User talk:Blandote

September 2013
Hello, I'm Technopat. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Picaresque novel without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! You are welcome to add new content and the corresponding references, but please do not remove existing references without first reaching consesnus on the talk pages. Technopat (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for your note. First of all, I have to inform you that I have restored the existing version that you have insisted on removing once again. I was hoping that your note signalled the start of meaningful communication regarding the addition of further references, but your insistence on "pushing" your version is considered edit-warring and is definitely not acceptable and will require third-party intervention. Please do not remove existing references without first obtaining consensus at the article talk page.

Wikipedia is not interested in any one Truth and can only convey what other published sources have already stated. Neither you nor I are judges of whether the claim made by a reliable source is "correct" or not and the most we can do is ensure that articles a) reflect as many "authorised" points of view as possible, even (and especially) if they offer differing versions, and b) that those points of view are suitably referenced by reliable sources.

If that requires rewriting a paragraph to reflect such differences, using formulas such as "whereas other authors, such as xxx, suggest/define/use/claim/state ...", i.e., adding more text with suitable references, so be it. As I have pointed out now several times, both here and in my edit summaries, and I insist once again, it does not mean, removing existing references unless there is a clear consensus to that effect among the editors participating in any eventual discussion over the issue. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)