" 

 ::Basar, I must say that I find your comments somewhat patronizing (full disclosure, I wasn't in the best mood when I read them to start with). You say I cannot label the edit ""revert""? I admit I could have noted that I did other changes (and I usually do), but then, anybody who cares looks at the diff anyway (as you did, it seems). To continue with my current feelings of irritation, I note that in your edit ""add MSE section; cleanup of rest"" you removed an image without giving any reasons. How does that square with what you ask of me? Removing images is often controversial, and should be explained. 

 ::Did you also realize that I did in fact actively remove several redlinks, like crib wall etc... As on Bowles, ""plastic sheet"", ""mud box"", and ""gravity wall"" - I did not add any links for plastic sheet or gravity wall at all. What are you talking about? As for redlinks in general, I may be somewhat less strict than some people feel WP:RED should be handled. But ""are likely to be created soon or are appropriate to have a full article for"" is an unclear judgement call if I ever heard one. I might just as well ask why you feel that mechanically stabilized earth needs a separate article? (But I won't. I'm fine with added articles, I do not think everything needs to be merged).  

 ::Next: ""and putting parenthesis in a heading looks funny."" No clue what you are talking about. Which parentheses? ""Writing in complete sentences is also standard,"" Again, what are you talking about? In my edit summary? 

 ::As for the sizing of the schematic (which I created, BTW), I feel that this will be difficult to size correctly within the article. There is too much info and small-scale text in there. I'll try and see what it looks like.  

 ::Finally, for the mudbox image, I disagree with your comment. The lack of description within the article is, for me, not reason to remove the image. This image has two main advantages for the article - it shows a type of retaining wall not yet covered (added info) and it shows that retaining walls need not always retain soil only (added info, though this IS noted in the lede, so an example is good). I do agree however that the gravity wall image was better placed to go on top, at the article start. That is why I did not simply go back. 

 ::In summary, what really got reverted is the deletion of an image (all the other changes as I noted above, are small fry, and I have in fact taken your comments on board in some regards - see article now). As for reverting the image deletion - If you can delete it without discussing it on the talk page, why can't I restore it? Please don't get too hung up on the use of the word 'revert'. While I agree that we should not reflexively revert changes we do not like, I consider it unrealistic to demand Don't revert! when you clearly feel that the article is worse off with the change. As I noted, your deletion was not explained, so I felt it appropriate to restore, and still stand by that.  "