When somebody reverts your changes in good faith, please don't simply revert their changes. Discuss the disputed edits on the article's talk page, in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Simply reverting just leads to edit-wars and may end up involved editors being blocked from editing. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 15:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Didn't you just do what you warned me about?
- Why don't you just discuss it? -- AussieLegend ( talk) 15:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
We were actually having a discussion about it before you swooped in and made your own decision for us.
El Heuro (
talk)
16:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Random award title |
| I don't know ImHerelol ( talk) 10:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
Since you seemed confused, [1] I thought that I should elaborate as to why I reverted your edits. The main problem was this edit. "A theory that Greenpeace itself denies" is not a sentence, it's only a partial sentence. It needed rewording. Paul Watson's claim to be a founding member is a claim, not a theory, so there's an issue there as well. While it's true that we probably don't need a citation, there is a problem with one editor, who insists on sources, but when they are provided he finds another reason to delete the content, which has happened today. [2] On a personal note, I think "He has been credited by The New York Times, the New Yorker and other publications with being a founder of Greenpeace, but Greenpeace denies the claim" adequately combines the edits that Collect and you made, but we have to work around this other editor. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
When somebody reverts your changes in good faith, please don't simply revert their changes. Discuss the disputed edits on the article's talk page, in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Simply reverting just leads to edit-wars and may end up involved editors being blocked from editing. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 15:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Didn't you just do what you warned me about?
- Why don't you just discuss it? -- AussieLegend ( talk) 15:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
We were actually having a discussion about it before you swooped in and made your own decision for us.
El Heuro (
talk)
16:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
|
|
Random award title |
| I don't know ImHerelol ( talk) 10:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
Since you seemed confused, [1] I thought that I should elaborate as to why I reverted your edits. The main problem was this edit. "A theory that Greenpeace itself denies" is not a sentence, it's only a partial sentence. It needed rewording. Paul Watson's claim to be a founding member is a claim, not a theory, so there's an issue there as well. While it's true that we probably don't need a citation, there is a problem with one editor, who insists on sources, but when they are provided he finds another reason to delete the content, which has happened today. [2] On a personal note, I think "He has been credited by The New York Times, the New Yorker and other publications with being a founder of Greenpeace, but Greenpeace denies the claim" adequately combines the edits that Collect and you made, but we have to work around this other editor. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)