User talk:HenriettaVanLaer

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: "Actually, 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?"

Where on earth did you study law, if anywhere? I only started in 1974, so perhaps I'm a little new to the subject. Maybe things have changed diametrically since I last sat in court. Sources? Rodhullandemu 23:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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 prominent agenda [pro-socialists, liberals, greens and gays, determined to vilify and demonize conservatives]. It is a completely biassed website. 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 (which you call being "blocked".) POV in Wiki-speak = different POV to us, the Wiki-police. 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 these quango-drones 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.

Sigh. I don't know what you expect to achieve with this diatribe. I'm saying you need to temper this kind of intemperate comment as it is simply the wrong approach to editing Wikipedia. We work by collaborative editing and persuasion based on the use of reliable sources, not who shouts the loudest. If you want to edit effectively and correct any biases and inaccuracies that may exist in Wikipedia articles (and I am sure there are many), then please do heed my advice. If you prefer to go down fighting, then carry on as you are.

I don't know where you read that note about Conservatives: Conservatism says that "Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to conserve") is a political and social philosophy that says that traditional institutions work best and society should avoid radical change. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were", which seems reasonable. p.s. I'm sure many socialists also don't like council executives receiving high salaries. Fences&Windows 19:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

p.p.s. To find out how to format your comments, read WP:MARKUP and WP:TALK. Using an asterisk, i.e. "*" will give a bullet point. The hash tag, i.e. "#", will give a numbered list. Using a colon, i.e. ":", will indent you comments and two ("::") will indent twice. We use indenting to indicate a reply to the post above. It's courteous to others to avoid your comments being intermingled with theirs, and it avoids confusion. Fences&Windows 19:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

p.p.p.s. Sign your name using four tildes, i.e. "Fences&Windows 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)". And if you are having trouble resolving a dispute, try dispute resolution. You can ask for a third opinion, seek advice on the neutral point of view noticeboard, or ask for advice from Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. And please stay calm! Block capitals and multiple exclamation marks won't make anyone listen. Fences&Windows 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)