User talk:Coldman Follower

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia.

I've been looking over your additions to the Faberge eggs and the source you made the changes on, states "NB: Not all Faberge scholars agree with my theory that this egg is the 1895 Egg. To them the Blue Serpent Clock Egg remains the 1887 Egg, probably until the original invoice for the year 1887 is found..." A simple google search shows there isn't great support for the theory and the museums continue to exhibit the eggs with the original designation. Wikipedia has a policy requiring a neutral point of view, as such it would be inappropriate to present this theory as fact. The information should be included within the articles, but made clear that it is not universally accepted. Without universal acceptance it is inappropriate to present it as the only true "fact".

--Rushton2010 (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571537350 your edit] to Fabergé egg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Geza, in, Fabergé Revealed 2011, p. 29, note 62 www.fabergeresearch.com/eggsframe.htm/ref

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

The removal of fully referenced information without consensus is not allowed on wikipeia. You are also presenting theories that are not universally accepted as universally accepted fact, in violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. And your comment that you will get the website you cite as a source changed serious challenges its credentials as a reliable source for wikipedia, and suggests conflict of interest editing, something also forbidden on wikipedia.

All the pages currently have sections thoroughly detailing the discussion over the dates.

Further disruptive editing, deletions, non-neutral edits, and breaches of wikipedia's policies could be treated as vandalism and result in you being blocked from editing wikipedia.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your email. I am sympathetic to what you are trying to do, but its not how wikipedia works; wikipedia is not a depository for original research and scholarship. Its a depository of established information, and everything must be reliably referenced within the article: Simply claiming it is universally accepted by scholars and requesting we contact people, is not how wikipedia works. Also we must be very clear on wikipedia's policies of neutrality and verifiablity. The articles are backed by reputable sources backing the original dates. One or two who put forward theories on other dates do not trump the established order as it is their opinion, and wikipedia's policies do not allow undue weight to be placed on the opinions of a few over the established order; they also do not allow the old information to be removed in its entirety. Wikipedia also follows "Verifiability, not truth". There by its what can be verified that goes into the articles (even if some people may claim that not the "truth"). The established dates for the eggs can be verified even in the most recent of documentaries and books. Claims of universal acceptance of the "new" dates cannot be verified; and a simple google search shows little to support claims of universal acceptance, and the fact one of the sources states its is only their opinion and not accepted at large, coupled with the insurmountable fact that the museums have not changed their description, are big indicators of that fact. Claims that the museums might or will change their descriptions are also not valid; as the policy states "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" -wikipedia does not predict the future, it works on established and verifiable sources. All the evidence suggests they are just theories and under wikipedia's policies they cannot be given undue weight against the established order. The reliability of the websites to support such claims can also be called into question, and not just by your claims you can get them changed: Wikipedia also does not allow original research or self published sources -that website is self published by the person putting forward the theory. Just to get such theories included in a wikipedia article the theory should have been published in things such as peer-reviewed journals or respected online publications; with those publications listed as a reference. The theories of the new dates are not backed up by either of those things and there are editors who may argue for their total exclusion from the articles on the basis that they do not meet wikipedia's policies. I've not been that harsh and have incorporated them into the article, but you need to realise what the eventual outcome could be. It may be frustrating (believe me there are a fair few articles that I tear my hair out at), but we are all bound by Wikipedia's policies and rules. Failure to abide by those rules through repeated disruptive editing results in people being banned from the website; the removal of referenced material from the encyclopedia is not tolerated and is considered vandalism; and again leads to people being banned.

Claims of universal acceptance can simply not been backed up, and evidence to support any claim falls far far short of what wikipedia's policies require. All of the articles in question have sections detailing the fact there was some question over the dates of some of the eggs. Many of them have now been expanded with content taken from your additions. Your welcome to add further to those sections, but you must abide by the rules. Retain a neutral point of view and do not place undue weight on any theory. Do not change or remove referenced material from within the articles and be clear about what is fact, opinion and theory. Also avoid self-published sources and original research. I notice you know how to use your sandbox; if you want to practice any edits there, I'd be more than willing to look them over to make sure they are within policy before they are posted to the main article space. It protects you somewhat, as breaches of policy or disruption within the main article space is not usually received warmly.

Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)