Welcome!

Hello, Prester John, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Mak (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 20:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll revert your edits. -Gohst 10:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 {{tl:fact}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What's going on here? When aborigines kill settlers, you upgrade "killed" to "murdered", [2][3] but when settlers kill aborigines, you downgrade "murdered" to "killed".[4][5][6][7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why then did you revert John Forrest to "murdered"? Hesperian 05:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was Murdered. Prester John 05:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How to avoid abuse of talk pages

• 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please don't make crap up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

See now also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslims fear Backlash. Sandstein 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden Jihad Syndrome: 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. Thank you. (Diff). Sandstein 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, offensive edit summaries like in [8] are not acceptable. —xyzzy_n 06:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is your only warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to User:Hipocrite/Terrorism, you will be blocked. See diff. Sandstein 08:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I restored some of the later versions of the article and removed the salt. -- tariqabjotu 08:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Prester John, I put a suggestion on Ryulong's talk page about this. Regards, Flyguy649 (talk-works) 08:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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 [9]) your reasoning would be very interesting given that the categories are invalid. Merbabu 11:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...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. — Indon (reply) — 11:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding this recent edit of yours [10], 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)[reply]

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 [11], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —Moondyne 03:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{[citation needed]} tag. Recurring dreams 05:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you responded before reverting. Anyway, the statement has now been referenced. Recurring dreams 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]}

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see WP:USER and WP:ANI#Userpages Vs WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:POINT again and again. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The disco ball of knowledge certifies that you are among the finest contributors in the world of Wikipedia, and help it to never stop turning. --ISOLA'd ELBA 15:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problem, really? Why should you care what other people believe? Prester John 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Irrespective of whether it's disruptive or not, how does it help the encyclopedia? Merbabu 15:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Briefly, per Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my 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)[reply]

I'd also direct you to Wikipedia:User page#Inappropriate content. 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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)

Prester John, may I ask why you are removing the word "God" from Muslim articles, as you did here? ··coelacan 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here with the reather misleading edit summary of "wikify" DES ^(talk) 21:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I deleted this because it was inflammatory and divisive. Per both WP:CSD#T1 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. ··coelacan 02:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand WP:CSD#T1. But which PART of the broad spectrum of WP:CSD#T1 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#T1 are you refereing to? Prester John 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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). ··coelacan 02:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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#T1 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)[reply]

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. ··coelacan 03:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'm guessing by you refusal to narrow in on which part of WP:CSD#T1 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. ··coelacan 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess your explanation of WP:CSD#T1 is still Zero. Once again you have failed to explain why a page weas deleted under WP:CSD#T1 and then threatened the inquirer with a block. Poor form. Extremely poor form. Prester John 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. ··coelacan 04:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks. 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 {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ··coelacan 09:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ··coelacan 06:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive241#User:Prester John. 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. ··coelacan 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you block the vandal that made this page? [12] Prester John 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted. Vandal blocked indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. ··coelacan 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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[13][14] to whatever I could. This is in accordance with WP:3rr#I_have_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F.

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)[reply]