At 01:28 PM 6/1/2003, you wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of
his good
edits, does it?
--LittleDan
Yes, it does. There is no such thing as a good
Michael edit. Unless you want to to go the trouble of
verifying that every single thing he wrote was
correct, don't even try to think that there is a good
Michael edit. And besides, Jimbo has said he is
banned until he sends him an email saying that he
wants to be reinstated. He is specifically
contraverting Jimbo's stand on the subject until such
a time, and because of that, and because of the
time-consuming problem of verifying each and every
thing he writes, blanket reversion is the only
recourse.
Zoe
I agree with Zoe. Let me put it this way. I don't care if Michael's only
edit to a given article is to correct the spelling of a single word, I'm
reverting it. I may then choose to edit the page myself and correct the
spelling myself, but I will not knowingly let Michael edit the Wikipedia,
under any circumstances. Well, I might make an allowance on a talk page,
but probably not.
-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
-Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321