User talk:Ptmccain/Archive July 18, 2006
Early Luther and Justification[edit]
Paul, do you know of a concise quotation from the early Luther on justification by faith that uses the word Christ? if so, we should put it in the Luther article under the section on the so-called evangelical discovery. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 17:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Off the top of my head, I would say one place to look might be in Luther's earliest commentary on Galatians. Ptmccain 20:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Open to the charge of anachronism?" Huh? Ptmccain 21:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Bob, I'm not sure that is necessarily true. I thought the Preface to the Romans Commentary, and the commentary, was earlier Luther. The next place I would look would be in his first Galatians commentary series, which is quite early.Ptmccain 18:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, I don't, but I thought if you quickly scanned the Romans preface you might find what you are looking for.Ptmccain 19:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]
Regarding reversions[1] made on July 6 2006 (UTC) to Martin Luther[edit]
 | 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. |
WikiPedia or WikiProblem?[edit]
A diligent search on the Internet reveals numerous expressions of concern about Wikipedia. I've found these comments to be interesting and thought-provoking reading. Here are some things I've found:
This is worse than bad, and it is, unfortunately, representative of the slipshod quality of much of Wikipedia. Remember, this emanation of collective intelligence is not just a couple of months old. It's been around for nearly five years and has been worked over by many thousands of diligent contributors. At this point, it seems fair to ask exactly when the intelligence in "collective intelligence" will begin to manifest itself. When will the great Wikipedia get good? Or is "good" an old-fashioned concept that doesn't apply to emergent phenomena like communal on-line encyclopedias?[[2]]
I have found it interesting what others on the Internet have to say about Wikipedia and the problems associated with the Wiki policy of allowing anyone, and everyone, to edit articles. Theoretically, such collaboration results in superior articles. In my experiences on Wikipedia in fact it is more often the case that articles suffer from those who know little, or nothing, about the subject matter. One of the founders of Wikipedia has a very interesting article on the problems inherent with Wikipedia. Here is an excerpt:
The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There is a deeper problem--or I, at least, regard it as a problem--which explains both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a community, Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist (which would, in this context, mean excluding the unwashed masses), it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated). This is one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's first year, but for which I did not muster adequate support, was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember that I tried very hard.) I need not recount the history of how this nascent policy eventually withered and died. Ultimately, it became very clear that the most active and influential members of the project--beginning with Jimmy Wales, who hired me to start a free encyclopedia project and who now manages Wikipedia and Wikimedia--were decidedly anti-elitist in the above-described sense. Consequently, nearly everyone with much expertise but little patience will avoid editing Wikipedia, because they will--at least if they are editing articles on articles that are subject to any sort of controversy--be forced to defend their edits on article discussion pages against attacks by nonexperts. This is not perhaps so bad in itself. But if the expert should have the gall to complain to the community about the problem, he or she will be shouted down (at worst) or politely asked to "work with" persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable (at (at best). This lack of respect for expertise explains the first problem, because if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, they would have long since invited a board of academics and researchers to manage a culled version of Wikipedia (one that, I think, would not directly affect the way the main project is run). But because project participants have such a horror of the traditional deference to expertise, this sort of proposal has never been taken very seriously by most Wikipedians leading the project now. And so much the worse for Wikipedia and its reputation. best).[1]
Ptmccain 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, has admitted that the much loved "free encyclopedia" has at least some quality problems. To some of us, this is nothing new. I've had more than one student rely on Wikipedia for accurate information for a paper, and it always ends up the same way: "well, I got it off of Wikipedia, thinking it was good...". And therein lies the problem. If you keep in mind that anyone, and I mean anyone, can edit a Wikipedia entry, then you are treading on dangerous ground if you're going to cite it as a source of fact. While it's true that errors often get corrected, they don't always, and what happens in the meantime is that bad info sits there, misinforming people. Of course, this isn't true just in the case of Wikipedia. It's a problem online, in general. I recently was party to an argument over the historicity of Jesus, and one person used a source that claimed that Philo of Alexandria lived in Jerusalem. He's called Philo of Alexandria for a reason, you know.[[3]]
I used to be such an unadulterated fan of Wikipedia you know. The idea of an open source online reference that grew on a daily basis was quite an attractive one back in the day. But in recent times I've become wary of the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, and not simply because of a few high profile choice edits.
Whatever about libel and congressional cherry picking amidst the many articles of this once noble enterprise, what really gets me about Wikipedia is that I can't trust it on most issues. There are so many agendas, axes to grind and purely mischievous vandals that 90% of what I would be interested in reading about - history, politics and so on - is tripe. To read an article on a contentious subject one can pick out bias, attempted compromise and ultimate failure almost immediately. Wade into the "Talk" page, where these edits are discussed, and you are confronted with chaos. There are too many vested interests at stake, and from the War on Terror to the Welfare State one will find an army of people taking one view or another entering into what are known as "Revert Wars", where they revert any edits back to the version which suits them.
From self-interest to political interest one can find "POV" (Point of View) shading almost every major article that touches on the live wires of our society. Thus I wouldn't trust anything that's even half-way current or ongoing on Wikipedia.
For one, the facts can be skewed. Secondly, the article can change overnight depending on how organised a campaign is launched against an article (and they do happen.) But even here we run across a problem which pervades the whole of Wikipedia society: The nit pickers, comma-Nazi's and busybody sub-editors.
In all of the articles I've seen written about Wikipedia, one of the themes is that the author goes to Wikipedia, slaves over or even creates an article the subject of which they are quite familiar; and then come back a week later to see it gutted by people who generally know nothing about the subject, but like to think that they know a thing or two about the correct usage of punctuation (and probably one or two who just think they know better.)
Of all the many thousands of regular contributors to Wikipedia, a sizable percentage of them don't add to the encyclopaedia - they take away from it. They cut paragraphs they deem to be "POV", they gut sentences and roam around looking for places to insert a semi-colon or two. They are the incarnation of your proverbial busybody aunt.
Of course, don't you dare talk back to them. The cliquish nature of Wikipedia's more regular and long-serving editors, whatever their actual merit, is anything but open source. Apart from the fact that if you try to contribute you're likely as not to see your efforts ripped apart within days there is the sense of being an outsider in a close-knit community.
[[4]]
Here's what one self-appointed "expert" editor on Wikipedia had to say recently about scholarship older than 67 years. A case in point of the hazards, pittfalls and downright silliness that is Wikipedia; namely, people who know little about what they are editing, reaching conclusions based on not much more than their private opinions, then inflicting the same on Wikipedia, subjecting Wikipedia users to this kind of collective ignorance:
The views of scholars 67 years ago is of little importance. Dwelling on them just, surprise surprise, skews the POV.
User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]
Regarding reversions[5] made on July 14 2006 (UTC) to Martin_Luther [edit]
| 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. |
Please will you learn to revert less.
William M. Connolley 20:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Re your mail: what was there about the two marked "restore" are reverts (would be nice if marked as such) and 3, 5 are (as the reporter said) the same as the July 7th version with the same edit summary that you failed to understand? If you really do have problems understanding that, then I suggest that you either stick to WP:1RR or get used to being blocked for long periods William M. Connolley 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I've carefully looked at the report and my edits and the other edits on the page at that time. I can see how I violated 3RR, and how it happened. It was interesting to see what the other editors involved did as well. It's been a good learning experience. Thanks. I'll watch it more carefully next time and go about my edits more carefully.Ptmccain 22:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Your post on my user page[edit]
Make that one the last.--Mantanmoreland 20:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- It was factual.--Mantanmoreland 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please check your facts again. In your post you stated that my "first act" after being unblocked was to post the comment and my "last act" was to post the other comment. I kindly advise you to check the time stamps on my "user contributions" page and you will see that you are mistaken. I assume you are interested in posting only the truth and factual information. I have respectfully and cordially brought this to your attention on your user talk page and you described that remark as "trolling" and removed the comment. That does not serve you well. Further, I again ask you to retract the incorrect information you posted. I want to assume that you have made these errors because you are confused. Please remove the falsehoods you posted about me. I would advise you, again, to be more mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. Thank you.Ptmccain 20:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- User Mantanmoreland, please also be mindful of Wikipedia:Etiquette. Thank you.Ptmccain 21:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Be even more mindful of my request to "get lost." Please? Pretty please? --Mantanmoreland 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland, you are not responding to the point. You have posted lies about me. I have shown you that they are lies. Will you remove those lies? I urge you to consider how this is in keeping with Wiki standards.Ptmccain 21:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Mantanmoreland, per WP:CIVIL your last remark has been deleted. I am asking you remove from the page where you posted the factual errors you made when you claimed what my "last act" and "first acts" were. Those are factual errors, easily proven to be so by looking at the time stamps on my post. I am finding it difficult to believe that you are committed to the truth on Wikipedia. I think you are letting your emotions get the best of you. I kindly and respectfully once again remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. Your failure to respond to the request that you correct factual errors does not reflect well on you. Your attempts to bait me into uncivil remarks doesn't speak well for you either. Please reconsider.Ptmccain 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not being uncivil. I'm just saying to you that a user who posts in an edit summary that an editor is part of the "cabal on Jewish issues" is not one to be taken seriously on the subject of Wikipedia civility. That is all. It's an offensive edit summary. --Mantanmoreland 22:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do apologize for my intemperate remark. I can understand why it upset you since on your user page you explain your Jewish heritage. Would you please remove the factual errors you posted about me on the 3RR page? You may be confused, but what you posted about my "last act" and "first act" are simply untrue, as the time stampes on the posts clearly demonstrate. Also, please do not vandalize my page. These are all actions on your part that are not in keeping with WP:CIVIL and WPGF. They do not reflect well on you and I can tell how seriously you wish to be taken on Wikipedia. Correct the falsehoods you have published on Wikipedia. Thanks.Ptmccain 22:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Mantanmoreland, your remark posted on the 3RR discussion here contained factual errors. I have pointed these out to you. They are falsehoods easily proven as such a simple review of the time stamps on my post. Your post on the 3RR board is open to anyone to examine. [6]. The fact that you refuse to remove the falsehoods you have printed is truly sad to see. It reflects poorly on you as an editor. I urge you to take this matter seriously and stop trying to avoid this issue by resorting to all manner of personal attacks and ad hominem comments. You are in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. I'm sure you expect better of yourself than this. Address the problem and correct the untruths you published about me on Wikipedia. Ptmccain 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll block your email address.--Mantanmoreland 22:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Running away from a problem is not the best way to deal with it. Nor is it helpful to indulge yourself in histrionics and further fabrications and falsehoods. The record of your falsehoods stands for all to read and see. It is sad you do not want to take a mature approach to them and correct the falsehoods. But that is obviously your choice. Thank for confirming my concerns and for providing proof of your unwillingness to remove the lies you posted about me. More's the pity!Ptmccain 23:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all. I responded by saying that the only one who was engaged in misconduct is yourself, as evidenced by your sixth block for 3RR on one article. Incidentally, editing my comments don't make yours look any better. It's actually vandalism, even though it is your own user page.--Mantanmoreland 23:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I made a civil request for you to stop the hostile emails. So why do you keep sending them to me, and delete my requests? Also please stop inaccurately describing my requests that you stop your emails as "vandalism"--Mantanmoreland 23:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Your edit summaries and edits on this page[edit]
WP:NPA prohibits personal attacks in edit summaries. "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." Your edit summaries today have contained numerous personal attacks and false references to "vandalism," when in fact I was posting responses to your accusatory posts, and also requests that you cease sending me hostile emails. Please desist.
Also please stop making accusations against me and then editing or deleting my responses. --Mantanmoreland 00:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the good advice. Perhaps you can keep it in mind when you prepare your edit summaries. I've noticed you do quite a bit of this. Also, users who wish to review your user discussion page will notice how often you reverted posts and labelled it "trolling" and "vandalism." Users who wish to refer to your remarks about my posts today on the 3RR discussion page will see that in fact you falsely described my "last act" and "first act" in reference to a previous block. I am sure you were just confused and perhaps distracted by your agitated emotional state. Surely you would not want to leave false information like that on Wikipedia. I'm sure you'll be correcting it soon. We both need to watch it. I mention all this for I am sure you would not want anyone to think you have some sort of a double standard. Cheers. Ptmccain 00:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's not "advice," it's a formal warning under WP:NPA. Also I was warning you to stop removing and editing comments on your user page. You should also stop removing warnings, as you have in the past. See WP:3RR.--Mantanmoreland 14:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind concern and helping me be a better Wikipedia editor. I know I can learn a lot from you. Thanks.Ptmccain 14:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome, reverend, but rest assured that my warnings did not have such monumental ambitions. Cheers.--Mantanmoreland 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's kind of you to take so much of your time to help me learn how to be a better Wikipedia editor. I'm learning a lot about how Wikipedia works from you, and other editors. Cheerio. Ptmccain 14:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Some unsolicited thoughts[edit]
Coming in after all the drama today, I tried to piece it together. I do have a couple thoughts on your edits. You had reverted a sentence relating to the doctrine of "sola fide" twice, with a curt and dismissive note in the edit summary. However, I at least have not seen an explanation of why the phrase poorly represents Luther's theology. The sentence was originally put there, I believe, by User:MPerel in trying to work out a useful compromise that would improve the introduction while making it more concise. She is someone whose interest in the article, while I've been watching, has been to suggest and encourage discussion and moderation.
This sentence in particular is one where some discussion on the talk page would have enlightened those who choose to listen, encouraged those who had sought some compromise and civil discussion, and shared the expertise on the subject you have. Sam 23:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Sam. I can see your point. I looked at the posting history and looked at other editor activities and I can see what is going on. I'll be more careful next time. The post by Perel was inaccurate, but I should have been more polite about it. I thought it best simply not to try to tackle his core theology in a sound bite. Better, I think, to let Luther speak for himself and so I posted a very good summary from Luther himself. Thanks for your thoughts.Ptmccain 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps on your return you can explain a bit more about the issue to MPerel, myself and others on the talk page. Sam 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Stop POV edits and disruptive conduct[edit]
Stop deliberately misinterpreting comments by others on the Martin Luther talk page and then labeling your POV-pushing edits as "per talk page." Also you unecessarily posted the entire text of a section of the article after I warned you to stop clogging the talk page. These tactics are disruptive and contrary to WP:POINT.--Mantanmoreland 13:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, thanks for your kind concern and taking the time to share your feelings here. I'm sorry you find my remarks on the discussion page to be "clogging." The section of the article was posted on the talk page so we could talk about. If you have something constructive to add, I welcome your input and reactions. I respectfully urge you to keep in mind WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. Thank you.Ptmccain 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- You know perfectly well that it is not necessary to post an entire section of an article in the talk page. Please stop disrupting the talk page by such actions.--Mantanmoreland 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I again respectfully ask you to observe WP:GF and WP:CIVIL. I certainly do apologize to you for any of my past behaviors and posts that have offended you. If you have constructive and specific remarks to offer in response to the proposal, placed on the talk page to discuss please offer those remarks. You may also wish to consider this advice offered on Wiki policy pages [7]:
Before interpreting Sanger's parting advice as permission from the current community of participants to engage in personal attacks, harrassment or stalking after labeling people with whom you disagree; it would be wise to read and understand the policy or guideline regarding personal attacks and the ad hominem fallacy identified by ancient Greek philosophers.
- Finally, with all due respect, if you persist in posting the kinds of notes that you have previously you will leave me no choice but to implement this bit of advice offered on Wiki's etiquette page [8]: "*Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." I'm sure we both can find more constructive uses of our time than this kind of negative exchange and back and forth. I want to work constructively with you, and move on and put the past behind. If you do not feel you are able to do that, then you will leave with no choice but to delete remarks that do not conform with WP:CIVIL. This is your last and final warning. Thanks for your cooperation.Ptmccain 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No comments:
Post a Comment