User talk:Davebiese

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Davebiese, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Tony Fox (arf!) 07:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Mark Begich
Your edits on this page are problematic in a couple of manners; they appear to violate the neutral point of view guidelines, as well as being original research. I would suggest that if you wish to include information on the article, you discuss it first at Talk:Mark Begich and gain consensus for the edits. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, the edits you have been making to this page are not based on reliable sources as required by editing guidelines here. The information you are inserting is based on primary sources, and edits should be based on secondary sources - newspapers, magazines, etc., rather than your interpretation of the information. The Bible verse is also inappropriate for an encyclopedic article, and gives the information a specific point of view that should not be present. Please discuss your edits on the talk page prior to making further edits. Thank you. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind admonition. I suppose I don't disagree with you.. although... I thought the recorders office documents were reliable enough to be accepted for recordation. We have a liberal media that likes this guy and would never print anything negative... as long as he loots the public and spends the money in a manner they like.

I just thought it interesting and factually correct that this guy handles his private money the same way he handles the public. Spend money today and no sense of tomorrow when the payment is due. Fools and money soon part... and when this guy has access to the public purse no one is safe. And now they are considering him for a senate seat?

I admit am not an unbiase objective observer... as my property taxes have risen 500% on his watch and have serious doubts as to my abiiity to stay in my own home throughout old age. I have talked to many people that have the same concerns some of which were forced to sell or move. How do I get any of this information in our encyclopedia?