I understand your concern. But your understanding of what happened is not accurate. The edits in question today - the object of the reverts - was never dealt with in substance on talk. SLR's response today dealt with the issue I raised yesterday, namely the issue of Yeshua as Jesus' actual Hebrew name in life. This issue is certainly debatable, and I give thoughtful consideration to everything SLR has to say on that subject. But it was not the subject of the edits I made today. The issue today had to do with how the lede paragraph dealt largely with the concept of Jesus being an "incarnation of God". Not all Christians agree with this, and in reality this needs qualification, as being a Nicene Creed concept not a concept belonging to all of Christianity. I simply clarified this issue. I also separated Islam from the lede to the second paragraph. As Islam does not regard Jesus as the object of its religion, it needs separate treatment. SLR responded to neither of these issues, and gave no explanation for his reverts. I don't know why? Did he just assume that I was re-adding the material we were dealing with yesterday? Reverting without explanation - I think this kind of action to be ninja behavior, not wikipedian behavior. Stevertigo Oscar wrote: Listen, I'm very sympathetic to your desire to be able to edit Wikipedia freely, but this isn't just any article. This is the article on *Jesus*. As in, half the world thinks he saved humanity. As in, probably one of the articles that get the most attention from the most committed users, who ruthlessly guards the article. Every single word, sentence and comma probably have fifteen different sources and have been hammered out to conform to some sort of consensus. You can't expect to go in and change the lede of an article like this without discussing it first. It's just not gonna happen! I'm not familiar with the article in question, but from looking at the talk page, the issue you raised had indeed been discussed at length before (according to Slrubenstein, at least). If you want to edit articles like [[Jesus]] (or [[George W. Bush]], or whatever controversial subject you can think of), you have to expect to be frequently reverted, especially if the issue has been dealt with previously. Every single edit that makes some substantive change should be discussed. Seriously, this is *Jesus* we're talking about, you can't just go in and expect your edits to be accepted. Hash it out on the talk-page, that's the right place for it, not the mailing-list. --Oskar