That is nasty. And can produce a lot of needless work. You have to look at the changes they made and save them if they have not made it too complicated, but definitely they are leading you into a trap. If you revert they have this complaint that you removed useful edits. I guess you have to balance the situation. If they have created reams of work by combining a revert with an edit it is their responsibility not yours to do all the extra work involved. This kind of behavior leads to two versions of the articles.
It's hard for someone not closely following the action to catch this sort of thing.
Fred
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:40:32 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:58:16 -0700
Never hurts to correct a typo while reverting, but its still a revert.
Fred
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:26:32 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
My question is, what about editors who revert while simultaneously (and deliberately) making non-trivial changes, so they can claim their edits
were
not a delete at all?
Jay.
The issue that I'm talking about is when an editor does a significant re-work of part of an article (say, re-wording or adding a number of sentences) while simultaneously reverting other parts of the article, in order to do a revert while being able to claim that they are doing substantive edits.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l