Looking back at the revision historyrevision history for this particular question, I can understand why the user rolled back revision 3 to revision 1.
The initial text was:
alert('1a = '+id_('post_url').value.indexOf('http:'));//returns 0
The edit pushed by meagar in revisions 2 and 4 was:
alert('1a = '+id_('post_url').value.indexOf('http:'));**//returns 0**
Although meagar certainly had the right intention (I too prefer code formatted with monospace fonts), he didn't get rid of the ** used for the bold formatting in the initial question, thereby making worse. I'm sure it's an oversight, but meagar got that wrong twice (rev 2 and rev 4). The OP seems to have got the message about code formatting in revision 5. This was hardly an "edit war" so far.
Once formatting was used, the OP seemed to prefer his comments to be in bold anyway, thereby mixing code formatting and plain text in between, which might not have been my own choice, but which is fine.
Then, you came along (rev 6) and decided to change the spacing altogether and put the expected return values back in comments. This, I think, is a bit over the top. The question only had four lines, which anyone interested in the question would already have been able to read.
3 minutes after rev 6, the OP decided to add more details in rev 7, which he probably based on his rev 5 (possibly a concurrent edit issue at play, since there were only 3 minutes between your edit and his, so he might have started to type by then).
Subsequently, your rev 8 (rollback to your rev 6) was quite inappropriate, I think, just for the sake of extra spaces and because "The bold "Returns" statements are an eyesore" (quoting your comments in rev 13).
Now I'm wondering who really is stubborn...
