To Aeusoes  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 articles content is careful paraphrasing of information from the sources That is supplemented by quotations Paraphrases are essentially careful rewordings 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 WPBOLD it states  but dont 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 its 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 dont see how your knowledge of Hawaiian is relevant to my edits Because I have nearnative 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  CVV as a stress unit If V expands as a diphthong then wiuiu can result  an impossible stress unit in Hawaiian Thats 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 dont 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 wordstress 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 Ive 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 WPLEAD None of those articles use boldface properly ROM and POL have no references at all RUS has only  old refs ARA only  old ref DAN has  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  references and  citations to those references HAW is one of the bestsupported 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 objectedto edits into the article I will ask a Wikipedia administrator to take a look at the situation I will SUPPORT good changes such as Jeiooshs idea about the stressmark character But I will OPPOSE bad changes such as your uninformed edits