Sound Solkemon

Reverting good faith edits

You have reverted an edit to Lolita, giving as edit summary: rv vandalism, this issue already has it's own section and should have summary in the lead section as well. Whatever your opinion of the edit, I can see no reason to doubt that the editor who made it sincerely intended it as a constructive edit; the fact that you disagreed with that assessment does not justify referring to it as "vandalism", which would apply only if the editor intended damage. It is important in editing Wikipedia to maintain a courteous approach, and to assume good faith unless there is clear indication to the contrary. I would encourage you to think carefully before using the word "vandalism": if you are in any doubt you may like to read the Wikipedia policies on vandalism and on assuming good faith, if you have not already done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question was too lazy to even read the table of contents. Nevertheless, he reverted my edits without cause and even added hilarious comments on my talk page, labelling it my "own personal analysis" when it was in fact only a summary of a referenced section that was already in the article. I find it hard to assume good faith when it comes to people who revert other people's work without even bothering to read the articles they revert. That's very unproductive. There are a lot of users at this project who engages in such behaviour and it pisses me off. Sound Solkemon (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)