User talk:HenriettaVanLaer

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, HenriettaVanLaer! I am WereSpielChequers and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

ϢereSpielChequers 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You left me a long message . ~Is this how to reply to it? I have no idea whether what I put on Wikipedia will be approved. Everybody says that it's pointless putting anything on because a million people immediately expunge it. HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)HenriettaVanLaer.

Hi Henrietta, I've moved your comment here because discussions like this really belong on talkpages. There are about ten million edits to Wikipedia every 6 weeks and about two thousand articles added per day. Of these a large proportion of those edits are reverted and about half of the articles deleted. But if you are writing about an encyclopaedic subject such as Corsican history, and you cite your additions you are very unlikely to have your edits reverted. The vast majority of what gets deleted or reverted is vandalism, or spam being added to promote actresses whose only work has gone straight to DVD but have pay for view sites, bands that are the next big thing in a particular town and will be playing their first rehearsal next week if they can get a new Bass guitarist, and so forth. If your friends are passing on an urban myth then I suggest you move from the talkpage and start editing Pasquale Paoli, and go back to the talkpage if people disagree with your edits. If one or more of your friends has had a bad experience with Wikipedia and would like me to look at their edits and explain what happened I would be happy to do so. You might also want to look at the history of that page - that will give you a good idea of the sort of edits that do get reverted and any current disputes about the article. ϢereSpielChequers 10:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking of cookies, do you know where the expression "cookies" in computer-speak comes from? HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)HVLaer.

No I don't, but there's a fairly convincing explanation at Magic cookie ϢereSpielChequers 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to UK Independence Party

Hi HenriettaVanLaer,

Just to let you know, I've reverted the removal of fairly large chunks of information you did to the article on UK Independence Party. The information all appears factual, and sourced. Some of it may appear uncomfortable to the party, but we're here to document all the relevant information, which those sections were. If you'd like to discuss this, or Wikipedia ways of working, or would like any help, do please reply either here on on my talk page. All the best --Saalstin (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi HenriettaVanLaer,

I've reverted the changes you've made again, as, whilst no article is perfect, your changes seem to make it significantly less neutral than it currently is. The people to whom you referred were party members, and were variously expelled, jailed, or resigned due to their disputes, and in at least one case, criminal acts. Our article states the facts - a person can then make their own judgement. Hiding these things would contribute to creating an artificially positive impression, which we have no business doing. Whilst all of the content of the article is sourced, your assertions are not. All the best --Saalstin (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sir Richardson (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)********************************* It is quite unconvincing to assert that Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view". It is actually overwhelmingly biassed and run by people who put their own views as "facts" while censoring anyone else's as "opinions". You are a clique who kid yourselves that you are being detached and objective. When anyone points it out, you simply resort to censorship. *************** HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Liberal Democrats. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. I read the source; it's a lot more vague than your representation of it. I suggest if you're going to use such sources, you cite exactly what they say, no more, and do not speculate beyond that. Rodhullandemu 23:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)************** HENRIETTA VAN LAER replies "What is vague about either of the sources? They are both very precise indeed, and since these facts were made public, neither Nick Clegg nor his party has succeeded in bringing any defence or counter-evidence. They are admitting the accusations are true."HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Silence = consent" is not a theory that finds much general approval in the legal community, and neither does it here. I see you've taken it to the Talk page; good, that's where justification of these sources belongs. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 18:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • HENRIETTA VAN LAER says: Silence = consent is, and always has been, the law in the UK.

If someone makes public allegations of criminal behaviour against you and you do not, or cannot refute them, the logical conclusion to be drawn is that the allegations are correct. In the articles on right-wing parties, mere allegation or abuse is included in the text of the article, in fact that is what the articles consist of almost entirely. How does that amount to a neutral point of view?

Some advice

Tread more carefully. Read our note that describes how Wikipedia is not a battleground, and this essay, and stay calm when editing, and avoid using talk pages as a forum. Making your points succinctly and dispassionately, avoiding personal opinion and interpretations, and sticking to reliable sources, is likely to get a favourable response from other editors; in contrast, complaining of censorship or bias if others disagree with you is only likely to turn uninvolved editors against you. Editors who are seen to have a clear agenda often don't last long on Wikipedia before they are blocked, not because their particular agenda is a problem, but because having an agenda at all is a problem for Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 20:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)************************ HENRIETTA VAN LAER says, No,. it's not that having an agenda at all is a problem for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a very clear and unconcealable agenda [pro-socialists, liberals, greens and gays, determined to vilify and demonize conservatives]. It is a completely biassed source. Its articles on so-called left-wing parties are blatant whitewash while those on so-called right-wing parties are nothing but vilification, most of it based on flimsy third-hand sources and malicious allegations with no basis in fact. Instead of detailing their policies, Wikipedia provides a compendium of prejudice. The frequent denials that you have a point of view or that you are biassed are not at all convincing, particularly since the whole slant is maintained by a policy of rigorous censorship. POV in Wiki-speak = different POV to us, the Wiki-police.

I also get the impression that Wikipeople are pretty young. There is no sign of maturity or experience of the real world in their political views.

Under "conservative" we find the definition that these parties are merely in favour of the rich. How naive can you get? I don't know what the term "fat cat" means in the USA but here in Britain it has a very specific meaning i.e. the people employed in the public sector who get salaries of 10-15 times the average. Naturally they are inclined to vote Labour and can also legally donate large sums to that party. Then there are a million more people employed in useless quangos which would be abolished by a right-wing tax-cutting party. Many of them earn two or three times the average wage, and like the fat cats, they get generous pension-packages too. Added to the votes of the millions of people who live long-term on state benefits, this amounts to a huge vested interest in the socialist programme on the part of people who are neither honest-Joe workers or low-paid. But Wikipedia is still living in a world of student politics, with a poster of Che Guevara on the wall, his hair streaming in the wind.