User talk:LisaRudisill

Under Wikipedia ENGLISH CIVIL WARS, I would question the author's opinion stated in his summary here under the "AFTERMATH" SECTION: "The outcome of this system was that the future Kingdom of Great Britain, formed in 1707 under the Acts of Union, managed to forestall the kind of often-bloody revolution typical of European republican movements, as seen after the Jacobin revolution in 18th-century France and the later success of Napoleon, which generally resulted in total abolition of monarchy. Thus the United Kingdom was spared the wave of revolutions that occurred in Europe in the 1840s. Specifically, future monarchs became wary of pushing Parliament too hard, and Parliament effectively chose the line of royal succession in 1688 with the Glorious Revolution and in the 1701 Act of Settlement.[citation needed]" In my opinion, after having had two bloody Civil Wars and the chopping off of the King's head, I would hardly say that England avoided anything. They have so downplayed this and upplayed the French Revolution that I, an American whose family suffered under the Puritans in the wars, did not even KNOW that the English were so crass as to behead their own monarch! LisaRudisill (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and failure to disclose same

Hello, LisaRudisill. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What connection do I have with what I expressed concern over--other than my own head? I a former Honors Student at UNC Chapel Hill and graduated magna cum laud from North Carolina State University. Don't treat me like a child. LisaRudisill (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with author of "English Civil Wars" in Aftermath section who says the British avoided a bloody revolution against the monarchy like other countries had!!!

Orangemike I have no business connection, receive no remuneration for my work, and continue to disagree with you. I violated no guidelines of Wikipedia. I have no proven direct connection to anyone from 1650 and if I DID, how would Wikipedia find that unacceptable. There are certain to be millions of people who contribute to Wikipedia who are descendants of people written about in these pages....and most do not even know it. Doesn't it matter that we are in a free country and I have a right to disagree with you? I can tell you that I was a top ten (in city) Charlotte, NC student graduating from High school, attended NC Governor's School, was an Honors Student at UNC Chapel Hill, and graduated Magna Cum Laud from North Carolina State University. LisaRudisill (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)LisaRudisill[reply]

Comment

When you write about a person

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article.

Your text was promotional in tone, completely lacking in in-line references and wikilinks, and is basically a block of text of unknown origin Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]