Laura H S

Free Speech

Welcome. Regarding this, see WP:ISNOT: "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." You may also want to review the rest of that article and Help:Contents for information regarding editing. Thanks. *Sparkhead 14:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. Apologies if I seemed intemperate, but I am a little cross. I take your point that WP is an encyclopedia, so its purpose overrides my right to free speech if what I choose to post contravenes its aims. However, I hope you will see that my edits on other topics thus far have been narrowly confined to improving the accuracy, reliability and interest of the entries. I have three degrees in English Literature including a reseach degree, so you can rely on me to understand subtleties of tone, questions of bias/partiality, and the form of writing required in a WP entry. I don't think it's fair to have blocked my ability to edit a page, based on an unfounded suspicion of my identity, together with a subjective view of what does and doesn't belong in one particular entry. I do think that including in Dawkins' entry the comment on and response to his ideas by other leading thinkers is a valuable means to contextualise his work within the philosophical tradition in which he operates. I grant you that their is room for improvement in NBeale's version, as pointed out eloquently today by Plumbago, but to strike it wholesale and thereby make it harder for others to improve and contribute to, seems aggressive. Thank you for your clear commitment to WP's aims, however. Laura H S 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

To add it without discussion was the aggressive part. In general, WP advises editors to be bold but keep consensus in mind. There was a clear consensus to keep the section out until reviewed elsewhere. He insisted on ignoring that. When several new accounts showed up no contributions save to continue the revert war, I'd hope you can see their timely arrival would be regarded as suspicious. It wouldn't be the first time a user created secondary accounts to back up their viewpoints. Leaving that behind us, the text is still available for revision and perhaps something encyclopedic can be made of it. *Sparkhead 15:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll take a look at it tomorrow - thank you. Laura H S 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - names blanked for the record

Laura. Thanks v much for your contribution to the AfD on Nicholas Beale. I have taken the liberty of blanking some of the names you mention so that they do not feature in the archived version of this debate which will be a permanent record. I know you will understand. NBeale 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. It is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). I noticed that while many editors who commented on prior AfDs in the past were contacted, you somehow were not, so am leaving a friendly note here. Thank you, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)