You could have softened the wording without removing the direction but instead you chose to remove it completely. You've removed the direction five times now. However whatever ( talk) 22:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) You don't seem to want to point them at all. AussieLegend ( talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC) We can point editors directly to that thread without using language that prohibits edits, but rather request consulting the thread prior to making the edit.
You need to start editing constructively and stop simply reverting what you don't agree with. As I've stated above, Gilbert and Rauch's inclusion in the infobox, and the direction not to remove their names is covered by MOS:TV. Consensus has nothing to do with this issue. There was simply no reason to remove that. Pointing them directly to the thread that explains everything is far better. It's also of little use to give editors a vague direction as to where to go. It is simly a request not to do something. Regarding this edit summary, "Please do not remove" is NOT forbidding anything. However whatever ( talk) 21:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I always try to be polite but your edits here are becoming disruptive and I am losing my patience with you. Since Consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use the hidden text to prohibit others from making certain edits. It can only be used to suggest to others that a consensus exists. Per WP:HIDDEN, hidden text cannot be used to take ownership of an article.