John Lee wrote:
On 8/13/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hughes_H-4_Hercules&diff=15013...
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@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.