Talk:Blackstone Hotel (Fort Worth, Texas)

Objectivity
I have removed some of the phrases along the lines of "fortunately x" and "unfortunately y" to increase compliance with NPOV, but to me a lot of this still reads like a promotional brochure rather than an objective description. Also phrases like "Once again after almost 20 years, the sleeping giant was coming back to life." seem to not be very objective and there are also other kinds of miscellaneous issues, which is my reasoning behind adding the article issues template, should anyone wish to dispute this--Tangent747 (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for a terrible page

 * I'm sorry, I was unaware one had to be a grammar school instructor before posting on Wikipedia. All I wanted was to add a page on this hotel since there was no record of it on Wikipedia. I spent hours on this page, looking up websites, researching information, going through my own files. Apparently all for nothing. Thank You for the criticism, obviously you had nothing good to say about the page. We sure do not want any of my "weasel" words on Wikipedia, so please rest assure I won't add another thing to this site. comment added by Countryboyjim77 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You will note when making an edit that there is a box near the bottom of the screen entitled "Please note", the first line of which reads "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...by others, do not submit it". You do not have to be a grammar school instructor before posting an article on wikipedia, but all new articles will be edited a lot before they conform with the various standards for wikipedia articles. The hours you spent researching and so forth were not "for nothing", since, currently, your article is still here. However if a new article does not conform to wikipedia's various standards and receives no edits during a certain period I beleive it can be deleted, so if continous improvement is not made then your efforts may indeed have been "for nothing". Furthermore, "weasel words" is sadly a specific term relating to wikipedia policy, refering to creating the illusion of a neutral point of view by adding things such as "it has been said that..." on the front of statements, without clarifying who said what, and so forth - see WP:Weasel words for further information. I would like to suggest that if you had read through wikipedia policy prior to submitting your article you may have understood that it is common for new articles to receive lots of edits and templates such as "article issues" etc, since no new article is going to immediately conform to all of the various standards.


 * There are many good things about this article, it is indeed well researched and well formated with good use of tempaltes and images and other formating, however it, like all new articles still needs a lot of editing before it conforms to all the required standards. There is little need for users to post good things about an article on a talkpage since these do not need changing. Furthermore, if you disagree with any changes made to one of your edits or articles you can raise this on the relevant talkpage and the changes may be reverted - no work is permanently lost on wikipedia.--Tangent747 (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the previous post. I was having a rough day that day and was frustrated enough with trying to figure out how to create a new article to Wikipedia since this was my first time.  I hope to see this page grow, hopefully new information will be added on the history of the structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.80.36 (talk • contribs)


 * That is fine, it's perfectly understandable that one would get frustrated when an article one has spent ages researching and putting together/laying out, and spent further time working out how to add all the appropriate wikipedia formatting etc, immediately gets several edits and an article issues tag and negative comments and so forth. It's unfortunately common for new users to be offended because of the various changes wikipedia's content policies require to be made to new articles, and the somewhat offensive wording of some of these (I particularly dislike "Weasel words", which is why I always use it in quotation marks). Perhaps in respect of the fact that you are a new editor here I should of attempted to word my notes in a more balanced manner, I am sorry if I caused unintentional offence by not doing so, though notes placed on article talkpages are generally about things that the poster feels should be changed, and should largely be viewed as notes to the community of editors rather than a critique of the article or it's contents - As a new editor myself I was merely noting those aspects of the article which I had edited, for future reference should someone wish to revert these changes, and those aspects which I was unsure how to change but felt somehow ran against some of the relatively few content policies I have so far got around to reading - so other users could decide what, if any changes to make in these areas. As for the article issues tag - most new articles (and some older ones) bear a tag of that nature for quite some time, as the number of policy points content has to comply with is somewhat vast. However these "issues" do not necessarily mean there are major negative points in an article, and some of them can be just a matter of rephrasing a single sentence, for instance - these tags do not mean an article is "terrible" or anything like that.


 * Oh and I also re-added the comment you made earlier so my own comment in reply to it makes sense, because otherwise I would have to remove that too - and then someone else would probably re-add both comments as generally people prefer for talkpage discussions to be preserved. It doesn't matter if you no longer agree with the sentiment you expressed earlier, it is in the past now, but talkpage comments that arent vandalism should still be documented for continuity purposes (um, I think so anyway - someone else may corrrect me here - my experience of wiki's does, evidently, not come from time on wikipedia).--Tangent747 (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)