User talk:Wintersmith

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 06:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I like messages :-P

McMartin preschool trial
I was reading the McMartin article and noticed an odd sentence. I've asked about it on the talk page for the article. Having no response as of today I went through the history of the article and see that you were the one that added the sentence. The sentence in question is: "In addition, she also claimed that people at the daycare had flown and had sexual encounters with giraffes." What is this supposed to say? The way it reads it would seem that the people were flying the giraffes, although giraffes can't fly so I'm confused as to what it should say. Thanks for any clarification that you can give. Dismas|(talk) 21:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

edits to Autism
Hello Wintersmith. Saw your comments and the subsequent deletion. That particular section is, to put it mildly, weasel word rich. I agree with the comments and the deletion. If the bare facts could be linked to a legitimate source they would be of value but it certainly was not up to snuff.

I am trying to locate sources for what I can but there is a lot of what is basically poor high school level writing in the entire article. I went back over the discussion to drop it from the feature article status and have to agree, there is just too much of a 'community chat line' about it. Malangthon 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wintersmith From your interaction with the Autism article in the recent past I infer you wish to see that it complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines as do I.

I am writing to you about an edit to the introduction section of Autism made by Q0 (whom I believe to be a valuable contributor) and I have no wish to get into a edit war with that person). In my opinion, the altered text presents problems (see my rationale in the discussion section on the 'Introduction').

It may be a minor change from one POV, however it reads as amateurish and clumsy (a matter of style which may or may not be a POV). It is also an alteration of published fact from the reputable sources cited. I have proposed a change to carry the factual original statement to acknowledge the balance that may be needed --which is absolutely ethical in science to be sure. I readily concede that the DSM and the ICD do represent a theoretical perspective, which must be questioned to remain scientific.

There is also the issue of POV versus NPOV. Science, no matter how loudly people shout to the contrary, is still riddled with POV and much of the debate can be rendered as simply politics. The original Introduction statement in Autism can be considered POV but ironically has been altered to another POV. Technically we may only be able to be fair by providing a balance. My POV anyway.

If you have time and you are interested, take a look and give us some objective feedback. Ta. Malangthon 02:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez
Here's some more material for your consideration. Wjhonson 19:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tottenville High School
In 2007, you added the Controversy section to Tottenville High School, and later another editor removed it. I have restored the section, as I believe it to be notable and adequately documented. I have also added information about a recent tragedy involving a student at the school. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Steamboat Rock, IA Edits
Dear Wintersmith, the author (C. N. Christensen) added to the Steamboat Rock page is a legit writer, who grew up in the area and now publishes books based upon her childhood experiences and relationships. We also have another local author who has been added. Please, leave our local authors alone. They are published and went through all of the necessary channels to distribute their books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.118.169 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)