User talk:LWG

WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Archives

1

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!

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!

Hello. 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.

Editors 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)[reply]

Hello, 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)[reply]

YOUR MESSAGE BethMasterClass (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wanted to send an update that ElKevbo made the edit. If you could please watchlist, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I 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)[reply]

Hi friend! I agree that in cases where there is an identifiable issue with the article, it would be better to fix the issue or to replace the POV tag with a more specific tag that identifies the issue more clearly. With that said, the POV tag is heavily used in drive-by tagging, and the documentation for the POV tag clearly indicates that it is not to be used as a badge of shame or a WP: Disclaimer, but as a tool to draw editors to the article to help resolve an ongoing dispute. That's why the guidelines for usage of that tag say "This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: 1) There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. 2) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. 3) In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

So basically, my take is that if no one is actively disputing the article, nothing prevents a concerned editor from simply making the necessary changes (or at least indicating what changes need to be made). In most cases where I'm removing tags the original tagger failed to identify any actionable issue. If the original tagger couldn't be bothered to indicate what the issue was, and never comes back to address the issue themselves, then the tag will just sit there forever, which is not what the tag is for. I agree that there's a tricky case where a heated discussion has stagnated without arriving at a consensus, since in that case it's likely that at least some people still consider the current version to have problems and have just become too exhausted/busy to continue working towards consensus. But if no one has bothered to touch the issue for years, then the continued presence of the disputed tag isn't doing a whole lot for us. -- LWG ^talk 10:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]