User talk:35.146.233.124

May 2023
Hi 35.146.233.124! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Naval Reactors several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. - w o lf  02:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Added note
Please read the policies and guidelines linked above, and further note that the onus is on the user seeking to add content to obtain consensus in favour of doing so. This, as explained above (and in a previous edit summary) has already been explained to you. Wikipedia is governed by rules and they apply to you, just like everyone else. I suggest you self-revert and go to the article talk page, as suggested. Thank you - w o lf  02:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The central issue was that the other editor was unfamiliar with the quote of Admiral Rickover regarding Naval Reactors' responsibilities as being "from womb to tomb." He presumed it was just a weird phrase, and dismissed the citation I provided.  All not entirely unexpected, so I provided a Congressional Record citation of the quote and that seems to have been more enlightening.
 * The other edits were material regarding NR's hierarchy, but also with some grammar fits (e.g., "both" when referring to four entities, two of which were redundant.
 * I appreciate the comments, but I have to add that even a cursory review of my edits would show that they are correct and properly cited. Reversing all the correcting edits on the basis of not recognizing a famous (within the world of naval reactors) quote was not proper form.  It is interesting that this has to be pointed out, rather than simply observed.
 * Again, I do sincerely appreciate the comments, but speaking directly would much prefer to see a more balanced point of view, or at least a look at the edits themselves.
 * --35.146.233.124 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is what talk pages are for. You make an edit, it gets reverted, then, (as per WP:BRD), you're supposed to go to the talk page and discuss the issue. Intsead, you just keep reverting your preverred version in. We have rules against that, as it leads to edit warring. Though you've posted a lengthy comment here, (full of assumptions about the other editor), you still haven't gone to the artice talk page, nor have you self-reverted. We have these rules for a reason, and they should be followed. (Also, for future comments, try to focus on edits, not editors.) -  w o lf  04:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)