I'll add my $0.02. First, I would have to agree that git is probably a pretty rough choice for a beginner to VCS, but it is very different from typical VCSs that most of us had to unlearn. I would agree that mercurial would be a little easier. I think the best analogy is Git vs. Mercurial: Please Relax. In the blog post Mr. Thompson describes Git as MacGuyver, and Mercurial as James Bond. At this point, Git is becoming more polished, and Mercurial is becoming more flexible, but they still have personalities. This is not to say you must change, or that one is better.. just that in using both I've found Mercurial a little cleaner in the user interface.
The next point is the big one.. and it's a little philosophical, but important: Never use reverts (unless you really, really know what you're doing). The purpose of a VCS is to store the history of changes you make, even mistakes. It is often a better philosophy to simply check-in the version you'd rather revert to, than to try and erase the last change. For one, as you've found, you may unintentionally remove valuable data permanently. If it is just another check-in then the history is still there even if something is 'removed'. Second, you may actually change your mind at some point, or figure out a way to implement a feature properly, and wish you could have the half-broken code back. Reverting is a loss of information, which is not what you want out of a VCS. Disk space is cheap, and both Git and Mercurial are very compact.. so keep mistakes. There are few reasons to revert.. one is if you accidentally check-in a large binary file you do not want/need. Other than that, trust in your VCS.
I also should point out that both Git and Mercurial have built in help. Use it, and use it often. They also both have excellent online documentation. Research any command you're not entirely comfortable. You will make mistakes, but thankfully they're pretty forgiving if you're not trying to delete check-ins. :)