Tim,
One of us is interpreting the diff displays backwards. I thought it was
RickK doing the deleting, (including the deletion of the asterisk).
I shall double-check.
Apologies in advance if it was me reading it wrong, although from one of
the comments RickK said to me, he did actually confirm that he was
removing stuff, which reinforced my belief that I was interpreting the
diff logs correctly.
Regards,
Edmund
Tim Starling wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l