Talk:Tuite baronets

Request edit on 29 May 2020

Please revert ALL changes made by Kleuske and others on April 10, 2020. These changes are incorrect and unsupported (no justifications given for the changes). The previous information was correct and well documented. If supporting documentation is needed I can provide it here if this is the best place for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTuite (talk • contribs) 04:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi TTuite, thank you very much for the request. If I understand correctly, you are asking for the following changes to be reverted: Special:Diff/950092255/950098070. However:

• The content has been removed with the concern "unsourced"; you have not addressed this concern by providing a reliable inline citation that directly supports your proposed addition. The requested change thus does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
• The proposed immediate re-insertion without prior discussion seems to be a violation of WP:ONUS, a part of the verifiability policy that requires you to gain consensus for your disputed addition before making or requesting it. The discussion should ideally have happened here on this talk page.
• The reason for your edit request is an alleged lack of justification. This is not the case: At least one editor insists that the removal is justified by the policies WP:BLP and WP:V, which – if correct – is definitely justification enough for removal. The burden is usually on you to disprove these removal reasons, especially if you have a conflict of interest.

Please have a look at WP:Dispute resolution for ideas how to continue. Especially if you have a conflict of interest, the section "WP:DISENGAGE" can be more relevant and helpful than usually expected by participants of a heated dispute. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, thank you for your reply. Your summary of my requested changes is correct. I will attempt to provide justification for this request here.

I think the easiest place to start is here - https://www.baronetage.org/official-roll/ The section on Tuite firmly establishes the legitimacy of the Tuite Baronetcy as well as the current Baronet.

The original source of the line of heritage that was deleted is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20180823033750/http://www.leighrayment.com/baronetage/baronetsT2.htm granted this is not as good as the first source, but it matches all documentation I have on hand.

As to the family crest / coat of arms section that was deleted - Update: I found a pretty good site with the coat of arms and some very good supporting references: http://www.tuites1.com/424198537 That should do it for the coat of arms. I will deal with the crest another day :)

Thanks for your help and for alerting me to the conflict of interest rules, I did not know Wiki had such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTuite (talk • contribs) 06:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It has now been over 1 year since I made this edit request. I have reached out to the person(s) that made the changes (deletion of most information from the site) and not heard back. I am now requesting that the admins of this page either make the changes (revert to previous version) requested above or allow me to do so. I believe I have provided more than ample justification for this request above. Thanks for any help you can give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTuite (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, TTuite. I'm afraid I have to oppose the proposed changes, assuming we're still talking about Special:Diff/950092255/950098070. Else, please create a copy of the article as a userspace draft, implement the new idea there and propose the changes to be moved to the main article, by asking here again.

Wikipedia is neither a collection of raw data nor a provider of external links within article content (cf. the first paragraph of WP:EL). Wikipedia also does not directly address the reader (MOS:YOU).

I also disagree about using baronetage.org, a closely connected (non-neutral, non-independent), self-published, primary source, for determining whether article content should be included or not. tuites1.com seems to be as close to an unreliable self-published blog as one can get; it even explicitly denies its own reliability on the "Contact" page and recommends using Ancestry.com, a website known so well for its unreliability on Wikipedia that it has its own "WP:ANCESTRY.COM" shortcut.

Reverting the changes was a correct implementation of Wikipedia's core content policies.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

My last name is Tuite

I'm 8 years old and I'm a girl who is very very very smart 👍 I love school 🎒📚 and my family moved here to California USA 🇺🇸 47.153.105.16 (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)