R E Broadley wrote:
When I went back to the users talk page, I noticed
that they had deleted
their talk page, along with the recent discussion on the reverts, but
thanks to Wikipedia history, I managed to capture the URL of a version
where the discussion was still there. It is here below:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:RickK&oldid=785916…
The reverts in question look fine to me. The edits were:
* Unexplained removal of text saying that the gospels were "compiled
from a much larger literature in 327AD under the orders of Constantine
the Great", rolled back
* Sneaky removal of an asterisk, breaking a bulleted list, rolled back
* Unexplained deletion of a paragraph, rolled back
This isn't a violation of policy. I think it's odd that Rebroad
characterised these edits as follows:
"I appreciate there were spelling mistakes that were obvious to you, but
I'm guessing they weren't obvious to the person who put some effort into
adding the additional information. And if you felt it was biased,
couldn't you have let them know this also?"
RickK was not correcting spelling or removing biased information, he was
reverting deletion. I think he was well within his rights to remove this
complaint from his talk page. I wouldn't mind if the complainant was
removed from this mailing list either.
-- Tim Starling