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[edit]

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!!![edit]

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]