Hello, B10Reaper

I advise you not to revert edits without providing any support for the undo, especially when a reason was given for the change. Check also the edit history of the article when it has been changed. When an editor makes a quick change and doesn't need to explain much they often just make a summary comment (not typing anything in talk), which you can see in the history tab. In particular I am referring to the Berserk article. Articles don't have a "right" and "wrong" way of being written, and information may go in one place or another depending on where it reads well. One definitely shouldn't be repeating stuff in none same article, separated by just a couple of paragraphs. Readers don't need every detail at the top either, or the head of the article would become a mess. Edit articles globally. If a change makes sense somewhere, check the rest of the article to see whether making the change you propose makes sense and if it may entail other changes. "Pecking" at sentences that may seem incomplete or ambiguous when taken by themselves is one of the types of edits that get reverted most often, because people look at small parts of the articles and think "ah, this info is missing here" without looking at the whole article or whether that is already explained in a more appropriate way elsewhere. If everyone "peck-edits" you get a mass of redundant information and not a cohesive readable article. Who is like God? 01:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)