User talk:47.152.134.105

Richard Lee
And to further explain my repeated edits - I am DISABLED and have challenges with motor skills and mobility so I have to edit more than most. My apology.

I have also conformed to rules and have listed primary sources and cited historic accepted references to validate change. The link to:http://www.leesofvirginia.org/Col_Richard_Lee.html is a valid research document as a retraction request is pending to the NGSQ that published the disproven article published by William Thorndale.


 * The information needs to get out because that would be the prudent thing to do. Thorndale's interpretation of parents being John Leyes and Elizabeth Bendy is based on no support documentation and factual sources that prove up his findings as no sources exists.  He had used family search data collection as his source which is not primary source, and when researched the documentation he quotes in his article Vol 76 NGSQ Dec 1988 "Parents of COl Richard Lee of Virginia" do not exist.  Prior to his research Richard Lee of Coton and Elizabeth Bendy were accepted as parents and primary sources are listed on http://www.leesofvirginia.org/Col_Richard_Lee.html - per COL Richard Lee last Will and Testament the proven Will/Probate of Richard Lee of Coton - both of 'Langthorn, Essex'.  Baptismal Record 15 May 1617 St Chad's Shrewsbury Shropshire listing Richard Lee as father, marriage record of Richard Lee of Coton and Elzabeth Bendy Aveley 1599, Lees of Virginia, E J Lee, etc. are also references with primary sources listed as I have.  Thank you.

Thank you but I am disabled and am trying to do my best and any assistance would be appreciated. This IS important information and needs to get out to all Lee family researchers so the correction to the lineage can be available publicly. Instead of 'schooling' me in such a manner, can you please assist me in the clean up? I am limited in motor skills and would appreciate it. Thank you. Jacqueli


 * As I said, what you need to do is go to Talk:Richard Lee I and begin a new section (click on "new section' tab at the top), and there explain why you think your version is better. I note, though, that it is based on a very old book and a self-published internet page, neither of which can be assumed to be accurate, so you are going to have to convince others that those sources are better than the ones already cited and your version is more correct.

I am a little concerned by your insistence that the information 'needs' to get out. This sounds a bit like what is described in the policy WP:SOAPBOX, where Wikipedia is not to be used to push a point of view, or to disseminate novel discoveries or alternative viewpoints to the masses. You mention primary documents, but these are not to be used on Wikipedia for drawing new conclusions - to do that represents WP:Original Research. I know this can be frustrating, when you know something in Wikipedia is incorrect, but those are the rules.


 * Also, just so you know, there is understanding on Wikipedia that if the same editor repeatedly makes the same change without discussing the change on the Talk page, this is an inherently disruptive act. I am going to revert again because of the reasons I have given - it is formatted incorrectly, and you are going to have to convince me that your version is better - and you need to discuss it on the Talk page rather than again simply putting it back, or you may be found in violation of the policy WP:3RR which though explicitly about reverting material is taken to include making any edit more than three times in a day, rather than discussing the change as per WP:BRD.  Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors are supposed to be summarizing the published record (published in reliable sources), not generating new information and propagating new conclusions. The core policy, WP:OR, expressly forbids placing original research on Wikipedia. The way to get new information onto Wikipedia is to first publish it in a reliable source, then when (and not until) it is published there is the time to have it incorporated into the relevant Wikipedia article.  There are two reasons for doing it this way.  First, material that has not been evaluated by an editor is considered unreliable (WP:RS) by Wikipedia, and hence subject to deletion - simply put, everyone thinks their own conclusions are right, but Wikipedia wants someone else to agree, someone with enough expertise to make the evaluation, an editor.  Second, any genealogist who knows what they are doing should not trust a single thing they find on Wikipedia - just as Wikipedia doesn't trust unpublished information, genealogists should trust 'just something they found on the internet', Wikipedia included.  It is admittedly frustrating for there to be information on Wikipedia you know to be wrong, but there is a correct way to go about fixing it - NGSQ first, then Wikipedia.  Only chaos results from letting anyone with a pet theory replace established consensus, and Wikipedia does not aim for accuracy, but for verifiability (see policy WP:V). Agricolae (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Why you should create an account
Go to Why create an account? and click on the blue Create an account now blue bar at the top of that page. Take a look at the Teahouse Invite below and use that Invite. Go on the Wikipedia Adventure. These should all help you to start understanding how to edit Wikipedia. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Richard Lee I did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Shearonink (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 The Adventure

No Original Research
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agricolae (talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:No legal threats
Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Agricolae (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)