[WikiEN-l] Re: A user seems to have spent the day reverting articles which appeared to be legitamite edits

[R E Broadley]

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=7859165#Articles_reverted_but_no_reason_given 
>>
>>
>> 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.

>> -- Tim Starling
>
Thanks,
Edmund