User talk:Westwind273

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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

Vandalism warning
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 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
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. Sum mer PhD (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
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)

Editing and collaboration practices
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 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)
 * 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.
 * 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. 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)

Anti-Abe Bias
Hi, Hope you are doing well, I wanted to thank you for your contributions to the Talk:Shinzō Abe. I really enjoyed reading it and it's unfortunate that there is Anti-Abe Bias. Even if doesn't get changed, I'm sure myself and others would continue to enjoy your future articles : )

--AGTepper (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
clpo13(talk) 22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics.

Introduction to contentious topics
-- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  03:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think my comment is fairly neutral and made with the intent of improving the article. Westwind273 (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you have any questions regarding the Liancourt Rocks feel free to ask me anytime. I'll be happy to answer. -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  03:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"Cheap shot" at Elizabeth Holmes
I'm afraid you seriously misunderstood my comment. I, in no way whatsoever, suggested that you said we "should synthesize our own conclusions". It had nothing to do with you personally. I was just pointing out an important part of WP:NOR that many editors, even experienced ones, sometimes aren't very aware of. You may very well have an excellent understanding of WP:SYN, but when anyone (not just you) suggests that we add something that is not clearly stated in a source (in this case, a diagnosis of "pathological liar"), I think it's important to remind everyone (not just you) that we can't make such a synthesis. If reminding us of a policy is a "cheap shot", then I'm guilty, but it's not a cheap shot nor was it intended to be. I understand why your misinterpretation led you to take offense, but it was not based in the reality of my comments. And I would ask you not to jump to conclusions about another editor's intentions. Unless that editor makes a direct accusation toward you personally, assume good faith and seek clarification before making a false accusation of "cheap shot". It's possible to disagree with a suggested edit without personalizing it toward the editor who make the suggestion. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Andre🚐 16:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

March 2024
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:2024 Haneda Airport runway collision, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Denniss (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * What personal attack? I don't see anything. Westwind273 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also say that sarcastically implying that someone has insider information is a form of personal attack. Maybe you should have a talk with Martinevans123. Westwind273 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The talk pages have a history you know? --Denniss (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You must have a lot of free time to care about something I wrote and immediately deleted. Get a life. Westwind273 (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It was live for about 8 minutes, that's not an immediate "deletion". Plus you deleted a comment by another user which I reverted and then looked closer at what you had done there. Simply stop your personal attacks.--Denniss (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The deletion of the other comment was inadvertent, in my attempt to delete my comment. I would be interested in knowing what you think I should have done, once I had written the comment and then quickly decided to delete it. Should I have left it up so that your wrath and dire warning could be justified? Westwind273 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)