Talk:Helen Westwood

Recent edit war
I couldn't help but notice the edit war over the use of tags on this article. I think you both need to chill. The article is mostly suffering from housekeeping issues. The sources are there for most of the information but the article needs further citations and the references need to be reformated. Rather than edit war over the tags, I would suggest actually spending your time reformating the references and adding the citations that are needed.Broadweighbabe (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine. However, I have little patience for editors who, for whatever reason (usually some sort of problem with the article's subject) insist on being as querulous as possible. If someone's so concerned with having every statement cited, the very least they could do is read the references that are already cited, or upon having it pointed out to them that the information is in there, to cite the relevant statements. That the editor concerned chose to just keep tagging as much of the article as possible suggests to me that he's far more concerned with being a pain in the arse than how the article is actually referenced, and I have no time for such people. Rebecca (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion Rebecca, you would do well to WP:Assume Good Faith. I don't think nrswanson's intent was to be disruptive, at least not at first. Some of your comments were rather condescending and escalated the edit war. I find your above comment uncivil. Please read WP:Civil as a refresher on proper wiki behavior.Broadweighbabe (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave him the benefit of the doubt at first. He then proved he was interested primarily in being a nuisance. Please spare me the sanctimony. Rebecca (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I stick to my assessment of things and refer you once again to WP:Civil. You are now being rude to me.Broadweighbabe (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm being blunt. Your tone is sanctimonious, and I'm calling it sanctimonious. He's purposefully being a nuisance and wasting other editors' time, and I'm calling a spade a spade. Rebecca (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when is requiring articles to be properly cited a nuisance? I have absolutely no problem with Helen Westwood or the content of this article, I merely am a stickler for properly cited references. FYI, my interest in this article was as a DYK reviewer. In order to pass the article for the main page it has to meet our guidelines which require citations throughout the article. That was the whole point for the tags, to help this article get the DYK nod.Nrswanson (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ...surely, if you were a stickler, you wouldn't mind doing a little bit of the work then? I pointed out to you exactly where the reference was, and you still couldn't bothered putting in the coded citations, preferring to just slap tags back on the article. Rebecca (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's common practice for DYK reviewers when more than minor work needs to be done, and in my view this is more than minor. We're not supposed to edit the articles we review in order to avoid COI in the nomination process. The appropriate alternative is placing relative tags in order to help the nominator identify the issues holding up DYK approval. Nrswanson (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

backing Belinda Neal
Is that really worth mentioning? Quite a few female MPs at state and fed level backed her. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs its relevance explained. Are we suggesting Westwood is a campaigner against trial by media? A supporter of female MP's in general? Or simply someone who agreed with Neal's version of these events? The first two would require more than one reference as you can't reasonably infer a political stance from a single incident. The third suggestion is not notable - plenty of people supported either side of the Neal saga, and Westwood had no role in its unfolding or resolution.


 * The original article is here. I'll fix the link in the article if there's support for retaining the sentence, but I'd welcome anyone who supports its inclusion stopping by to explain what inference a reader is supposed to draw from it. Euryalus (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is worth mentioning. It was something picked up by the media. In the context of the article, it is only one line, so it doesn't unbalance the article. Rephrase it if you wish, but it was a fairly significant letter at the time of incident, particularly with all of Neal's bad publicity. Assize (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in the inference a reader should draw from Westwood's support for Neal. As above, are we suggesting Westwood's comments are a demonstration of (say) opposition to trial by media? Solidarity with women MPs? If there is no inference to be drawn from her support for Neal (as in, it doesn't tell us anything at all about Westwood's views or beliefs), then it comes close to being indiscriminate information, sourced or otherwise. I'm not saying this is the case - I think it would be possible to argue that Westwood has a record of support for women's rights and her letter was a manifestation of that. But we would need more than this single reference to confirm such a claim. Euryalus (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership of committees
Westwood's committee memberships were deleted by an editor with the comment "do we really need to list committees that most people aren't interested in?". Committee membership is usually listed in Who's Who and also on the NSW Parliament website, and is sometimes mentioned in biographies, so is there really a need to remove this information? Assize (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well we could include it, but really all parliamentarians sit on some sort of committee(s), so do we this for all politicians? and this information is freely accessible on her parliament website. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Helen Westwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090930234534/http://www.nswalp.com:80/labor-people/4/138/helen-westwood-mlc to http://www.nswalp.com/labor-people/4/138/helen-westwood-mlc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080821124402/http://www.wsn.com.au/dir138/wsn.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Annual_Report_0607/$FILE/WSN+AR07+really+final+30.11.07.pdf to http://www.wsn.com.au/dir138/wsn.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Annual_Report_0607/$FILE/WSN+AR07+really+final+30.11.07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Helen Westwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828044126/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/Members.nsf/0/72E623DC93AA8AFECA2572B900837765?Open&refNavID=LC3_1 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/0/72E623DC93AA8AFECA2572B900837765?Open&refNavID=LC3_1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wsn.com.au/dir138/wsn.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Annual_Report_0607/%24FILE/WSN%20AR07%20really%20final%2030.11.07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)