User talk:Janedoe743

Welcome!
Hello, Janedoe743, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 02:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

WP:Edit warring
See WP:3RR. You are edit warring and Administrators can WP:block you for this. Please go to the talk page. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 02:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome
Thank you for your warm welcome, 7&6. I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning how to edit. I have read a number of the main pages,including several that you referred me to, and have learned a lot. I must say that overall I find the process tedious and have no intention of spending a lot of time here which brings me to...

Why I Edited This Article
I have been using Wikipedia since its inception and have never before felt compelled to edit an article. When I looked up this old adage, I was quite shocked to see the following statement which I consider to be politically biased:


 * An example are the economic policies of the 1930s. Intended to be a prudent response to the Wall Street Crash, these were a major cause of the Great Depression and thus eventually of World War II in which millions of people suffered and died.

To read this, it sounds like FDR and the New Deal policies are solely to blame for two terrible events. Economics is not a science and there are many schools of thought about what caused this catastrophes. The statement does have a verifiable source, but that does not mean it is not refutable. The question is: is an article discussing the meaning of a proverb the appropriate venue for discussing the causes of wars and collapses. I think not. The above statement might be more suitable on a page about Herbert Hoover or the WPA.

My intentions are good. I would not want a young person who looked up this page to be mislead by a biased statement so I deleted it. Anyone interested in 1930's economic policy can refer to an article on the subject. I think the example about Asian Carp sufficiently explains the meaning of the adage that is the subject of this page.

Edit Warning
There are probably as many truths in the world as there are individual people. What I consider to be biased may be considered by others to be fact. For instance, you tell me that I am edit warring after I deleted a biased statement. From my point of view, you are the one who is edit warring because you continually revert my edits. Do you not feel that the statement is biased? Do you feel that it is necessary to explain the meaning about "the road to hell..."? Is my edit not valid, or is validity determined by who has made the most edits?

While looking over your own page, I see that you are an 'inclusionist', so perhaps I can assume that you are undoing my edit in an effort to ensure 'free speech for all', even those with whom you disagree. If so, I commend you. I, too, feel that everyone should get their say. Still, I think deleting may sometimes be needed to ensure neutrality.

Neutral Solution
Since my original edit, I have noticed on the page history that the above statement was edited on Feb 1st of this year. The original statement reads:


 * An example are the economic policies of the 1920s and 1930s. Intended to be a prudent response to the economic turmoil following World War I and the Wall Street Crash respectively, these were a major cause of the Great Depression and thus eventually of World War II in which millions of people suffered and died.

I have no problem with this statement, and I think it is much closer to the intent of the authors who wrote the cited book. I would like to change the article back to this version but I thought I would consult you first since you are more experienced in these matters than I am. If you are agreed, then we can both avoid a petty edit war. Janedoe743 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Copying your notes to Talk:The road to hell is paved with good intentions
 * This doesn't just concern you or me. I am putting this on the article's talk page so other editors can chime in.  Please note that I refactored for format only. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * replied on Talk:The road to hell is paved with good intentions 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!
You may find this more useful, although the display is a bit daunting. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!
--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)