User talk:Voire Dei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Voire Dei, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

  • Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
  • Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

How you can help:

Additional tips...

  • Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The Image:Wikisigbutton.png button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
  • If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Good luck, and have fun. --Redfarmer (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JW on MH.

Although your assertions and assessments are solidly founded, your edit sumamries lack the civility that helps win arguments. calling 'stupid is as stupid does' puts other editors on the defensive. That sort of edit summary will stop other editors from being as open to listening to your contentions as they could be. Further, this really is a content issue, not vandalism. Even further, Loonymokey's assertion that those seeking to alter/include information in an article have the 'burden of proof', is an accurate reflection of wikiculture and policy. please keep this in mind as you continue to edit. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JW on MH.

Although your assertions and assessments are solidly founded, your edit summaries lack the civility that helps win arguments. calling 'stupid is as stupid does' puts other editors on the defensive. That sort of edit summary will stop other editors from being as open to listening to your contentions as they could be. Further, this really is a content issue, not vandalism. Even further, Loonymonkey's assertion that those seeking to alter/include information in an article have the 'burden of proof', is an accurate reflection of wikiculture and policy. please keep this in mind as you continue to edit. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a content dispute, but content disputes can turn into vandalism when continued stupidity is allowed. I have come to appreciate wikipedia and have chosen to edit, but I may not be one that tolerates blatant ignorance or the pushing of personal agenda. I realize that controversial topics such as those dealing with politics naturally attract those who are committed to the positive portrayal of their candidate, but hose editors should be encouraged to either observe policies or stop editing those articles where they are incapable of being neutral.
I reject any attempt to portray JW as an invalid source. It is a neutral third party; that information was provided. Once information is provided; continued parroting of their personal opinions is does not demean the value of the edit.
Just curious, but why has not the racist past of the Southern Baptist Convention be brought up? Other politicians have had the history of their churches brought up; why does a Baptist get a free past? The whole reason for the existence of this Protestant denomination was the preservation of slavery. They did not retract this position until 1974. Double standards should be rejected in all its guises. --Voire Dei (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)