Thread:Shabook/@comment-3164086-20141217065819/@comment-112155-20141230072514

You asked the reasons for the undoings, I provided them. As I stated, the articles were worse after your edits tan they were before, so, objectively, undoing them "improves" the article, which is obviously not perfect.

For example, your recent edit to the Nick Fury article was good, though some minor things needed fixing, such as naming Bruce Banner using his first name. On the other hand, your edit to the Phil Coulson article disrupted a quote template and a reference citation, and had to be fixed.

I'm not "attacking" you or "accusing" you of anything, I pointed some of the mistakes that you edid, that all alone justify the two undoings, because pointing all of them is pointless, if you'll forgive the repetition. So don't blame me of "attacking" or "accusing" you anything. And you can't possibly know what I prefer, so I ask you not to assume it.

If you wish to fix all the grammar mistakes, go ahead. If you don't, then I'll ask someone else to look at the article and fix them. But this whole thread has lost its purpose, so...