User talk:Dr Zen/past2

This needs no introduction

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Slrubenstein

Hi

Hi

I've never come across you on Wikipedia before, to the best of my recollection, but I just wanted to commend you on the good sense you have displayed in the CheeseDreams/Jesus farrago. You are quite right to worry about (semi) polite POV mobs drowning out dissent, not that CD handled any of it well. Filiocht 11:59, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that you've shown considerable restraint in your dealings with CheeseDreams and have tried to remain neutral. However, I don't think that "the POV hoards" is a very fair statement of the issue. Certainly there are people on that page with a particularly Evangelical POV (I'm one of them), but because of the massive changes made by CheeseDreams and her largely camping on the article it made it hard for others to deal with those changes. Have a look at the Paul Epistles section and tell me how (anywhere) tells someone uninitiated to the whole debate how it proves/disproves Jesus exists? I can't even see how it proves anything or is evidence. I'd not mind it being there if a provable, non-original research reason could be given. Until this can be cleared up, I'd say this is just anti-Christian POV. I hate being misrepresented, as I'm sure you do also. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Part of that should have been directed at Filiocht, but part of it to you. I've gotten embroiled in it because my beliefs are very strong on topics to do with Jesus. So I have a strong POV. However, I appreicate you noticing that I'm trying hard to not let them get into the article. Here's my take on this article: I agree that the Gnosticism part should be there. I agree that the Pauline Epistles should be in there. But only if it can be proven (without using original research) that this is the viewpoint of some scholars, and more to the point which scholars, and from which research material they have used/published.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Unless someone deleted the edit I made marked "add references", there should be blatantly obvious indications of who thinks this. E.g. The gnostic Paul by (the extremely well respected) Elaine Pagels. CheeseDreams 19:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The information will either be dismissed or taken up on its own merits. My faith is such that it can take on board criticism, because I know that if it can't then its hollow. I don't wish Christianity to be misrepresented. Are you aware that though people strongly believe that Paul was into secret knowledge, just as many people have rejected that viewpoint? Yet I don't see that anywhere in the article. Thus the article is not written from a neutral point of view. It's entirely written from CheeseDreams' POV at the moment.

I'd encourage the section on the Pauline Epistles to be rewritten with the reason why it is significant to the Historicity of Jesus.

One last thing, from memory I looked at the book reference list. I think there are about 45 books in there. Of them, about 35-36 are written from an anti-Christian slant. At least 2 are written debating Christianity. The others appear to be standard references. Is it any wonder why the article seems to have taken on a POV slant? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I've not removed the Pauline Epistles section. I'm waiting for CheeseDreams to write an introduction or something that justifies why it should be in the article. So far in the talk page discussion is proceding. For the time being I'm happy to add dubious tags to show the sections I'm disputing. For what it's worth, I have material and I can get to a large body of Christian literature on Gnosticism, but as always I'm incredibly busy. There have been many people who've disagree with Gnosticism, and the material is not that hard to find. They even use the writings of Paul to source their criticism. In fact I can think of a few passages that would point to the fact that Paul didn't agree with Gnostic influence or secret knowledge (just not off the top of my head), so the argument acutally is controversial. You'd just never know this from the article, because only one side has been presented.

"Someone" deleted the section marked "introduction". No-one had been given a chance to actually add content to it. CheeseDreams 19:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, I am extremely glad that you're attempting to unofficially mediate and assist CheeseDreams to write with more of a view to consensus. Clearly CD and myself have totally opposite viewpoints on this issue. One thing I'd request is that you keep an eye on Lady Tara for me. If she continues making personal attacks and inflaming the situation, then I'm going to file an RFC on her. I'm quite annoyed that another so-called Christian is make personal attacks. I've left a message on her talk page that says as such. So your help on this one would be great. Oh, incidently, in defense of Viriditas: they are only trying to protect Wikipedia. He may be a little overzealous, that's all. Give him a bit of time and some calm advise and he'll be apples. Just go easy on him. If you just give advise and don't accuse them of anything I've found Viriditas to be quite receptive to constructive criticism. Overall an excellent editor. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lady Tara is User:Rienzo, AND User:Nasse (and the anon-vandals of my Talk page) - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rienzo for Rienzo's behaviour (which does not include trying to forge evidence on my RfC, since he did so after his RfC), and User Talk:Mirv where Mirv and I tried to piece together who these sockpuppets were, (it will have been archived somewhere on Mirv's talk page, but it was a series of edits by me on his page). There is an RfAr against Lady Tara/Rienzo/Nasse. CheeseDreams 19:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I think I'll be going to Bible college to scout out some articles about Gnosticism. Moore Theological College has information, and it should have stuff about the Historicity of Jesus from a Christian perspective. It might lead to much needed balance in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni 3RR block

I realise that the comment to Viriditas wasn't directly directed at me, but for what it's worth: the block was for violating the spirit of the 3RR. Little or no discussion by Alberuni was made on the article he was blocked for. If he had, then the block would not have been applied by me. If Alberuni had made modifications to try to come to consensus, then again he would not have been blocked. But he didn't. He just kept reverting. Thus, the article was leading nowhere. Just because he left it five minutes after 24 hours didn't give him the right to force his POV onto the article — especially without discussion. So while Alberuni is incensed by the whole matter, it was entirely within his sphere of influence to have prevented being blocked. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whiter than White?

If an active arbitrator admitted that they are a right wing POV warrier who has, in real life, even acted in such a way as to have been suspended from practicing law, are they fit to continue in their post and meet out judgements on others.

Pic on Clitoris

Hi, I believe largely due to your input some progress has been made on the issue of the pic. Thanks for that. I would support a new vote which would establish whether a pic would ever be acceptable. Followed by one on whether the current one should be deleted until a suitable pic of the clitoris is found (if the result of the first vote is yes). - Robert the Bruce 11:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

tell me what you think this is:

This was copied verbatim from CheeseDreams user talk page archive... what would you call a discussion like this if not an attempt to create an argument from nothing? (which is essentially what trolling is) Pedant 19:49, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

DrZen, can you see how CheeseDreams is baiting even those who don't profess to be Christians?! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me as Fundamentalist

You write:

I believe you to be the sort of fundamentalist that misrepresents themselves in order to appear to have a disinterested stance, thus able to persuade weak-willed editors that their views are unreasonable (see User:Rednblu for this tactic, and various comments about it in his talk page archives, and on an ongoing RfC) CheeseDreams 02:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make ridiculous claims like this?

How can anyone take Slrubenstein seriously when he makes ridiculous claims such as "most historians do not believe hinduism existed before the 18th century". CheeseDreams 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From my very limited knowledge of South Asian history, my understanding is that many scholars do, in fact, believe that Hindusim in its modern form developed relatively recently. john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes, but thats relatively recently compared to 1500BC, and is much earlier than the 18th century.

Aside from my comments here and at Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus, I have rarely, so far as I can recall, intervened in disputes over religious issues. In these particular instances, I see nothing I have done that indicates that I am a fundamentalist, unless the only way to disagree with CheeseDreams is to be a fundamentalist. For the record, I am utterly areligious. I am certainly not a Christian fundamentalist. My father is an entirely lapsed Catholic who has not gone to worship since well before his marriage to my mother, who is Jewish, but in a very loose, extraordinarily Reform kind of way, and she doesn't believe in God. Such religion as I was raised in was this very loose sort of Judaism, which has mostly led to me feeling alien from Jewish people who actually follow the traditions of the Jewish faith, especially the Orthodox, who seem about as alien to me as any group can. My vague sense of Jewishness has further not prevented me from having feelings about the State of Israel that range from ambivalent to utterly disgusted, and I find ultra-Orthodox zionism to be one of the most horrific ideologies in the world. My own personal beliefs are entirely agnostic, leaning towards atheism. I certainly can think of no particular connection I have to fundamentalist protestantism. I do not believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; I do not believe in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. I don't believe that he descended into hell, or that on the third day he rose again from the dead. I also do not believe that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. Furthermore, I do not believe that from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I do not believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church;

Probably because you don't know what "catholic" means. CheeseDreams 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It means "universal"...since I don't believe in Christ, I can't believe in a universal church that believes that Christ is God. john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Im not convinced you understand "universal". CheeseDreams 11:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that I do believe in a universal church, without realizing it? I'm confused. john k 17:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Im saying that you don't exhibit a full comprehension of the word universal. CheeseDreams 17:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins;

If you don't believe in the forgiveness of sin then what sort of man are you? CheeseDreams 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sigh... john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the resurrection of the body; or the life everlasting. I can barely conceive how one could be less religious than I am. Furthermore, on the matter at hand, I have absolutely no idea whether Jesus lived or not. My criteria for determining if he did, however, would be those of a historian. As far as I am aware, most historians have taken the gospels and the epistles of Paul as good enough evidence for the existence of someone at least vaguely Jesusy. I have no idea whether they're right or not, and I certainly don't think that the Gospels are anything like an accurate description of what that man's life was like.

Most historians reckon at least some of the epistles of Paul are forgeries. CheeseDreams 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not forgeries, but they think that Hebrews, and some of the others, were written by somebody else. Others, like Romans and Corinthians, seem pretty generally accepted to have been written by Paul.john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forgeries=not written by who they claim to be. CheeseDreams 11:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pseudepigraphic is the term usually preferred. Hebrews, though, never claims to be written by Paul. I'm not sure which of the others are thought to be pseudepigraphic. By your standards, I'd note, all of the gospels could be called forgeries as well, since they're all highly unlike to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. To call this "forgery" is to impose modern standards of authorship on a time where they don't apply. john k 17:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And you say that you don't believe that someone called Jesus died (above), which is rather confusing if you think that someone called Jesus lived but is not in anyway supernatural. Of course, such contradictions could be explained simply by your attempts at covering yourself up not being efficient enough. CheeseDreams 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sigh...I don't believe he died and was resurrected. I don't know whether he died under Pilate, because I don't know for sure whether he existed or not, although if I had to guess I would assume that he did die under Pilate. john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suppose I may just be lying about all this (although I don't imagine there are too many Christians who would deny the entire apostles' creed in order to win an argument on the internet), or I suppose that my description of my own religious beliefs may fit into your definition of a fundamentalist. But perhaps, just possibly, one doesn't have to be a religious fundamentalist to disagree with you. You're entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to force your arrogant and extremist POV onto wikipedia. And you are certainly not entitled to engage in ridiculous name-calling against anyone who disagrees with you. john k 09:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re. "although I don't imagine there are too many Christians who would deny the entire apostles' creed" - if you knew why the creed was invented in the first place (you can probably find out via the Marcionism page) , you would think quite differently

My understanding is that the creed elaborated orthodox christian doctrine against various sects in the Roman period. But it is generally considered today to mark a basic definition of what a Christian is. At least, in my understanding as an outsider. john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly what do you think is my "arrogant and extremist" POV?CheeseDreams 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Satanism? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not see what the connection is between my POV and Satanism - see the article then explain CheeseDreams 22:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would say your POV is "Jesus didn't exist" - all of your edits seem designed to push this POV. But since I'm apparently a fundamentalist Christian, I suppose my viewpoint is worthless. God, do you realize how ridiculous you look with this nonsense? john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think God is going to reply. CheeseDreams 11:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hilarious. You should take that one on the road. john k 17:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sensitivity

Yeah, I know I am. But look at what was pasted into your talk page above. I can't believe that CheeseDreams actually said that John k doesn't fully know what "universal" means... can we say bad faith? John k isn't even a Christian!

I honestly feel like leaving this project because of CheeseDreams. I can't believe that one user can cause so much trouble. I don't like being misrepresented, especially by one so abrasive as CD. Mate, I gotta say though that I appreciate your fairness on the comments in the article (though my reply on the article talk page may seem harsh, I'm just arguing my points and expressing my extreme frustration at the way that Christian articles have been totally ripped apart and destroyed by one user who clearly has an agenda). And no, I'm not trying to silence her, I just want some fairness, and to get her to put some information in from the other side! "Writing for the enemy" is an important part of NPOV. I haven't seen any evidence of this happening.

I don't know how you feel. Maybe you do think I'm a POV pusher. But I've managed to get at least two articles onto the front page. I'm helping with the Internet Explorer article and it looks much better now. I managed to get Windows XP out of its mess and it's no longer such an anti-MS POV piece (did you know I can't stand Microsoft? Heck, I don't even run Windows at home — I run Linux) and I've helped with several Arab-Israeli conflict articles. I've even tried helping with Jihad, and until Pename turned up was helping to NPOV it quite nicely. So I've worked on divisive and controversial articles. I know POV pushing, because I've seen quite a bit of it. I dunno, maybe I'm a bit close and in fact I went to Bible college for a while and did a Church history course up till the 15th Century and got good marks. Heck, I even wrote essays about Tertullian and got a pretty good grasp of Gnosticism (the article isn't that great, btw). So I know where they are coming from when it comes to Gnosticism. Which makes me more annoyed, because the emphasis on this is quite wrong, and in fact get any Bible-believe scholar and they'll give you a run for your money when they argue against the ideas that Paul was influenced by Syncretism and Gnosticism. Yet I don't see that anywhere in the article. It's like the whole Christian world has been forgotten or deliberately left out.

As a personal note: my belief in Christ is central to my world-view. When someone attacks it unfairly like that I get upset. When someone engages me constructively, I don't get upset. I have conversations, and try to come to their way of thinking. In the case of CheeseDreams, she's not engaging. She's committing a fullout attack on Christianity. Check out what she's writing. Did you know that at one point she had replaced all the text of Historicity of Jesus with her own writing? She basically removed all things she disagreed with! I call that a full on POV attack.

Now do you understand why I'm so annoyed and upset by this whole situation? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Still feel that she's a constructive editor? Check out [1]. - . She vandalised my user page. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to reply. Conflict seems to follow me whereever I go, even if I don't want it! Anyway, I just wanted to say that I agree with you on that one. I think I'll give Christianity articles a miss for a while. Which is a pity, I think I have some good material to add to this, but I know that I can go back later so it's all cool. Besides: Moore Theological College is closed for Christmas!

I appreciate you leaving a message on CD's talk page on my behalf. And thanx for the kind comments about my POV :-) These comments make me realise that I shouldn't give up Wikipedia as there are actually reasonable editors around. Ta bu shi da yu 00:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Double standard

FYI, I called you a hypocrite in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Partial list of Palestinian terrorist acts for your double standard: you readily libel Israel's defensive actions as "terrorism", but say "one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" in regards to intentional murder by the Palestinians. You can't have it both ways. We discussed these matters earlier, and I hope you can face the issues without taking personal offense, because none intended. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you really think the Zionist gangsters would honor the three revert rule?

Or that anyone would punish them for violating it? --Wiesenthaler 07:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Piconjo

Please see my reply there, thanks! Wyss 03:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm opening to discussing this in a positive way either here or on my talk page, though. I do think we both have sincere but different interpretations of what can be a CSD under current policy. Wyss 14:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Civility

I know the debate gets heated sometimes, but please try to avoid personal attacks. A comment you made at Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus regarding Slrubenstein seems to come awfully close:

I look forward to the day this unpleasant editor receives his due punishment for this pisspoor attitude. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Italics shows the portion I copied and pasted from that discussion space) Wesley 18:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accusation of trolling

Merry Christmas to you too.

The accusation of trolling is the last resort of someone whose argument does not stand up. I feel that Timbo's comment is intended to stir up bad feeling as much as it is to express fellow feeling. Everything I've had to say on the clitoris issue has been in good faith (I genuinely changed my mind on the picture issue because I realised my view was not consistent with my broader feelings about Wikipedia) and although Anthony is not conventional, I think he is a good-faith editor. Anyway, as is my custom, I've taken clitoris off my watchlist and I'm not editing it or its talkpage any further (I only returned because RoberttheBruce suggested that I'd be interested in looking again at it, and frankly he wasn't right -- the whole thing is very unedifying). I get tired of fighting with editors who believe that the correct way to build consensus is to hold polls and use the results as sticks to beat others with different views. The majority should not necessarily prevail. That is not what a wiki is about. Everyone should be happy if possible.

Anyway, Merry Christmas if you celebrate it and best wishes for the season. Dr Zen 09:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with Timbo that those who object to the picture are trolling. However another reason for accusing someone of trolling is that one is completely baffled, having made an honest attempt to understand the other chap's viewpoint, and finding that it is impossible. I share Timbo's bafflement, but don't draw his conclusion.

I'd like to make everybody happy, but I don't see that it's possible to do so. Sometimes consensus isn't possible and you have to settle for making the highest number of people happy. I'm a "hardliner" only in that I don't want people to remove useful information from the article on the grounds that somebody might not want to look at it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants anything removed. I think the way forward is a mechanism to allow the reader to censor pages for themselves. I understand your dislike for censorship and, believe me, in general I entirely support it. I would not be happy with a solution that eradicated the pictures altogether. But neither am I happy at all with the attitude that it just doesn't matter that some people are offended or don't share our view of what an encyclopaedia should be. I worship at the altar of inclusion, consensus and loving the alien, IYKWIM.

I hope you'll get behind (something like) VioletRiga's solution. At least accept that there is merit to both sides' views and work from there.Dr Zen 10:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well to me it certainly looked like a lot of people wanted this picture (and the one before it) removed, and some have openly argued that no picture is better than the current one (that's one example of an argument that I find baffling, by the way).

I've already commented on VioletRiga's innovation. I quite like it, and I've put a demonstration on talk:clitoris. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC on Everyking

Are you thinking of it? I know Reene is considering it but she's away. If one of you goes for it, I'm willing to endorse it. I hate to do it but the guy needs to start his own website if he doesn't want to be edited!Dr Zen 10:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not considering it. On top of Ambi's premature RfA call, the stalled mediation, and my own VfD nomination for his overspill article on album sales, I think it would amount to intolerable pressure on an otherwise good editor. It would drive him away and we'd lose his good work as well as his vanity work. I did think about it but decided that the best thing to do was withdraw from my editing of the page because I honestly don't believe the conflict can be resolved. There are other things that I can do with the time I would have spent on that article, performing edit after edit only to see nearly all of them reverted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Ambi thing did give me pause. Jumping in at the deep end like that was bad. I know Everyking will meet an immovable object one day, but I honestly don't want it to be me. It's just not worth it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't seem popular enough to be a "cabalist", so no such accusation shall be forthcoming from me. If you're just trying to get me over here to read the above exchange, I already read it. Everyking 23:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This talk of consensus from someone who deleted half of an article—factual, verifiable content—and then expected me to just live with it. Everyking 23:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're making false accusations again, Everyking. The thing about Wikipedia is that anybody who wants to can verify that you are doing so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The irony here is incredible. Everyking 23:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I discussed at great length the changes I wanted to make. You simply said no to all of them, claiming that everything you wrote was "essential".Dr Zen 23:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've never said all factual and verifiable information should be in Wikipedia. I'm not that radical of an inclusionist. I do, however, believe consensus should be reached regarding the removal of such information if there is any kind of controversy about it. Everyking 23:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You say that, and yet I routinely vote to delete articles on the grounds of non-notability. Everyking 09:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration against Everyking

I have sought arbitration against Everyking on RFAr after it has become clear he refuses to alter his attitude. As you have been involved, I was wondering if you would be keen on participating or contributing evidence if the case is accepted (or even just making a comment on the page). Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. Hopefully in the future we can get along better. Everyking 23:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's a minor matter that, given time and a bit of wikilove, the parties involved would have sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. — I'd just like to say one thing: speak for yourself and yourself only. You can have half a dozen people willing to be flexible and compromise (as you do here) but if there is one stone wall that won't budge no amount of time or wikilove will accomplish what needs to get done. After what Everyking has done here (some of which you may be unaware of) I feel no obligation to extend an olive branch and I no longer have any desire to be amiable with regards to him. The only thing I wish to accomplish is a ceasefire and a middle ground so this nonsense will stop. I tried asking for comments twice, then I tried mediation. It all failed. If arbitration is what it takes then there is no other alternative.

A minor note: if I sound slightly irritated it is because I am still technically on vacation. Please don't take it personally. I feel like these are slightly urgent matters, though, so waiting almost two weeks until I'm home again isn't really a viable option. →Reene^✎ 00:26, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I feel your pain

It is very frustrating. I don't believe there will ever be a solution. It is an ancient legacy. --Pravda 01:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are very pessimistic, "Pravda". Solutions can come about through conversating thru the talk pages! This is the key to wikipedia, have some faith brother.--Nasrallah 01:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverts

The comment on Pravda's page is standard boilerplate {{3RR}} that cautions newbies (and those who have a habit of violating policy) about the 3RR policy. You needn't read anything more into it than that. In one sense, I was helping Pravda by warning him/her about being blocked due to reversions. --Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)