At 01:28 PM 6/1/2003, you wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of his good edits, does it? --LittleDan
Yes, it does. There is no such thing as a good Michael edit. Unless you want to to go the trouble of verifying that every single thing he wrote was correct, don't even try to think that there is a good Michael edit. And besides, Jimbo has said he is banned until he sends him an email saying that he wants to be reinstated. He is specifically contraverting Jimbo's stand on the subject until such a time, and because of that, and because of the time-consuming problem of verifying each and every thing he writes, blanket reversion is the only recourse.
Zoe
I agree with Zoe. Let me put it this way. I don't care if Michael's only edit to a given article is to correct the spelling of a single word, I'm reverting it. I may then choose to edit the page myself and correct the spelling myself, but I will not knowingly let Michael edit the Wikipedia, under any circumstances. Well, I might make an allowance on a talk page, but probably not.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321