User talk:FabFabFay

Welcome!

Hello, FabFabFay! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! SwiftyPeep (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

February 2020

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Shrove Tuesday, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Shrove Tuesday. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Elizium, I do not understand what the problem is. You asked for more citations and I've cited everything. The first is an an example of the myth, the second is a theology book to back up the statement that Christianity does not have pillars. The third is a cook book to back up pancakes don't have four ingredients. None of it is original research and none of it is a novel. I don't understand what the problem is. Please reinstate the edit.

You claim it is a myth, but you have produced no sources describing it as a myth. You have unilaterally decided it is a myth and you have provided sources with evidence contrary to the story presented. That is textbook synthesis. You don't need more sources, you need sources that directly support the statements you want to make, rather than A + B + C = D. Elizium23 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. However, in the same way that no car manual categorically states that 'car engines are not made of green cheese' no theology book categorical states that 'Christianity does not have four pillars'. However, were there four pillars of Christianity, it would be in a Christianity primer, and it is not. Hence my citation. Would it help if I re-phased 'myth' as 'this has no basis in Christian theology' ?

Surely there would be a news article somewhere, for example the Christian Science Monitor or Christianity Today or the National Catholic Register that exposed it as a myth and explained why? We're not the ones in the business of thinking up ways to debunk myths. We report what reliable secondary sources say about things. Otherwise, let's not be repeating the myth here, lest it spread more. Elizium23 (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)