There is in fact no trace of me moving them in the first place.
Are people abusing the "minor change: don't save a new version" feature? Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
I have now seen so many edits I don't know what they mean any more.
They seem better at the end of Section Two, leading on to the missing questions in the GP.
Should they be moved down there? (i.e. at the end, not the beginning, of the insertion?)
However, don't those two paragraphs make more sense at the end of the insertion rather than the beginning? Meaning, as a lead on to Section Three, the missing questions?
Do as you care to. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I'm beginning to wonder how we see what it is we see and then we don't...
I'm wondering whether people tick the "minor edit" box when they shouldn't, or what a genuine edit conflict looks like. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
The question is, is it right to move them down?
But I am beginning to wonder about conflicts, since we have had several that are really inexplicable.
I certainly didn't delete this financial costs piece by Jérôme, for example. I would not delete a piece as substantial without referring to the author. And when you pointed out that it was missing, I would have remembered and said I took it out for one reason or another. I wonder if he and I were editing close in time to one another and one version scrambled the other.
And Jérôme didn't see the version that resulted from your copy-editing, then mine...
