User talk:Wiad23

Welcome! Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
 * Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
 * Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! BigNate37T·C 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki protocols and historicity
Dear Wiad23

Thank you for your comment about the use of Wikipedia. For someone to whom this is a real novelty I am beginning to understand that there are certain protocols and am interested in debating these with you.

You refer to the historicity of the edits and whilst I acknowledge the substance of the majority of your edit, I do not accept that the historical accuracy of what you state is expressed as comprehensively in A Lovingly Woven Tapestry -- Oxley College.

In a personal letter to me, Dr David Wright, founding Headmaster, says this "unsurprisingly, perhaps, I found the whole exercise [of reading history of which one is a central figure]instructive in another sense. You realise the challenge the historian faces.  If anyone else had written the story... doubtless a very different version of events would have been produced.  History, as they say, is not the record of what happened, but of what the historian saw as significant in what happened - and gave their own interpretation to."

It is this issue of historicity that fascinates me about your insistence on certain edits in this particular entry. The edits are written with a certain slant. Having read A Lovingly Woven Tapestry myself, I cannot find it as fully authenticated as you suggest. Also, I have made no secret of my identity. If you have read A Lovingly Woven Tapestry as thoroughly as you claim, you would know who I am and therefore I find it rather exotic that you refer to me as Dear Sir or Madam.

I have also been happy to correct other inaccuracies in your edits, including the mis-spelling of the word 'tapestry' (tapistry, sic).

I would like to debate with you the nature of the historicity to which you refer but find it difficult when your perspective is clouded by the cloak of anonymity in which you have shrouded yourself. Perhaps if you could identify yourself, the truths in David Wright's perception might add some richness to the discussion on what is historically factual and what isn't. If I were to know who you are, I could understand your lens better. Perhaps you might also like to understand mine.

As I have said, this is a new adventure for me. As someone who has invested his whole life in education, I acknowledge one particular aspect of Oxley College's Statement of Purpose and Principle, that is to nurture 'an intellectual interest in the pursuit of truth'.

I look forward to a discussion with you, perhaps less shrouded in secrecy.

With warm personal regards.

Chris Welsh

Head of School

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.39.12 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 8 August 2006