While the substance of this revert seems generally uncontroversial to me it had the unwanted side effect of irritating another contributor— an outcome which is undesirable regardless of the merits of the edits.
One of the zen things about effective Wiki editing is making use of the process so that disputes seem to be less between people and more just a result of gyrations of the wiki system. One way people sometimes accomplish this on large Wikis like Wikipedia is by never reverting a revert of their own edits directly, but instead editing around the changes (I don't think that would have been possible here) or pulling in someone else to come do it. This creates a natural rate-limiter on edit warring which is proportional to the importance of the edits (you'll have a hard time getting in an ever increasing number of people to undo a piece of shed-painting) and also makes sure that the edits are being smoothed by many hands and eyes. When many people contribute its clear that the dispute is not person A vs person B, and less involved parties can sometimes do better at finding the one tweak that makes everyone happy.
This isn't exactly a well functioning Wiki community today, so perhaps it wouldn't have worked here... But pulling people in to help resolve these things may be part of what is required to build a successful Wiki community. In any case— my mailbox is always open for people to come ask for people to prod at a dispute (though in this particular case I would have preferred to pull in someone else). Food for thought. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
Edit war on Funding network security
Please see Talk:Funding network security.