"see previous talk at /Archive 17

 History of Coal Mining 

A long time ago you helped develop this article, Russia, South Africa and India are notably absent from the article, 
despite seemingly being major contributors.  I also added a short note about Ireland.  

It would be appreciated, if you could find some experienced contributors to help to write sections on the regions concerned.
  
thanks for the good suggestions. I revised and expanded the article.   

  and Westbrook Pegler 

I noticed your reversion of 's edits to the Westbrook Pegler article.  He has also made questionable edits to the William S. Burroughs article in which it is clear that he finds Burroughs' political views, or rather the views he implies Burroughs held, to be objectionable.  It seems that Betempte cannot make edits without adding his opinion about the subject.  This is something that may need to be watched.  Cheers! -The '45 

 United States edit 

Following a discussion at talk, my recent collaborative edit with Dancing Philosopher and Golbez copyedits the third United States intro paragraph with the lead transition sentences, 
A ""second war of independence"" in the War of 1812 secured U.S. territorial claims against the British Empire and guaranteed Canadian integrity. The United States then embarked on a vigorous program of expansion across North America throughout the 19th century. ...  
Could you give it a look-see relative to your background in the War of 1812?   
looks ok to me. )   

 Strange edit 

Can you explain this edit? It seems to me to replace perfectly good punctuation with strange punctuation that makes nonsense of the sentence. Have I misunderstood? I don't understand the edit summary comment about ""reject[ing] the Wikipedia ethos"", but whatever you think of an editor, that does not justify reverting a perfectly constructive edit.   
I have no problem with the commasbut the previous ""edit summary"" was obscene and disgusting and degrading to Wikipedia and could not be allowed to stand.  
I agree that the edit summary was unhelpful (though ""obscene and disgusting and degrading"" seems somewhat of an overstatement). However, to revert a good edit because you don't like the accompanying edit summary makes no sense, and besides, the edit summary still does stand, as reverting the edit does not remove the edit summary.   
the statement I consider obscene, disgusting and degrading was ""who wrote this originally? an illiterate american(did I just repeat myself), or a fucking 2 year old?)"". That bespeaks an editor who does not respect the Wikipedia ethosand a ""comma fanatic"" willing to make such outrageous statements over a trivial comma issue.   
The comma in question does seem to have affected the meaning of the sentence—it is not the sort of ""take it or leave it"" comma which only a comma fanatic would insist on. We may therefore be dealing with some sort of all-purpose grammar fanatic, who threatens myriad rude improvements. Only time will tell.   
OK, Rjensen, thanks for pointing that out. I had assumed that you were referring to the edit summary in the edit that you reverted in the edit I linked to. I agree that the anonymous user has been completely out of order in his/her ridiculous attacks on everyone he/she disagrees with, and I agree completely with your assessment of the edit summary you have qu