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

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

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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>.

It's done, my friend. And the other task is done as well. I e-mailed you a second batch of files today, and once you confirm that you received them and were able to open them, I'll send you the final batch. I'm afraid I'm too busy to be doing much editing, though. Blessings. Musical Linguist 19:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch sent! Musical Linguist 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to disturb you, as you seem to be busy in real life, but please respond back at Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Another_attempt as soon as you can. Thanks!Bless sins 00:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I don't have the published version, but the lowercase seems to be correct. Paul B 08:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look, but I'm afraid it was beyond me! If I knew more about the whole background to the subject, I'd probably be in a better position to judge. Sorry. Musical Linguist 14:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry if you felt hurt - I was only having fun. The editors on The Beatles' pages often joke with each other, and it was definitely not a joke against you. We are a wonderful bunch, and you should join us. Trust me on this one, please... :) egde 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your reply. It might seem to be serious, but what can fans of a band that ceased to exist in the 1960s do? We're a hopeless case, but we do have fun. Read between the lines, and add some jokes of your own, which will be greatly appreciated. :) egde 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV is completely antithetical to the purpose of a respectable encyclopedia. In your case, however, you are (I presume) mostly unfamiliar with the subject matter, therefore content you are not familiar with can look very similar to POV. James Parkes' "The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue", Rabbi Harvey Falk's "Jesus the Pharisee", and Hyam Maccoby's work, is really required reading for this subject. If you're interested, you're welcome to enroll in the khavruta (distance learning program) provided by the Netzarim in Ra'anana, Israel (http://netzaril.co.il), which documents all of the basic information and earliest extant references in a very accessible manner.

Btw, by apostasy, I simply implied various events (or major people) that lead to the end of such sects, in chronological order. Few readers are familiar with how groups such as the ancient Netzarim and Evyonim mysteriously 'disappeared', so that section is important. Any other title for that section would easily do.

12.65.66.235 16:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ovadayah, I have seen you got involved in the Desposyni article. I have long held many concerns about this article and think it needs to be seriously redone, including retititling it (though I certainly cannot agree with you diagnosis that it was written in a conservative Catholic POV - quite the opposite) - regardless of this, it needs work. I hope we can cooperate in this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Str1977. I thought at first glance that the article could be polished up for GA without too much effort. My mistake. As you say, it needs to be seriously redone. That's why I put it in for Cleanup in April. Alas, no takers so far. I'm willing to spend more time on it with some other collaborators. I mistakenly assumed it was conservative Catholic POV because of the extensive quotes of Malachi Martin. All of these quotes were copied verbatim from some group's religious website. Ovadyah 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I have urgent business outside of WP and cannot devote much time to certain projects: the Dep. article has long been on the back of my mind. My intention was to have an article titled either "Holy Kin" or, if that is too controversial, "Brethren of Jesus" or "Relatives of Jesus" which covers all this from a neutral perspective, giving first what the sources say, New Testament, Church fathers, going to interpretations and theories. The Dep. would become a redirect or cut down to explaining the term (until today I never found it in the sources, now there is one source) and maybe, but just maybe, summarizing what M. Martin and fringe writers say about this.

I understand why you thought it conservative catholic but, to be honest, Martin's stance puzzles me: he was a very traditionalist Catholic, quitting the Jesuits because of this but at the same time writes stuff like this (as the articles says: without any sources I knew of) which fits neatly into the vein of esoteric writers. The website is some sort of esoteric pseudo-Jewish-Christian, pseudo-Essene group. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My replies to your four critiques on my talk page:

1. Well, I'm glad you're familiar with his writings (though that doesn't tell me whether or not you've actually read any of them), since a good encyclopedia is nowhere unless its editors have a rudimentary familiarity of the subject matter.

2. You're correct on certain terms: the very first documented proto-Christians, starting from 64 C.E. as a breakaway sect from the Beit Din in Jerusalem, called "Notzrim" (not Netzarim) in Hebrew, were Jews. Sha'ul of Tarsus (after his excision from the Netzarim always thereafter called Paul) was the ringleader of the breakaway group. Because I can't think of a better term in vernacular English for early followers of the rabbi from the Galil, "Jewish Christian" sticks...for now, even though it can convey the false impression that Judaism and Christianity were somehow mixed at any point in history. The facts that I cite are recognized by mainstream Judaism (see Jews for Judaism's http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/j4jlibrary/DaVinciCodeBook.pdf). Distinction should be made between that, and between the ancient Jewish followers of "Jesus" that remained in good standing with the Sanhedrin in the environment of ancient Judaism documented in Qumran scroll 4QMMT (do you know what I'm even referring to here?) As for the term "apostasy", it isn't POV. Look up 'apostasy' or 'apostate' in a dictionary and it will say something similar to 'abandonment or excommunication from the principals of a religious or national doctrine'.

3. This is the most insidious and destructive part of your critique. I never "invent" anything. A critique of my documentation of Hebrew, from someone that (I presume) can't read or speak Hebrew? Ancient Jews had Hebrew and Aramaic names, and they used them. If Wikipedia is "the sum of all human knowledge", then there is no reason to exclude that information from the database. Example: The name James "The Just" the son of Joseph. "James" is a further Anglicization of "Jacob", the Hebrew form of which is of course, Ya'aqov. Documented to be the "son of Joseph", which is Ben-Yoseiph in Hebrew. Finally, the title "The Just" is from the still-common-today ancient descriptor in Hebrew "ha-Tzadiq", meaning "the Righteous".

4. The picture depicts a professionally forensically-reconstructed Jewish face from the 1st century mainly for the purpose of depicting "Jesus" according to the most comprehensive archaeological information, as well as others from that era and location, which of course would have included all "Jewish Christians". It much more accurately represents the subject matter than an oil-painted image of a Nordic-Aryan man.

Again, those that are not sufficiently familiar with the documented facts should not be the final judges of whether or not those facts are most properly applied in the encyclopedia. Otherwise, don't get too involved in it; those that aren't sufficiently educated in Evolutionary science become "Creationists" that falsely criticize Evolution as having "no evidence" or being "just a theory", but they're documented to be wrong. 12.65.66.235 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have read one book by that man and heard more about him. Not that I agree with his speculations.

2. Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy. Beit Din nonsense. Christianity (not by that name of course, but still the same thing) started as a Jewish sect alongside of the Pharisees (with which they were closest), the Saducees, the Essenes, the Zealots. Only the former two survived. Christianity became eventually more and more ethnically gentile (as many gentiles adopted it, while most Jews rejected Jesus), the heart of Jewish Christians was destroyed by the destruction of Jerusalem 132/5. Some Jewish Christian groups continued on their own (including the Ebionites). Shaul did not lead a breakaway group (oh, utter fantasy) but was an important missionary of early Christianity, a former pharisee and persecutor. He called himself Paul (his Roman name) when he entered a gentile setting, you can browse in Acts when the name first appears). Of course there were conflicts in regard to whether the gentile converts should be subjected to the whole law of Moses, but Paul, Barnabas, James the Just, John, Peter all agreed that they shouldn't. Whether anything you call mainstream Judaism accepts this is highly irrelevant. "Good standing with the Synedrion? Well, it was the highest law court until the year 70. 4QMMT was written way before Jesus' birth. "Apostasy" implies that those called apostates fell away from their earlier beliefs. In applying it you are claiming that your fantasy nonsense is not only fact but true. But there was no apostasy of Paul or anyone from the teaching of the Apostles.

3. Of course you invent names. I gladly accept any Hebrew or Aramaic name you can provide from extant sources. There is no such source that calls James, brother of the Lord "Yakob ha Tzadik". Sure, I agree that Jews at the time would have called him by that name (or by his patronym) but unless sources say so, it is OR. The worst is your invention of a Hebrew name for the father of Simon. We don't know the Hebrew name of Clopas, we don't even have a proper clue about it (as opposed to the easy ones Yakob, Simon, Yehuda, Yeshua). Inventing such names and placing them as if we had any secure knowledge of them is OR and archeologism.

4. "The picture depicts a professionally forensically-reconstructed Jewish face ..." - Indeed. But it is still not Jesus. I don't object to the picture being used in the Jesus article with a proper caption, as its makes claimed "this is how Jesus MIGHT have looked like". I have seen the programme myself years ago. The arguments never convinced me. In any case, there have been long discussions about this on the Jesus page. In any case, it is much to controversial for a Template, which appears all over WP. And no, it is not more accurate than the supposedly "Nordic-Aryan" (Aryans are from Iran and India, BTW) - the painting at least actually shows Jesus, the reconstruction just shows some hypothetical average-Levantine-Joe. If you ask me, how Jesus looked like, go there. But I don't insist on any picture for that template (maybe a fish would be good) but I oppose that fictious image.

Finally, could you please get rid of your unbearable arrogance, lecturing others about WP, assuming that they know nothing about the subject, that they shouldn't edit at WP - I am a registered editor with over 16,000 edits at WP in over two years, who are you? what do you have? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't want to reconcile? That's alright... In the future, I should (as well as anyone) maintain a cool head during polemics, and keep it friendly. I probably shouldn't have ever argued with in the first place with me being just a student; debating the accuracy of the 4th century Greek NT (I vote in the negative) requires that the foremost in the field be doing so, such as the only person in history that has reconstructed every NT text from all earliest extant source documents (Paqid Yirmeyahu). Peace man, no hard feelings. 12.65.66.235 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thanks for your very helpful posts about matter and form and history of communion under both kinds. Since you stayed at the article and showed interest in other issues there, I don't feel that I forced you into giving up your time on something that you weren't really interested in. By the way, there's an article Communion under both kinds, which I think should have a little bit more about other denominations. I might have a go at adding to it over the summer, but it's not an urgent matter for me at the moment. Hope you're enjoying nice weather in Germany, if that's where you are. ElinorD (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently participated in the above RfA. I would comment that you placed your "oppose" vote in the neutral section. Please could you move it to the appropriate place. Thanks. ps. I have tallied it as an oppose, so I would be grateful if you could move it a.s.a.p. LessHeard vanU 21:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it has been moved for you... LessHeard vanU 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977 -- I noticed you started to edit Jesus-myth hypothesis. Right now everyone is getting reverted on anything but I don't think that can hold up for long. The agreement was to make this an article about a particular group of writers rather than being an article about "the truth". So in other words its trying to accurately describe a theory not trying to describe reality. Chensiyuan version shows you where it is headed. Would you be interested in working together on this (since Atheist + Christian would kill most POV claims)? jbolden1517^Talk 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the history you are working on the presplit version. Thanks for being willing to act as a 3rd partyjbolden1517^Talk 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well essentially its an entirely different version of the article (for after the split). Latest version is [1]. jbolden1517^Talk 17:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your following me from article to article in an attempt to revert NPOV edits to be wikistalking. Please refrain from such behavior. Orangemarlin 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OM, that is a pretty heavy accusation. Normally, I would simply say that I would not expect such behavior from an editor like STR, but I went ahead and checked the contribs for you both. I don't see the evidence to back up such a claim. Rather, it appears that you both share an interest in some of the same topics - and happen to be at loggerheads right now. The reason I would state it in that way is that you have made edits to unrelated topics (e.g., Treasure ship and Tessarakonteres) that STR has not been anywhere near; and similarly, he has made edits to articles that have nothing to do with your current disagreement. Pastordavid 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OM, listen to Pastordavid here. I realize you've been editing some highly controversial topics, but be aware Str1977 has been here a long time, and is no newbie to those topics either. Perhaps you're a bit twitchy; reconsider this please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any change either to disrupt WP or to spite Orange but each and everyone purely for the topic's sake. It is however true that I had a look whether Orange displays the same, IMHO aggressive behaviour elsewhere - unfortunately he did but that was not the point of my changes. That is not wiki-stalking in any sense of the rulings cited above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive? BAH!!! Orangemarlin 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about your vengeful attitude. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Str, Om is clearly unhappy about the articles being split and rewritten over a period of a very few days, almost exclusively by two editors. And you know, I agree with him. This was not Gaining consensus before making major edits to a contentious subject, this was DE. That he has become frustrated enough, and twitchy enough, to be thinking your actions might be considered stalking, or that you've been editing the post-split-and-rewrite version of the article and hence caught in the crossfire, but surely you can find a less accusatory word than vengeful? Please reconsider this. You are commenting on the contributor, not the content, and failing to AGF, none of which is like you. Please take a moment to consider how we can move forward in a more productive fashion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeful??? That implies that I want to take revenge on you, which isn't true. So apparently you are mindreading again (please, move on to another career path), and in doing so you confused my thinking that you are assisting a travesty, and I'm going to put my foot down with the word vengeful. You really should get your mindreading skills fixed, because they are failing you.Orangemarlin 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a few minutes reviewing your edits in several articles. I'm going to go with the Killer puppy that you aren't stalking, though you kept showing up at various articles that I was editing. It's still curious that you would, but it might be an intersection of interests. You have called me several names, and I have called you nothing. That's a negative point for you. I reverted without adequately explaining my intent. Maybe a -.0000001 point for me. OK, maybe slightly more. I'm personally concerned that you did not take the time to review my reasoning of reverts. I had been clear several times, and I did not feel it was necessary or useful to explain myself for the 18th time. Also, I saw several positive comments towards you from dab, bachman and borden, all of whom decided to destroy the article. You appeared to be a part of that group, but others are saying you were just caught in the crossfire. I actually chose not to read your edits, because you were editing a version that was unacceptable to several of us. Yet, you continued to edit them without either listening to or maybe accepting our concerns with the base article. I've read your edits, and why they appeared to be OR and POV to me was that you were enhancing the OR and POV of the original document (meaning the destroyed one, not the original one). Please please please wait for us to get back to the original article. Orangemarlin 02:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hit save before I wanted to. Last point. If you understand what I'm saying, then I want peace, and your help to reconstruct the original article and improve from there. On Noah's Ark, you need to review past commentary about mythical ships. If you don't agree with the consensus formed there, then you need to either build a new consensus, or relax. But forcing POV edits where a consensus was formed isn't fair to the whole host of editors that got there first. I have been told that you are long-time editor. It's interesting that you show up suddenly to several articles, where I've never seen your name. Then you go chasing me across a whole host of articles. Hence the accusation of stalking. But if you can see what I'm saying, you don't have to agree, but it will bring peace. That's all for now. Orangemarlin 02:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, one more thing. Don't copy my talk page to other locations. That's what trolls do. If you really are what everyone says you are (and I put it this way because I don't see it, it's just that people I trust are saying that you are a good guy), you wouldn't do trollish things like copy my page. Orangemarlin 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange,

I did not call YOU names but commented on what I think unacceptable behaviour. You may disagree but it is not name-calling.

You didn't call me either .... and that was actually what I complain about. That you didn't tell me your concerns.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept your explanation that I was "caught in the cross-fire": I did not edit based Jbolden's version - he was reverted quite independent of me and my edits - you did revert only my edits. And even if your explanation were true (I guess you reverted me without lookin under the impression that I upheld Jbolden) simply repeated unexplained reverting is not solution to this. :If you do "not read edits" than you should not revert them. "Yet, you continued to edit them without either listening to or maybe accepting our concerns with the base article." Not at all - I discussed several items on the talk page and got a go ahead. You reverted me asking where this was discussed but when I pointed it out to you, you didn't react (except by reverting).

Nor can I accept the reasoning that I was editing based on a disputed version (untrue, except from jbolden's perspective) and that was reason enough to revert me. If I revert someone on another page I must ensure that later valid edits do not get lost. And if I don't deem them valid, I must explain my case.

I also object to your deeming me guilty by association. I had contacts with Dbachman before (I can't remember where) but not on this article.

I will not get involved much on Noah's Ark but must say that article's are always subject to change, categories included. That's what the disclaimer on the edit page says. But never mind. I agree that the Ark is a mythological ship under a certain definition of mythology (with which I disagree but which happens to be accepted). The treasure ship however doesn't seem to fit that word under any accepted definition.

I copied your talk page content to the article talk page to get the discussion going. Had you only replied to me or would others not have ignored the issue, thinking jbolden the only issue worth rising, it wouldn't have come to this.

I am willing to let bygones be bygones and hope for peace. Could you please indicate on the talk page which of the several version is acceptable to you so that I can work on it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much confused where we stand now. I'll focus on it. Sorry about the guilt by association, but I pulled out a shotgun, because a sniper rifle was just not as efficient. I couldn't think of a better metaphor, so please don't think I was considering violence (I hate being misinterpreted). I'll try to figure out where we stand with the article. Orangemarlin 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mythology/not debate is getting well and truly underway. I see you edited against mythology and thought you might be interested in weighing in. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. An image you had previously uploaded, Image:AbortionLawsMap05.jpg, did not have a licensing tag. Another editor has tagged the image as {{GFDL-presumed}}. You may wish to visit the image page and provide the correct license. You can view a list of all the image licensing tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All. The image risks being nominated for deletion as failing to have a license. Many of these {{GFDL-presumed}} image are used on User pages. --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Go ahead and add your own license to the map. It's a derivation of an old version of Image:AbortionLawsMap.png, so, technically, it's not my work, and I wouldn't want to take credit for it (sort of like how AbortionLawsMap is based on Image:BlankMap-World.png). -Severa (!!!) 08:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Upon looking into it further, I saw that he had released it into the public domain which makes it A-OK for you to do with as you please. Sorry for any confusion. Zsinj^Talk 12:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the virgin birth does not apply just to Islam, but why should it be in Christianity alone? Is there anyway we can somehow solve it and put it in both? Or is the purpose of the Islam section just to point out where we differ from Christianity (which is rather depressing). The reason I put Virgin Birth there was to hint at the other miracles at Jesus' birth besides his mother's virginity, ie him talking as a baby and bringing inanimate objects to life in the Qur'an (and in the Gospel of Thomas II). --Enzuru 20:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. I'll think about a nice way of doing that. --Enzuru 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some links to online forums in this article. Kevin 05:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind, if you have time, to take a look at the recent edits to the intro to God and the talk page posts concerning it? Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, you did more than I'd hoped. I know you're busy, so I hesitated to ask - and much appreciate the improvements you've made! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

Greetings, I notice you're not using the talk page to talk about re-adding the same anti-Catholicism section to Rosie O'Donnell that has been removed so I am bringing the discussion to you directly in good faith that you will read this and refrain from reposting that section until the following issues are addressed. The topic has been discussed at length and two of the points to the section you keep re-adding that you might want to consider.

"Quoting an inflamatory press release about two celebrities doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic to me. In context of the rest of the article I could see a phrase added "accused of being anti-Catholic for views on____" but the entire section needs to go unless beefed up and vetted." As a result the press release quote was removed and the abortion comments were moved into the intro section of The View.

"if this section is to have any meaning what is needed are quotes of what she said, not just what Donohue characterized it as. This is no more than his biased opinion, backed up only by his own POV press release. NO independent reporting whatsoever. The whole thing should go - it is clearly pushing a POV."

O'Donnell may very well be anti-Catholic but to re-add the section please find her quotes, if she is anti-Catholic these should be easy to come by from NPOV references and links. Benjiboi 18:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again please address the issues referenced above and on the talk page of the article before adding back a section that had previously been removed and tagged as NPOV before it was removed. The issues remain the same, Donahue and the Catholic League are not neutral and their press release quote is general innapropriate for an encyclopedia. The only other newsworthy quote I've found related to O'Donnell possibly being anti-catholic is her refering to pedophile priests moving from parish to parish because the Catholic Church was afraid of lawsuits. Benjiboi 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted about this at WP:AN/3RR, but obviously, I didn't want to pretend I was a neutral administrator offering an unbiased review of the block, and even more obviously, it would be highly improper for me to unblock you! Cheer up. Think of the user who was huffing and puffing and spluttering and calling for my desyopping and banning last year because he submitted an invalid report against you and I refused to take action. No doubt if he sees this, he'll be singing my praises for not unblocking you! Musical Linguist 00:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having examined the report, this block appears to be an error on Jossi's part. Hopefully you will be unblocked soon.Proabivouac 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been unblocked. Sorry about the delay; jossi asked for a review which I did and promptly went offline, unaware he had also gone offline. I was thinking he wanted my review and would be making any corrections himself, whereas it seems he was asking me to check and take action. My error entirely. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977 is a good editor. I've worked with him for 2 years and I don't recall any 3RR incidents involving him during that period. It's unclear to me, from looking through the edit history at Rosie O'Donnell, at which point the edit conflict actually began. It seems that the "Accusations of Anti-Catholicism" section had been in the article for a while, first being inserted on February, 20 2007 by Mamalujo. It was removed from the article on May 31, 2007 by Benjiboi, and then reinserted on June 11 by Mamalujo, the editor who added it in the first place. Benjiboi took it out again on the next day. I don't support "class detention"-type 3RR blocks, but, in this case, I don't think we can hold a single editor responsible for having edit-warred to advance their preferred version of the article (I am assuming good faith on the part of everyone involved). The edit conflict between Benjiboi and Mamalujo over the "anti-Catholicism" section had evidently been going on for a while before Str1977 entered the fray. That said, though, I am a little concerned by how much of the O'Donnell article is dedicated to personal controversies and how little to biographical background. -Severa (!!!) 03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro, KC, Severa, thanks for all your support.

However, I (or rather my IP) happen to still be blocked, so if anyone reads this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need more info to unblock. A block ID or an IP address would suffice.--Chaser - T 06:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock-auto}}

Give us the ID of the autoblock, otherwise we can't lift it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort. Sorry for replying so late but I was offline the whole day. Apparently it works now. Don't know what happened. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good that you have been unblocked. I hope such errors will not happen again. Beit Or 10:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope so. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I was working to avoid an edit war throughout this process. Also I pretty much had nothing to do with the previous edit wars (if there were any) and had little to no interaction with Mamalujo. I also did not, in fact, simply removed the section but split it as documented both before and after in the talk pages. Although my interest was not in getting someone blocked but actually improving the article I still feel the article is worse off than before because that section is as it was. A disappointing experience but a good lesson learned before I spent more time. I appreciate that Str1977 may be a wonderful editor but my experience was less than stellar, and I feel like a lot of my time and research was not only wasted but ridiculed. Benjiboi 12:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply more detailed later but I find it hard to believe this story. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi, you filed two defective 3RR reports in just over 24 hours. The first was dismissed, the second was just confusing enough to result in a block and an ensuing debate. Whatever your intentions, such junk reports waste people's time, are objectively disruptive, and are no more a substitute for dispute resolution than is edit warring. As WP:ANI/3RR exists to report actual violations only, please familiarize yourself thoroughly with WP:3RR before proceeding.Proabivouac 20:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]