User talk:Hengis90

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Hengis90, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —Wh o uk (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Milton[edit]

Why are the factual entries being continually removed from Anne Milton's entry? And why, if you insist on editing relevant data in a way that's clearly designed to cast a better light on Anne Milton, do you insist in other edits - on her *opponent's* entry - that 'this entry is not supposed to be an electioneering pamphlet'? >—The preceding comment was added by Miltox

You may want to join a debate at Talk:Anne Milton over whether to mention Tim Ireland's blog, and if so, what to say about it. David | Talk 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Ta. —The preceding comment was added by Miltox

--Hengis 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)==Please join the debate==[reply]

Would you mind explaining your objections to the Tim Ireland section of Anne Milton on Talk:Anne Milton? David | Talk 19:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Anne Milton Dipstick weblog of Tim Ireland represents a one man vendetta against Guildford's Tory MP Anne Milton. It is highly partial, selective in its use of facts and resorts frequently to ridicule (for instance, Milton "looks like Julian Clary".) It cannot be considered as a serious critique - it routinely descends into abuse of Milton, or anyone who tries to defend her. I would suggest that if this kind of entry vandalism was committed by anyone other than "The" Tim ireland, it would be given short shrift. By the way, I am not connected to the Conservatives and shortly I shall be repairing a Labour Councillor's vandalised entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengis90 (talk • contribs)

There is no doubt that Tim Ireland's weblog is polemical and abusive. That fact alone does not mean that it is not worthy of being mentioned in the article, if it is relevant, and providing the article is phrased in a neutral way.

You seem to be suggesting that the inclusion of the blog in Anne Milton is being done by Tim Ireland. There is a general rule on Wikipedia that subjects should not edit about matters in which they are directly concerned. This might be a matter to raise on Talk:.

If you are referring to the biographical article about me, then I should perhaps first show you to WP:POINT, and also mention another principle of Wikipedia which is that anyone may contribute, regardless of their opinions. The fact that someone may be assumed to have a particular opinion is no reason to presume that they are editing in a slanted way. David | Talk 20:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Looks like I jumped to the wrong conclusion here, sorry. David | Talk 20:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether these vandalising entries are being posted by Tim Ireland or a proxy, because they are knocking copy, no more no less. A political campaign is being fought by the Liberal Democrats by denigrating the Conservative candidate (and current MP) in the Wikipedia website. No such attempt to spoil the Sue Doughty Wiki entry has been made by the Tories. Today we are just talking about the Anne Milton entry but if this sort of mischief is allowed once, it will have to be allowed on each and every political entry in Wiki. Wikipedia is going to be either an authoritative website by keeping to verifiable facts that everyone trusts in every respect or it is going to be a complete waste of space.

Hengis