User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[1] made on May 10 2006 (UTC) to Martin Luther====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Blanking all your warnings didn't exactly help you, either. Its bad form.

William M. Connolley 22:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"{{unblock|I did not revise the page more than three times in a 24 hour period. I know there is disagreement with my editing out of sentence in the introduction, but I have not vandalized the page, I have indicated why I am editing it the way I am. The use of block in this case was inappropriate and unwarranted.}}"

Well the log shows your actions. However WP:3RR is not a permission to revert war, it is an indication that revert warring is disruptive and blockable. Your continued redoing of the action was disruptive and therefore blockable. If you are in disagreement about something in an article deal with it in a constructive manner, i.e. Discussion. --pgk^(talk) 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther article

You might want to consider modifying your revision of the "Martin Luther and the Jews" paragraph in the Introduction of Martin Luther. It may be seen as passing judgment on those who are doing research on this matter. As you can see on the talk pages we are mulling this thing over in order to reach consensus. Making a move like this invites stronghanded response from the other side of the argument, and that side has clout. Be aware that there are editors here who share your concern. Drboisclair 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Clout' of the 'Jewish Cabal'

PTMcCain, As you appear to have a fairly intimate knowledge of antisemitism, perhaps you could name the members of (what you refer to as) the "Jewish cabal" that you have been able to identify so far. Exactly who is this conspiratorial group of Jewish Wikipedian plotters bent on crucifying Luther that has the "clout" to have you blocked? As Drboisclair says, "Be aware that there are editors here who share your concern." Speak freely, but follow the rules. You are among fellow Wikipedians.Doright 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the edit history and read the various user pages. It isn't rocket science.

PTMcCain, thank you for the suggestion to read the user pages . . . but which user pages do you suggest I read (there are so many)?Doright 02:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[2] made on May 12 2006 (UTC) to Martin Luther====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours.

To forestall the inevitable complaints... yes this is 3RR. Not as clear cut as some, but definitely there. It must be obvious to you by now that trying to force in your POV through reverting is not going to work; please accept this and stop and talk.

William M. Connolley 21:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Quick Draw" Connolley at it again....

It's a shame that "Slim" won't explain precisely what it is that she finds so offensive with this comment on the Luther page:

The Nazi's use of Martin Luther's negative comments about the Jews, especially those he made in one document toward the end of his life, to justify the "Final Solution" by which the Nazis sought to exterminate Jews throughout Europe, are frequently the subject of much debate and discussion. Some believe that Luther's anti-Jewish comments are not sufficiently recognized and known, while others believe that they are emphasized at the expense of recognizing his significant contributions to the history of the Christian Church and Western Civilization. There is an ongoing debate over these issues. (See Luther and the Jews below.) P.T. McCain

By all means argue on the talk page that your paragraph should be added to the intro, but there's no need to delete the sentence about what Luther actually said. As for "quick draw," you're not allowed to violate 3RR, regardless of the nature of the content dispute, and a 3RR violation involves undoing an editor's work, even if you insert something different every time you undo it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Request

Please do not send me vile and hateful emails. Shame on you.Doright 05:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continual reverting

Ptmcain, I must draw your attention to some important facets of the WP:3RR policy:

Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time; this is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR.

Use common sense; don't participate in an edit war. Rather than exceeding the three-revert limit, discuss the matter with other editors. If any of them come close to breaching the policy themselves, this may indicate that the page should be protected until disputes are resolved...

The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.

Please desist from constantly edit-warring the intro of Martin Luther; there is no support for it, even from the Lutheran editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. I did edit the intro. I then also edited the rest of the article with perfectly acceptable edits. *Your* reversion wiped out all these edits. You could have selectively returned the intro. to what you wanted it to be, but instead, you chose to wipe out the other edits. You knew precisely what you were doing here "Jay". -- PTMcCain

Indeed I did. I reverted your complex revert, because there is no consensus for your POV whitewash of the intro; indeed, even the Lutheran editors do not agree to it. Moreover, you have now reverted this single paragraph over 20 times. Gameplaying is not appreciated; you need to stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check your facts. You wiped out perfectly legitimate editorial changes. That's called "vandalism" and in your obsession to advance *your obvious agenda* you wiped away perfectly good edits. It is you and your "gang" that needs to stop this behavior. --PTMcCain

What with your 20 or so reverts to keep Luther's own words about Jews out of the intro; your blanking of pages; your 3RR violations; accusing good editors of vandalism; your talk of a "Jewish cabal" on Wikipedia; and your citation request for the edit that the primary function of Nazi death camps was genocide, [3] you're starting to make a worrying impression. I advise you to turn it around before it's too late. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jayjg's edit is not called vandalism. It's called reasonable editing. Now, what is the "obvious agenda" that you refer to? Would that agenda be the one you claim is out to "crucify Luther?" Could you please identify the "gang" that you claim Jayjg belongs to? Also, how is this "gang" related to your "conspiratorial group of Jewish Wikipedians" that you claim are members of a "Jewish cabal" that according to you merely requires one to, "Just follow the edit history and read the various user pages," in order to identify? Doright 19:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you noticed the request for citations, Slim. I thought that may well receive your attention. I notice you didn't hesitate to demand "citations" for what are unquestionably facts on the Luther page, facts as plain as day, facts as uncontestable as the fact that the Nazis set up death camps. How about we all run all over Wikipedia putting "citation needed" flags on every posible fact that comes without source attribution? It is clear that you are not actually concerned with "facts" as much as advancing an agenda. The changes I've proposed to the introduction assert a NPOV, but you would prefer to grind your axe, even in an article's introduction. --PTMcCain

It's very far from a fact that the Reformation was the sole or primary cause of the Enlightenment as the intro appeared to imply. Even you decided to remove it than search for a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Assistance

While I find the citation requests on sola fide kind of silly, it really doesn't hurt to provide them. People who have never read a Luther biography, have no knowledge of Luther or Lutheranism drop by all the time and sometimes question even the most basic things. A citation helps greatly in such circumstances. --CTSWyneken 19:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, of course I agree with you, but clearly the demand for "citations" in the instance we are both aware of is merely a certain admin's way of picking at nits and, in my estimation, harassment. To demand "citations" for facts as obvious as those indicated on the page where she asks for them strikes me as silly as demanding "citations" for the assertion that the Nazis constructed death camps for the purpose of exterminating Jews and other "undesirables" and to demand such citations is no doubt viewed as much of an offensive and ridiculous request as it is to demand citations for the facts as universally accepted as those she asks for on the Luther page. That's the point I'm trying to make, a point I know is not lost on you, but seems to be ignored by some. --User: Ptmccain

Whatever the case, it is legit by the rules of the wikipedia to do this. Editors, including admins should be aware of this and not quick to revert citation requests, no matter what they think of the merit of such a request, much less whether they like the editor making the request. They should be aware that the community is keenly interested in improving the referencing of the info in articles and respond generously, assuming good faith. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case.

Speaking Lutheran to Lutheran, I prefer to apply the positive side of the Eighth Commandment here and just accept such as a genuine attempt to improve things, whether or not that is indeed the case.

By the way, there's an easy way to sign your talk posts with a link to your user page. When you are editing the page, a button bar appears above the edit box. The third button from the right that looks like a signature will insert the wiki code for time and date at the cursor. I use this to sign all my posts (more or less). --CTSWyneken 20:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bob, I'm still trying to figure all this stuff out. --Ptmccain 20:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering precisely how far this "citation" thing goes on Wikipedia. I noticed, for example, that one of the persons who seems quite concerned that every single assertion be referenced on the Martin Luther page, doesn't seem nearly so concerned about such things on a page that she frequents: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights.. I've just read through it and flagged a significant number of assertions that have no citations to back them up. I wonder why that is deemed acceptable there, but even the most generally accepted factual assertions are said to stand in need of citations on the Luther page? --Ptmccain 21:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt Slim intended to put the following remark here.

It's very far from a fact that the Reformation was the sole or primary cause of the Enlightenment as the intro appeared to imply. Even you decided to remove it than search for a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the remark indicated the Reformation was the "sole" or "primary" cause, but that it was a hugely significant factor in the history leading to the Enlightenment is as obvious as the fact that the earth is not flat. I admire your zeal for proper citations, perhaps you can supply what is so dreadfully lacking in the many articles you have contributed to? Your "contributions" to the Martin Luther page appear to me to be nothing but harassment in order to advance your POV on Luther. Others may disagree. I removed it not because I felt it was wrong, but simply not necessary.--Ptmccain 22:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that sentence was anyway near correct, you need to go back to school, which is why we ask for sources: so that people can't insert their own views. As for requesting citations from me, you've picked on the wrong person to make your WP:POINT. I fully support citation requests and will do my best to provide sources for any edit I've made. Do take note, however, that you're violating WP:POINT. Also, be sure to check that the sources aren't already provided, as they were on Bernard Williams. Of course, it would help if you had ever read the articles you're asking for sources on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, it might help if you read the things you claim I'm "violating." First, your accusation is highly subjective, further what you claim to be a violation, is not in fact a "policy" ..

"

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct that many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy. WP:POINT Surely you are not suggesting that I have to "clear" every single edit on the Martin Luther page through you? I'm not aware of your credentials in Reformation History or Luther studies, perhaps you can share those so I have some sense of your basis for making value judgements on this page or my contributions.

Slim, I'm sure we can continue this back and forth ad naseum, but surely you and I both have better things to do?

The arbitration committee has repeatedly upheld WP:POINT and takes it very seriously. You're treading on thin ice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, to repeat myself, I'm sure we can continue this back and forth ad naseum, but surely you and I both have better things to do?

Animal rights

The only part of that article that I contributed to in any substantive way, and am prepared to vouch for, is the intro, and I've supplied sources for the two points you contested. As for the rest, I agree that it's poorly sourced and in many places badly written, so I have no problem with your citation requests, and I'll be interested to see whether anyone steps forward to defend the uncited sections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My greatest apology

My friend, I have made a great error in calling you a hypocrite. While I didn't agree with some of the edits you made or the way you made those edits, I had No right to call you a hypocrite. I tried to apologize on the talk page, but it is possible you didn't see it. Again, I deeply apologize, and humbly beg your forgiveness. Deepest regards, Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I forgive you. --Ptmccain 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Ptmccain, I blocked you for 48 hours for your 3RR violation at Martin Luther. I am sorry to do this. I very seldom block for 3RR, and generally prefer to overlook a fourth revert that could be accidental. But you had made six, which rules out any possibility of forgetting, or losing count, to my mind, and you had been blocked twice before in the last eight days. Please familiarize yourself thoroughly with the policy during the block, remembering that three reverts a day is not a right, that partial reverts count, and that reverts of different sections count. As it was your third violation in such short time, I blocked for 48 hours. (Actually, I blocked two hours ago, and meant to inform you immediately, but got caught up in other things, so the block at this stage has 46 hours to go.) You can still edit this page while you are blocked. I will watch the page, and might be prepared to consider shortening the block a little early, as a sign of good will, if I get some indication that you are prepared to stop edit warring. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]