User talk:Ptmccain

NOTE: trolling, personal attacks and personal remarks will be archived or deleted. Send personal messages via e-mail.

/Archive May 20, 2006 /Archive July 1, 2006 /Archive July 18, 2006

Stop POV edits and disruptive conduct

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1]:

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 [2]: "*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)[reply]

Thanks for that proposal

You'll see I have asked some questions. While I have a couple of changes I'd propose, I'd suggest they be dealt with in an environment where changes are made only by consensus; in other words, I believe I could convince SV in particular, as the original author of a couple of phrases, that there are better ways to do certain things. So, if this is a proposed complete resolution, I think it sounds very good. Sam 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I propose it as a complete revision, though objective analysis of it reveals it is a modest revision, retaining most of what SV did with it recently. I put it up on the talk page for discusssion after it was reverted, but I did sincerely believe SV and I had reached a consensus on trying to indicate persons' affiliations. I notice the person who reverted it was not a participant in any discussion. As the present form of the article now stands it contains an error in describing Rabbi Bernbaum. I also tried very hard to be respectful of SV's concerns about the wording. I even removed the person who seems to have been a source of concern on the part of some editors: Netto. But I notice that my revision was simply reverted with no discussion and my placement of the article on the talk page has now been described as "clogging." I believe it is still good to rise above the pettiness and let it be seen for what it is. I'm doing my best to be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF and I truly wish others would. But it would appear that one editor in particular, whomm I suspect actually of being two editors, is doing all he can to try to keep stirring up conflict and strife on the page. It's clear to me from the history that several of us have fed into that by responding in kind, me included, but that was not the right approach. That's why I believe the advice on WP:CIVIL is extremely wise. In such cases the best response is simply to ignore the person, forgive them, and respond as kindly as possible. Perhaps the editor will cool it, or if he persists, this then will be a matter to be taken up by Wiki administrators.Ptmccain 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete warnings from your user page

Please don't delete warnings from your talk page, as you just did [3]. You said in the edit summary "I've heard you. I apologized." You didn't apologize and you didn't hear me, because you've done the same thing over and over again. No, responding to a valid warning with a "retaliatory warning" is not an "apology."--Mantanmoreland 17:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]