Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:22, 1 December 2007

Archives

/Archive 1

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 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)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion

Hello Prester John. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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 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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 , ). 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 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 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)