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=7859165...
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