This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 29 January 2008 (→The three-revert rule: a brief thought: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:30, 29 January 2008 by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) (→The three-revert rule: a brief thought: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I am busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
For more urgent matters, please send me an e-mail.

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

Notes:

The link to the POV-section template is {{POV-section}}.
{{subst:test3}} is preferred.
Errors that need correction should be treated like <strike>this</strike> or <s>this</s>.

Questions and comments

Ezra

Hi! You removed a text from the Ezra article including sources with the comment "Ezra had no part in building the temple." This may be your opinion, but Misplaced Pages's WP:NOR policy prohibits using ones own opinions as the basis of article content. The WP:NPOV policy requires including all significant opinions on a subject, and there is plenty of sourcing for the claim that Ezra was involved. I would urge you not to delete sourced material that you disagree with, doing so can lead to loss of editing privileges. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Realize this is a more involved content dispute and you are correct that the claim you removed was about what the Hebrew Bible itself says as distinct from what any source says; there are different interpretations of what it says but you are correct and I agree that it wasn't appropriate for the article to claim that the Bible itself says that Ezra was involved in building the Second Temple. I understand that deletion of the source was an accident. Regret the misunderstanding. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:00, 2 December 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.

Compromise on Banu Qurayza

I've compromised on Banu Qurayza as much as I could. BY partially reverting back to you version, I have introduced technical errors of your version, as well as censored content. Please don't test my limits by reverting my edits on the article. I will not hesitate to roll back my compromise.

In any case you need not be worried. This is only a temporary compromise, until we get to mediation. The mediation will (hopefully) produce a more enduring version.Bless sins 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ali

Hi, thanks for your participation, but your comment is not clear. Can you please explain "Also the references in the footnotes are not good either." and "everal things are covered twice." --Seyyed(t-c) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Denglish

Hi Str1977 -- that entire section on the Denglish page is almost completely OR. Any list that's there really needs to be sourced and I can't imagine, as volatile as denglisch tends to be that you'll have any luck with such. Really there's barely enough sourceable content in there for a stub. Consider following up on the talk page. I'll wait a little before I continue cutting, but trimming down and sourcing the remnants is on my to do list. Scott.wheeler (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi Str!!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! I hope you have a successful year to come!!! Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Biography: Royalty and Nobility NA‑class

	Biography portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This page is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Middle Ages NA‑class

	Middle Ages portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Himiltrude

Would you like to actually provide a source, instead of simply making crude edits to claim that Charlemagne was actually married to Himiltrude? Michael Sanders 16:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, focusing solely on the Himiltrud & other wifes issue: you are assuming a lot and end up pushing a certain POV.

Looking at Einhard doesn't make your case, as Einhard (ch. 20) says "Erat ei filius nomine Pippinus ex concubina editus ..." - He calls her simply a concubine, and says nothing about Friedelehe.
However, in other sources, she is simply referred to as Charles' wife, e.g. a letter by the Pope.
If you can read German, this should be interesting: http://www.mittelalter-genealogie.de/karolinger_familie_karls/himiltrud_frankenkoenigin_769.html
Some historians have tried to solve this contradiction by supposing the concept of "Friedelehe", a form of marriage above concubinage and below sacramental marriage. They might be right, they might be wrong but it is still only a theory and to my knowledge it is nowadays not generally accepted.
I don't have P. Riche at hand but I think I remember him placing Himiltrud among "Desiderata" and Hildegard without distinction.
And anywhere I look I can see the numbering 1. Himiltrud, 2. "Desiderata", 3. Hildegard, even among those that subscribe to the Friedelehe concept - and unsurprisingly so: a Friedelwife is a special kind of wife but a wife nonetheless.
Certainly, the Charlemagne biography by Dieter Hägermann, which I have at hand, does so, and argues that Einhard called Himilitrud concubine to protect his lord against accusations of polygamy.

In your footnote, you are quoting Riche who however merely quotes Einhard here. Also you turn Chamberlin's quite nuanced statement and his "perhabs could be compared" into that terrible "common law marriage" statement - common law is English law and does not apply here. And your "partner" elsewhere is really just ugly.

That is certainly enough to cast doubt on your "statements of fact". I never tried to remove the Friedelehe concept out of WP - but to simply state it as fact, to write Himiltrud the wife (whether Friedelwife or full wife) out of history, to ignore the status of the Friedelehe as a construct, to avoid unfitting sources, is unacceptable. Str1977 17:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So Einhard calling Himiltrude a concubine proves that she was Charlemagne's wife? Hardly convincing (you claim Einhard calls her a concubine to prevent Charlemagne looking like a polygamist? Yet he doesn't do that for Desiderata, who had been sworn loyalty to as Queen...claiming that Himiltrude was a concubine immediately after claiming that Charlemagne repudiated his sacramentally married Lombard wife would be shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted). Riche also follows Einhard in referring to her as a concubine. As for the Pope's letter, the fact that he refers to her as his wife could indicate that she is a sacramental wife - or a wife by friedelehe (which I believe either Janet Nelson or Rosamond McKitterick also suggest was the basis of the original union between Waldrada and Lothair II before he set her aside for Theutberga. Although don't hold me to that.) However, I'm not going to be convinced by a web-page. As far as I'm concerned, Einhard (who was in a far better position to know the state of affairs than a Pope who doesn't even know which King is marrying the Lombard Princess) calls her a concubine, and Pierre Riche agrees with him, as does Chamberlin who details the concept of friedelehe. None of them describe her as a full wife, so to do so - and ignore the sources, indeed not even source your assertions - is unacceptable. Michael Sanders 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Common-law" is entirely appropriate - it means 'valid by custom but not in law', and readers will understand that. Also: why does your assertion (unsourced, unless you have compelling evidence of his writing style) that Riche is simply following Einhard (not a quote) invalidate what he has to say? Michael Sanders 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may: Einhard calls her a concubine. A concubine is not a wife. So she cannot be described as "Charlemagne's first wife". His first wife was the Lombard Princess we call Desiderata. His second was Hildegarde, etc. As for the actual article content, "common law wife" or "common law marriage" is an understood term, which Chamberlin uses to describe friedelehe. So that is all sanctioned by sourced material. Michael Sanders 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it's necessary. The only source you've given claiming that Himiltrude was Charlemagne's canonically lawful wife is Pope Stephen III's letter - and Einhard is a far more reputable primary source than that letter. Desiderata was Charlemagne's first wife: Einhard, Riche and Thorpe all refer to Charlemagne as being married four times (Chamberlin of course takes the more nuanced view of the friedelehe rather than simply concubinage), Riche and Thorpe numbering Hildegard, Fastrada and Liutgard as 2,3,4, whilst Thorpe also numbers 'the daughter of Desiderius' as number 1 in a genealogical table; Einhard specifically states that Charlemagne "married a daughter of Desiderius". Michael Sanders 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that the Himiltrude article is much better now that you've stopped insisting that she was his first wife, and you've actually added some very good & sourced content, so I'm happy. Michael Sanders 19:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to say "...was the second wife of Charlemagne Einhard goes into far more detail than Stephen III and is far more reliable, and is our main source for the life of Charlemagne and his family - and Einhard lists Charlemagne as married to four women, and inserts Himiltrude as a concubine. I think that should be followed in terms of basic statements, so long as we make the situation clear in the notes (the article body isn't really appropriate since Himiltrude doesn't really touch upon Hildegard, Fastrada and Luitgard). Michael Sanders 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Carolus the Big

Discussing the second marriage, Collins says "Charles was almost certainly already married at this time, but seems to have put aside his first wife Himiltrude, whom Frankish annalists would subsequently designate a concubine, in the interests of this Lombard alliance" (Collins, Charlemagne, p. 40.). No idea if that reflects larger consensus, but Collins is clearly of the opinion that Frankish sources played with facts for political convenience. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Germans

Stop using that awful made up title of 'Romano-German King' .Michael Sanders 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The titles in pretence is appropriate, since it reflects historical acceptance. Richard of Cornwall, William of Holland, and Alfonso of Castile are never accepted as legitimate "Kings of Germany" in the sense of Rudolf I or Conrad III, merely as titular Kings of the Romans in a period of Interregnum.

As for Francis II, according to Bryce (remember, the author Srnec recommended who won the "King of the Romans" argument for you), Francis "resigned the imperial dignity. The instrument announces that, finding it impossible, in the altered state of things, to fulfill the obligationss taken at his election he considers as dissolved the bonds which attached him to the Germanic body, releases from their allegiance the states of which it consisted, and retires...." Bryce appears to interpret the "release of allegiance" as being allegiance to Francis personally: he points out that Britain's refusal to accept the dissolution of the Empire may have been justified in law, and that "the empire was never extinguished at all, but lived on as some disembodied spirit. For it is clear that, technically speaking, the abdication of a sovereign only destroys his own rights, and does not dissolve the state over which he presides." Michael Sanders 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Albert was the next anti-king. Michael Sanders 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is what historians actually say. And whilst there is disagreement on whether to count Conrad IV as a legitimate King, William, Richard and Alfonso are never counted. It has nothing to do with who opposed them (there've been anti-popes with no opposition), but to do with whether they are accepted by historians. Thus, William is not, even when he is the only claimant to the vacant throne of Germany, partly because he was unable to establish his authority, partly because historians just don't. Same with Richard and Alfonso, for all that Richard set foot in Germany a couple of times.

As for Francis II, Bryce quite specifically says that he "resigned the imperial dignity" - his paraphrasing of the device then goes on to say that the Emperor considered the bonds of allegiance the princes owed him were dissolved.

The Empire itself was not Germany. The "Kingdom of Germany" would legally have ended when its nobility declared themselves Kings, and when the confederation of the Rhine was created, invalidating any claims of vassalage the princes owed to the absent "King of Germany". As for the Empire - to paraphrase Bryce again, the Imperial title could be granted by the Pope to anyone, even a knight with only a foot of ground. So in theory, perhaps Pope Benedict could still grant the title. Who knows? It's all theoretical, because the reality was that with Francis' abdication, the duty to summon the College of Electors fell upon the Elector of Saxony, the Rector - and he was a supporter of Napoleon, and declared himself King. Michael Sanders 23:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see your point about Napoleon. Napoleon was already claiming to be successor of Charlemagne very effectively. Nor was Francis quite so mediaeval-minded as to think ending the Empire would make the slightest bit of difference - Napoleon could still march in and conquer the territory, and if he'd really wanted to he could have revived the title and claimed it anyway. Francis' abdication (and prior assumption of a hereditary and irremovable title) was probably more to avoid the humiliation of being forcibly deprived of it by Napoleon. Michael Sanders 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Louis IV was King Louis V of Germany - you forgot Louis the Child. Lothar III is just made up - he was actually Lothar I of Germany and Emperor Lothar II. Michael Sanders 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Effectively, no the Holy Roman Empire didn't continue. But that doesn't make statements that Francis II 'dissolved' it valid. It ended because he abdicated and no-one upheld it any longer. But you are confusing the intangible title of 'Holy Roman Emperor' with the solid 'Kingdom of Germany'. The Kingdom of Germany was already falling apart on Francis' abdication because the princes were either openly or secretly defaulting upon their vassalage to their sovereign; the Elector of Saxony, being Imperial Vicar during interregna, was meant to summon the electoral college, but didn't which placed the Kingdom and Empire in a theoretical interregna, but in reality made it clear that the Kingdom was ended.

The Imperial title, however, was in the eyes of the Papacy (validated by history) a gift of the Pope, granted to whomever the Pope chose to uphold his own rights in the Papal territories (even "a simple knight without a foot of land in the world"). It had already gone into abeyance with the death of Berengarius, and emerged as a new creature with Otto I; had Napoleon wished, he could have been crowned "Holy Roman Emperor" in Rome by the Pope, and been as legitimate as Otto I. In which case, the "Holy Roman Empire" would have been the title applied to the realm of Napoleon, rather than the Kingdom of Germany. Michael Sanders 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-popes have commonly been opposed by other factions, yes. But not always by rival Popes. See Antipope Constantine II, who reigned without any opposing Popes, Stephen III only being elected on Constantine's deposition. The same principle applies - a man may be titled Pope or King of the Romans, and there may be continuity of elections, but we only accept the person as legitimately such if history commonly considers him such. Misplaced Pages's acceptance of who was a legitimate King and who was a pretender should be based upon history's acceptance, rather than assuming that one is a legitimate monarch if one is unopposed. Michael Sanders 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Francis "dissolved the bonds which attached him to the Germanic body". That's not the same as dissolving the Empire.

The Pope could theoretically chose anyone to crown emperor - although the de facto circumstances meant that he commonly had to choose the most powerful potentates in the area - consider the Spoletos and Berengar of Friuli, or the Pope's own decision to grant the title to Charles the Bald to give him protection from invaders. Thus, Napoleon could entirely legitimately have been crowned Emperor (he had in the past only been crowned Emperor of the French - an Emperor could legitimately wear more than one crown at a time), had he held Rome, since he fulfilled as many of the qualifications as Charlemagne and Otto. And it could still be theoretically possible to institute a new renevatio imperii and crown a new emperor - since the Imperial title was theoretically dependent upon whoever could receive coronation from the Pope. (Incidentally, Liechtenstein still exists.)

A pretender is one who claims a title but who cannot effectively take it. Thus this applies to Otto of Brunswick during the time of Philip of Swabia, since (despite the Pope's favouring of Otto) Philip ruled in Germany, only challenged ineffectively by others. This also applies to the others - they only cease to be pretenders when they are actually unquestionably ruling, when they can exert their authority is certain and they are not noticeably challenged. Of course, it is not our place to judge when that is the case - we simply take our lead from historians. Who never consider William, Richard or Alfonso as ruling, but as merely 'antikings' (which, like 'antipope', is a misleading term, since both are used to refer to men such as William or Constantine who aren't opposed by a legitimate figure, but who are simply not considered legitimate rulers for whatever reason. In Constantine's case, I believe his election was judged invalid). Michael Sanders 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but he then reigned unopposed by any Pope after Paul's death for several months. Michael Sanders 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're misunderstanding the quote. Bryce paraphrases that Francis found it "impossible in the altered state of things to fulfill the obligations" his election required him to make; therefore, "he considers as dissolved the bonds which attached him to the Germanic body". That means he has dissolved the bonds attaching him to Germany, not dissolved Germany.

The Pope did choose Emperors on several occasions. "an Emperor could legitimately wear more than one crown at a time" - you claimed that Napoleon couldn't have been crowned HRE because he was already crowned Emperor of the French.

The fact that historians consider William, Richard and Alfonso as anti-kings does exclude them from the line of succession of "Kings of Germany" and "Kings of the Romans", just as anti-popes are excluded from the line of succession in the papacy. Michael Sanders 00:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, he was anti-pope for about 6-7 months. Read Raymond Davis' edition of The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes, who notes the blank period of time Liber Pontificalis ignores, and briefly discusses Constantine. Michael Sanders 00:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But he wasn't recognised, that's the point. He never exercised real authority in Germany, that's why he is never listed as a legitimate King. Michael Sanders 11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles V

Did Charles V not call himself "Emperor Elect" immediately, then? Michael Sanders 20:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks then. Michael Sanders 20:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

your questions

In terms of the interregnum, it's a tricky business. I think Richard is pretty clearly a real king. He was crowned at Aachen, among other things (BTW, our article on him says Alexander IV crowned him - is that true? I've never heard of a pope crowning someone king). Also, his death led directly to Rudolf's election. William probably should count too, although his succession box is tricky - he was initially the successor of Henry Raspe, but then was (mostly) accepted as king after Conrad's death. I'm less sure about Alfonso - his reign seems even more notional than the other too, but still more real than a mere title in pretense. In terms of the succession box in Alfonso, it's totally ridiculous to say he was succeeded as anti-king by Albert I. That implies that "anti-king" is a title that people claimed, and that there was thus a line of succession for antikings. In the more familiar case of antipopes, we don't do this unless one antipope was actually the direct successor of his predecessor. It should be the same for antikings. Alfonso gave up his title to Rudolf, and so should be succeeded by Rudolf. In general, I don't like the "title in pretense" box for the middle ages - for instance, should the titular emperors of Constantinople have such a box, as well? Whatever the status of their rule over Constantinople itself, they were accepted as overlords by the various Latin barons in Greece, and as such the title was not merely one in pretense. I think the same applies to the kings of the interregnum period. john k (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and consorts for the Spanish Netherlands are completely silly. john k (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

David Heath/Gangrel

You put a question on his page about whether he and Luna are still together/married. I found a source where he says that they are no longer married and on his myspace it states that he is single and there's no mention of Luna anywhere.Just thought i'd tell you since it may be reverted again. (MgTurtle (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)).

Continental Wrestling Association

I got to ask, is your native language English? because "Legitimately hurt" means that he was actually hurt, not a storyline, not faked. Furthermore "legit" is nothing but SLANG for legitimate, you're saying the EXACT SAME THING! except with slag and slang should be avoided when possible at wikipedia. Furthermore the other edits you make to the article make it seem like wrestling his real and not staged, it's important to make that distinction, it's also important to explain wrestling terms such as "worked" since not everyone is a wrestling fan and know what it means. Finally - who makes you the arbiter of what pictures will and will not show up? Maybe something appropriate will show up, what's the point of removing the "Picture needed" logo when a picture is needed. Please don't just mindlessly revert stuff because your interpretation of the word "Legitimate" is off base here. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Communist state

I appreciate most of your edits to Communist state and the talk page, but I have to ask why you've removed the ISBNs from the references, and pulled the Communist Manifesto out of the citation template? (Going from pp to p makes perfect sense to me, however.) Argyriou (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Thanks for doing this: . Arrow740 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum

Hi. I was Copey 2. I have replied (unsatisfactorily, I'm afraid) to your request for more from me on my old talk page. Koro Neil (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Girlfriends

Hi, I noticed you un-archived a former merge proposal here, did you want to restart a proposal that Girlfriend be merged into the Girlfriend disam page? If not is seems the proposal melted away with the related AfD and it should stay in the archives. Benjiboi 03:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Hi Str. My position is to keep the lists for Kings and Presidents separate (as they are now) because the presidential system in Greece is well established and the list will keep growing in the Presidents' favour. Also Italy has a similar Presidential list even though it was a monarchy in the past, like Greece. By the way I found the List of Kings and Presidents proposed by Srnec to be a nice attempt at compromise since it does not sound as generic as Heads of State but in the end it is too long and it does not address the main issues anyway. --Dr.K. (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Please use {{subst}} when inviting users to WP:ROBO. for future reference, type in {{subst:Invite User WikiProject Robotics}}. Let me know if you have any further questions. - Jameson L. Tai 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful edit

This edit to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader has been determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted.

Please consider notifying the editor before reverting their edits and/or discussing your reverts on the talk page in future. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was unhelpful too as it only served to somehow legitimize the administrators' inability or unwilligness to do their job after the event. In any case, what gives you the right to simply include such stuff on a WP page? And if you are, why is your edit sacrosant? Who has deemed it "unhelpful" besides you and Benji? Str1977 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I deemed the edit unhelpful. My addition to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader was an effort to explain to other users that there are possible remedies other than blocking and that they are applied at admins' discretion. I was trying to help other people understand that reporting a 3RR violation may not always result in a block, not "somehow legitimize" something "after the event".

I fail to see any policy saying that administrators are mandatorily required to block users violating the 3RR and have no discretion in the matter. Indeed, under WP:3RR#Enforcement, I see "Editors who violate the three-revert rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated or aggravated violation." (my emphasis). See also WP:EW#Enforcement, where protection is listed as a solution to edit wars. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The three-revert rule: a brief thought

G'day, Str. I'd like to share with you a brief thought on the 3-revert rule, further to a request to do so at the administrator's noticeboard. Before I do so, I'd like to note that I do so with no reference to current circumstances, and without the intent to imply future changes to contributions and editing habits.

The three revert rule, at risk of going into lecture mode, is not a hard and fast rule: if it was, we'd end up pretty bureaucratic, and most likely not examine the circumstances behind a dispute, but rather slap a block on every user that reverted $\geq$ 3 times within 24 hours—an approach that doesn't serve prevent future disruption, but rather acts in a penal fashion.

That is why it is often the case that 3RR violations and reports are not always met with an automatic block, and it is important to respect that, for the reason I have already outlined. Perhaps, in the future, you could respect that? It really would help the project as a whole, and I assure you: it will help any disputes you are involved in calm down a lot quicker.

Anthøny 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories: