Return to Question

I mean, sometimes content is intentional. Look at the revision history on this:

Centos 6.3 install reiserFS support

The question was from 2012. The content within was deliberate, and this was the accepted answer.

What motivation would someone have to edit 4 years after the fact, have the content rolled-back by the author, then make the same edit again?!?

It's disrespectful.

I mean, sometimes content is intentional. Look at the revision history on this:

Centos 6.3 install reiserFS support

The question was from 2012. The content within was deliberate, and this was the accepted answer.

What motivation would someone have to edit 4 years after the fact, have the content rolled-back by the author, then make the same edit again?!?

It's disrespectful.

I mean, sometimes content is intentional. Look at the revision history on this:

Centos 6.3 install reiserFS support

The question was from 2012. The content within was deliberate, and this was the accepted answer. What motivation would someone have to edit 4 years after the fact, have the content rolled-back by the author, then make the same edit again?

It's disrespectful.

I mean, sometimes content is intentional. Look at the revision history on this:

Centos 6.3 install reiserFS support

The question was from 2012. The content within was deliberate, and this was the accepted answer. 

What motivation would someone have to edit 4 years after the fact, have the content rolled-back by the author, then make the same edit again?!?

It's disrespectful.

I mean, sometimes content is intentional. Look at the revision history on this:

Centos 6.3 install reiserFS support

The question was from 2012. The content within was deliberate, and this was the accepted answer. What motivation would someone have to edit 4 years after the fact, have the content rolled-back by the author, then make the same edit again.

It's disrespectful.

I mean, sometimes content is intentional. Look at the revision history on this:

Centos 6.3 install reiserFS support

The question was from 2012. The content within was deliberate, and this was the accepted answer. What motivation would someone have to edit 4 years after the fact, have the content rolled-back by the author, then make the same edit again?

It's disrespectful.