User talk:Prester John

File:Usa.gif

Welcome to "Talk to the Hand".

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Sept 2007

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in John Howard. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Shot info 06:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in John Howard, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you.. Shot info 00:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage format

Hi PJ. Nifty link for creating new talk topics :) However, a missing |} for your definition of the "messagebox standard-talk" table caused new talk topics to be created inside the "Talk to the Hand" box instead of where you presumably would prefer it to (at the bottom of your talkpage). I've fixed it. If that's not the effect you wanted, please accept my apology. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

hadith

I recognize the problems in the lengthy duplicative articles on the hadith concerning the origin of the conflict between the Sunni and the Shi'a, and the ones on the doctrine of "temporary marriage." I personally think it would be quite possible to have an article on each individual hadith, since they all have a substantial later literature--but they should obviously be written not as a long quotation, but as an encyclopedic discussion giving various views--there is surely enough later secondary literature to discuss in the thirteen centuries of Islamic scholarship. But it might be practical to combine them by topic, and this should be decided in the appropriate workgroup, or if necessary through dispute resolution.

Many of these articles have now been prodded--I've removed the prods. Prod in any case is for uncontroversial deletions, and it is clear that this will not be one. You are of course welcome to pursue these deletions though AfD, but I strongly urge all those involved to find a better way of dealing with them, one which will improve the encyclopedia by providing an informative set of articles. DGG (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WP meetup

	In the area? You're invited to
	San Francisco Meetup 3
	Date: September 16th, 2007
	Place: Yerba Buena Gardens, 3pm
	San Francisco Meetup 2

-- phoebe/(talk) 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

FaithFreedom

Please don't re-add the poorly sourced material about living persons.Bless sins 07:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

please do not make up false claims of blp violations, Bless sins.--Sefringle^Talk 08:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editwarring on List of notable converts to Islam

As the title says, please stop revert warring and discuss the issue on the talk page, I have blocked User:Bless sins for 24 hours for being the worst reverter in this case. Thanks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Peace

I am working on a rewrite of the Religion of Peace at User:Mike Young/Sandbox2 would value your comments on this, and especially any references you can add. Mike Young 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion

Hello Prester John. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

The discussion pertains to edits by you of the David Hicks article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan.lloyd (talk • contribs)

Reverts

The reverts can all be completely different. I unfortunately can't file a new report on HP right now, but will do so tomorrow if need be. Arrow740 06:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Block for Disruption of David Hicks.

I have blocked you for continued disruption of David Hicks. There are better ways to resolve disputes then by edit warring. We all know the english language, we can all speak in it, so please use the discussion pages, and cease reverting others needlessly. I have also blocked User:Brendan.lloyd for disruptive editing as well. When your block expires I hope you and Brendan.lloyd are able to civilly resolve your dispute. There are options such as mediation, or perhaps a 3rd opinion. There is no excuse for reverting back and forth. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've unblock you for the same reason I unblocked BL in that I dont see a edit war occuring that warrants a block. Obviously controversial edits should be discussed first and where a revert of an edit takes place the matter should be discussed on the article talk page. Gnangarra 05:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

reinstated

All editors to the article were warned Talk:David_Hicks#Protected that low threshhold then 3RR would be applied after the article was unprotected. Gnangarra 06:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to Howard RfM

I invite you to the Howard RfM. I listed you as an 'involved party'. The aim is to reach a compromise position on the Howard copra plantation issue.--Lester2 06:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

External links you have attempted to add the Australian Greens

Please read WP:EL before adding partisan links to determine whether they comply with this policy. Adding links to hate/smear sites to political party websites doesn't fit with encyclopaedic content. You could also review other party articles to see the external links they have. Peter Campbell 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WHO smoking policy

Hi Prester. While I'll agree that the bit about the WHO's smoking policy passes WP:RS and WP:V, I disagree that it's at all notable. We'll need to see some media reports about the controversy to establish that it's notable (was this ever even a real controversy?), and so far, there are none in the article. Certainly the recent flap over the WHO's press release about DDT is much more notable, and that's not in the article.

You should also realize, if you don't already, that this material was added to article by User:Naacats who was just banned for egragious pro-smoking POV pushing. The way I see it, World Health Organization has this bit about their smoking policy in it not because it's notable, but because a now banned user is bent out of shape about smoking bans. If you still think this scetion should stay, that's fine, but please consider adding some refs to establish that the policy is indeed controversial. Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 23:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

re Hicks

The references you have provided are unsatisfactory. The material is libelous. Delete immediately.--Lester2 04:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agenda pushing

Hi PJ, I removed it from Paul Keating because Pete was trying to make out that it was something that consensus had already been achieved on, when in reality going through the history of the article the exact opposite is correct; it has not even been debated to that point, sneaky, sneaky, sneaky.

I didn't revert on the John Howard article because it had the potential to become an edit war because of the volatility of that article and also the fact that the article actually did have a history of having the Monarch and G-G included. Now obviously I would support removal, but because on that article at least the point is debatable I went for the option of opening a new discussion rather than starting an edit war. I would very much encourage you to assist by adding your thoughts to the discussion on the Howard article, I think a consensus can be formed easily and quickly. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 04:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that an edit of yours to Family First Party was rv-ed. I started a discussion on the talk page, and I'd like your input. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please desist immediately from edit warring on User talk:Brendan.lloyd. To bump up against 3RR in somebody else's userspace means that you're way out of line and well into harassment territory. The user has repeatedly made it clear that your posts are unwelcome, and removed them (which he's entitled to do). To respond by reinstating your comment with the imperious edit summary "Answer the question" ... well, you're lucky not to be blocked on the spot. If you post on his page one more time you will be. Bishonen | talk 08:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

Please stop

Please stop spamming user talk pages. Please do not use Wikipedia as a soap box to push political agenda. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To be concerned about an editor is not exactly to "push political agenda". Beit Or 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To create a template and to try and politically polarise an issue with a deliberate intent to create dissent and to fuel disruption is exactly what I term as "push[ing] political agenda". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nick, in the future, DO NOT revert comments on my userpage unless they are an obvious vandalism. PJ's comment on my talk page did not appear to be vandalism in any fashion, so it stays. I will even keep insults to myself on my talk page if I see fit.... thanks Nick --ProtectWomen 00:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PW, in the future please remember not to revert an administrator who is making a good-faith attempt to contain disruption. You are free to keep messages on your talk page if you like, but do not revert on other user talk pages. Hope you understand. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

NHM, I didn't know you were an administrator, but nevertheless I would have reverted. Being an administrator doesn't make you "right" it merely means you have more tools at your disposal to either bully people into getting your way OR into actually doing some good. In this case I'd say it was the former...

And being disruptive is just a POV. In my opinion, removing another user's good faith messages on their talk pages that weren't yours was pretty disruptive on your part. Also blocking an established user for a month without giving a solid reason is also disruptive (not that you were responsible for that block, I'm just using that as an additional example of being disruptive). --ProtectWomen 22:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Rv possible v

I don't know what's going on, but your userbox at User:Prester_John/Userbox/Free_Matt was tagged by an anon for speedying with the comment "pointless, inane". I've deleted the speedy tag, but it might be worth keeping an eye on it! Tonywalton  | Talk 16:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

more ANI

They're talking about you again at ANI here. Why nobody thought to let you know I can only guess. - Merzbow 01:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Prester was the one who opened that discussion - that is most likely why no one thought it necessary to let him know. ;-) regards --Merbabu 01:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Oops. Well I'm confused why he didn't contribute further to the thread then after opening it. - Merzbow 20:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought the same before it had to be pointed out to me too. ;-) --Merbabu 00:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt

User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

References...

Hi Prester, regarding this edit of yours, of course English references are preferred, but non-English references are perfectly valid per WP:RSUE and WP:CITE. cheers --Merbabu 13:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Migration/ Immigration and Australia

The use of Invasion Day and of the First Fleet are not original research!!!! as for the Howard quote, you replaced a referenced statement with an unreferenced one. What's the deal? Paki.tv 03:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanx 4 the tip... please explain and discuss edits, otherwise its hard to assume good faith! Paki.tv 03:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Take content issues to the talkpage of the article related. Thanks. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources in other languages

Hi, apparently you had some problem with my sources. Please pay attention to WP:REF. There is written.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

As you can see in Ali article I add English source whenever possible but unfortunately some of information about Islam is just find in Arabic or Persian and we are obliged to use them. I would be grateful if you check Ali's article and then remove the cleanup tag. God bless you--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on my talk page

I'd prefer it if you didn't edit other users' comments on my talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Given you're an admin it is very interesting that you continued to host the allegations on your page after you had acknowledged them. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly paid any attention to the allegations of your identity, since that wasn't actually what the message was about. Furthermore, the allegations put you into a very large group of people anyway, so it was hardly as if the other user was revealing anything overly significant. There are also other ways to deal with comments that a different user has made, including suggesting that he/she cease making them, rather than simply editing them away. I hadn't noticed at the time that WikiTownsvillian had edited most or all of his comments making claims about your identity, but given that he had done so, he would have presumably been more than happy to make that change on my talk page as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If I had of being asked I would have indicated that I would have no probs removing the references myself, it was a side issue and one that motivated me to take my central issue (the investigating of Lester2) to the admins. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 07:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that Admins don't regard the outing of this user in the light of previous discussions and ArbCom rulings (see [1], [2]). This one looks destined for ArbCom and it always doesn't give the result that editors would like. Shot info 08:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Australian federal election, 2007

Changes such as this are unhelpful and could be considered POV. Note that 3 reverts per day is only the "electric fence" measurement and that persistent reversion of different kinds on an article may see you ruled in breach of WP:DISRUPT/WP:EDITWAR. If you wish to make a controversial change, take it to the talk page. Orderinchaos 05:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice

Hi,

I have closed the MfD on your "Evidence" subpage as a "keep". Best wishes, Xoloz 21:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk

Can you make use of the talk page on Religious segregation and Persecution of Buddhists.Bless sins 03:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt

Well he has been unblocked now. Want to nominate your userbox for speedy deletion now? Or would you prefer to keep it for historical reasons? Yahel Guhan 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i'll nominate it. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

don't delete things under the auspices of "weasel words" when i actually have references

i cited a source and i only think it's fair that if jewatch.com can be labeled as a hate site, then jihadwatch.com can be labeled as a hate site. and plus i cited credible sources saying that in their opinion it is a hate cite. don't delete things just because you don't like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.124.228 (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

HI,

You have so far ignored my requests for you to join discussion on talk for the edit you are making at Religious segregation. If you keep on inserting, what appears to be OR, and make no attempt to discuss this at the talk page, then I may have to report this.Bless sins 16:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres during the Second Intifada

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Should apply to all...

Regarding An Inconvenient Truth, I'm not sure if this would interest you. Both articles adequately show the films to be controversial - thus, in the best wikipedia standards their is no need to editorialise either with "controversial". I've now removed the word from each article once.

More generally, I often admire your skill at removing often subtle POV that could crudely be called leftish POV – seriously, you do good work in this respect, and such POV can be hard to pick up sometimes. I just wish you’d show this skill in reverse too (ie, the "rightish" POV), and not introduce in other articles. regards --Merbabu 02:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Clea Rose

Hello I just wanted to talk to you about the Clea Rose article. I understand your reasoning that her death and the subsequent developments were the only thing notable about her, but I must say that I don't agree with the title you have chosen. I have not found any wikipedia-precedent for the move, there are hundreds of articles about people who are only notable for a single thing (such as the circumstances of their death), but we still use their name for the title.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are hundreds, then naming one should not be hard. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 17:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How about Laci Peterson, Lori Hacking, Natalee Holloway or any other murder victim.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Fraser

I notice that you have removed factual and referenced content at Malcolm Fraser and 1981 Springbok Tour. If you believe the content is incorrect, please raise your concerns on the relevant talk pages. If you continue to remove content without a valid explanation, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.-gadfium 04:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice you don't acknowledge the reason I gave for removing the content. You are aware of wikipedia's biography of living persons policy I assume. All material presented in these type of articles must be meticulously sourced. Precedent in this encyclopedia is to frown upon using opinion articles from newspapers as sources. You do know the difference between an article and an opinion piece don't you? I would suggest you revert your latest addition or find a more solid reference Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is factual material, and not controversial. I think you are trying to make a point, but I don't know what it is. If you believe the source is not adequate, tag the statement or ask on the talk page, or use Google to find better sources. Disrupting Wikipedia by deleting material is not appropriate.-gadfium 05:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate for WP:BLP's. I suggest you read it thoroughly before contibuting to this project again. You do not appear to have grasped the concept. That is the point I am trying to make. BTW, just because you say it is factual and not controversial does not automatically make it so. Maybe you should reread WP:V again. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you believe the Boks were not denied access to Australia? Fascinating! Fraser's action was controversial, but that he banned them is not.-gadfium 06:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Um No. I wouldn't have a clue what a Bok even is. I don't know much about the worlds most boring sport. I do know however, if they were denied access there would be no paucity of information from sources that don't include opinion articles. Have you read and understood WP:BLP yet? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 06:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So you don't know anything about it, but you remove sourced information. We are building an encyclopedia. If you don't want to contribute, that's fine. If you try to destroy it, you will be blocked.-gadfium 08:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Prester John

User:Prester John, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Prester John during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. WebHamster 11:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hi! I agree with User:WebHamster that some of the material on your userpage violates WP:USERPAGE. Specifically, I think that some of the content regarding Islam and environmentalism violates the rules that we may not use our userpages for

• "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc."
• "Polemical statements"
• "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors"

I hate to see your entire userpage deleted, though. I hope you'll decide to change your userpage in a way that allows you to express your opinions without insulting other users. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't find the personal opinions to be overly extensive and in fact much of the userpage is highly amusing. It's like something off the Colbert Report. Sarsaparilla 14:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Prester John/Userbox/Mosque and state

User:Prester John/Userbox/Mosque and state, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John/Userbox/Mosque and state and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Prester John/Userbox/Mosque and state during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. P4k 05:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you don't think me rude, I haven't seen the ANI thread but I have been watching the mfd currently running, and have made a change to one of your user boxes that was recently nominated for deletion. In an attempt for neutrality, I edited your userbox to have the same wording as the userbox regarding christianity and the state. I hope that's ok.

Seraphim ^Whipp 18:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits to your userspace

Per the recent ANI discussion, which indicated that it wasn't necessary to go through the MfD process to remove material from your userspace that is in violation of WP:USERPAGE, I have taken the liberty of making the edits that I think would be necessary in order to make your userspace comply with Wikipedia's policies. If you disagree, of course, you are welcome to revert my changes and wait for the MfD to come to an end, after which, if the community agrees to delete, all of the relevant userpages would be fully deleted instead of just the inappropriate material. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another user, the one who thinks that your entire userspace is a satire in the spirit of Stephen Colbert, has undone my edits. I leave it to you to make your own decision about your next step. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is with pain that I announce the surrender of my efforts to keep your user page from being butchered/deleted. The enemy was more than five times our numbers. Sarsaparilla 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Userpage Vandalism

Regarding this diff: Please do not vandalize my user page by removing a userbox because you state it is 'offensive'. This is not acceptable and I have reverted your edit. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 07:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this diff: Please do not remove a quote from my userpage. This is not acceptable and I have reverted your edit. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 07:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please don't edit my userpage as you think some userboxes on it are offensive. I could just as easily say your ones about An Inconvenient Truth; Communism; Marxism; "Better Dead Than Red"; "Give War A Chance" and your statement about the death penalty were offensive to me, but you don't see me editing your page. Please consider this in the future. Thanks. Fin©™ 09:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think that people should not have offensive material on their userpages, then please begin by removing the offensive material from your own userpage. If you think you should be allowed to have anything you want on your userpage, then please extend the same right to others. And please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Prester John, please stop deleting userboxes/images off my user page (diff and diff). If you do not stop, I will request an admin to block you. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

This is your final warning. If you continue disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I will block you. There will be no more removing things from other users' userpages from you, nor any nominations of others' userspaces for deletion. Whether they are or are not appropriate is irrelevant; you are clearly acting in bad faith out of retaliation for the MfD of your own userpages. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Coming from you this is one of the most hypocritical things I have ever heard. Do you not see how absurd it is to remove content from peoples userspace and then threaten blocks if anyone else does it. Seems like someone is on a bit of a powertrip. Do not abuse admin powers. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If I were abusing my admin powers, I would have immediately deleted all of your userspace, then blocked you indefinitely for hate speech. Not only have I not abused my admin powers; I have not yet done anything in regard to you that even uses admin powers; I have not deleted anything, protected anything, or blocked anyone, and if I have to block you, I have every intention of using the WP:ANI page to get neutral admins to review the action. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't threaten me bub! Your hipocrisy is so blatant as to be see through. I will nominate whatever I like for deletion, and like your good self I will edit out from anyones userspace anything I deem inappropriate. Your recent keep vote with no reason whatsoever shows an inability to make judgements for the good of the encyclopedia and should be grounds from your removal from any positions of power. Your inability to understand that displaying an offensive comment made by a particular individual does not make the poster of the comment rascist, is in and of itself offensive and indicitive of the sharp decline in British teaching standards. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 21:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Sometimes it's difficult to tell, in a situation like this, whether a user is just inexperienced and unaware of how his opinions affect others, or whether a user really is here to push a point of view and battle with others. The first kind can be taught better, the second kind generally end up with first a series of short blocks, then an eventual indefinite block when they finally exhaust the community's patience. Your comments, with their combative tone and personal insults, will be very helpful to future administrators who review your user talk history. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:Christopher Mann McKay, you will be blocked from editing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 72 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Metros (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Prester, please stop this disruptive behaviour or you will end up being banned. Sarah 03:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong endorse - a series of disruptive MfD nominations were clearly designed to be retaliatory in nature. As Prester John was warned and decided to continue in this behaviour, a block is entirely appropriate. WjBscribe 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you you use your time to ponder about your purpose here at Wikipedia. I know you have made good edits, and that you are capable of being productive. You must change your attitude for this to happen. I hope you willingly comply with the concerns expressed in the MfD . Cheers!--Agha Nader (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Prester - There is no place for you in Wikipedia unless you drop your neo-con spiel and go Liberal.--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've warned this user for giving incorrect information; no Wikipedia user is required to hold any particular political position, only to work peacefully and politely with people whose positions are different. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The block was not due to a particular political affiliation.Vice regent 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Facebook

Hey, we met thru the Constitution Party of Virginia, did we not? Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Sorry dude, not I. Thankx for the support during my recent lynching, much obliged :) Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

You've been mentioned at WP:AN/I. The other editor didn't drop you a note. Gimmetrow 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be following Lester (talk · contribs) around, reverting his contributions. These edits look like you are removing properly sourced material. [3][4][5][6] This creates the appearance of disruptive editing. If that is the case, please stop immediately or your account may be blocked from editing. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007 Redux

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Brumby, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 month as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. — Save_Us_229 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Save Us 229, it is considered rude to template a longterm contributor. Sorry to hear this Prester John. --PatLarsen 09:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't intended to apply to notices of blocks, but rather inflammatory warnings ("Wikipedia offers many user talk templates to warn users about possible violations of vandalism" — emphasis mine). I see nothing inappropriate with Save Us 229's edit short of that he should have declared that it wasn't him who made the block, to avoid confusion. Daniel 10:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, "don't template regulars" means don't go giving regular contributors the "Thanks for trying to contribute, but your nonsense was removed - try the sandbox!" Bans Blocks almost universally get a template - it's the easiest and most appropriate way to notify someone of their ban block, and is a community-wide accepted practice. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to highlight that Prester John is blocked, not banned, because there's a difference between them and I don't want him to think that he has been permanently banned. After the block expires, he'll be welcome, if he chooses, to edit in a way that involves working cooperatively with others. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I picked the wrong word, I always get them confused. I've fixed it, no harm intended. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And no offense to you intended, either. It's any easy slip to make, and I wouldn't have bothered fixing it, except that I think the distinction is important in this case, when the possibility of an actual ban really is looming in Prester John's future. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

PatLarsen, blocks almost always get a template of notification and I see nothing wrong with it because he may not have noticed immediately had I not placed it here. Just because you feel sorry for the guy doesn't mean you get to accuse me of rude templating. Go find something productive to do. — Save_Us_229 17:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

oh.. really sorry to hear that you got blocked for a month prester john buddy.. i hope it goes ok for you..eh 216.99.53.158 (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi Prester, although we both know that this content removed by bless sins is true in its meaning, but ultimately we need a reliable source talking about this stuff. Thats the key to improving the quality of Islam critical articles, so yes, although we both want that stuff to be there, we have no choice but to do away with it because if we want to apply high quality standards, they can not be applied to only one side. Now, there's a lot of Islam critical stuff in reliable sources. They just have to be found and used on this site.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've been out of the loop for a while as to what is and isn't reliable. What is reliable? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats people who satisfy WP:RS as in the 3 bullets here. There are a number of uninvolved editors who have said that Robert Spencer is not a reliable source. The problem is that he doesnt have any education in Islam and such, no peer reviewed stuff or publishing in journals. In short I would say he's no more an authority on Islam than is Zakir Naik. The good news is this: there are a lot of other good and better indisputable Islam related sources. Those should be found and used in the articles. Having comments from a RS makes it more acceptable to the reader as well. When a person sees that a certain someone actually doesnt have an axe to grind, but is just saying the facts, thats when its believable. Now, all of what Robert says is absolutely true, you and I know it, but, you have to look at it from an outsider's view: how do we know what a person says is true? Is he qualified and accepted for being truthful in academic circles? I'll give an example, David Cook. This is a person who has education and all thats needed (books from him). This is one example of a source that should be used. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

David Hicks allegations

Hi Prester John, I want to ensure that you are clear why I replaced "allegedly" in the "Afghanistan" section, (Hicks allegedly "attended a numb...).

The source cited for the material is http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1086749867034.html "The US charges David Hicks" SMH. The first five paragraphs contain the phrases "has been charged", "Hicks is accused", "The US also alleged", "the US alleged." and "Hicks was also allegedly".

It is not open to editors under WP:BLP to include serious statements beyond what we can source. By presenting this material about Hicks as facts rather than allegations we fail to follow WP:BLP. If you can find and cite a reliable sources for this material being fact I will support its inclusion in the article. If you continue to place unsourced material in this article you may be found to be disrupting the editing and blocked. I am open to discussing this further. SmithBlue (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Using "allegedly" is just what newspapers do when reporting potentially litigious content. Given that Hicks wrote home many times describing this training, the witnesses that have described him being there, and absolute absence of anyone who denies him attending these camps, it is not necessary for wikipedia to be taking it's cues from the SMH. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC

Wikipedia is, like the newspapers, open to litigation. Please provide a WP:RSsource for Hicks admiting these things. Then we can include this as fact rather than allegations. SmithBlue (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I searched through the ABC http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1494795.htm source you just supplied and can find no material supporting what you claim in terms of these allegations. Please ensure that the sources you provide do in fact support your edits. SmithBlue (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't search hard enough. Less than one quater of the way down is this quote;

DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda and saw Osama bin Laden about eight times. Four Corners can confirm, that in Guantanamo, Hicks signed a statement written by American military investigators that includes the following, "I believe that al-Qaeda camps provided a great opportunity for Muslims like myself from all over the world to train for military operations and jihad. I knew after six months that I was receiving training from al-Qaeda, who had declared war on numerous countries and peoples." That statement, signed after 15 months detention, and apparently not based on tape-recorded interviews, will certainly be challenged. But almost a year earlier, also at Guantanamo, Australian Federal Police tape-recorded a revealing, and seemingly voluntary, five hour interview with David Hicks. In it, Hicks tells his story. And tonight, for the first time, Four Corners is making that story public. It begins in 1998 with an ad in an Adelaide newspaper. Horse trainers wanted to work in Japan. Hicks spent three months in Japan as a horse trainer. When he got back to Adelaide, he found the trip had changed him.

You obviously can't call a spade a spade. Hicks describes in great detail in numerous references his escapades in the camps. Multiple people have witnessed him at the camps. His father said he was at the camps, you won't find a single instance of ANYONE claiming he was not at the camp. But you hold on to that "alleged" dude, just keep holding. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to check that you are aware that WP:VERIFY states "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."? SmithBlue (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem not to understand the issue here. You used the above source to state as fact that Hicks trained in (qoting next the article as you edited it with the above source cited at the end of this passage), "learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods." None of this is mentioned in the source.

I did not in any way refer to the reliability of the ABC. The problem we are discussing is the mismatch between the content of the ABC source (and the SMH source before that) and the specific article content you use the cite to support. Do you understand that all editors must accurately reflect the content of the sources they cite? I suggest that if you are unable to do this then editing Wikipedia is not for you. I think it best that I seek the advice of more experienced people on Wikipedia on this matter if you continue to misrepresent reliable sources. SmithBlue (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I note that you are in what appears to be an d edit war with SmithBlue on the David Hicks article, you have reverted 3 times please consider yourself cautioned about WP:3RR and that you may be blocked. Gnangarra 02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)