Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary: Difference between revisions

→‎{{anchor|DONTREVERT}} Bad reasons to revert: I don't agree with this. It's been discussed before, I think including at the BRD talk page. Editors revert to the status quo for discussion all the time. While an editor might think an edit is an improvement, they may also know that it's going to be controversial or an issue in some way and want to forestall that by first discussing it. If the addition is truly no problem, the talk page will resolve that.
(→‎{{anchor|DONTREVERT}} Bad reasons to revert: Changing "status quo" to "own writing styles" is more than a copyedit. I doubt we are merely discussing "writing styles" here.)
(→‎{{anchor|DONTREVERT}} Bad reasons to revert: I don't agree with this. It's been discussed before, I think including at the BRD talk page. Editors revert to the status quo for discussion all the time. While an editor might think an edit is an improvement, they may also know that it's going to be controversial or an issue in some way and want to forestall that by first discussing it. If the addition is truly no problem, the talk page will resolve that.)
* Do not revert an edit as a means of showing your disapproval of the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]].
* Do not revert an edit because you need more time to determine whether you agree with the edit.
* Do not revert an edit that you believe is an improvement. If you support an edit, but you think others will object, or you believe that the consensus will favor reverting, then let the people who object revert the edit. This is necessary to make the [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]] work. BRD is based on negotiating compromises with the person who makes the revert, and it breaks when the reverter's reason is "I like your edit, but I reverted it because I thought Bob would object". Also, you might be surprised to discover how often other people's views line up with your own.
 
==Alternatives to reverting==