| Revision as of 08:49, 11 May 2006 editRexmorgan (talk | contribs)232 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:52, 11 May 2006 edit undoCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :::::Did you miss that I was the first person to ask what they found objectionable with the alterations? Right now all I can see going on here is that you are attempting to assert ownership of this template against two other editors trying to make improvements. I do hope you'll be more considerate and willing to discuss in the future. --] 08:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | :::::Did you miss that I was the first person to ask what they found objectionable with the alterations? Right now all I can see going on here is that you are attempting to assert ownership of this template against two other editors trying to make improvements. I do hope you'll be more considerate and willing to discuss in the future. --] 08:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::::: I am discussing. I am also requesting that a consensus be reached before making such broad changes. That is not unreasonable. ] 08:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | :::::: I am discussing. I am also requesting that a consensus be reached before making such broad changes. That is not unreasonable. ] 08:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::You reverted the rotating crucifix. I do not understand. That change was made to make the image more NPOV by showing it from all angles. --] 08:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:52, 11 May 2006
What is the complaint about the NPOV version of this template? --Gmaxwell 07:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. The template serves an obvious purpose, of which one of the primary points would be not a page long. If the namespace is a concern, then delete this template and migrate the original one to the user space, and provide a redirect. Rexmorgan 07:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I get the joke, as does anyone else who wondered what broke their user page. While I am not amused, I can't say I'm above such a thing and so I appreciate the humor. But let's be mature here - we all know that such a change can't seriously be intended to replace the previous one. Templates are not articles, and design and intent must be taken into consideration when working within the space of each template. The replacement satisfies all NPOV concerns, as anyone can claim to be anything without any regard to fact or view. I hope we can act like adults and leave it be. Rexmorgan 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I find your condescending tone quite insulting. Can you please try to be civil? I don't see how you can try to exclude the template namespace from NPOV with a straight face. Of course the one liner doesn't satisfy NPOV. What is a christian? By whos definition? etc. Please do not remove cited material. --Gmaxwell 08:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- The link provides extensive information on "what is a Christian", which is the purpose of an article. A template is not an article on a topic. The link alone serves the entire purpose of the issues you listed.
- Indeed it does, but it does not provide additional information about the users affiliation with Christianity. That can only be provided in the template and since the template can be used by so many people with so many differing views, we must be comprehensive. It wouldn't be acceptable to be discriminatory. Thanks for your pointers about the sized induced layout problems, I've checked about 20 pages where it's used and they all look okay now with the reduced image. --Gmaxwell 08:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that I must make another reversion in order to get a response on this page, so that I shall do. I believe it is considered to be thoughtful, even considerate perhaps, and certainly in good taste to check with peers before doing a complete overhaul of an item. The change you are making is unreasonably disruptive to the pages it is linked to. Please address this issue before proceeding and attempt to reach some semblence of a concensus. Rexmorgan 08:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I'm concerned that you may be becoming overtly uncivil. As you can see, multiple users are working on these revisions. I would appreciate it if you would relax the ultimatums, especially since they are completely unwarranted. --Gmaxwell 08:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have not made any ultimatims. Please try to follow guidelines and make every reasonable effort to reach a consensus. There is a number of things you and Cyde could do to make the revision more legitimate. For example, checking with the authors of some of the pages that reference the template to see if they find it suitable. No one person's opinion of "looks okay" is more legitimate than another's, which is why we have the discussion pages. Rexmorgan 08:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Did you miss that I was the first person to ask what they found objectionable with the alterations? Right now all I can see going on here is that you are attempting to assert ownership of this template against two other editors trying to make improvements. I do hope you'll be more considerate and willing to discuss in the future. --Gmaxwell 08:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am discussing. I am also requesting that a consensus be reached before making such broad changes. That is not unreasonable. Rexmorgan 08:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- You reverted the rotating crucifix. I do not understand. That change was made to make the image more NPOV by showing it from all angles. --Cyde Weys 08:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am discussing. I am also requesting that a consensus be reached before making such broad changes. That is not unreasonable. Rexmorgan 08:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Did you miss that I was the first person to ask what they found objectionable with the alterations? Right now all I can see going on here is that you are attempting to assert ownership of this template against two other editors trying to make improvements. I do hope you'll be more considerate and willing to discuss in the future. --Gmaxwell 08:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have not made any ultimatims. Please try to follow guidelines and make every reasonable effort to reach a consensus. There is a number of things you and Cyde could do to make the revision more legitimate. For example, checking with the authors of some of the pages that reference the template to see if they find it suitable. No one person's opinion of "looks okay" is more legitimate than another's, which is why we have the discussion pages. Rexmorgan 08:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I'm concerned that you may be becoming overtly uncivil. As you can see, multiple users are working on these revisions. I would appreciate it if you would relax the ultimatums, especially since they are completely unwarranted. --Gmaxwell 08:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- The link provides extensive information on "what is a Christian", which is the purpose of an article. A template is not an article on a topic. The link alone serves the entire purpose of the issues you listed.