one good reason would be that it would be wrong on procedural due process and substantive due process grounds make that two good reasons lionelt has reported reverts none of which hold up to scrutiny first revert is actually changing a paraphrase of the source into a direct quote of the source while eliminating references to primary sources eg i corinthians bolstering pov arguments of the editor not relying on secondary sources nd rd reverts are actually an accommedation to the removal of the citation of the primary source by moving the table displaying the primary sources including the corinthians source in context in parallel columns originally produced by me four years ago higher in the article to allow readers to decide for themselves what the primary source said revert eliminate a redundancy in another new testament reference covered by the table as well as an unsourced claim and is not a reversion revert is simply not a reversion is an attempt to flesh out a paraphrase of a source from the source a point which i actually don't agree and it's not my point of view nor i think the point of view of that person making the complaint in addition the complainant is required to document his attempt to work it out on the talkpage which he has not done you've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page haven't you so put a link to the discussion here if all you've done is reverted without talk you may find yourself facing a block too diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page diff my repeated attempts to get other editors to discuss content talkpages have the perverse result of being used against me i used the term editors when there's really only one other editor esoglou who is currently under sanction and who used to be sanctioned under the handle lima lionelt's involvememnt stems from a cry for allies at the christiannity noticeboard origin of the eucharist history has referred above to a past problem with the article origin of the eucharist the problem is again as acute as ever only two editors are active in opposing the lone editor about whose apparent aims i say nothing i would be grateful if editors with greater knowledge than i have about wikipedia rules would give advice one solution with which i am toying is to let the lone editor have free rein so that nobody then reading the article would take it seriously one thing i am not sure about is this does eschoir have a possible wp coi issue there that may be one way to resolve it as i said before i have pages on my watchlist so i can not get involved in details there right now and that is why we need a general call system or a mayday button perhaps built into the wikiproject christianity banner as lionel suggested so editors can be called for help what an interesting idea add it to the banner well if you like the click here in case of emergency button i just added to the top of this talk page it should be relatively easy to add the button to the banner it would take a consensus of course and we'd want to coordinate with john's redesign of the banner lionel talk lionelt has helped very much and i express my appreciation as for eschoir i think he just enjoys stirring others up in the past another favourite target of his was free republic see the archived talk pages foor these reasonns thiis action should be dismissed with prejudice