To Aeusoes1 - Rewriting content, with no knowledge of the particular topic, and without looking at any sources, as you admit to doing, is the ANTITHESIS of what Wikipedia contributors should be doing. The majority of the article's content is careful paraphrasing of information from the sources. That is supplemented by quotations. Paraphrases are essentially careful re-wordings of quotes. When you, with no knowledge of the source texts, significantly change the paraphrases, you might as well be changing the direct quotes.

As for WP:BOLD, it states:
"... but don't be reckless!"
"If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references." [italic added]
"Then, wait for responses for at least a day: people edit Wikipedia in their spare time and may not respond immediately. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page." [italic added]
"... avoid deleting information wherever possible" [italic added]
"Be bold in contributions, but not in destructions. Editing is a collaborative effort, so editing boldly should not be confused with reverting boldly." [italic added]

You wrote: "I really don't see how your knowledge of Hawaiian is relevant to my edits". Because I have near-native fluency in Hawaiian, as well as a PhD in Linguistics, I know that your uninformed attempts to rewrite the description of word stress, throwing out "D" as a symbol for diphthong, are doomed to failure. For example, you made it have "3. (C)VV" as a stress unit. If V expands as a diphthong, then "wiuiu" can result - an impossible stress unit in Hawaiian. That's only ONE of MANY errors your edits cause.

More importantly, your rewrite is not supported by any sources. You failed to cite any references, and admitted that you don't care to look at any.

You wrote: "My edits were all about format and not substance". That is false. See the preceding two paragraphs. Your rewrite of the word-stress content is substance, not format.

You wrote the phrase "blindly revert" to describe my restoration of the original version. My revert of your edits is informed, not "blind". I've seen an edit summary you wrote in the history of another phonology page where you made the same accusation against another user who undid your edits.

You point to the "layout" of other phonology pages, calling it "precedent". However, the Russian (RUS), Arabic (ARA), Romanian (ROM), Polish (POL), and Danish (DAN) phonology articles are not in compliance with Wikipedia guides. POL and DAN have no lead section. The leads of RUS, ARA, and ROM, violate WP:LEAD. None of those articles use boldface properly. ROM and POL have no references at all. RUS has only 2 old refs, ARA only 1 old ref. DAN has 8. None of those articles have even ONE CITATION to a reference. The "layout" of those pages is not consistent.

In contrast, the Hawaiian phonology article (HAW), as originated by me, has a proper lead section, proper use of boldface, 8 references, and 70 citations to those references. HAW is one of the best-supported linguistics articles currently on Wikipedia.

I will undo your edits by restoring my last version of the article. Because you have persisted in "forcing" your unsupported and objected-to edits into the article, I will ask a Wikipedia administrator to take a look at the situation. I will SUPPORT good changes, such as Jeioosh's idea about the stress-mark character. But I will OPPOSE bad changes, such as your uninformed edits.