" 
 :I am quite unsure about what your deal is. Really. You come on (usually) once a month to make major changes to an article that fit your view on how it should look. Without giving a legitimate reason I might add (such as saying ""updating boxscore"", when it was already up to date). When you decide to change almost the entire format of an article with no explanation as to why, and are reverted, per WP:BOLD, you should discuss these changes and why they should be made. Instead, you continue doing the same thing time and time again. That is quite the opposite of ""following protocol"". Edit warring with no edit summary? Yikes! If you wish to do this ""protocol"", please, start a discussion on a talk page of an article and let's discuss. I'd be quite interested in the reasons why you think that tour dates should be listed twice in an article (once on their own and again including its gross and attendance) and why we should include every single tiny change to a set list on an encyclopedia (when there is even a note explaining this and its reasoning). I'm also curious as to why replacing reliable, third-party news reports in favour of primary sources (an artist's official website) is acceptable in your eyes. And I'm sure there's a few additional things that I'm missing. Next time you want to talk to someone about how they have the nerve to ""talk down"" and ""scold"" you, you really shouldn't do it back. Especially when you are also calling that person a hypocrite at the same time - awkward. Less threats and more discussing the issues at hand, OK?  —  ,  "