26 April 2014 UTC Nikkimaria I have a tremendous respect for you as an editor and I think that in most cases using two or three letter codes in edit summaries is entirely fine I use ce all the time It becomes problematic however when you use those codes after the edit in question has become contested The first edit summary where you said ce doc refs was fine I didn t know what doc meant and I still don t but it didn t matter because I got the gist that it was a copyedit and reformatting The second edit summary where you said doc is where the abbreviations become problematic You re now no longer dealing with a routine copyedit you re dealing with a formatting choice that has been contested by another editor In such a case you would need to explain your reasoning in the edit summary or on the article talk page in which case the edit summary would need to point out that there was a thread on the article talk page about the edit Likewise the third edit summary where you said change width is also unacceptable Yes it s more descriptive than doc but you still failed to provide a reasoning for your change which by that point had been contested several times I should note that between 11 39 26 April 2014 and 18 40 26 April 2014 you made the same change three times Yes the width was different one of the times and yes it wasn t just a straight revert but right now you are edit warring A rules pedant might take you to 3RR although I doubt it would actually go anywhere I am not a rules pedant however I don t see any point to you being blocked over this it would do more harm than good What I d really like is an explanation Why do you keep making this change What exactly is wrong with reflist 2 When you get reverted and you make the change again you need to back up that change with an explanation Keep your abbreviations for the bulk of your edits just break out something more substantive if someone contests the changes That s really what s being asked for 22 18