", 19 August 2007 (UTC)

""I think it's good wikiquette to always give a reason for reversion to the user if they are new or apparently new...""

Actually, I think it's good wikiquette to always give a reason for reversion to the user regardless of whether they're new or old. For that reason I did, though this seems to have escaped you completely. ""interesting, though if it's copied, it can't go here. Original work only (with references)"" means ""No, you can't just say ""copied from a defib article"", as that violates WP:C"". Further evidence to back up the fact that it was copied can be found in the form of this users submission to the defib article, which was identical. Another thing I didn't bother to mention was that it was written with a slight POV slant - suggesting that using an AED is bad full-stop, when in fact in the absence of a normal defib, it's priceless. Regardless, contrary to your comments, I reverted a) with good reason, and b) with good comments.

I also have to agree with MoodyGroove below: this comment is completely out of order. ""...i'll tell them off for that in a minute"" - 'scuse me? Who do you think you are? The most you can do is re-revert our reverts, with good reasoning, but beyond that, nothing. Please do not assume that you can ""tell us off"", or beyond that, please do not even attempt to ""tell us off"" without fully knowing our reasons for reverting!  22:53"