John Lee wrote:
On 8/13/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hughes_H-4_Hercules&diff=1501…
This is the kind of stuff that gets me down. I see some really crappy
prose. I attempt to copyedit it, distilling four separate references
to the plane's nickname ("spruce goose") down to one. Another user
reverts my edit with "Revert- non productive edit- that was an
improvement?"
Reverting is such an unpleasant thing to do to anyone, surely the
balance should be towards "don't revert unless the edit is really
bad", rather than "revert unless the edit is really good". Grr.
I recall Jimbo once said a long long time ago that a revert is akin to a
slap in the face. I've grown used to people not understanding this when they
revert someone else.
Johnleemk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It depends on the circumstances (there have been times when I've
certainly very knowingly engaged in BRD, and was well aware that the R
was going to happen as part of the road to D). Generally speaking,
though, if someone makes good-faith edits, they shouldn't be reverted
unless they're just beyond salvaging (or in cases such as an
unsubstantiated allegation against a living person, etc.). Regardless,
reverting anything but blatant vandalism should merit at -minimum-
leaving a note on the talk page as to why the revert was done so that
the issue can be discussed.