User talk:82.132.241.124

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made to Oakeshott typology. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (82.132.241.124) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! – Corinne (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Oakeshott typology
I noticed your recent  to Oakeshott typology and your detailed edit summary. Since you appear to be fairly new to Wikipedia, I thought I'd mention a few things:

While one basic policy encourages editors to be bold and make changes where they think they need to be made – that is WP:BRD, another basic policy is that all material in Wikipedia articles needs to be from reliable sources, preferably secondary sources, per WP:RS. Also true is that if material in an article is sourced, then it should not be removed from the article without a very good reason, preferably after consensus has been reached on the article's talk page. It seems that in this article, all the material comes from two sources (see References at the bottom of the article). I have no access to those sources so cannot check to see if the sentence you removed was in one of those sources. Perhaps you do have access to the two sources and could check, or have already checked. If, indeed, that information is not in either source, you can simply write in an edit summary, "Removing information not reflected in the source(s)."

There is another basic policy, that of a prohibition on including original research, that is, one's own, or someone else's, original thinking on the subject. Of course, if you spot some original research in an article, and check to be sure it is not in the source provided, you can remove it, with an edit summary saying either "Removing information not reflected in the source(s)" or "Removing original research".

If you see something that seems to be sourced but is either not expressed accurately or is contradicted in another, perhaps better, source, you can either change it and supply the better source or start a discussion on the article's talk page in which you propose the change.

I hope this helps. I also encourage you to register an account and choose a user name. That way, we will get to know you, and you can receive pings from other editors, notifying you of discussions on other talk pages in which you might be interested. (Right now, I believe you cannot receive pings.) You can also start designing your user page. See User page design center. Happy editing! – Corinne (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

August 2021
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Denise Welch. Thank you. – DarkGlow • 15:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)