On   August  you  made an edit with the edit title Revert unauthorised change to my comment by Wtshymanski  Seven minutes later on you posted the above warning  Diff for your revert  Your change consisted of changing a link Wtshymanski had it as    Request for Comment  and your revert changed it to  Request for Comment Request  Is that related to the Department of Redundancy Department  Your full paragraph It was not a personal attack but a statement of undisputed fact and was not even disputed by you at the recent Request for Comment Request whose outcome you still continue to ignore The above two points underline the point admirably  Your link goes to an RfC that was closed on  with an outcome of  no immediate administrative action appears required However I invite Wtshymanski to take the concerns voiced here under serious consideration Administrative action may be requested if the conduct that has been the focus of this discussion continues  When you say whose outcome you still continue to ignore that implies that he should respond at the link you posted But he cant Its closed and has had no comments for months Furthermore how can you know whether he is ignoring the advice to take something under serious consideration The link Wtshymanski provided is where the active discussion is ongoing last post a week ago at   August  and the place where one would reasonably expect Wtshymanski to respond Thus I conclude not only that the edit was reasonable but that Wtshymanski wants his critics to go to the right place  I am the first one to come down hard on Wtshymanski when he does something wrong but only when it is clear that he has actually done something wrong In my opinion this incident does not rise to that level It is a debatable correction to a URL that should have been handled with WPBRD instead of a user warning Nobody ever made a ruling that WPAGF does not apply to Wtshymanski