User talk:Pete the pitiless
thanks for your edit to fox hunting. I absolutely see the point you're trying to make with your edit but i have, for the moment, had to put the article back the way it was. This is because this article is particularly contentious, and we always try to keep it within the policy of verifiability (at WP:V) and cited information (at WP:CITE). In a nutshell, this means that it is not what is true that we can write about, but what we can prove to be true with reliable third party sources. At the moment, the paragraph is written so as to support the citation. I don't have time right now, but i will try and look at this in the next couple of days to see if i can improve the wording in line with the sourcing.
I hope that all makes sense, but if not, please feel free to reply here, on my talk page, or on the article talk page - or of course get stuck back in with a cited change.
- Thanks for the note, I've had a couple of things reverted quickly recently because they were on controversial topics and not up to scratch and it took a while to work out what was going on, your helpful note has prevented that this time. I've altered the change I made and resubmitted, I beleive that now it should do.
- Pete the pitiless (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)