Getting Reverted on Wikipedia

If you've ever tried editing Wikipedia, you might have been instantly reverted. My impression is that this is what happens to most people's first edits, and it's incredibly discouraging.

The reasons may vary, but someone might have left a single cryptic message on the revert edit, like WP:NOTE. They reference some arcane policy (okay, notability is not arcane but you get the picture) and are never heard from again.

I recently made the most WP:BOLD set of edits on Wikipedia that I had ever made:

List of baseball edits. Spoiler: most of them got reverted

Almost all of them got reverted.

You know what? I'm totally okay with this. It's not a referendum on myself, my skill, my abilities, or anything of the sort. I don't take it personally. It's okay to be reverted, in the sense that it's "better to ask forgiveness than permission". I'm not saying that consensus isn't important on Wikipedia, it definitely is. No one should be trying to "go rogue", the whole thing operates on policies of mutual cooperation and goals.

I guess I just see it almost like a PR in GitHub, that's the mindset I'm coming from. Here's a bunch of changes I want to make. If you disagree, just revert them and we'll talk about it. The alternative is posts on talk pages that wait days and weeks for replies, where you're not sure if it should be "okay, no one has said anything, can I make my changes now?".

Of course, all of this rests on the idea that the revert is more than a single word (or no words!) unllike the example above. A revert with an explanation is like a good code review comment. It sparks discussion and growth. Without it, you just have a blanket asserting that reads like "<BUZZER>! You're wrong!"

The thing you shouldn't do, however, is *revert the revert. You don't want to get into a dreaded Edit war. If you get reverted, head to the Talk page and figure it out in good faith.