Cleaned. Revdel request, if appropriate would be from 576634200 to current. That's going to be near 100 revs going back to 2013, so admin discretion on the RD1. Otherwise close this day. CrowCaw18:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Crow! I started looking at this a while ago, but must have got side-tracked. It seems to me that it goes right back to the beginning – compare this with this, dated 28 October 2010. Or am I mis-reading that? I think a 100-revision revdelete is pretty routine, btw; I start getting nervous when it goes over 1000. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: Indeed so, I was only looking at the text from the specific given source, but that does appear to be only the most recent CV. Is there a policy on delete-and-selective-restore? Seem like that would break attribution, but an RD sort of does too... you can see who edited but not what they edited. Not sure if that or a history full of strikethru's is preferable... CrowCaw23:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Crow, I believe the history full of strike-throughs is our preferred option (bizarrely, I've just been saying the same thing here). If I had the good fortune to be you, I'd have noted when and where MRG explained this to or for me in some previous discussion; but since I'm not, I'd have to spend ages looking for it. But the message was, in Orwellian terms, "revdelete good, history delete bad". I think we're going to have to stub this article. You or me? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: The current version seems ok, unless I'm missing something obvious? The History section might be a tad paraphrased from the blogspot link, but not much in the way of creative content there anyway. CrowCaw20:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
