`I think that, at the level of basic fundamental principles, we may actually be in agreement. I would agree that it's inappropriate for Editor ``A`` to insert a format that Editor ``A``  ‘’knows’’ is non-standard,  and then request a consensus before it's overturned by Editor ``B`` as soon after the posting as is reasonably practicable,” or at least provide some explanation for using this non-standard format.   We presumably disagree as to whether, in the subject instance, Editor ``A`` knew, or even suspected, the information (the year of death for the author who had just died that week) which Editor ``A`` added to the article, was in a non-standard format. So then, if that were the case as to Editor ``A``, I think then that Editor ``B`` should obtain a consensus before changing (or deleting in its entirety) the information added by Editor ``A`` in a format that Editor ``B,`` acting alone without a consensus, believes in good faith to be a non-standard format. I think that except in the very rare case where there can be no reasonable belief that Editor ``A`` was acting with a good faith belief that he was adding to the article, but rather, he was vandalizing it, should Editor “B” proceed to delete or edit the work of Editor “A” without first obtaining a consensus, or at the very least, to receive a (favorable) response to his request to Editor “A” that there be a change.  I believe that a procedure like this is in compliance with “assuming good faith”, which as you know is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: It is this assumption that (other) editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. [Wikipedia:Assume good faith] that, I think, is what is missing in the approach taken by Editor “B.” That is, that Editor “B” should have approached the work (the newly added/inserted information) of Editor “A” with the assumption that we are all supposed to be operating under at all times, that Editor “A’s” additions/deletions/revisions/etc. were made in good faith, and that being the assumption, it cannot be appropriate for Editor “B” to single-handedly and without a consensus, delete all (or even part) of Editor’s “A” work. Does that strike you as an outrageous proposition? I mean, presumably Editor “A” and “B” share common flaws of imperfection found in so many humans, and presumably, going into the issue without any knowledge of the other editor, neither editor can presume that he is absolutely correct in every aspect and that anyone who views anything differently than he is a vandal intent on destroying Wikipedia.   Isn’t it at the outset basically a 50/50 proposition when an editor goes, to delete the newly added information by another editor, that he may be wrong in making that deletion? And if it’s 50/50, shouldn’t he ask for a consensus before deleting the work of another editor, or at a bare minimum contact the other editor and have some reasonable assurance that Editor ``A`` has received his note/email/posting/etc. before deleting Editor “’A’s” work?  I might comment that in our situation, it was not an instance of Editor “A” changing something that was already on the page and then Editor “B,” seeing what was obviously an act of vandalism in the changes by editor “A,” reverting those changes. Not at all. Editor “A” added new information (the year of death for an author who had just died), and Editor “B,” believing that it was presented in a non-standard format to have this information at that particular place, deleted it. Editor “B” believed that this date information belonged, if anywhere, only on a page devoted to the author himself, and nowhere on a page the subject of which was the author’s work, in this instance, a book.  I do in fact disagree with Editor “B” on that point. I find it very useful to see when, during an author’s lifetime, and also in relation to significant world events, an author or artist wrote or published or created a particular piece of work, Articles about the book, or other work, when discussing the writing and publishing, virtually always includes references to when he wrote the book or when he had it published and even references to when other drafts of the book were created (like Herman Melville losing the first finalized version of Moby Dick at sea and having to re-write the entire book years later, or other such interesting facts, like authors commenting that they would have changed many things in a book if they had written it after a particular event in their lives personal to them (e.g., the death of a beloved father, birth of their own child, marriage, good or bad fortunes, etc.) or events in their lives in which we collectively share in some part (the 9/11 attacks, sinking of the Titanic, WWII, War in Vietnam, the shooting of Ronald Regan/Kennedy/Kennedy/King/VJ day, VE day/man walking on the moon/the falling of the Berlin Wall, or the deaths of Roosevelt’s, Churchhill, Elvis, John Lenon, The Princess of Wales, etc.).  Since the dates of writing and publication or other creation are virtually always included, having the author’s years of birth and death gives me a basic reference to all these things. I find it interesting that Mozart was composing by age 5, and if I read an article not mentioning his year of birth, and only mentioning the date the composition was completed, I do then miss out on this interesting fact, do I not? Unless of course even more space is taken to write out that he composed this particular work at age 6, this one at age 9, this other one at age 8, etc. Isn’t it interesting to read that an author wrote a book set in large part in classrooms of a law school when he was only 14 years old of the writing? Or when he was 95? Or a book about a worldwide war before WWI? Or a book about space flight and a trip to the moon before the Wright brothers ever had a bicycle shop?  Having the author’s year of birth and year of death in parenthesis after his name adds this important and interesting information in a simple space conserving manner easily recognized by average readers. So common is the format and its use that readers instantly know that a 4 digit number separated by a hyphen from another four digit number in parenthesis appearing after a person’s name is that person’s years of birth and death, often without there being any reference to birth or death, or B.C.E. or C.E., etc.  You commented that you’ve “found no other such articles that feature birth and death dates in the lede sentence.” While we do, in practice base much of our own personal experiences, little is gained by saying to you that I’ve seen such dates referenced in parenthesis thousands of times immediately after an author’s, or other creator’s, or significant person’s, name in regards to a particular work; and that name has often appeared in the first, or nearly first, sentence, and certainly in what one would consider the story lede. I recently had someone say virtually the same thing (though a bit more dramatically by saying that in their “entire life,” they’ve never seen, etc.). I supplied him with a dozen links showing the very thing he said he’d never seen. I find that he responded as I expected, with, well, generally what I would say was a “so what?,” and then providing further limitation to what was his alleged point in saying that in the first place. I do not find that providing examples of what someone says they “have never seen” does anything but have then raise more qualifications on what they “meant” and then  additional reasons why they’re not going to change their point of view or position in the slightest. I do not find the benefit in my searching out such examples provides any reward for my efforts. People who don’t want to be convinced don’t want to see things other than those that fit their position. If they wanted to see more, they would look themselves. You are no doubt reasonable and willing to change your position when presented with facts that are different than you have experienced personally. I apologized for having been soured by my experiences with others as to the effort I would have to extend to find and provide links to such examples before they then change absolutely nothing in their position when faced with multiple examples of the very thing that, by saying that they have never seen such-and-such, then by implication that therefore, they are taking the position that such-and-such does not exist.  Thank you for hearing me out. It is to your credit, not mine, that you have been willing to read what I have had to say and give to it the critical thought and consideration to which I hope to have had it  been worthy.  Respectfully.  75.4.197.141 (talk); now     (I've been promoted by 5,044! - come on, that's somewhat mildly amusing.)  `