Core committer to WordPress.
You removed a codex-internal link of which you said it's being "unoffical" and implied that of the reason of the removal.
The linked page is: User:Hakre/Core/Wordpress_Copyright
You removed it from this page: Copyright Holders
I reverted your edit because the page documents the official wordpress sourcecode from trunk. There is no unofficial information referenced on it btw., and there does not seem to be something as "official" with nearly any codex edit. I find that comment very pejorative. Please respect a contributors work even if your opinion differs.
To clarify things, I've added a note that the page is a user page in case it seems misleading.
Next to that you've left an @todo tag with the revert. You wrote that the page is outdated. I would love to see some suggestions from you how to keep it updated.
Hakre 13:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nacin,
without any notice nor discussion did you reverted my edit about the scope of where the coding standards do not get consistently applied. (Codex Page: WordPress_Coding_Standards)
The legacy code is only a subset and not the superset of such, non-standard formatted code. Newer code that gets committed these days does not have the coding standards applied as well. The coding standards page did not reflect this.
If you think the statement that newer code does not have the coding standards consistently applied is factually wrong, then please raise the issue and provide substance that this is the case. You can just take a significant number of current commits that show that the documented coding standard is not applied.
Hakre 22:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If I may respond to this - the purpose of having a section of coding standards is to encourage people to follow it. It makes zero sense to draw attention to side issues such as some code being committed that doesn't follow the standards - the overriding point must be to express what the standards are, not to bicker or nit-pick over whether or not they are followed. That's another debate and doesn't belong withing a coding standards page. mrmist 19:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You should probably discuss that on the appropriate codex page then. BTW it's not encouraging if you see code committed that is not following it. Such a practice just expresses that there's no need to care about coding standards and therefore only doubts (at least) what you just suggested: "the purpose of having a section of coding standards is to encourage people to follow it" what to follow if there's nobody following? Have you seen a half pregnant women? -- My concern was just to make the introductory statements accurate. It's not the legacy code we're talking about, the problem is the overall code. I'm not worried about the fact, it's just in-accurate (see codex guidelines) to draw the attention to legacy code only. My 2 cents. Hakre 00:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)