steven l. rubenstein said:
Dante Alighieri blocked Jalnet 2 and me for a day, because we both violated the 3 revert rule. There is nothing I can do about it, but I do want to point out (and for now, this is the only available venue) that I think this is an example of a frivolous application of the rule. I know that the rule involves 3 reverts to a person, but in this case the multiple reverts were over several different edits (in other words, we were not just rallying between keeping or deleting the same text). Furthermore, both Jalnet2 and I were communicating our reasons for the various edits.
How about, don't get into edit wars? By your own edit comments on [[Race]], you made 5 edits there over two days, every one of which was a revert. Your last two reverts were removals of the word "some" from a statement about the rise of population genetics. Was it really necessary for this word to be removed from the article after a mere fifty minutes? If you'd changed to "nearly all" the second time you wouldn't be reading this email. In the two before that you completely removed a reference to Risch et al. Couldn't you just have changed the description? This was a published paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics, purporting to find a link between racial self-identification and DNA profile, so you could hardly claim that it isn't relevant to the subject. I see no discussion about Risch on the talk page. You also say that nobody supported JalNet's edits. Well if that were the case why the hurry to perform these reverts? Wouldn't it have been better to wait for some of the other editors, who also opposed Jalnet, to either edit or revert? You couldn't compromise with your fellow editors so you were benched. Tough, but that's how it is.