| Revision as of 01:11, 27 March 2018 editThewolfchild (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers51,891 edits →Your warning: Well, that reply was not in any way helpful. But I'd rather just close this off now, before this gets any worse. Just like your warning, I do not necessarily agree with all your comments here, but just the same, I'll try to abide by them. Have a good night.Tag: Replaced← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:03, 30 March 2018 edit undoPBS (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled116,854 edits →Talk:Royal Marines: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| <!----Do not post above this line - For new comments, click the "New section" link up top----> | <!----Do not post above this line - For new comments, click the "New section" link up top----> | ||
| == ] == | |||
| On ] you wrote "you are allowed to do, but Garuda28 can revert you if he feels the edit warrants a discussion" (). | |||
| #If one reverts a bold edit one has to have a verified reason for doing so. Did you read what I posted to explain why reverting a bold edit because you think someone else may object to it is considered to be detrimental to the project (] and see also the wording of ] Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus")". | |||
| #I did not revert, I started a section on the talk page pointing out to sections in guidance and I asked was there any reason for not reverting (IE I was following ]). | |||
| Reverting a revert under such circumstances in not edit warring. On the other-hand you posting to the article talk page was off topic. If you wished to make such an observation the place to do it was my talk page. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (]) -- ] (]) 21:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:03, 30 March 2018
|
message regarding an article, please post it there, not here. (and don't forget to {{ping}}) Thank you -  Wolf |
 |
| - all comments will be archived immediately after viewing - |
Talk:Royal Marines
On Talk:Royal Marines you wrote "you are allowed to do, but Garuda28 can revert you if he feels the edit warrants a discussion" (diff 19:56, 30 March 2018).
- If one reverts a bold edit one has to have a verified reason for doing so. Did you read what I posted to explain why reverting a bold edit because you think someone else may object to it is considered to be detrimental to the project (Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#Especially and see also the wording of WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus")".
- I did not revert, I started a section on the talk page pointing out to sections in guidance and I asked was there any reason for not reverting (IE I was following BRD).
Reverting a revert under such circumstances in not edit warring. On the other-hand you posting to the article talk page was off topic. If you wished to make such an observation the place to do it was my talk page. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (WP:TPYES) -- PBS (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)