RCC to society is colouring your view of my edits and you've lost a degree of objectivity. The difficulty is that what I say is true and by editing out my comments you're at risk of losing balance on the actual status and politics of the RCC. Fizzackerly (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C++[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to C++, you will be blocked from editing. --Yamla (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Standing on the shoulders ...[edit]

I reverted it as it what was originally was on the page before I edited it, and the version you changed it to didn't have a source next to it. So, I reverted. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]