LWG
WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Welcome to Wikipedia
editWelcome!
Hello, LWG, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
editHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Public opinion on health care reform in the United States". Thank you.
Thank you for participating at Talk:Persecution of Christians
editEditors responding to a "3rd opinion" call play a very important role in shaping WP articles while preventing editwarring and endless discussions among users. So thank you!Cinadon36 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
MasterClass Revisions
editHello, I'm the Director of Communications at MasterClass, an online education company. I noticed that you're involved in POV disputes and thought you could help in please reviewing my proposed content I shared on the Talk page here. I have posted it for general review and am asking you to review it as I have a conflict of interest working for the company. Is this something you could please help me with?
Thank you. BethMasterClass (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
YOUR MESSAGE BethMasterClass (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Wanted to send an update that ElKevbo made the edit. If you could please watchlist, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
editRemoval of POV tags
editI have to object to some parts of your approach to this in principle, where you seem to view the removal of the npov tags as a benefit in and of itself.
'If talk page contains unresolved POV discussions, but the discussions have not been updated for several years, remove the tag.'
I disagree. The fact that people haven't edited the talk page in years in no way proves that the problem is solved or that the dispute is resolved. On the contrary, it is often the case that nothing has been done, that whoever considered the article non-neutral would probably still consider it non-neutral, if asked, and that the readers should be aware that the information/presentation is questionable.
'When in doubt, cut the tag! In the event that someone actually still disputes the article, they will simply replace it.'
No, they won't, because they aren't necessarily monitoring it. People write a comment and then move on to something else. The tag says 'neutrality is disputed', not 'is being disputed at the moment'. For a removal of the tag to be warranted, the identified problems should be addressed, or there should be consensus that they aren't really problems. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)