| Revision as of 16:19, 4 August 2008 editVerbal (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers21,940 edits →General practitioner: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:02, 4 August 2008 edit undoTimVickers (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users58,184 edits →General practitioner: noteNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Is there a reason why you can't discuss your additions on the ] page? It might stop other editors from reverting them if you justified them. ] <small>]</small> 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | Is there a reason why you can't discuss your additions on the ] page? It might stop other editors from reverting them if you justified them. ] <small>]</small> 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Yes, in light of your tendency to edit-war without discussion I am going to require you to now use edit summaries explaining what you are doing. I will revert any edit made from now on that does not have a reasonable summary. I also '''strongly''' recommend that you discuss your changes on article talkpages with other editors. ] (]) 21:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:02, 4 August 2008
General practitioner
Is there a reason why you can't discuss your additions on the talk page? It might stop other editors from reverting them if you justified them. Verbal chat 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, in light of your tendency to edit-war without discussion I am going to require you to now use edit summaries explaining what you are doing. I will revert any edit made from now on that does not have a reasonable summary. I also strongly recommend that you discuss your changes on article talkpages with other editors. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)