User talk:PURECREATIONS

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Oliver Cromwell appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. BigDunc^Talk 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Oliver Cromwell. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Oliver Cromwell was changed by PURECREATIONS (u) (t) deleting 13363 characters on 2008-09-06T04:41:13+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Oliver Cromwell. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Jagun^Talk_Contribs 05:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Purecreations. I note your frustration with regards to your edits on Oliver Cromwell and to some extent sypmathise however; if you're going to edit articles on Wikipedia what you need to be aware of is that it isn't enough just to know about the subject matter. Everything on these pages has to contain a verifiable source which has to be included with the text. Therefore, if you want to say that Cromwell's men killed "2,000 soldiers" (to correct "2,000 inhabitants") then you have to have a verifiable source, such as a book or internet link (not a self published one) which backs up your claim. You need to sit back and reflect upon your opinions too because someone like Cromwell, who was fides defensor as absolute dictator and who was Puritan, isn't exactly going to be known as Pro Catholic. Of course you need to educate the reader as to the policies of the time, such as towns being laid under siege because they refused to surrender. At that time it was custom and practice when capturing towns after a seige to put everyone to the sword, whereas if they'd surrendered no-one would have been killed. It's very easy to get annoyed with things which you see on Wikipedia but it isn't good policy to start out by threatening the site with complaints to the Attorney General. You'd quickly get labelled as disruptive and get blocked from editing. It's a complex site and it takes a lot of time getting used to its methodology and system of administration but when used correctly it is infinitely possible to get your point across, as long as that point is verified by a good source. I respectfully suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:List_of_policies. There's a lot to take in but perhaps after studying some aspects of it you may find your time on Wikipedia more rewarding as you get to grips with the complexities of including information on contentious subjects. The Thunderer (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Lesson number 2, when you reply to someone's messages it's usually better to do it on their own talk page "User talk:The Thunderer" rather than on someone else's. Or if you simply reply to the message on your own page then that user can engage in dialogue there. The slant or bias you refer to is called point of view. If you follow the blue lonk it'll take you to an essay on it. Similarly there are other Wikipedia terms such as undue weight or well poisoning which refer to methods used by some editors to give a synthesis to an article which suits their POV. Wikipedia doesn't consider "truth" to be an over-riding factor. Obviously the article needs to be truthful but the main thrust is on providing verifiability though "acceptable" internet sources or links to books or academic studies. If you write it down, a reader has to be able to see where you got the information. If something is true but you can't find a source - don't include it, unless it is "non-controversial". It is complex and frustrating but the longer you are involved, the more you'll see how the system works. The Thunderer (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Regarding this wikipedia take legal threats seriously and I would ask you to retract it. BigDunc^Talk 12:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Tupper Saussy has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Reach Out to the Truth 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)