User talk:2writer

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Welcome!

Hello, 2writer, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ixfd64 (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Herbsthatheal.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Herbsthatheal.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Savage Best Sellers inaccuracy

Hello. I don't know who has the ability to edit the Michael Savage (commentator) page but there is a major inaccuracy you may have introduced while changing the number of best sellers Dr. Savage has written. I have cited his 4 NY Times Best Sellers in the discussion page(The Savage Nation was a #1 NY Times Best Seller). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator)

Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk[reply]

In any case, the wiki is incorrect about this. I posted a new source World Net Daily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnal Obelisk (talk • contribs) 05:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you on the Michael Savage Talk Page but I'll repeat it here in case you missed it:

With respect, the only one of those citations which is valid is the Hawes Publication "Savage Nation" reference. Which, as I'm sure you're aware, is already cited on the main page (albeit a slightly different version, though the same book). Book reviews, book selling sites and the like are not reliable sources. Other wikipedia pages are also not accepted. If you can find reliable sources, be bold and add them to the main article. Maybe Hawes or indeed The Times will confirm your claims. By the way, regarding your comment above "Wow, you must be pretty embarrassed now". The answer is no and you may wish to read this Wikipedia:Civility.2writer (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil and refrain from deleting another user's references. Do you want Dr. Savage's wikipedia.com page to have inaccuracies? Also, if you are not familiar with the accomplishments of a public figure, refrain from claiming to know how many best sellers he has written. Thanks a bunch! Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk[reply]

First, stop editing talk pages / deleting my posts. It makes them impossible to follow. Just add to the talk page. Second, stop leaving abuse (there is a history which shows clearly what you have written). Third, stop editing other peoples talk pages. It may surprise you to know that I am keen for all articles to be accurate. As I've already said, if you find reliable sources, be bold and add them. Just stop being a jerk. 2writer (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the only deletion I made was to revert the Savage talk page which you continue to edit and remove my post from. Don't, just add to the page! 2writer (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Blair

Hello. I obviously agree with what you say; my efforts to make the page more balanced were previously overwhelmed by a couple of other editors. I fully support your efforts. I am going through a fairly busy period right now but I'll try to have look at the page and do what I can, when I can. Regards, Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the work you did on Tony Blair, good work. You might also want to look at the introduction as I had edited it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&oldid=269593892 and (after it had been reedited in a very pro-Blair way)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&oldid=271197963

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the links, I'll possibly take some of the info and citations previously included and add them to the latest version over the next few days. I think there is a good case for including more critical info regarding the Iraq war in the lead, so I'll seek to do that as and when I get chance. Thanks again. 2writer (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blair

Hi. lets talk about. I am attempting to remove the POV bias, from the article, It's a bit rubbish isn't it. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not re-insert any of the disputed edits without discussion. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If they already have reliable ciations (which they do) the onus is on YOU to take it to the Talk Page before removing them. I'll have to leave things for today, but I fully intend to go through each and every one of your one sided edits tomorrow. Screaming POV. coatrack and such is underhand and dubious at best. I'll check back tomorrow. 2writer (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your discussion. Citations are not gold, we are not here to push the position of any old journo, the article is...or rather was...rubbish..neutrality is also an issue. If I come across a article that is tagged as having neutrality issues and I find any dubious twaddle there, I am well within my right to remove it, which is what I have done. I would only ask you to remember that our objective here is to create a biographical article that is neutral . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Nor are we here to paper over any criticism of the subject. The reason this article is 'neutrality tagged' is because a previous editor felt the article was far to 'pro' rather than neutral. Every single one of your edits exacerbates that problem. Every single on of your edits remove negative info on the subject. So much so that the defining part of the subject's premiership (the Iraq War) has been removed from the lead entirely. You might also want to edit Captain Cooks article and remove any reference to Australia from the lead. As I say, I'll check through each and every one of your 'pro' edits tomorrow. 2writer (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, I am unhappy when you reinserted an edit I made as unsupported and a weak cite,,,, you put the rubbish back, look at the search for that rubbish..[[1]] we need to be more aware of the way our additions propagate POV twaddle that is unsupported and perpetuated by wikipedia search position.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What you arbitrarily removed has been discussed at length on the talk pages, which makes your insistance that I should take it to the talk pages a bit of a nerve. If you'd checked the talk page yourself regarding that edit you would have seen that. Again, the onus is on you to take it to the talk page. I’ll be reverting that edit and I'll be checking through the page as I get time today. 2writer (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This dubious edit has now been re-added. I suggest you read through the talk pages before making sweeping edits. The onus is on you! I'll check through more of the article later. 2writer (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2009

The comment is contensious, the individual is not notable in himself. Adding comments like this give undue weight to an isolated comment. Tony Blair is not a war criminal and it is defamatory to insist on inserting this comment. Remind me if I am wrong.. but there was an all party vote in the house of commons in favour of war. Are there any charges that blair is a war criminal? no there are not. (UTC)

You are more than welcome to discuss each individual edit with me. I would only ask you to come from a neutral perspective. Thank you. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You have again arbitrarily removed the reference to Mahathir Mohammad from the article. Let me make it clear once last time. This has been discussed at length on the talk pages. The consensus was clear - it stays! If you cannot accept the consensus then maybe Wikipedia isn't for you. You are free to try to reopen the debate on the talk pages if you do not agree. What is unacceptable is to arbitrarily remove the information (three times now!), then somehow insist others must now convince you it should stay. The consensus is clear - it stays! You want to change people’s mind, that’s great, go to the talk pages and good luck. You cannot just remove it because you personally don’t like it. I intend to re-add the quote one more time. If you again remove it, I will seek to have you blocked from editing this page.

Regarding the other wholesale edits you have made, I will not have time to look through them today but will try to find time over the weekend. A wholesale revert may be in order. 2writer (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC

It is not because I don't like it.. it is because it is undue weight to the personal opinion of the un-notable person. Please do not threaten me. There is no consensus to keep this useless rubbish. Tell me of what benefit it is? who is this non notable person? This is a rubbish POV twaddle, has blair been charged with war crimes? Is this persons twaddle of any value at all? no no no... so why do you insist on keeping it and indeed entering into an edit war about that ? Please tell me why you think this non notable persons irrelevent comment is beneficial to the article. I make my edits with Neutrality and with the WP:BLP guidlines in mind. I will resist any revertions of my good faith edits. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If you wish to discuss this, please do so on Blair's talk page. It's not a threat btw. 2writer (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been having a look at what type of person the guy is..he is an untspoken anti american, anti west anti Jew.. and anybody but muslims.. I have just read some of his comments about jews and he is not a very nice person. Your desire to add this POV pushing comment from this person is hard to understand.. please tell me why? you are insisting? there are no war crimes trials against blair.. so the ranting of obscure individuals pushing their bigoted opinions are worthless and insisting on inserting his twaddle is not beneficial at all to the article.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Virtually all world leaders are vile characters, including western leaders. But again, if you want to air your objections, do so on Blair's discussion page. If you do want to remove this, you need to take it to Blair's page and somehow change the consensus.2writer (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is no consensus to keep this vile rubbish, and it is your opinion that all world leaders are vile. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There is a consensus. Read the talk page. If you do not take your objections to Blair's discussion page I will consider the matter, regarding this specific edit, closed. 2writer (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are informing people who commented on the last debate, that is good, are you going to infom all of the previous participants or just the people who supported your opinion? (Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There can't be many who support my opinion because, according to you, there is no consensus. I mean, you can't complain that I'm contacting lots of people who have previously agreed we should keep the citation and at the same time insist there is no consensus, surely? 2writer (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am merely pointing out that if you inform anyone you should inform everyone or that could look like gathering support for your POV. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It's not my POV, you'll note I didn't express an opinion at the time. I'm merely trying to confirm the consensous which you oddly dispute. 2writer (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purnell

You reverted my edit. please let me know what you didn't like about it. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

WIth respect, it's not about whether I liked your edit or not, rather about overall respect for procedure and other editors. The matter is under discussion as you know, yet you arbitrarily removed a large chunk of the article being discussed. Other editors will have opinions and it's not the done thing to just steamroller ahead regardless. Patience is a virtue. 2writer (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert of my edit, It is not actually about discussion, If I remove something, and leave my reason in the edit box, and you revert my edit, then you are taking the responsibility for your addition and continue to take the responsibility for your addition until that material is removed or not as the case may be... discussion or no discussion. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That's really a seperate point and doesn't in anyway invalidate what I've already said. 2writer (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]