User talk:Westwind273

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Westwind273, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

United Church of God[edit]

Was this conference, and the controversy surrounding the move to Texas, covered by any third-party media? If so, might I suggest that information from those media be added to the article? -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

POV editors are back on Lurita Doan article[edit]

Westwind, I noticed some time ago that you dropped by the Lurita Doan talk page and commented on POV concerns there. I (along with others) tried to make some NPOV edits to reflect what was reported and verifiable in the mainstream media. However, there is at least one editor that seems interested in a re-write that seeks to minimize her tenure as GSA chief and the Hatch Act troubles that dogged her (as with many other Bush appointees).

I was hopeful that you might spend some time, in the near future, on a return-trip to the Doan article and have a look around. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New Messages[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Westwind273. You have new messages at ESanchez013's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 04:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism warning[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:C-130 Hercules‎. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. BillCJ (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I only delete profanity. Is that wrong? --Westwind273 (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Talk:Aggregate Nutrient Density Index. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What about swear words like hell, damn, shit, fuck, etc? Shouldn't those be removed? --Westwind273 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Draft for the RfC[edit]

Hello Westwind273,

I have done the draft of the RfC for the naming issue of the article Senkaku Islands and its related articles and posted the draft in a sandbox page User:Lvhis/dn RfC. Could you please check it and give your suggestions to improve it including to improve its English wordings. You can input your suggestions into the talk page of the sandbox page. I am really grateful to you (!!) for your valuable opinions in that talk page and your efforts finding out and providing many important reliable sources. Your attitude and your frank/honest manner let me feel the spirit of the freedom and democracy, though at beginning we had some different view on several points. Thank you!--Lvhis (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you![edit]

Roadster 2.5 windmills trimmed.jpg A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing and collaboration practices[edit]

In this diff this diff - and others like them you seem to want article change, but have gone about it by offering speculations about the political alignment of the people who wrote the existing text. Some brief points regarding this

  • You can edit the encyclopedia yourself. per WP:BOLD. Following the bold, revert, discuss workflow is the front line in ensuring that collaboration results in changes to article text.
  • The editors who wrote the article won't like being called biased liberals. They volunteered their time too, in order to put the text up there. While I'm sure that the people who wrote it will agree that there is room for improvement, they might well become unduly defensive if it appears that the reason another editor wants to edit it is because of the perception of flaws in their moral character.
  • The more specific you are on the talk page about which changes need to be made, the easier it is to collaborate. Saying, "add a period at the end of "this" sentence" will get done within hours or even minutes on a popular article. Saying "this article sucks", will probably never effect a change.
  • Articles go through a period of growth. They are always editable all the time. What they say now, may well indicate a reflection of society's attitude toward a particular subject. It is possible that this results in biases, particularly with groups ready to champion their causes in our pages. This is normal and you are encouraged to be a part of the process which rectifies these issues.

Thanks for contributing. I'll look at the articles you aren't happy with and see if there's room for improvement - there probably is. Edaham (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Liberal bias is a defect in the article, just like any other defect. Liberal bias is not more nefarious than any other deviation from due weight. Saying that an article has a liberal bias is not an attack on the editor's character. It is pointing out a problem with the article. But I have come to realize that arguing against liberal bias using specific examples is pointless on Wikipedia. This is because the Wikipedia policy (including due weight) is written in a way that is vague enough for the overwhelming number of liberal Wikipedia editors to always have their way. WP:CONSENSUS will always end up in favor of liberal bias, due to the political leanings of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors. --Westwind273 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
BTW, are you stalking me? I don't see your name as having previously posted on the talk pages of either of those articles. --Westwind273 (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
See point 3. Also, while you might not mean it as an attack it may be taken as such. Expediting your required changes can in part be accomplished by having editors on your side.
no I am not stalking you. I have noticed that you are very dedicated to editing certain types of articles and I did look at your contributions page, which is not uncommon and I noticed a pattern of your pointing out “liberal bias”. I have commented on your contributions thusly because I genuinely believe that your drive and determination is an asset to the project and I’d like to see your efforts reap results, while avoiding some common hurdles. I’m not the most experienced editor around but am happy to be of assistance should you require it; including reviewing the pages which you pointed out as having biased issues. Have a great day and many thanks once again. Edaham (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I would argue that saying that a certain section is too lengthy is in fact a specific criticism, which is what I did on "Waiting for Superman". On "Right to Work", I was responding to a similarly non-specific comment by another user, not initiating a new section myself. I can in fact also be specific on "Right to Work". I will try to get to that when I have time. Overall, I would make two points: (1) Liberal bias is in fact a problem on Wikipedia. We can't put our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. (2) If you say that a comment stating liberal bias is a character attack, then any comment suggesting an article change could be a character attack, in that it implies that the previous work of editors was not optimal. I don't think we need to be that thin skinned. In fairness to Wikipedia, I would also make a few points: (1) I find that all the attacks of bias that Conservapedia makes are generally mistaken (evolution, etc). (2) I have seen some solid improvement in removing Wikipedia bias, in part based on my input. If you go back far enough in my contribution history, you will find me commenting on the "Climate Change" articles. As a result, the article "Attribution of recent climate change" is now much stronger. It has been improved along the lines I suggested. In any case, I thank you for the positive tone of your above comment. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, read WP:BE BOLD carefully. It is not recommended in all situations. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
And I was in fact bold recently on the "Affirmative Action" article. I am not always simply writing on the talk pages. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have read WP:BOLD carefully, and you are right that in situations where a pending dispute resolution is in progress, an RfC, for example, its not always great to edit an article directly. It's also true that you are not required to be bold and that you are welcome to make suggestions and comments on the talk pages. You have not acted outside of the privileges which are granted to you as an editor. That being said, having been here long enough, I know roughly what sort of response you'll get from the above mentioned diffs and I don't want you to receive replies which lead to dead ends. The issue of so-called liberal bias is one which is raised often and it regularly leaves editors flummoxed and despondent when the issue forms the basis of a required edit. I don't doubt that some sort of bias exists, and my guess would be that the bias somewhat reflects a combination of the demography of the editorship and the general bias inherent in the world's media. If such biases lead to errors in factual accuracy, imbalance in tone or undue weight in an article, then you're right, that's a problem. Your problem with raising liberalism outright as the basis for an edit is going to be that the editorship at large is going to perceive that as an effort to swing the article in the opposite direction, which is almost always going to cause defensive objection. Therefore, direct editing and tactful communication is definitely your best bet if your aim is to improve the encyclopedia. Hope I haven't overstepped the mark in saying all the above. Just off for lunch now. Talk soon. Edaham (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I do suggest being careful not to violate WP:HARASSMENT#WIKIHOUNDING. Following an editor around across unrelated articles and always making counter-comments can skate dangerously close to violating this policy. I never follow another editor around making counter-comments on unrelated articles. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)