User talk:Sir-John-Peters

Your edits to David Irving
Hi. As the talk page notice says, this is a controversial subject. I strongly suggest that you discuss and reach consensus there for any future changes you make to the article. On the matter of Irving's status as a historian (the latest edit I reverted), we have quite recently had that discussion. The consensus was that he is not now considered to be one, as serious doubt was cast on his methods during the libel trial. Best wishes --Guinnog 18:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course he is an historian. He has studied history and has published several books about the history of WW2 and one about the uprising in hungary in 1956. He may be self-taught in many ways, but this brings a freshness into his books and new and interesting perspectives. There is no rule that anyone should have graduated from a university, before he can call himself a historian, just like a writer can call himself a writer, and a sculptour can call himself a sculptour, and a painter can call himself a painter. Michelangelo was also self-taught, since he learned by trial and his field was previously unexplored.

I do not give much regard for consensus,- it can be fatal if what people agrees on is wrong. And many may by now have been scared away by you and your friends one-sidedness, so potentially very few will be around to support me, and this is what you are relying on, I fear, to create your distorted views. Sir-John-Peters 18:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus is how we work here. --Guinnog 18:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note. Be careful to read up on, if you haven't already, WP:3RR. You have reverted the David Irving article 3 times so to revert again in a 24 hour period will lead to a block. I hope you enjoy editting Wikipedia. --Davril2020 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't reintroduce your changes without reaching consensus with other editors. And please don't edit war over it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reaching consensus with Pigs, is this what you are saying? Sir-John-Peters 08:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to being called a pig, even (especially?) in the Orwellian sense.


 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Guinnog 09:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack warning
Your behavior on the David Irving talk page is unacceptable. If you cannot remain civil I will ask you to remove yourself from Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gwernol 20:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page material
Hello, I have reversed your deletion of the WP:NPA warning. Please note that despite this being your talk page, it is still a reference of communication between you and other users. As such it should not under any circumstances be deleted except in cases of flagrant personal abuse or slander. Deletion of talk page material can lead to a block, especially if it is because of the deletion of warning messages. Thanks. --Davril2020 08:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not accept the wordings : Hello and Thanks coming from you, as it indicate you are american, and by principle I do not engage in talks with such people. Sir-John-Peters 09:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Davril are you such a great and prudent chap that you managed to delete this slander all by yourself? And so quick you was! Good boy! Are you fathers good boy? Are you his great boy? YES you are!

I deleted it because I will not have personal slander here on my talk page. It contains faults, such as to say that I have been personal and insulting on David Irving page, which I havent. That is why I deleted it. I havent been personal here either, I have just stated above, the futileness of aplying consensus when one is among pigs. If any of you take this personal, this is your own problem. Sir-John-Peters 08:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your personal consideration of what is and is not a personal attack is irrelevent since this is defined by the WP:NPA rules. Referring to individuals as pigs constitutes a personal attack, as does most of your activity on the David Irving page.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Davril2020 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is here on my own page that I object to slander, and have tried to delete it. It is wrong what you say that I have made personal attacks on the David Irving page. You have to come up woith proofs. What happened, I think, is that you were taken aback about my frankness and just feeling of uproar and indignation of the way your people threated the respected and knowledgeable historian, David Irving.

I think you got ashamed of yourself over the level of smear and slander you all have participated in versus dear Mr. Irving, and now you try to make me suffer for your own flaws.Sir-John-Peters 12:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is still a Wikipedia page, it does not belong to you. Regardless of which, you need to watch the way you talk to other participants on the project, please. --Guinnog 07:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning on David Irving
Hello. I hope you are aware of the three revert rule that limits each user to at most three reverts to any given article. In this context, a revert is any edit that undoes another editors edit. Offenders can be blocked. Even counting generously, you have now reached three reverts on David Irving. --Stephan Schulz 17:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is YOU who are undoing my edits!!
 * I think you are a cruel individual wanting to smear honourable M. Irving, while I am defending his honour! Sir-John-Peters 17:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Honour once lost is futile to defend. Irving did what he did, and we report it. If he donates a sizable sum to children in Africa, we will include that, too. --Stephan Schulz 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop_hand.svg|left|30px]] You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. . It doesn't appear that anyone else is close to violating 3RR, but the second and succeeding edits inserting the material "He is considered the worlds leading authority on the Nazi Regime and its main figures."  are reversions, under our definitions.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Natalie 18:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Continue doing it and you'll draw increasing longer blocks. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of all living scotsmen, I sincerely hope that you do not have ancestors in that proud country, or they must turn in their graves an be ashamed of you. JP. Gordon, or JP Sheftolowitz or whatever you are called, I will tell you something: The sentences that I replaced contained bad english, such as 'his credentials have been discredited', and it speaks of Lipstadt as an historian, but not as Irving as an historian. I have added no commentary, as you imply, but just stated, that he was imprisoned from November 2005 to December 2006, and that is a fact! What cowards you are to soften his ordeal in åprison by only counting from the day he got his verdict. THIS is manipulation, and you MUST BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF!!! And he was not imprisoned for 'holocaust denial' but for something he was alleged to have said in that country in 1989, but since no proof exists as to what he exactly said on this occasion, he was set free. I shal proceed however to correct more factbased (according to your facts) edits from you, which just happens to be plain wrong, like his number of books, which is 30, not 25, and I shall include his book from 1981 about the revolution in Hungary in 1956, "Uprising!" Sir-John-Peters 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This will be your last warning regarding personal attacks, as well. This includes your comments on people's ancestry. Incidentally, Great-grandfather's original last name was Chrabołowski before it got Ellis Islanded. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Chobolowski, what kind of a name is that? This is one ythoing, but calling himself a respectable name like Gordon is very mislæeading, as it inevitably bestowes you with more authority in th eposition you now are in, that your personality can contain, that much is clear, after I have had the questinable pleasure of making your aquintance. It is no good that you sits in New York and edit honourable and honest people, and it is obvious that you rae not objective, but very biased towards Mr. Irving. You MUST understand that I am doing a heroic and decent work in restoring Irvings credibility, whereas you sanctions besmearing of his name, because of your personal history. It is quite clear to me, that you should not be in the job, you are having now. Sir-John-Peters 18:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. I realize I've been reverting your edits in David Irving, but WP:NPA is a separate violation which I had nothing to do with. You've probably also violated WP:3RR again, but the other violations are sufficient for me to block. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
Per this edit and your entire contribution history, I have blocked you indefinitely. Feel free to buy your own server space to promote your bigotry, but you may no longer use the Wikimedia Foundation's. Goodbye. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Indeed, it appears to have been considerably overdue. Newyorkbrad 14:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)