User talk:Jandrews23jandrews23

Edit

I see that you made this edit. Please also join the talk page Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict#Attacks.VR _talk 16:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I don't mind that you added the Palestinian's reaction (I'm surprised no one had added it before), it's just that the line about the attack being compared to some other atrocity didn't (to me) seem relevant to the section unless it was related to or part of another country's response to the war. If I am mistaken and it is part of a country's reaction, my apologies and feel free to add it, though it would probably be a good idea to mention who said it. Also, even if it isn't part of some country's reaction but you feel it is relevnt, feel free to add it. I had thought that you were an anti-Israel POV pusher trying to unbalance the article to show more opposition to the war. We try to give relatively equal 'time' to both sides of controversial issues like this one, but a lot, and I do mean a lot of people try their hardest to advance their view of the issue. Sorry for the trouble. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please restore the image

someone has reinserted the image from the Tel-Aviv protest with no message on the talk page. Could you please look into this and put the original image back. Jacob2718 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC) p.s: thanks a lot, I would do it except I dont know where to find the images.Jacob2718 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Please don't revert again to restore the image. I agree that the image was unfairly removed, but the correct way of restoring it is through discussion, not simply reverting.VR _talk 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Gaza 2008.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Gaza 2008.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. -- tariqabjotu 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was more a knee-jerk reaction. I know that image is not free. If you want to make a fair use claim, you can, but I'm not sure it'll pass. Until you do that, I'm removing the image from the article. -- tariqabjotu 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

This edit was extremely POV and has been removed. Bsimmons666 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic action on Operation Cast Lead

Thank you for your recent contributions to International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Personally, I believe this section is superfluous. Please refer to the discussion.

Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

Your repeated removal of large portions of sourced information from the article without seeking consensus is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS, and is particularly disturbing in light of questionable edits such as the one pointed out by BSimmmons above. I will not revert your recent edit, but I hope that bringing this issue to your talk page will get you to finally pay attention. It is your choice whether to respond to this comment, but if you do, please do not do so by levelling irrelevant and false accusations at me, as you have done in the past, but by (for example) explaining why you think your edits did not violate WP:CONSENSUS. You may also want to read WP:BRD for insight into proper editing procedure. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roof knocking

Hi. As you probably know, your last edit that I undid, is full of redundancies with the existing Roof knocking article. Much of what you took from the I-G conflict article was originally copied from the Roof knocking article into the I-G conflict article! However, I'm interested in new info and I'll see if there is anything at that section in the I-G article that can be added to the Roof knocking article. So in that regard, thanks! Of course you are free to do that too. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Blair

There is absolutely no point to adding the POV tag to the Tony Blair article unless you also explain clearly what you believe the problem with the article to be on the talk Page and what you believe needs to be done to resolve it. To date your contributions to the talk page have not done this, simply being a list of your personal opinions and complaints when they're been removed from the article. So all other editors can conclude is that you dislike what the article says, but can offer no valid reasons why it shouldn't. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out exactly where you've stated what improvements should be made? All I can see is where you've voiced your opinions on Blair which are, naturally, not relevant.

It is entirely your opinion that "the Iraq War-Lying-Hutton Report affair which defined his premiership and led to his eventual downfall". They are, of course, all significant events and deserve neutral coverage in the article, but your additions consistently fail to do this. Do you honestly believe that adding things like 'Bliar' to Blair's name in the first sentence of the article is constructive, or ever going to be accepted?

The corruption allegations were removed because they were entirely uncited. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that controversial allegations in biographies of living people must have good solid references, or be removed immediately. This has already been explained to you. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to post messages on talk pages- Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

This is regarding the deleted unsigned comment (picture) that you put in my message in this section of a talk page.

The following is from the tutorial:

When you post a new comment, put it at the bottom of the talk page. The exception is that if you are responding to someone else's remarks, put your comment below theirs.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, bob obviously didn't like it or the image. oh well, such is life. the good thing is that he blamed you and not me. sweet! Sean.hoyland - talk 01:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the image was funny, I guess you can say that bob credited the posting of the funny image to jandrew. Also there is a post on AN in which he credits Jandrews again. I wouldn't think much of the AN report, it seems to have been resolved. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people would think it was funny and would see that it was a joke. Incidentally, half of the caption was added by Sean, so it was a collaboration. Pictures offer ssome light relief from the arguments and depressing subjectJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, I was in a discussion with another editor and this picture was first put in one of my messages and I deleted it and then it popped up again, appearing alongside my last message. That was a bad distraction. There was nothing good about that. Frankly, I didn't want other editors to think that was my picture. Aside from the chance that someone might find it offensive and hold me responsible in their mind, because it was next to my message...... I think I can do a lot better than that when it comes to humor : ) so it was a little embarrassing too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Imagegate

Cerejota (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Images and guidelines

FYI, I opened up a discussion for a suggested change to the guidelines here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jandrews23jandrews23. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Blair

There is no way that you can reasonably expect to add that Tony Blair is a suspected war criminal, certainly not in the WP:LEAD of the article. One person referring to him that does not make him suspected of anything - and putting it in the lead gives that one mention undue weight. Such a large allegation will certainly require consensus on talk, as it is a highly contentious allegation that has large BLP implications. Mfield (Oi!) 22:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jandrews23jandrews23 I recently stumbled across the Tony Blair page and tend to agree with your assessment that it is less than neutral. I'm slowly editing the lead as per WP:LEAD guidelines, which makes clear controversy and criticism should be included in the lead. The fact that the article is also WP:BLP isn't some kind of all powerful sheild against any such criticism, rather it just seeks to ensure such criticism is well sourced. If you're at all interested in helping out, that would be great. Also, re the war crimes allegation, some labour MP's (Tam Dalyell for instance) have accused Blair of this, as well as other notable individuals so it's not, as assumed above, "one person" referring to him as such. 2writer (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jandrews23. As you previous expressed an opinion on the Talk:Tony Blair page 'Regarding the war crimes accusation'. Would you consider revisiting the page as the dispute has reared its ugly head again, with the objector insisting there was never a consensus on the issue. It's at the bottom of the page. The article is also being dubiously 'pro' fixed again. I do understand if you're busy, so no hassle. Thanks. 2writer (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hi Jandrews23. It looks as if you are withdrawing the FAC nomination for Criticism of Tony Blair. Please be aware that the appropriate method is to leave a note on the FAC nomination itself; you aren't supposed to remove it on your own. I will do some of the cleanup to officially process the nomination as closed. Please don't remove the FAC tag from the article. A bot will run on Saturday to clean up the article talk page. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and let me know if you have questions. Karanacs (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wasn't aware of that. Do I need to do anything else now, or will you take care of it? Thanks for your help Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people aren't sure what to do when they withdraw a nomination. Everything should be fine now. Good luck with your article, and I hope we see you back at FAC someday. Karanacs (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Richard Timney. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tabercil (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durban_Review_Conference

You might want to check this out. Jalepenos exist.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden question

Ask your question here, talk pages are only to be used for discussing the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was useless to the article, considering that Biden was not sworn in as Vice-President until January 20, 2009.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flint

Please see and discuss on the talk page , ta [[1]] (Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Critism of blair

I am available to discuss the changes. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Just reverting my edits with an edit summary of..restoring some removed criticism ..is not really correct. I have given reasons for my edits. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Galloway

Hi, would you explain to me the reason for your adding the pov template to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again. I added the tag because I felt the article takes a generally negative slant on all of Galloways activities. In particular, the introduction focuses on his support for Hezbollah, Saddam etc, which is presented in a negative tone. I agree that these should be mentioned in the article, however I don't think its correct that it's what he's now best known for. I would say he is best known for being a fierce critic of the UK government and of US foreign policy. His senate testimony was widely covered and is probably his most notable single action, yet it isn't even mentioned in the intro? (I added it - assume you removed).

Out of interest, what is your broad political philosophy? Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove as he is the most well known here in the uk , and that speech to the usa delegates is unknown to UK people, I don't like the guys politics very much but I have done a fair bit of work on the article and I think it is quite neutral and balanced, surprisingly for the situation. As for my political position, I am liberal by nature and like to support the underdog, I don't think I would never vote conservative ever, but I protect some conservative articles, so I mostly prefer love to war and more support wikipedia than a political party. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want the template to be there still? Daniel has aded a comment to the lede about the usa, if you have any strong issues with sections of the article we can all talk about it and try to sort the issues out, let me know. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the template. Having looked over the article as a whole, its more balanced than I at first thought. I think the addition of that mention of the Senate testimony to the lede is important though, but I think that broadly the article is fair. Thanks for your help on this issue.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That addition is fine by me, thanks very much. Off2riorob (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

Additions to the Scotland lead are often controversial and I suggest that you raise the issues of the populations of the Glasgow and Edinburgh conurbations on the talk page before making any further changes. Please also take a look at the demography section. Thanks. Ben MacDui 09:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yummy!

andyzweb (talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

taggy fun

Thanks for your contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]