User talk:Voire Dei

 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:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


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


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

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:Button sig2.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.

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)

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)

A rewriting of your personal credo
The statement on your home page is an excellent example of foggy thinking that arises from weak writing. I've tightened it up. Feel free to substitute my version. All the best,John Foxe (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"I believe that nothing could be more dangerous than to allow major political parties to exercise their power unchecked. Although we call our society free, it too often appears that freedom is enjoyed chiefly by tyrants. Such a circumstance will eventually lead to the downfall of the United States and to the loss of its citizens' personal freedom. To think that young men and women bleed and die to preserve this state of affairs is almost too much to bear. Freedom is never free nor easy, and the civilized must continually struggle against the hordes of the ignorant and their power-hungry leaders."

3RR Warning on Golden Plates
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

The material you've added is properly cited but has little relevance to the article and is poorly expressed. There's even a misspelling.--John Foxe (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You state poor writing; I think the previous writing was poor for several reasons. Why define associates? Aren't all associates generally friendly? Seems like you are attempting to lead readers to a conclusion, a POV. 2) The edits I have made come from highly respected historian Jan Shipps. If you think her writing is poor, please tell me your qualifications. 3) If you have a specific problem use the discussion page. 4) The article currently is written with the objective of leading readers to a POV conclusion; it does not just report facts. In summary, the article is in need of NPOV; too much of the language is POV and facts are missing from the history. --Voire Dei (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When I said your writing is weak, I meant weak stylistically. There's no problem with your sources or citations, but the information cited is irrelevant to the article. (If you'll review your message, you'll find several cases of poor syntax and two comma errors. I don't want to be too tough; perhaps English is not your first language.)--John Foxe (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, it is not my first language, but that is of little import. I admire your gift with the language and your obvious pride in its use. However, if you were only improving syntax, grammar, and style then your edits would be acceptable. However, what you are doing is reverting to return to a specific POV. Are you the one who originally entered that type of writing? If so, I can understand your desire to protect it. It matters not, it has to be changed because it focuses only on a narrow perspective and negative POV. I am sure that is not your objective or is it?
 * Also, my edits are directly related to the article topic. More importantly, they expand on what has already been written. Are you concerned that more facts will not be helpful or is it something else? You seem to exhibit a high degree of ownership of this article. Maybe it is time for you to step back and reflect on some relevant policies.
 * I have heard a saying that maybe you have heard also; pride goes before the fall. Brother, you might want to reflect on that the next time you start sharing your attributes with others. I look forward to a cooperative editing experience with such a gifted writer. --Voire Dei (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My apology for my overly harsh criticisms of your English usage. I've contributed to a non-English Wiki—but only with considerable trepidation.
 * I certainly have no fear of additional facts being added to Golden Plates, and there's no way I could "own" such a contentious article. What you perceive as non-Mormon POV is actually a rough consensus among editors of many views that took months to hammer out. All the best,John Foxe (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)