Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 4

message: Though it wasn't written by Luther, I thought editors here might like to know that a stub for this work has been started Sumergocognito 07:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Do you know if it has been linked to the Book of Concord page yet? --CTSWyneken 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope]] 

message: Once again we have to work this matter out. I oppose the inclusion of Martin Luther in the POV category of Category:Anti-Semitic people, because it glosses over the debate as to whether his anti-Judaic writings were anti-semitic or not. This matter has been settled, and there are those who wish to incite an edit war. drboisclair 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther put into an anachronistic category 

message: I have left a note on your talk page about 3RR. Please review it before reverting again. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear, Slim, Thank you for your kind advice. I will not revert anymore. I have only reverted twice which is permitted. I regret that this matter has once again been broached. Perhaps we could have a vote to end at a certain time since there is an impasse here. Cordially, drboisclair 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the following is copied from talk pages; please don't post to my talk page again. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would then ask the same courtesy. drboisclair 02:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear, Slim, Thank you for your kind advice. I will not revert anymore. I have only reverted twice which is permitted. I regret that this matter has once again been broached. Perhaps we could have a vote to end at a certain time since there is an impasse here. Cordially, drboisclair 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have reverted three times. Look at the history. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Ma'am, I have not reverted three times. In fact, I have reverted two times in two days! My first reversion was on April 19th, and my second reversion was on April 20th. Please see history, Cordially, drboisclair 01:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This happens every single time I deal with you, CTSW, and StanZegel. Endless, pointless nattering back and forth. You have reverted three times: 15:09 April 19, 23:37 April 19, 01:11 April 20. Why else do you think I left a warning for you? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, I would appreciate it if you would not escalate this to a war. Why not try discussing things calmly, rather than acting in ways likely to raise tempers. You should also note that you have now reverted the page three times. This is the last I will say on this matter other than observe that I keep a 2RR rule, which I have reached for today. If I must, I will reach that limit every day to keep the page in comprimise. Convince me and other interested editors with reason, and this can change. But I will simply not put up with strong arm tactics and attempts to anger people you know have short fuses. --CTSWyneken 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Slim, where is the third revert? There are only two in two days. Is it on another article perhaps? drboisclair 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have given you the times and dates. Please continue any discussion here and not on my talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but they were on two separate days. Doesn't that mean that they were not 3RRs on the same day? drboisclair 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 24 hours. Read the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have done the same thing and all on the same matter. (22:20, 19 April 2006, 01:20, 20 April 2006, 01:27, 20 April 2006drboisclair 01:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know! But I don't need to warn myself because I understand the policy. You don't. After months of editing and reverting, reverting, reverting, you haven't even read the policy. After I post a note asking you to review it, you still don't read it. After I post the times of your reverts, you insist you're right and don't read it. After I ask you to stop posting about it, you keep on posting but still don't read it! Enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never been admonished about this. In this case it is a device to find fault with me. You too have reverted 3 times on the same matter. Imagine our frustration when this is brought up again.drboisclair 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Slim, can you document that drboisclair has ever reverted the same page four times in one twenty-four hour period? If not, please cease personal attacks against him. --CTSWyneken 02:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no personal attacks, just astonishment at the pair of you. And if you want to stand for adminship, try reading, and learn how to link to, our policy pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I repeat: you do not read carefully. I have not accused anyone of violating 3RR. I warned dboi when he was up to three, because I strongly suspected he hadn't read the policy, and I was right. Do you have nothing better to do than to post endless queries to me, rather than simply reading what I wrote or editing the encyclopedia? This is what you did the last time I tried to edit these articles, and it's what drove me away. Then, having driven me away, you proceeded to claim you had achieved consensus on the page, not realizing that people just get tired of your endless arguments. Or perhaps you do realize. Regardless, you cannot take ownership of the Luther pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true. He has invited others to discuss changes. He has taken their concerns into consideration. I remember that I reproduced some of Luther's German text for your arbitration, and you ruled against the idea that Luther advocated killing. I think that the record speaks for itself about the manner things have been carried out here. We are aware of the fact that we do not have ownership of these pages. I have read the WP:3RR but not far enough and carefully enough. I am surprised by your behavior in all of this. I thought you were impartial. drboisclair 02:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, I see it, and you said that the subject matter does not matter. However, the two reversions were on the 19th and the last one on the 20th, so I arguably would have two more reverts for the 20th! But I will not take that liberty. drboisclair 01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it that you still don't understand? Do not revert on the same page more than three times in 24 hours, in whole or in part, whether the reverts are of the same material or different material. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR

message: I need to state here that I did not revert after the Administrator gave me warning. drboisclair 02:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I did not revert again after the warning 

message: Dear Slim:
Thanks for adding these links. They are most helpful. --CTSWyneken 11:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Wiki Links 

message: I propose that all editors interested in contributing to this article vote on whether we should have Martin Luther either in the "Antisemitism" or the "Antisemitic people" categories, and the vote should be binding. There is a disagreement on which category he should be in. Does anyone concur on the holding of a vote on this question? Please post a reply for or against having such a vote. I do not think that it is fair to all concerned to simply place him in the category that he has been placed when there is disagreement among editors. Drboisclair 23:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: informal polls like this are never binding. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the poll is the present state of the article: that the antisemitism category has been removed, and the antisemitic people category substituted for it. Drboisclair 09:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rekleov, I think you are saying that you would rather the Luther article not be in any antisemitism related category, just as I would prefer that Luther was not one of the most significant antisemites in world history.  However, I'm wondering why you prefer this category to the other?  Should your vote be understood as a vote for Stan's newly created option of "neither category?" Can you explain? Doright 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. I am moving my vote to "neither category", which was not in place when I left my initial entry.  It must be said, however, that if ML is included in either of the first two categories, it ought to be this one. --Rekleov 23:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Need to have a vote of editors on this question 

message: Saw that Paul Johnson was referenced here in discussions elsewhere, and wondered if that was someone I knew personally. (apparently not!)  But when I followed the link I was presented with the disambiguation page of 12 (!) people.  If it's okay with y'all, I'm going to change to direct link of Paul Johnson (journalist), that is Paul Johnson, to save a step and a bit of confusion.  
Also, is there some stylistic reason that names in the notes section are not linked?  If one follows the ref link down to the notes section, you then might have to return where you came from in the text to then follow the link to the person.  Possibly not even then (see the first PJ note and ref - ref link in text gets you to notes that say PJ but there's no link there or back up in the citing text).  Any problem with repeating links to people's articles from inside the notes section?
Shenme 08:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). I don't have a problem having an occasional supplementary link in Notes or in image caption. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with setting such a link. If I forget, someone else is welcome to do it. --CTSWyneken 11:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [[Paul Johnson]] 

message: Rekleov, please be advised that Content Swizzeling and Context Swizzeling are NOT considered to be a “minor” edit.  In addition to declining to answer the question, you are now engaging in Swizzeling by  deleting the text in talk to which my prior comments refer.  I think this is considered improper and, of course, leaves the preceding comments looking absurd.  Please restore the discussion page text, also please note that replies to comments typically are placed following (usually with indentation) not on top of the chronologically preceding comment. I suppose I should learn my lesson that no good deed goes unpunished in some quarters. Doright 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A most interesting charge.  The link you provide ( ) demonstrates that I moved and deleted nothing other than a pound sign --- I even made TWO notes to explain what I was doing!  If such small changes confuse you, that is scarcely my problem.  What was changed was your poor formatting; specifically, the placement of your response to my entry on the same line, done in the interest of clarity and good form, all while attempting to delete NOTHING THAT WAS THERE, so as to preserve the integrity of the page.  If that is "swizzeling", the Wikipedia needs a sight more of it.   If you can *show me* just what I did, and how it is against the policies of this site, please place it on my own talk page and I'll see if what you accuse me of is accurate; if it is, I will "fix" it, as best I can.  If not, please change your login name to something that conforms with reality. --Rekleov 21:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not only did you insert an unsigned and undated edit out of sequence so that it appears to be associated with an earlier date,  (i.e.,Swizelling), you also wrecked the vote count numbering. Please do not waste anymore of my time on this and fix your own mess yourself.   Furthermore, you dated your edit, "I am moving my vote to "neither category", 01:59, 21 April 2006, which is a date 18 hours earlier than even my original post to you that (1) pointed out the existence of the new category (2) sought clarrification and (3) asked you a question that you still have not addressed.  Please restore the integrity of the talk page and stop wasting my time.Doright 22:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasting your time, eh?  Your self-importance knows no bounds, it seems.  Thank you for pointing out that the move note was undated.  That was clearly in error; I simply left the original timestamp and did not notice that a new one might have been in order.  However, the timestamp that is there PREDATES your initial message precisely because the message itself predated both your message and the additional category you "alerted" me to.  As to your point 3, I owe you no answers whatsoever.  Move on and please stop whining.  It is unbecoming of someone I assume is an adult.  --Rekleov 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rekleov, with your new changes, you have now deleted more text.  You have entirely deleted this edit,  #If ML is to be kept in either, leave him in this category. --Rekleov 01:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This harassment has gone on long enough.  Lay out for me on my page how you want it to look --- I've tried to fix it, and my attempts at repair clearly don't meet your High standards.  Set it out as it "should" be, and if it looks right, I'll set it right.  I'm not going to try to read your mind as to how it should appear. Good Day. --Rekleov 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, if as requested, you restore the deleted text that I've already documented for you, that would be a good start.  Frankly, I'm not signing-up to be your personal editor, I'm not going to write your edits for you and I'm not going to 2nd guess what you want to say, so you have to do your own edits yourself.  Simply do not delete text from Article Talk pages and do not date edits you do make improperly, especially when they have already generated replies. Please restore newly deleted text from the Talk page.  Hopefully, you can figure out how to do this.  It's a bit odd that you find a request to maintain the integrity of the discussion "harassment."  I trust this will require no further discussionDoright 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo, Dudley: 1) I documented all changes. 2) I made a good-faith effort to fix the perceived problem.  3) You have not in any way made clear how it might look if things were fixed so that you would quit your whining. It's not my fault you can't understand the history pages. --Rekleov 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that one can edit one's own comments. If someone wants to investigate the diffs, they can look at the history page. I don't think that it is proper form for one editor to badger another as you are doing here, Mr. Doright. Drboisclair 18:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rekleov, please do not Swizzel and Delete content from Talk pages 

message: ::::Rekleov, with your new changes, you have now deleted more text.  You have entirely deleted this edit,  #If ML is to be kept in either, leave him in this category. --Rekleov 01:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This harassment has gone on long enough.  Lay out for me on my page how you want it to look --- I've tried to fix it, and my attempts at repair clearly don't meet your High standards.  Set it out as it "should" be, and if it looks right, I'll set it right.  I'm not going to try to read your mind as to how it should appear. Good Day. --Rekleov 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, if as requested, you restore the deleted text that I've already documented for you, that would be a good start.  Frankly, I'm not signing-up to be your personal editor, I'm not going to write your edits for you and I'm not going to 2nd guess what you want to say, so you have to do your own edits yourself.  Simply do not delete text from Article Talk pages and do not date edits you do make improperly, especially when they have already generated replies. Please restore newly deleted text from the Talk page.  Hopefully, you can figure out how to do this.  It's a bit odd that you find a request to maintain the integrity of the discussion "harassment."  I trust this will require no further discussionDoright 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo, Dudley: 1) I documented all changes. 2) I made a good-faith effort to fix the perceived problem.  3) You have not in any way made clear how it might look if things were fixed so that you would quit your whining. It's not my fault you can't understand the history pages. --Rekleov 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that one can edit one's own comments. If someone wants to investigate the diffs, they can look at the history page. I don't think that it is proper form for one editor to badger another as you are doing here, Mr. Doright. Drboisclair 18:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rekleov, Please restore newly deleted text from Talk page

message: What agreement are you talking about? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTS spoke of it as per archived pages, I am looking through them.Drboisclair 01:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Semitic people

message: The section is now favors only one scholarly view of the words of Luther. I recommend returning to the previously agreed text. Until this is done, the section is advocating one position over the other.
In addition, as I said the last few times this was in debate, we have a whole article on this subject and a whole article on just the book, "On the Jews..." This section needs to be a summary of the other articles and not over long. This whole article still needs much work in terms of size, especially since some topics have yet to be covered.
So, since the agreed text has much of SlimVirgin's words in it, I'd like to ask what she thinks is wrong with it. --CTSWyneken 15:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the so-called "agreed text" is, or the difference between it and the current one. Please show me a diff. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here it is.--CTSWyneken 15:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't take it out because of 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV New Material in Section 

message: No discussion has occured on this one at all and it has been some time since I reviewed it. I reread the item and it appears awefully narrow even to be merged. Does anyone mind if I remove the merge flags and follow the new PROD policy? --CTSWyneken 11:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be in favor of removing it. It serves no purpose. I revised the On the Bondage of the Will article when this matter first came up. Drboisclair 18:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Luther’s View of The Holy Ghost (God) as a Rhetorician in Bondage of the Will]] 

message: I have added a subpage at Talk:Martin Luther/Cited Authors Bios for gathering info about authors we are discussing. The intent is just to sketch these folk, so everyone knows a little about them. My hope is that we will keep discussion of the authors themselves here and basic facts on the new page.
I would appreciate help with this page. For instance, would someone do Robert Michaels and Paul Johnson? --CTSWyneken 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Martin Luther/Cited Authors Bios|Author Bios Page Begun]] 

message: A new editor has added quite a bit of material to the Other Writings section of the article. It is, as far as I can tell, fairly accurate. I've left him/her a message on the IP talk page, but don't know if the user will see it or respond to it.
First of all, I have no objection to leaving it in, especially if it encourages a new editor. I have two questions:
# We have a subarticle on the subject: On the Bondage of the Will We should give some space to the work here (I had been meaning to give it its own section, since it is a major work), but the article runs long as it is and other topics need attention here. So, how much of this should we do here?
# He doesn't cite any sources for this. Again, it is fairly agreed upon information (DRBoisclair is more familiar with the work than I am, however), so much so, I wouldn't expect a footnote in a journal article for it. So, do we lay off? --CTSWyneken 12:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Material by IP Editor