User talk:Jrossgb

The article UniverCell has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -Wafulz 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Jericho, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorists vs. militants

Please stop changing the word "militants" to "terrorists" in the article Jericho. The word "terrorist" is emotionally charged and using it to describe anyone who has not actually been found guilty of terrorism by a court violates Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy. Note how the BBC article used as a source uses the word "militants" rather than "terrorists". —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John please explain to me who you are to tell me to stop changing a word, which makes no sense in context? This is not what the word means, and i do not consider the BBC to be a reliable source. who are you to consider them reliable?

My name's not John, and who I am is a member of the Wikipedia community. You're entitled not to consider the BBC a reliable source if you don't want, but I suspect you'll find most people here consider them more reliable than your personal opinions. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John here. Angr and I are speaking on behalf of the wiki community who have collectively agreed, as core principles of our project, that our articles must conform to certain standards of neutrality and verifiability. If you edit here, you consent to abide by those standards too. You may also find this to be interesting. Best wishes, --John (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the name John as this was the person who replied to me first of all (or so it seemed). Second, I don't consider the BBC to be a reliable source. They are by their own definition a left wing organisation who consider using that using the word terrorist can be a barrier to understanding. so please tell me the point in quoting me as a source an organisation who agree with your own view point? it would seem to me that I too am a member of the wikipedia community. i have no issue with the neutrality stance but you're using the word militant, and this is not what the word means. I am uninterested if you feel that it has come to mean a different word (through sheer use from media outlets) nor am I interested if you consider it pejorative or emotive. The word terrorist is a word with a definition like any other and when the shoe fits.... The standards you talk to I have no issue with, but they work both ways, and I don't feel that you are conforming to them. Best wishes Jeremy