On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:11 PM, S owl@spaz.org wrote:

Long time since I've posted

I made two edits to the Jesus article. The first dealt with the lede paragraph, and the second dealt with the etymology section. Leadwind reverted the edit and left a brief message: (reverted recent edits, lede should be 4 paragraphs not 5, controversy issue is not cited, see talk). I explained my edit on the talk. After I waited a while, Leadwind had not responded, so I restored my version, and considering his comments I removed paragraph I added on controversy.

Slrubenstein came along reverted my edits without comment or explanation on talk. I explained my edit on the talk page and the comment line again and waited a while for a reply. After a while I decided he was either somewhere else, in which case I would restore my version and we would deal with it when he got back, or else he was acting like an edit ninja and I could disregard him altogether. We were both cautioned about 3RR and the version stood as I left it - still with no discussion on the present issues from SLR. SLR commented on a previous issue which we were dealing with on the talk, but at that point we were dealing with the first issue of the lede, and on that he still said nothing. Nothing at all to back up his revert.

Orangemarlin came along and did the same thing. Instead of no comment at all, he simply said the issue was NPOV. I waited for an actual explanation on talk. Nothing, so I restored my version again, telling him that wasn't good enough just to call something NPOV without discussing it and backing it up. Fair enough?

So, in dealing with two edit ninjas, neither of whom gave two cents worth of reasoning for their reverts, on either comment or talk, other than NPOV. Now I don't know about you, but I have a problem with people claiming ownership of articles such that they think they don't have to deal with the actual content of an edit such as mine.

I got hit with warnings about "edit warring," and I was blocked. SLR now claims on AN3 that I am "lying" and conjectures that I "will no doubt respond to this either by dismissing me, or attacking me, or with some irrelevant ramble." Indeed. Of course, his explanation is not faithful to today's chronology, and has nothing to do with his reverts today, and he instead is dealing with a separate issue. Two separate issues, and separate edits. He has been responsive on the controversy issue, but not on the issue of the lede, and his unqualified reverts.

Now, in the course of yesterdays issues, SLR and I exchanged a few jabs. He called me a subtle anti-Semite, and I insinuated that he was a peddler of anti-Christian dogma disguised as scholarship. Other choice words such as "irrational" have been thrown around. I think I kept my cool for the most part.

I happen to really think the edit ninja concept is wonderful; it identifies a certain kind of editor that we've had on WP all along, (and now have a name for) without actually resorting to the use of an epithet, which one might feel quite inclined to do. I have respect for SLR, and have dealt with him for years. But his apparent responsiveness yesterday vanished today, and he acted like just another edit ninja. Orangemarlin followed suit, and likewise offered no substantive reason for asserting one version over another. He could have just left it alone, as SLR and I apparently were, as we both recieved 3RR warnings. But he didn't. He, like other admins like to do stuck his nose in without reason, and without addressing the substance.

Am I being a jerk here? ...For assuming that I deserve some kind of actual response and rationale when someone decides to just undo what Ive done? Should I just infer that other people know better than I do, and they should be able to just basically screw with people whenever they want to?

Stevertigo

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

I hav seen it spelt "Jesu" and pronounced "Yayzuu", and that's about all I know about the etymolojy. If you study other _modern_ languages, you might see it slur into "Yeshua". The basis for three different attitudes about his level of divinity? You could take any of it and troll USENET. I did. An edit from Praiseandworship concerns me more. There is no consensus on what colour Jesus was, and there is consensus that his image is idolatry at some venues (see iconoclast for a picture of G.B. Shaw 8-; ), so deleting the text that calls into question the accuracy of the image is an error. He could hav been blue or green for all anyone knows. As far as America is concerned these days, Jesus is black. Isaiah foretold that Jesus would be ugly. His effect on human unity certainly was. _______ Smurfs are from mars. Elves are from venus. Never says I told you to. Can you ride my ...