On 10/7/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe my way of responding to that is viewed as
hostile because this
isn't part of the common understanding, but I think it probably should
be. Of course I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but if the
article has to suffer because someone takes reverts personally, there
isn't much I can do.
Actually, there IS much you can do. Start by leaving a talk page post
explaining just what you think is wrong with the other person's edits
each time you use your "rv: not an improvement" message. That's all
it takes. You can do a lot with very little effort.
Your way is hostile not because it isn't part of the common
understanding, it's hostile because it criticizes other editors and
makes no attempt to be non-hostile. It also gives no impression of
what you find wrong with someone else's good faith edit. I sincerely
hope your current method NEVER becomes part of the common
understanding.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused