Tim,
I have double checked (you had me wondering!), and I stand by what I
said in the email yesterday. I've included my replies below.
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
^ Why was this rolled back? Was it
factually incorrect? If so, why
doesn't RickK say this and how he knows it to be incorrect? It looked
like a good-faith edit to me.
* Sneaky
removal of an asterisk, breaking a bulleted list, rolled back
^ Someone else
added the asterisk, fixing a bullet list. RickK rolled
back the fix!
* Unexplained
deletion of a paragraph, rolled back
^ Again, the other way around.
RickK's revert causes the unexplained
deletion.
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.
^ I hope you'll
permit other people to validate which of us in correct
first.
Thanks,
Edmund