User talk:Prester John/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mak (talk)  05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please take more care with your editing. Firstly, if you're going to make a series of changes to an article, please make them in one hit, so as not to have the article popping up at the top of everyone's watchlists every five minutes because you've changed another word. Secondly, at Steve Bracks, you're repeatedly chopping out words that you feel have biased connotations, but leaving behind sentences that don't really make any sense with the words taken out. If you take issue with something, please either a) try to find a neutral way of rephrasing it, or if that is not possible, b) make sure that the text that remains actually makes sense. There is no excuse for sloppy copyediting. Rebecca 05:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Melbourne article
I have made some changes to your edits to the Melbourne article, and commented on the talk page. Also, as Rebecca asked, could you please combine many of your changes into one edit, not multiple small edits. And use the Show Previous button before saving changes will avoid some of the separate edits. Philip J. Rayment 13:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

link to British
Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out British or British. Regards, Jeff3000 20:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Eureka Stockade at Featured Article Review
As you contributed to this or related articles, we hope you will comment at Featured article review/Eureka Stockade. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

David Hicks
Hello! You recently changed the opening sentence of the David Hicks article to read "David Matthew Hicks... is an Australian citizen being held as a prisoner of war by..." Although in a broader definition Hicks can be called a prisoner of war, he does have the protections afforded to POWs under the Geneva conventions, so it can complicates matters to call him a POW. Therefore, I have reverted those edits. If you would like to discuss this please see Talk:David Hicks. Thanks! - Ektar 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Southern Cross station
On what basis do you call my edit "vandalism"? I reverted several edits of yours that you appeared to have made for no reason, and you have let them stand. If my edit was vandalism, why didn't you revert them also? As for the cost blowout, I said in my edit note that the Auditor General report would be okay, but that it didn't appear to actually have the information you claimed it had. I looked fairly extensively for it, including a couple of searches of the entire site, but to no avail. Please point to where the information is, as I requested, or I will again remove the statement. If the statement can be supported from a source that is at least reasonably reliable and impartial, I have no objection to the information going in. Philip J. Rayment 05:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

TISM
Hi. Just wondering why you took out all of the unreferenced tags out of the TISM article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohst (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 December 2006
 * In that case, I'll revert your edits. -Gohst 10:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

John Howard
Good point about 1996 election campaign and Pauline Hanson. Joestella 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mulesing
Hi I have something to say about each of your edits on the article.
 * 1) Peta was specifically mentioned as the article included well sourced references that they are engaging in activism regarding the procedure. A small pool of well known examples helps to illustrate a point.
 * 2) Yes, there are references that the activism may effect wool from other countries. NZ MAF have stated concerns in that regard.
 * 3) I would like a citation that Mulesing is illegal in a country where the practice probably isn't needed. Otherwise, remove the statement that it is against the law.
 * 4) It isn't the number of flies that causes flystrike. There are certainly other countries that have equal fly density to Australia in some areas. Fly density in Australia isn't uniformly high, and not all species cause flystrike.
 * 5) There are certainly enough proponants of Mulesing from New Zealand considering NZ MAF state about 30% of the countries >2 million merinos are mulesed.
 * 6) It would be nicer to use the undefined tag considering how much work is currently going into the article rather than removing the statments.

I'm more worried about how little the origin of the practice is referenced rather than weather to mention PETA as a prominant objector to it.

Lastly: if you are going to implement so many changes in the Collaboration of the Fortnight, try discussing changes on the talk page - at least, while it is the collaboration of the fortnight. That way I would have provided the addional references which would have supported the text.

It wouldn't have worried me if you had made the edits and then commented on the talk page.Garrie 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasons as to why I removed the statement. It seems other editors may have isssues with your chosen reference, and attempting to provide a single reference for two disparate facts (one about law, one about prevelance of flystrike in the UK) may be more tricky than you give me credit for. It would have been easier if the original contributor had sourced the text when it was originally inserted. Please read Talk:Mulesing you'll see my own reasons for each edit I made. Sorry if I give an impression that I am pro- or anti- animal anything on this article however I am attempting to provided both farming and animal rights campaign side of this issue and to me you are arguing both being there.

My opinion is this should be an article about the topic, not a how-to of mulesing. Which means, discussion of the producer's opinion, and similar discussion about the animal rights groups opinions of the topic, are both relevant in keeping with neutral POV (not zero POV).Garrie 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW. Re-reading the talk page - my edit was following recomendation of User:Charles Esson so maybe it's his POV you have a problem with, not mine.Garrie 22:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Like your last edit, I am now really interested in finding out if it is illegal, if it isn't it is going to make a very interesting case study on how miss information is spread, if it is I will add the reference. Regards Charles Esson 07:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at your new reference. I think I would get rid of it, suffers the same problem as all the other but it really discredits the statement. One of the gems "Around 100 million sheep suffer from mulesing each year". Sheep only get mules once in there life, the link got the total flock about right, sheep are kept for several years. It all doesn't add up. It's just another collection of miss-information. Charles Esson 07:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Crap maybe - but it doesnot give much of an idea if that is all you are going to indicate - it would be advisable to take the time to put a more detailed explanation either in the summary or the talk page. SatuSuro 06:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact it suggests an impatience with others - perhaps you need to add to your user page - WP:Civility it might help in the long term! SatuSuro 06:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - just remember wikipedia is the old goldfishbowl extraordinary - it all comes out in the wash in time - its all there - there is no magic revert - and short words might have sufficient meaning for you - but there are people out there who are not as quick or fast as you who might have to ponder issues with a bit more than a four letter word! SatuSuro 06:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Flannery
I am reverting again your description of Flannery as "provocative". I have re-read the article and also checked the definition of the the word and cannot see how the word fits him. Indeed todays reports on climate warming eg http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/on-brink-of-climate-disaster/2007/01/26/1169788693332.html seem to indicate that he is quite mainstream. If you feel that the word provocative description is correct please discuss it on the talk page so that a consensus can be reached. You should also check out the three revert rule Albatross2147 08:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Woodside
I fixed up those uncited sections in the article, except the first one. I think it needs rewording. It is good to pick these things up, even better to fix them. I tend to use talk pages if I can't.  Have a go if you are good at that sort of thing. There is a lot to done there. Fred 08:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Murders & killing
Hi, I notice you have picked up another misuse of the word at history of WA, "Yagan, a senior warrior of the local Aboriginal tribe near the Swan River was killed on 11 July of this year after a bounty was issued for his capture following the murder of a couple of settlers." but notice that the word is used again in the same sentence. Was this an oversight or are you contending that it was murder in that case? Regards, - Fred 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * on Freds talk page better to try read this before you respond. :) SatuSuro 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also you are at the stage another change on John Forrest article leads you into WP:3RR territory, regardless of your opinion.... SatuSuro 05:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also at Indigenous Australians simple removal is not very clever editing - try putting fact against that which you dispute - such editing only brings out trouble for yourself - if you want it - fine - thats your problem SatuSuro 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from all this, I like the quote on your user page, "Any Government big enough to give you all you want, is big enough to take it all away." I could not agree more. You are also the first person I have spoken to that knows of Prester John, I'm impressed. I am judging your edits on my 'watched' articles page, not yourself. Try to do the same. Hesperians advice is always worth taking into consideration. Regards, - Fred 05:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here? When aborigines kill settlers, you upgrade "killed" to "murdered", but when settlers kill aborigines, you downgrade "murdered" to "killed". Would you care to explain your personal understanding of the distinction between the words? Does it have anything to do with race? Hesperian 05:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ''I was upgrading killed to murder as I believe it is the correct term for this human on human action. You backed Fred downgrading John Forrest by writing A. "Murder is a legal term", and B. He was "killed in Action". I followed your subsequent back and forth with Adam and decided to correct all murders not legally prosecuted as KIA, as per your guidelines. Your cry of Racism is against Wikipedias "assume good faith" policy and fairly extraordinary as you seem to presume "my" racial makeup. Prester John 05:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why then did you revert John Forrest to "murdered"? Hesperian 05:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ''Because he was Murdered. Prester John 05:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who was? The full context of your change is:
 * "A few years earlier, a party of Aborigines had told the explorer Charles Hunt of a place where a group of white men had been murdered by Aborigines a long time ago...."
 * Who is this "party of white men" that you claim were murdered according to legal finding? Or are you talking about Leichhardt, who simply disappeared? Hesperian 05:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ''I am willing to find a solution to all sides here. I will concede that John Forrest was "killed" as if he was involved in a war, like you stated. If you agree that ALL participants of said war were "killed" and not "murdered". You must concede that adjusting these terms is not racist, and I demand an apology for the snide Racial remark now defacing my talkpage. Prester John 05:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? John Forrest died of cancer at the ripe old age of 71. If you haven't even read two sentences of context either side of your change, then please don't waste my time by arguing its merits. Hesperian 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK guys time out - go for a jog or hug a tree or something - but get off your keyboards before its too late! SatuSuro 06:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ''Ok I'll admit while getting lost in the minutae of "murder" and "killing" I lost track of the context of the particular article you and I were dealing with. I edited a lot of articles in relation to this subject and am involved in a pseudo edit war with Fred.e. Since you have declared this is wasting your time, I will just declare my position. I am willing to let "those men" be "killed" and not "murdered" under article of war (like you descirbed) if it is applied to all combatants of said war. This must be applied evenly.
 * ''Hesperian your lack of acknowledgement in regard to your personal slur against me is very un-administrator like, and really should be grounds for your removal from that post.Prester John 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's stopping you from applying it evenly? Not me. I've queried your unevenness in twice upgrading "killed" to "murdered" in a case of white men killed by Aborigines, while downgrading "murdered" to "killed" in several cases of Aborigines killed by white men. You have yet to give me a coherent response to that question. Hesperian 06:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ''Your right it's not you. Other users wikistalked my edits after you and Adam reached a consensus I agreed with. I reverted the John Forrest to keep things even.
 * ''Still no apology from you concerning the snide charge of Racism. Prester John 06:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting to the bottom of this. You reverted at John Forrest in order to get even with Fred for reverting some of your other edits. By reverting against your own point of view, you presented a prima facie case of someone upholding different standards for different races. My question, "does it have anything to do with race?", was warranted under the circumstances. I don't think I owe you an apology. Hesperian 06:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ''It was attempt to make the encyclopedia even handed. There is no doubt in my mind you reverted a perfectly valid point (that it was murder) and your dedication to the truth is IMO flawed. Given your behaviour I wasn't really expecting an apology, it says more about your personal constitution than it does about mine.Prester John 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah - other admins have been watching this dicsussion but have chosen not to enter the fray - WP:PA, WP:Civility, and WP:Wikiquette are your downfall mate - you've not really made the encyclopedia even handed by this - point scoring is a pointless exercise when it comes to the use of words in an article - it has done nothing to improve the quality of wikipedia  - SatuSuro 02:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How to argue on wikipedia whether you are right - or -wrong
''How to avoid abuse of talk pages

o Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner.'' SatuSuro 06:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They're a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all they're for forging agreements that are best for the articles they're attached to. If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why you think your way is better.
 * Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.

Wikistalking
Watch lists are created for a range of reasons - if your edits come up on others lists and they choose to take issue that is not 'wikistalking' Your sheer belligerence on Hesperian's talk page is showing you up - and will come to no good - get off your computer and go for a long box against a tree - or you will find that generral wikipedia procedures and policies may place your current status in question... SatuSuro 06:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Terminology
Do you want to discuss this or make a point? - Fred 11:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nutella
I have once again included Sweet William's chocolate spread as a competitor. This is a notable dairy free and nut free alternative to Nutella at least in Australia where Nutella is very popular. If you are going to delete one competitor delete them all. But first see if you can reach a consensus in the talk page about it. Thanks for your time Albatross2147 03:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gamil al-Batouti
Your expansion of Sudden Jihad Syndrome is interesting, but I'm unsure what is meant by Gamil al-Batouti's alleged "terrorist motives". I read a whole long price about the investigation of this plane crash (maybe in the New Yorker), and the conflict between the Egyptian aviation investigators (who desperately tried to point to mechnical failures, or anything other than intentional human action) and the U.S. aviation investigators (whose report pointed to intentional human action as the cause) came out clearly, but I don't remember reading anything about any "terrorist motives" on his part... AnonMoos 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Muslims fear Backlash"
Please don't make crap up.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sudden Jihad Syndrome
You'll be interested to know I nominated the Sudden Jihad Syndrome article for deletion. While I appreciate the time you've put into building this article, it raises significant notability and original research concerns. The deletion debate can be found here. Cheers,--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See now also Articles for deletion/Muslims fear Backlash. Sandstein 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Warnings
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. (Diff). Sandstein 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, offensive edit summaries like in are not acceptable. —xyzzyn 06:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. (Diff). Sandstein 07:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is your only warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked. See diff. Sandstein 08:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of Muslims fear Backlash
By reading all of the correspondence between you and other editors I can assume, If I complete the article with references the article will be considered?. Let me repeat that again. I, given more than a few seconds, have the ability to complete the article fully referenced. Is there any other objections than the referenced material? Prester John 08:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored some of the later versions of the article and removed the salt. --  tariq abjotu  08:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because it was a nonsensical neologism that did not need to go through the five days and continue to fill the deletion backlogs. I frankly don't care about the whole "Muslim" or "Islamic" areas. I just knew original research when I saw it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 08:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There were no references each time I had deleted it. And the additions of the Wikiquote and the Wikisource tags to non-existant pages also shows that there is nothing concerning this phrase in modern usage. If you can find reliable sources to "Muslims fear Backlash" (the phrase itself does not make sense) being used, then the article should stay. If not, I guess it's going to AFD.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 08:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Prester John, I put a suggestion on Ryulong's talk page about this. Regards, Flyguy649 (talk-works) 08:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There were never any references in either its past or current forms. If you use Muslims fear Backlash and provide references, it can stay.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 08:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, the phrase does exist, but it is not a neologistic term. It is just a phrase used by the media to show that Muslims fear backlash from some event that occured. There's no way to define that.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 08:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to your note on my talk page, I'm asking you once more to restrict your comments to content, not contributors. I won't respond to the insulting tone of that message. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your February 26 2007 nonsense edit to Neologism
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Please don't add "Muslims fear backlash" to Neologism again. Random desciptive sentences are not neologisms. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

John Howard's nuptials
Believe it or not but Barnett (a Howard mate) quotes Howard's best man as having expressed surprise at his marrage. You should try checking for facts before reverting. I had cited the reference and it is easily checked. You should be able to do this. Most public libraries will have a copy of Barnett's turgid panegyric. I got mine for nothing at Vinnies 'cos I made a donation. The guy who previously had owned it hadn't read it but you can tell he was a fan 'cos he had left lots of neatly clipped fawning press cuttings from the Tele about John Howard (and John Brogden) in the book. Albatross2147 11:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Karbala
Hi. Would you replace the lunar dates back to their positions? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Karbala&diff=113189530&oldid=113113250. Since the exact dates are very important for good underestanding of the battle. Or you can mention Gregorian calendar with a footprint showing lunar. Best. Farhoudk 09:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Karbala#Gregorian_or_Lunar_calendar Farhoudk 09:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Greenist?
Please take the trouble to find the citations or arguments for your way of looking at the world rather than tagging articles. It would help wikipedia immensely if those of your particular way of looking at the world would actually take the time in good faith to find to find the apologists for industry and developers, rather than seeing 'green' and tagging. As we have been developing these particular articles I have gone out of my way to find industry responses to the green arguments - and the reference sections reflect that in most argyuments. It is one thing to criticise with tags, its another to help wikipedia become a better encyclopedia. Thank you for taking that into consideration, and I look forward to your contributions to citations for the industries defence of their activities. SatuSuro 05:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are policies in Wikipedia that might see that as a form of editing that can be seen in a negative light. If you are unable to provide citations for the industry arguments, you are not really helping the encyclopdia - but simply engaging in pushing your POV - if you are adding industry citations - you are helping the encyclopedia to be a btterer place - lets face it - just criticising something is not the same as providing citations of gunns critique of the greenies - anyone can put tags or start edit wars, its the better editor who takes the time to find the gunns p.r. machine info and cites it! SatuSuro 05:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Indonesian bombing articles
Please - if you choose to revert an edit - as you have done in two Indonesian bombing articles - you have provided no edit summary -or comment on the talk page for this reversion - that is not really acceptable practice - you need to state why you did it - and as you take pains in your edits to other articles on matters you do not agree with - you need to find a good reference or citation to back your reversion. Thank you for your help in this matter SatuSuro 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

...and again
You are once again reverted people's reasoned edits without providing any reasoning yourself. THis is a wikipedia "no-no". Please show other editors some respect and at least provide reasoning. A for these particular reinstatements of invalid categories (see my edit summaries ) your reasoning would be very interesting given that the categories are invalid. Merbabu 11:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

...and also
Do not only copy pasting materials from the internet! Otherwise you breach copyright infringement. This is not a clipping news assignment for your school homework, but an encyclopaedia. Read through the WP:NOT please. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 11:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR
I have no interest in having a debate with you in edit summaries - you have items here to respond to. SatuSuro 06:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have simply taken issue with your edits at a number of enviromental articles and Indonesian articles I have on my watch list - that is not wikistalking. And you are in WP:3RR territory. SatuSuro 06:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like every time I bump into you you're making accusations of wikistalking. That's a very serious allegation, but you seem to be handing it out like candy. I strongly recommend you withdraw it or you might find yourself in trouble per WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Hesperian 06:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference format...
Regarding this recent edit of yours, please provide it in the correct citation format. see WP:CITET for the appropriate template. You will notice the article already has its citations in this format, please let's not get sloppy. Any questions, please let me know. kind regards --Merbabu 06:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not copy and paste
Even if it is referenced, it is a lousy way to make an encyclopedia. Most of your additions to 2003 Mariott Hotel bombing are simply cut and paste jobs. Look at this diff, you've even brought across funny characters. While I agree that this article needs developing, this not the way to go about it and I will support removing any further such poor quality and lazy editing. sorry. Merbabu 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment
On Muhammad Rais is considered trolling. Expect messages from admins wanting to block you if you consider that fair game? Try re-reading WP:Civility, WP Wikiquette, or if you dont get it maybe simple common sense if you wish to employ that sort of message.SatuSuro 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

David Hicks
Looking through your edits of David Hicks, many of them come dangerously close to manipulation of the facts. Hopefully you are just getting a little sloppy through multiple edits of the article and you are not deliberately inserting your bias. Eg, removing comments that the Australian government didn't do much to help - you are correct in saying that they are under no legal obligation to help, however since it is highly unusual for the Australian government to not help (even convicted criminals) it becomes noteworthy and should not have been removed. Another example, you removed references to his treatment being unconstitutional on the grounds that Hicks is not a US citizen. If you did a little homework you would find that the US constitution refers to all those who live within the jurisdiction of the US government (which includes US military bases abroad), not just US citizens (the only constitutional right granted citizens and not aliens is the right to vote), therefore your edit was incorrect. Another example, removing the well-referenced comments on the oddity of the media gag order - something unconstitutional in the US, and unique in Australia - obviously noteworthy. The insults in edit summaries indicate you have become worked up over this - I would advice you to just take some time off from the article to cool down. Sad mouse 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You should have read the discussion page. Not original research, and multiple people other than Bob Brown have made the speculation. Sad mouse 05:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Use discussion pages
Prester John, use discussion pages to justify your constant alterations of David Hicks. Do not make changes where you have not investigated the issue. Do not make changes from a politically motivated POV. Do not revert changes multiple times without justification on the discussion page. Sad mouse 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
Although it is no longer an active page - your use of extensive quotes does not fit into general rules - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#When_not_to_use_quotations - cheers, have a safe easter SatuSuro 03:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the edit made it unclear what was copied from the source and what was the editors own words. I agree with Merbabu's reversion. &mdash;Moondyne 03:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd
Re the revert from the addition by Aussietv. I'm not convinced its OR, as I remember having seen it published in the mainstream media. It may just need a citation, so I'm leaving it in with a tag. Recurring dreams 05:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you responded before reverting. Anyway, the statement has now been referenced. Recurring dreams 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting vote
Greetings. As an anti-Communist, you may like to cast a vote here. Biruitorul 05:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Help
Hello, I noticed on your page that you are against gun control. I'm an admin on the Gun Wiki (Gunpedia), and have been looking for users who might want to contribute. Would you? Get back to me when you can. Brain40 [ talk  ]  [  contributions  ]

Christmas Island
Asking for a reference when there is truly an issue of contention is perfectly acceptable, but to do so solely to be a pain when you have a personal disagreement with established scientific facts is just downright ugly. Nevertheless, your cite has been provided, as there is obviously no paucity of information on the subject. Lexicon (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah
I agree with your viewpoint regarding Muhammad al-Durrah, but the footage does show what appears to be al-Durrah being shot. While it was obviously faked, adding "allegedly" implies that we doubt the footage shows al-Durrah and instead it shows something else happening. KazakhPol 03:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I notice you borrowed my userpage formatting :). I have a feeling, looking over your contributions, you and I will end up working together (on Wikipedia) in the future. KazakhPol 03:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Allah v. God: God wins
Remember to change all instances of Allah to God as Allah is only the Arabic name. Good work with "the Prophet" to Muhammad. KazakhPol 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. I suppose that is one way to look at it... Generally though, Arabs refer to Satan as Shaitan. KazakhPol 00:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User page
Please see WP:USER and WP:ANI. Wikipedia is not a weblog or a free web host. Please use What can I have on my user page? as your guide. Thank you. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you haven't gotten the message well. Again, read the thread at the AN/I. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up ®  14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Prester John, I strongly recommend that you not restore the contested material. The only effect of such struggles is to get users blocked, see User:Embargo, User:DavidYork71, also User:BrandonYusufToropov, User:Matt57 for other users which have had user page material removed.Proabivouac 10:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Gunns
Good to see you want to tackle Gunns - find those refs eh! - however when you appropriate a whole article to work on - you should leave the categories off the bottom - otherwise you will find your sandbox in: - Category:Companies based in Tasmania - which I am very sure you are not - cheers SatuSuro 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As you have neither replied or done anything about it - and yet continue to do extensive edits on your user page and islamic articles, I have removed the categories from your sandbox in good faith, cheers SatuSuro 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you maintain a sense of humour - four items on your three golden rules list. Strongly suggest you should reply to talk page items - as some admins and others will take silence as lacking in Good faith, and the ramifications of that considering you are prepared to engage in talk items at other locations take care! SatuSuro 03:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Skeptic category up for deletion
Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming is up for deletion. If you would like to comment on this, feel free to do so here. Oren0 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Taj El-Din Hilaly
I'm not going to break the 3 revert rule over this, but please justify why you want to include two opinion pieces, one of which is a broke link? Recurring dreams 07:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim Blair
Please reverting to an older edition, and claiming changes were made in bad faith, before any sort of justification on the talk page. More than one editor has made changes to the article, with removal of unencyclopediac information. Again, as with the Taj El-Din Hilaly‎ article, I will not break the 3 revert rule, but I may call for intervention from a 3rd party. Judging from the entries above, it doesn't seem like you reply too regularly in your talk page. Recurring dreams 07:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Awards == ==

This is unacceptable
Good morning. Regardless of what you may feel about any religion or creed, something as inflammatory and divisive as User:Prester John/Userbox/Allah is Satan is, I am afraid, completley unacceptable in wikispace. How would you feel about a L'havdil elef, elef alfei havdalos; chas v'chalila a template comparing HaShem that way? Or for Christians, comparing Jesus to Satan? -- Avi 14:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, really? Why should you care what other people believe? Prester John 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about what people believe, rather it's about building a collaborative, rather than combative, community. How does it help the encyclopedia? It merely disrupts. If it really means that much to you, it should be left for a personal website rather than misuse an encyclopedia. kind regards Merbabu 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Faulty Logic: My belief system does not affect editing any more than yours does. Do you get so distracted by a poster on the wall that you can't work anymore???? Prester John 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of whether it's disruptive or not, how does it help the encyclopedia? Merbabu 15:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Helps editors understand where I am coming from when disscussing and analyzing edits. Is it not acceptable to express what you believe? Prester John 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Briefly, per User page, no. It is not acceptable. Perhaps on blogspot or myspace, but something as divisive as this is not acceptable here, I am afraid. -- Avi 15:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also direct you to User page. While a wide range of content is tolerated, content with a tendency to give widespread offence or to bring the encyclopedia into disrepute is not. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A decision has been reached regarding this matter: Delete.. :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.53.226 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Welcome to Wikipedia: The Free, Online, Open-sourced Encyclopedia the anyone who is politically correct may edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unauthored (talk • contribs)

"God" in Muslim articles
Prester John, may I ask why you are removing the word "God" from Muslim articles, as you did here? ··coe l acan 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And here with the reather misleading edit summary of "wikify" DES (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference used quotes "Allah". Why would we not use the phrase that is part of the reference? It is POV to render this to "God". There has much debate for over a thousand years as to if this is true. Many scholars conclude that Allah is in fact Satan, another POV, albiet the polar opposite POV. To avoid confusion or favoring one opinion over another let's just use what the reference uses shall we? As per Wiki normal procedure. Prester John 00:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this because it was inflammatory and divisive. Per both WP:CSD and WP:USERPAGE, you cannot use Wikipedia in this way as a platform to promote hate. As for your changes to remove "God" from articles, if you continue to do it without gaining wide consensus on the specific articles' talk pages, you will be blocked for WP:TEND. ··coe l acan 02:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand WP:CSD. But which PART of the broad spectrum of WP:CSD are you talking about? You use word like inflammatory, yet cannot identify inflammatory to who? You use words like like divisive, and do not describe divisive to who? Do you have answers to these questions or is your reflex to block? I ask again, which part of WP:CSD  are you refereing to? Prester John 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "hate" box was, quite simply, promoting hate, and you can't do this on Wikipedia. Your Muhammad box was inflammatory toward Muslims, with no encyclopedic purpose (as opposed to showing depictions of Muhammad at the Muhammad article, which has encyclopedic value). ··coe l acan 02:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Faulty logic. The userbox in question described that you had the right to hate. Upon whom was it promoting hate? Please answer which part of WP:CSD you are refering to? You do understand the difference between asserting a right and promoting a concept I assume? I am assuming good faith here. The Muhammad userbox was an expression of self. It doesn't fall under the general space guidelines. In essence your evaluation of "it is not encyclopedic" is invalid. Please explain. Prester John 03:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Promoting hate is by definition divisive. As to your "expression of self", Wikipedia is not your soapbox. I've explained this as far as I intend to. You have WP:DRV and WP:ANI open to you if you're not satisfied by my explanation. ··coe l acan 03:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I'm guessing by you refusal to narrow in on which part of WP:CSD you were talking about, you have no idea why you deleted the page and have no explanation of why you did it. This is clearly a case of admin abuse. My recourse is in fact not what you describe, but instead to just revert the vandalism. Prester John 03:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do, there will very soon be a "please review my block of Prester John" thread on WP:ANI. Your choice. ··coe l acan 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Does sound like one. Are you sure you're fit to be an admin? Prester John 04:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is customary to warn a user that the edit they plan to make will result in blocking. Your options for your userboxes are WP:DRV or WP:ANI (DRV is the obvious one, since it's for deletions, unless you're sure this is "desysop coelacan" material, then you should probably go with ANI). Your option for the removal of "God" from Muslim articles is to gain consensus on the articles' talk pages. Your other option in both these cases is to be blocked to prevent further WP:POINT disruption. ··coe l acan 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So I guess your explanation of WP:CSD is still Zero. Once again you have failed to explain why a page weas deleted under WP:CSD and then threatened the inquirer with a block. Poor form. Extremely poor form. Prester John 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No John, I have explained myself. Not to your satisfaction, obviously. I have not threatened to block you for inquiring, but only if you recreate the inflammatory content without taking it through WP:DRV. I believe I've made myself sufficiently clear, and you are familiar with the routes to pursue the matter further without me if you so choose. Good night. ··coe l acan 04:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * Prester John, I have removed some of the most obviously inappropriate material from your userspace; there may be more. I strongly suggest that you go over it again yourself to make sure there is nothing here which might pointlessly (i.e, without furthering the encyclopedia's informative mission) upset other editors before someone else does it for you. Do not under any circumstances recreate or restore any disparaging reference to religion, equations of living people with Satan, etc. If you do, it is almost certain that you will face a significantly harsher block, if not a community ban. I can't emphasize that strongly enough.Proabivouac 01:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Prester John:Radical Christian  Mission Objective: Replace the word "God" with "Allah" in Muslim articles..  I think he learned his lesson :D 216.99.52.29 23:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Australian embassy bombing flag.jpg
Hello, Prester John. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Australian embassy bombing flag.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Prester John/Sandbox3. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Azahari Husin.jpg
Hello, Prester John. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Azahari Husin.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Prester John/Sandbox3. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gunnslogo.gif
Hello, Prester John. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Gunnslogo.gif) was found at the following location: User:Prester John/Sandbox2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

misleading edit summaries
Look, it's fine what you're doing here and here. But you have to start using clear edit summaries. You aren't "wikifying" and what you call "copyediting" is not noncontroversial, as copyediting is expected to be. Be specific in your edit summaries, or at the very least, link to WP:MOSISLAM to explain your action. And please don't use "wikify" or "copyedit" as that's not what you're doing. ··coe l acan 06:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is also very clearly a POV issue, similar the difference between "God" and "god" in articles. There are those who believe "Prophet" has to be capitalized. Your edit summary usage was also previously raised at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive241. Your specific actions that I linked to are supported by WP:MOSISLAM. Just be clear that's what you're doing. "Copyediting" is non-controversial. These actions are controversial. Please be explicit in labelling them. If you want a quick default edit summary, in my opinion "WP:MOSISLAM" will be sufficient, though an instance-specific explanation is preferable. ··coe l acan 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad's first revelation
Would you be as kind as to MOVE this page to a title Islamic legend of Muhammad's first revelation, or Islamic story of Muhammad's first revelation. It's just that my account doesn't (yet) give me that option.Unauthored 04:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Block
Can you block the vandal that made this page? Prester John 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Page deleted. Vandal blocked indef. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  04:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad Fayssal got to it while I was out. By the way, John, you'll usually get the fastest response by reporting at WP:AIV, since it's hard to predict which admins are online, but several are usually watching that page. ··coe l acan 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikifying
Just to let you know, your use of the term "wikify" in some of your edit summaries is wrong. Wikifying is the process of making internal links with the wiki markup. What you're doing looks more like editing for style. It's not a big deal, but it can be confusing for people reading your edit summaries.--Cúchullain t/ c 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gunns
Hi Prester John. I reverted your revert. The reference is in the section titled "references". ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  02:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Block
Too late. He was blocked for a week about twenty minutes ago. Hesperian 02:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Islam
Hello Prester John,

On the page Talk:List_of_notable_converts_to_Islam, you stated that I had breached 3rr. Firstly, even if I did breach 3rr, I self-reverted to whatever I could. This is in accordance with WP:3rr.

Secondly, WP:3rr has a requirement of "Previous version reverted to:". Thus, as you can see, my edits can't be classified as reverts because they don't really revert to a previous version.

Hope you understand.Bless sins 22:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

News on JI in Indonesia - with S Jones quotes...
Prester, mate. I guess you saw my ce's on the Solo school. Did you see this in today's smh? Could be useful for the terrorism in Indonesia articles. Some good Sydney Jones quotes down towards the bottom. Also, I often see her on the ABC's Lateline program often has her on the show. And all transcripts are on the the abc web site. Why i think she is so impressive is that she knows her stuff more than anyone, but is not afraid to give credit to people when it is due, and then criticise them when it is due. She seems to non-partisan, but calls it as she sees it - and how she sees it is based on good info. Well, that's the way I see it. Merbabu 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
A "" template has been added to the article Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.Recurring dreams 07:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to United States foreign policy
Hey, You just blanked a ton of stuff from this article without using the talk page at all. This article has been seeing some seriously needed work lately, and removed stuff that was not OR, but was cited, and much discussed in its talk page. Is there a reason you would rather blank info than to use a talk page, or improve the info (or even recognize that something isn't an allegation, but cited fact?) Murderbike 06:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

All this stuff is just unreferenced garbage. Better to remove it and start again. Which points do you think are referenced?Prester John 06:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The ones I reverted. Check out the talk page, and the history of the page. your opinion that it is "garbage" is irrellevant here. Murderbike 07:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

references for "Allah is Satan"
Would you please point me to some works that conclude that Allah is Satan? I'm aware of the more contemporary works such as Prophet of Doom. I'm looking for references more than fifty years old. Frotz 09:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

China no. 1 emitter.
While China may have become the no. 1 emitter in 2006. The data that you quote are to premature to be used here. If you read the MNP press release which is the one that the reference you cite comes from - you will find that its a preliminary result based upon incomplete data and trend analysis: "The estimates of CO2 emissions do not include emissions from flaring and venting of associated gas during oil and gas production and CO2 emissions from deforestation/logging/decay of remaining biomass and are calculated using default CO2  emission factors recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CO2  emissions from underground coal fires in China and elsewhere are not included either. The magnitude of these sources is very uncertain; according to recent research CO2  emissions from coal fires are estimated at 150-450 megatonne CO2  annually in China."

Please wait for the official data to come out. Its a good headliner - but not certain enough to be used here yet. (and for that matter unverified). --Kim D. Petersen 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posted this on the Talk:Global warming article as well (in a slightly changed version). Please discuss this first - ok? --Kim D. Petersen 20:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seek consensus before changing Global warming, referring to Talk where its rather clear that there isn't a consensus for your changes is rather strange. --Kim D. Petersen 06:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK - lets try this again: You can state that a preliminary finding indicates that China has overtaken the US as the largest CO2 emitter (source). What you cannot say is: China is the largest CO2 emitter. Why can't you say it? Because the report itself (and every secondary source) describes this as a preliminary finding - with the caveat that not everything is calculated in yet. This goes for both sources and sinks. --Kim D. Petersen 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what wikipedia is about. Your opinions and original research just do NOT matter and you in particular are a frequent violator of WP:SYN. No where in the study or in the subsequent media reports is the word "possibly". All people who have commented on the report do not deny it's conclusion. That includes Greenpeace UK.Prester John 20:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the word "possibly" change it to "likely" or another word with the same meaning. The whole basis here is: It is preliminary and it is not certain. And the primary and all secondary sources say that. On the other hand concluding that the results are certain and concrete is WP:SYN - since you are taking the headlines at face-value, and ignoring the content of the articles. --Kim D. Petersen 06:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for butting in, but "possibly" and "likely" are not synonyms. Frotz 07:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, but i think John (and you?) get the gist. The data here is an extrapolation of preliminary data, which might be correct, even likely to be so. This means that you cannot state "China is the no. 1 emitter" as fact - but have to indicate the uncertainty in some way. Such as "A recent study indicates that China has overtaken the United States" or words to the same effect. --Kim D. Petersen 08:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
Are you allergic to reading and discussing on Talk pages? J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green do not pass the inclusion criteria, because they have not published in any field in natural sciences (here is the excerpt from the criteria - on top of the article): "Each individual has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in a field related to climate." - It has nothing to do with WP:V or WP:RS. --Kim D. Petersen 06:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hmmmm
Please grant me just a little good faith. Nitrous oxide, especially the small portion of nitrous oxide produced by worms, produces very little CO2-equivalent when compared to the use of fossil fuels. Including information about composting simply isn't important enough to warrant its inclusion on the Global Warming main article. Maybe if there were a "agricultural sources of global warming" article or something. The entire point of the news release that your sources linked to was that worms hurt instead of help the climate- not that they hurt the climate to any vast extent. johnpseudo 23:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The scope of the Global warming includes as you say "agricultural sources of global warming". Why would it need to be under a different article? That last sentence doesn't make any logical sense, sorry.Prester John 23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I wasn't clear in my last sentence: Your sources don't make any claim that gas emissions from worms are a significant component of the world's anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission. They only claim that such worm emissions are negative instead of positive.  Wikipedia cannot include everything that is even remotely relevant to the topic at hand.  It has to abstract topics into manageable segments and direct users to sub-pages with more in-depth information.  If we added everything with as little relevance as this worm emissions issue has, the global warming article would be unmanageable. johnpseudo 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith
Please assume it more. Also, try not to be so abrasive in your edit summaries and talk page comments. I found your responses to be very rude and I do not appreciate how you talk to others with whom you disagree. Oh, you also seem to have misunderstood exactly what constitutes original research and pov. Please take some time to look over the relevant policy pages before you lecture others. Thanks Turtlescrubber 14:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo article, if you feel the need to make anymore minor edits, go to the talk page and suggest them there first, so it can be talked over. Failure to do this will lead me to assume that you are trolling. As for your "garbage language" assessment, your replacement edit wasnt even grammatically correct. I see from the rest of your talk page that this isnt the first time that you have had problems in the areas of making useless POV edits and simply being polite towards other people.Fennessy 01:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erasing History
Why did you erase the Rosie O'Donnell/ Donald Trump feud from the Donald Trump page? It's strange that you would erase it from Donald Trump's page but not Rosie O'Donnell's? Why the bias? Is it because Rosie is a lesbian and Donald is straight? Or is it because Rosie is a woman and Donald is a man?

WP:3RR, WP:Civility
Watch it mate SatuSuro 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice racial vilification in the edit summary. Looking at your contribs I honestly thought you were a Bot. Prester John 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have been warned so many times before re your style - you should try to tone down your impatience with those you dont agree with - and save yourself another block. Ok so you have all your problematic axes and hangups to grind - just try some agf and civility - however hard it might be for you to find that. So you enjoy being a provocateur - expect the consequences of that - if you cannot stay within the reasonable expectations of a community that in most cases dose not have the same ideas that you might have. If that is not a reasonable request, you probably should try a blog that can accomodate  your way of looking at the world and that dosnt challenge you with limitaions and boundaries of expectations of reasonable good faith - cheers - I am not a bot Im trying to fix up the afl project categories - mate SatuSuro 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone of racial vilification is an extremely serious matter; people go to jail for that sort of thing. Please either provide a diff backing up the accusation, or withdraw it immediately. Hesperian 02:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

See this diff. Despite the bad spelling I believe it to be an attack on my beliefs as stated on my user page. It could however be related to marijuana.Prester John 02:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How does "you are not a buddhist" constitute racial vilification? I would assume from SatuSuro's comments that he thinks your edits demonstrate a disregard for the Noble Eightfold Path. This has nothing to do with your race, whatever that is. Either explain to me how SatuSuro's comment constitutes racial vilification, or withdraw the accusation. Hesperian 02:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to this site. All will be explained. I think being Australian, Hesp, you will understand. Prester John 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Am I to understand that you actually meant to accuse SatuSuro of religious vilification? If so, please explain how "you are not a buddhist" constitutes religious vilification, or withdraw the accusation. Hesperian 03:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you directed me to the relevant Australian legislation, I assume that you have yourself read it, and will provide an explanation that adequately addresses how "you are not a buddhist" incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of Buddhists. Hesperian 03:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary of "You already know the answer, don't play dumb" was dismissive of a reasonable and serious question. It deserves a serious answer.  &mdash;Moondyne 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you both should brush up on current Australian Law. This is not a legal threat but the simple answer as to how is Satosuro's personal attack constitutes vilification, is because on reading the attack, I felt, ridiculed, abused and vilified on the basis of my declared religion. The purpose of his attack was demean and humiliate me. How else can this be read? Prester John 06:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets get it straight Prester - I have had the misfortune to check you a number of times in the past in relation to behaviour in Wikipedia

My edit summary was not a personal attack on whoever you might be or intend to be - it was complete disbelief that you continue to edit the way you do - and have a user box that you claim to hold a belief that is opposite in practice to what you do on Wikipedia.

If you feel that this is an extraordinary situation - you are very conveniently forgetting you earlier offensive user box escapades where you claimed allah is satan and islam is evil..

As to you whoever you may be - your feelings - I apologise unreservedly if you feel hurt by your claim to not being a buddhist hurt you. Sorry about that I owe you a round or two if you ever return to OZ.

However your edit history on your user page would leave any reviewing user incredulous that you should one month be the maker of a user box that says allah is satan and that islam is evil, and  some time later you claim to be a hurt buddhist. That is a very strange mix.

In my interactions previously I have tried to encourage you to be a better member of the community - try to be more civil etc for six months - and you seem to have had the same attitude to fellow editors and to the processes of wikipedia in that time. You have indeed cleaned up parts of wikipedia - even if with a very rough brush - maybe you should think about your attitude - as much as anoyone elses.

I would be fascinated to see where in your entire edit history any evidence of the obvious application of buddhist belief or practice - please show the examples.

Another point is that you went quiet after your block - and even did a bit of a cleanup up parts of your user page as a result of your user boxes being removed. What would be really encouraging would be some recognition by you as a fellow editor that you are - abrupt, and quite short in your manner and style of editing about islam, climate change, and greenie issues as you call them - if you dont agree with things - to try actually take the time to put something in your reverts summaries - and show some sign that you actually understand the norms of behaviour in wikipedia - all you seem to get is messages on your talk which you appear to ignore.

To show some sign of actually wanting to belong to the community and abide by some standards would probably help you and the people you encounter on wikipedia.

It would go a long way - specially with people you clearly do not agree with in beliefs - or views of the world.

It would really help - however much you appear to not like them

SatuSuro 13:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never created any user box that states "Islam is evil" like you accuse. I did create one (that was deleted) that said This user believes that Allah is not God but Satan. The wiki community has deceided that saying a democraticaly elected leader should be thrown in jail is perfectly fine, yet expressing the belief that one imaginary concept is not this imaginary concept but a different imaginary concept, is waaaaay too far. I have abided and not created anything similar since.Prester John 15:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good for you then SatuSuro 15:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In Australia, the legal test for religious and other forms of vilification isn't simply whether one, as an individual, takes offense. Just because someone doesn't like something being said to them does not automatically make it vilification. An allegation of vilification has to satisfy the definition, as provided by Hesperian, from the point of view of an average reasonable person, which any Australian state-based Anti-Discrimination Tribunal (or equivalent) will take into account when handling such matters. --Bren 07:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Taj El-Din Hilaly
By convention, all of the the categories are styled Category:People from wherever. My understanding of the convention is that these include not just natives of the city but also people who live there. &mdash;Moondyne 03:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Do not remove sourced information under false edit summaries. If you have a problem with wording, fix it or take the issue of deletion to the discussion page. Stop being disruptive. Merbabu 03:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Further
Apart from being consistent with your abrasive edit summary style, this edit summary doesn't explain the point of your edit. And, I actually did read the reference the first time. Maybe you would be kind enough to quote the paragraph here that you are citing. I can't see that bit anywhere. I can't see the point to anyway - it's like adding the sun that is the sky. Merbabu 09:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Apart from Common sense you could read this to understand how Solar power will work. People are blissfully unaware that this power only operates during daylight hours. They don't fathom that to continue the electricity supply into the night, (when lights etc are actually used) you need a "chemical conversion" process commonly know as a battery. People need to think about how large the "battery" needed to power a city the size of Sydney would be, and more importantly how much chemical will be released when home grown Islamic terrorists detonate it.Prester John 15:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so i presume you are now admitting that it is not in the reference and should be removed. Despite your uncivil insistance I didn't read it - just like the referenced material in support of solar that you did remove. There is also the problem of the way you wrote it - it doesn't help anything - and is out of context.
 * By the way, what happens when your afore mentioned 'Islamic terrorists' (the relevance?) detonate the nuclear power plants you support? ;-) Merbabu 22:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is in the reference I cited above and in several other places in the article. Are you seriously suggesting the solar panel provides electricity at night? Prester John 23:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, where did I say that? But i am removing OR and stuff out of context. Re-write it appropriately. Merbabu 23:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Much better - thanks. Maybe next time though we can do it like the first time without the fuss above. regards Merbabu 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Please engage in the debate on talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming instead of simply reverting. Kim has aptly pointed out why this opinion piece is not a reliable source, in particular not to the standards required by WP:BLP. Please also be aware of WP:3RR. You have reverted 3 times in the last 80 minutes or so. Further reverts will put you over the limit and may get you blocked. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

More on reliable sources
Although I disagree with you on the global warming articles, I don't want you to accidentally get in trouble. The Wikipedia arbitration committee has ruled that publications of the Lyndon LaRouche movement cannot be used except as sources of information about LaRouche. Reinserting such material after deletion can cause the editor to be banned (see Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche). Raymond Arritt 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries - more "care" advised...
I'm seeing a few of these edits from you. While, I am supportive of the actual improvement, the edit summaries are problematic. Indeed, some might suggest they are even trollish (ie, seeking to annoy, provoke, or ridicule, etc. even if only subtly.)

I also suspect you already know this, and from memory you have been advised about similar style of edited summaries before. In my opinion, you should carry on with the change from 'accepted' to 'converted', but change to a more collaborative and less combative "tone" in your edit summaries. Being civil is not simply about not causing offence simply for the sake of not causing offence, but it asks that we don't cause offence in order that maintain a collaborative environment, which we could call the 'oxygen' of wikipedia improvement. kind regards --Merbabu 10:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Faith Freedom International
Hi Prestor John. User:Porches contacted me about the dispute you two are having over this website and, having reviewed the site and the use it's being put to on Wikipedia I think he is correct to say you should not be linking to this. The organization and their website, used both as an external link and as a reference, fails numerous Wikipedia policies, including our external link policy, WP:RS|reliable sources policy]], and our neutral-point of view policy. The site present unverifiable research and is not a recognized authority. Linking to it's forums is also unacceptable; forums are almost never allowed as external links. This could also be considered putting undue weight on an extremist point of view, which is discouraged.

As a reference this site is also highly unreliable, except as a reference about itself. As an anti-religious group are to be treated with caution (religious groups are also to be treated with caution, in case you're curious). Further, "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities. Even then they should be used with caution." Considering this organization claims that Islam is not a religion at all and likens it to Nazism, this is obviously an extremist group.

Please cease linking to this organization, except in the Faith Freedom International article. Natalie 19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Any reason why you don't believe in global warming? --77.98.177.54 11:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 13:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite overwhelming evidence, climate change and a majority world view. You maintain that there is no global warming and that your 4x4 causes noone any harm? 77.98.177.54 14:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - any chance of an example reason?

Despite the fact you are trolling my talk page, let me tell you that when you dig the truth will always come out. Buy and read this book, and go to this website. For the record I am willing to concede the Earth may be in it's normal state of temperature flux, however it is not worth Western economies decimating their economies for no effect. I also don't see a problem with the vast sub-Arctic wastelands of Canada and Siberia being opened into fertile farmlands capable of sustaining many billions of more people. (You do like people don't you?). Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, however, if the polar ice caps melt millions will die. Temperature fluctuation is not natural on this scale - it takes serious atmospheric damage. And finally, if you want to discuss "state of fear" - here's something you may have heard a lot "we interrupt this discussion about the Bush administrations education, healthcare, tax etc policy to bring you a TERRORIST ALERT quick everyone Bush will save you if you ignore his domestic policy failures. [dramatisation, may be exaggerated :)] --77.98.177.54 14:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

John Howard "We decide..." quote
Hello Prester John. The famous quote was a slogan. Howard repeated it many times during the campaign. I know it was also used in full-page Liberal Party advertisements in Perth newspapers at the time. I can add more references if you need them, though I didn't think it was a contentious statement. Cheers Lester2 10:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I ask you to stop deleting the quote or the mention that it is a slogan. You are on the verge of breaching the WP:3RR policy, which could result in a temporary ban from editing Wikipedia. Lester2 04:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
Hello! - I'm sorry I edited your sub-page, it completely slipped my mind I thought it was a talk page --Lancastria 13:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR block
Prester, I have blocked Lester for 48 hours for violating 3RR and I have had to block you as well. Another administrator agrees that you both appear to have violated the policy. I've only blocked you for 24 hours because you don't have any previous 3RR blocks. When your block expires, please use talk pages instead edit warring. Sarah

I don't think I violated 3RR. Please provide the diffs. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 05:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Halliburton
Hi PJ noticed you've had some problems with a person spamming this article with his blog, if he comes back let me know as I warned him about a COI and he's been warned about spamming. Just a side issue could you be more clearer with edit summaries and places warnings on the editors talk that way it can be escalated to block. Also with clear edit summaries other editors are more likely to step in and help revert, warn etc so you dont need to tackle these spammers alone. Anyhow let me know if I can be any further assistance. Gnangarra 14:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the alleged "spammer." Perhaps you could tell me why you keep editing my contribution out of the Halliburton article. Please contact me at nortonsf@ix.netcom.com.
 * Nah, let's talk about on the Halliburton talk page. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 03:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

TOR proxies
Hi Prester John, it seems that someone has been reverting you a lot using TOR proxies: If you see this range again, you might want to report the page to WP:RfPP.Proabivouac 01:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure I will. I thought this part of the "His excellency" war that has taken place in the last week and a half. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
Do you check it? Arrow740 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, not really. Let me look. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alerts: Uncivility
Hello User:Prester John. This is a courtesy message to let you know I have made a Wikiquette_alerts report and cited your name. I invite you to discuss the issue there. Thanks, Lester2 06:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?
Another editor on the John Howard talk page said you are a member of a political party. That prompted me to ask you if it is true or not, or if you have any conflicts of interest WP:COI that should be declared. Thanks, Lester2 23:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, you've lost it. The fact that editor in question then went on to edit the "marijuana" article should have been a sign for you. This is almost as good as people accusing me of working for "big oil" on the Global warming page. What makes you think I am even an Australian citizen? Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Costello
Protection an revert to your last edit, as per WP:BLP. Gnangarra 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

John Howard
Would you please give me an indication why the attempts of the Howard Government to edit Wikipedia don't belong in Howard's biography?

The section was properly sourced, and contains IMHO relevant information concerning Howard.

Lord Chao 07:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
Which consensus are you talking about? . I've never ever seen you on the talk page. Jumping in to revert for another editor is a violation of policies. --Aminz 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the only one who thinks the referenced neutral information is POV. Can you see a pattern? Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioend before, you have just jumped in to revert (in favor of one for whom you immediately left a comment) and even don't know who are the involved parties in the discussion and what their views are. --Aminz 01:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Aminz. Trolling won't solve anything Preste John fella 216.99.63.112 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, Kirby sock, how are you, still smarting that I got you indef blocked? Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 02:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

John Howard - Quotes in the 2001 Election Campaign section
I think the quotes about John Howard's reactions to later revelations about the Children Overboard affair would be more suitably located in the Children Overboard affair page. The removed quote is not a reaction about the 2001 Election Campaign and does not logically belong in that section. Please also look at the other parts of my edit you are undoing and instead try to find a suitable way to incorporate the quote if you believe it essential. --Bren 06:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On my talkpage, you inferred I have a "POV agenda" about this. Please remember the obligation of all editors to assume good faith. Please also note the context of the quote relative to the section in which it was originally contained (as mentioned above). If you can include the quote in a relevant context and section, please do. In my boldness, temporary absence of the aforementioned quote from the Children Overboard page may have occurred during a wide-ranging series of edits. I will seek to rectify this.


 * Please do not remove relevant information about Howards father without first reading the talkpage and gaining consensus. In regards to your assertion I am "throwing mud" about Howard's father, I demur and again draw your attention to the obligation to assume good faith.--Bren 07:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Terrorism
Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on David Hicks talkpage re: aliases
Your language, tone and inferences are unreasonable. Please assume good faith, remain civil and avoid misrepresenting the contributions of others. Please also be honest and concise, avoid extrapolating/generalising. Thanks for drawing my attention to that quote from Terry Hicks. That is a fair point and I had overlooked it. --Bren 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you removing information from the lead, and adding less notable facts, at David Hicks? Cygnis insignis 17:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Information was added. This has been the lead for most of the articles life. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 17:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where was it determined that the information you removed was incorrect - citizen, aliases? What is notable about being a father of two? Cygnis insignis 17:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The aliases are in the references, saying citizen is redundant when you say "Australian", father of two is actually the truth. It's notable to establish the character of the man, by his willingness to abandon two young children. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't wait to see how it turns out. Going off, leaving a family - to get involved in killing people and blowing things up - absolutely deplorable. I think you inspire many to become as political as yourself, keep up the good work. Cygnis insignis 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Howard Copra plantation reference
Please avoid non-consensual reverts (here, here & here) of the copra plantation mention on the John Howard bio. Please read the discussions on the John Howard talkpage. A majority of interested parties agree with the plantation mention. Please avoid 3RR. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Eurabia
See talk page of the Eurabia article.--Kitrus 08:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Huda bin Abdul Haq
Good work on article creation. regards --Merbabu 04:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Merbabu. I get side tracked alot. ADHD maybe. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)