Old Crobuzon

The editing cycle

Hi. You may not be aware that the optimum editing cycle is considered to be BOLD, revert, discuss. This is where an editor makes an edit; if it is contested, another editor reverts that edit; and then a discussion rather than further reverting takes place. Now at Amy Pond, the BOLD edit was when the 'consciousness' clause was added by an IP. The revert was my revert. And you should not have reverted again – on this basis, and per WP:BRD, I have yet again removed those words from the article as unsourced. Please participate in the talkpage discussion that you have started, preferably providing a reliable source to back up your position, before re-introducing that material to the article. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 08:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that -- I was already aware of this essay, but do not see any indication that it is, as you suggest, "the optimum". However, in the light of your comments, let me quote a few lines from Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not:

• "it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."
• "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes."
• "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once."

I suggest that your advice would come better if you had not just contravened all three of those. Old Crobuzon (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)