Talk:Jesus/Archive 67

message: In more than two weeks no consensus has emerged in the survey. Please continue to discuss.  Meanwhile I am unprotecting the article and request all editors to show restraint. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Homestarmy. I don't. If you read Aiden's post about un-protecting the article (now archived), he makes it quite clear that he believes an edit-war is inevitable, and, as evidenced by this change, seems perfectly ready to fire the opening salvo. I find it disappointing and distasteful in the extreme.Kevin/Last1in 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless he fires another "salvo", i'd say there isn't much to worry about yet. But instead of being so eager to jump the gun, why don't we just file an RfC if things start to get out of control again? Homestarmy 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize as I didn't read this comment before filing the RfC. :-( אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, H, you have my apologies. Thirty-two separate editors have been working (as various levels of involvement) for a month at least on the issue(s) surrounding templates. I find it extremely unpleasant for one editor to suddenly abrogate that work. You're right, though, I need to step back. Kevin/Last1in 19:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, Aiden. Let me hit those points in order:
*Yes, the top of the article was the original home for the Christianity template (I'll call it the CT to save space), but only until the Jesus template (the JT) was developed and applied. Now that there is a JT, the question becomes, shouldn't the CT appear with Christian Views, just like the Islam template resides in the appropriate section? 
*When there is no consensus, the normal process is to leave it alone until consensus is reached. Your frequent revert wars do not help us reach that consensus.
*The "not in good faith" issue relates specifically to your statement that, regardless of consensus, people would return to edit warring as soon as the lock was removed. My statement was that you, Aiden, were saying that you did not believe other editors would act in good faith. 
*Actually, no, I did NOT advocate the change. If you'll think back to your revert-war over "God the Son" that ended up in a quest to eliminate the CT entirely, I voted to keep the CT at the top of the article. I only objected to it and its associated revert war once the JT (which is excellent, since we have a plethora of Jesus-related articles) was applied and the CT moved to the appropriate section. By your logic (that since Christ a major fixture in Christianity, the CT must therefore be at the top) we'd have a dozen templates up there, from Catholicism to Islam to the LDS. That is untenable, and since the only template that is specific to the article's subject is the JT, I feel it should remain at the top. That is the extent of my "advocacy". 
*Yes, I think a controversial change (like the one you keep making in the middle of a consensus discussion) should wait until consensus has been reached. I can only see a couple of weeks (cumulative time) where the CT and JT were both jammed into the top of the article, not months. Frankly, the article has been locked longer than your arrangement prevailed. 
*Finally: You are unquestionably correct; your prediction that a revert war would start immediately upon the unlocking of the article came true. Most self-fulfilling prophesies do. The same is true if I predict that some random dog is dangerous and then kick him a few times: WOW! He bit me! I told you he was a menace! I don't WANT to tango, and I don't participate in edit wars; I do decry them, as I have here. Kevin/Last1in 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: PS to Homestarmy: Well, I guess I blew the whole "stepping back" thing, huh? Kevin/Last1in 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A revert war cannot involve one party. I stated well in advance that as no consensus had been reached I would restore the original template layout which existed prior to this big mess. This I did. This another user reverted. My prediction about another revert-war was not self-fulfilling prophecy, it was an accurate assesment of the bitter climate on this article as of late and the strong chance that someone would in fact force this change with no consensus achieved. To answer your question: No I do not believe the Christianity template should come before the Jesus template and I have stated that this "issue" is easily solved with a floating table. However, in an effor to end this mountain of a mole-hill, I propose this compromise: Place the Christianity template in the Life and teachings based on the Gospels section. This account of Jesus is obviously an integral part of Christianity and comes straight from its cannon. This would emphasize the importance of Jesus to Christianity while allowing the Jesus template to remain at the top. —Aiden 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Life...Gospels solution is far better than having everything jammed at the top. I would certainly support it. Frankly, I've never understood why the words, Christian Views, was not the over-title of that section, anyway; I didn't want to "go there" because I didn't have time to read 64 pages of archived talk. As for your apparent conviction that a "war" starts with the second shot, I just don't get that. In my worldview, a deliberately provocative act (ANY act that a person reasonably believe will result in a battle) is the "start". IMHO, if you had not moved the Christian Template within hours of the article being unlocked, the consensus-building would have continued without problems. You could have made your suggestion, and it probably would have been approved without the strife that the move engendered. Kevin/Last1in 03:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't mistake my reverts with not wanting to solve the dispute. My reverts were a matter of principle: that one should not force a contentious change to an article BEFORE a consensus is achieved. I felt (and still feel) that the template layout should remain as it was until we agree to change it, not vice-versa. However, let's let bygones be bygones. I think the compromise template layout is something everyone can agree on. —Aiden 05:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: To involved editors:  and  – Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not violated the 3R rule nor do I intend to. —Aiden 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not asserting that you or others did. Just happened to see the revert war and though that will be useful to warn editors. As you probably already know, reverting one another seldom accomplishes anything beyond increasing wikistress. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I regret engaging in the revert-war. However, I still feel that concerning such a contentious change, the original version should stand until we agree to change it, not the other way around. —Aiden 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your concern is greatly appreciated, Jossi. A personal rule of mine as of late is to revert twice and if that doesn't solve it, leave it alone and either pick up or continue with WP:DR. If Aiden persists when a period greater than 24 hours is up, I plan to stick to my code. Peace and thanks:  --The Thadman 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a good idea.  I put some very firm requests on your and Aiden's pages, but it looks as if it was unnecessary if you both resolve not to continue edit warring.  It would be polite to continue trying to find consensus on the matter of the template without making us protect the article, which stops any other edits being made in the meantime. --Tony Sidaway 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3RR]] warning