i think that at the level of basic fundamental principles we may actually be in agreement i would agree that it's inappropriate for editor a to insert a format that editor a knows is non standard and then request a consensus before it's overturned by editor b as soon after the posting as is reasonably practicable or at least provide some explanation for using this non standard format we presumably disagree as to whether in the subject instance editor a knew or even suspected the information the year of death for the author who had just died that week which editor a added to the article was in a non standard format so then if that were the case as to editor a i think then that editor b should obtain a consensus before changing or deleting in its entirety the information added by editor a in a format that editor b acting alone without a consensus believes in good faith to be a non standard format i think that except in the very rare case where there can be no reasonable belief that editor a was acting with a good faith belief that he was adding to the article but rather he was vandalizing it should editor b proceed to delete or edit the work of editor a without first obtaining a consensus or at the very least to receive a favorable response to his request to editor a that there be a change i believe that a procedure like this is in compliance with assuming good faith which as you know is a fundamental principle on wikipedia it is this assumption that other editors' edits and comments are made in good faith wikipedia assume good faith that i think is what is missing in the approach taken by editor b that is that editor b should have approached the work the newly added inserted information of editor a with the assumption that we are all supposed to be operating under at all times that editor a s additions deletions revisions etc were made in good faith and that being the assumption it cannot be appropriate for editor b to single handedly and without a consensus delete all or even part of editor s a work does that strike you as an outrageous proposition i mean presumably editor a and b share common flaws of imperfection found in so many humans and presumably going into the issue without any knowledge of the other editor neither editor can presume that he is absolutely correct in every aspect and that anyone who views anything differently than he is a vandal intent on destroying wikipedia isn t it at the outset basically a proposition when an editor goes to delete the newly added information by another editor that he may be wrong in making that deletion and if it s shouldn t he ask for a consensus before deleting the work of another editor or at a bare minimum contact the other editor and have some reasonable assurance that editor a has received his note email posting etc before deleting editor a s work i might comment that in our situation it was not an instance of editor a changing something that was already on the page and then editor b seeing what was obviously an act of vandalism in the changes by editor a reverting those changes not at all editor a added new information the year of death for an author who had just died and editor b believing that it was presented in a non standard format to have this information at that particular place deleted it editor b believed that this date information belonged if anywhere only on a page devoted to the author himself and nowhere on a page the subject of which was the author s work in this instance a book i do in fact disagree with editor b on that point i find it very useful to see when during an author s lifetime and also in relation to significant world events an author or artist wrote or published or created a particular piece of work articles about the book or other work when discussing the writing and publishing virtually always includes references to when he wrote the book or when he had it published and even references to when other drafts of the book were created like herman melville losing the first finalized version of moby dick at sea and having to re write the entire book years later or other such interesting facts like authors commenting that they would have changed many things in a book if they had written it after a particular event in their lives personal to them e g the death of a beloved father birth of their own child marriage good or bad fortunes etc or events in their lives in which we collectively share in some part the attacks sinking of the titanic wwii war in vietnam the shooting of ronald regan kennedy kennedy king vj day ve day man walking on the moon the falling of the berlin wall or the deaths of roosevelt s churchhill elvis john lenon