That's an established rule on the wiki. If you are objectively wrong for adding it, crying "edit war" is a poor defense that doesn't warrant discussion. There simply is no speculation of any kind on the wiki, as far as I know and as far as the MoS is concerned. If you have proof of it being an oversight, then I stand corrected and am sorry. If not, then it's speculation, hence its removal.
Second, I suggested you either discuss it in chat or in comments. PMing on my wall is also an acceptable alternative. However, instead of doing that first, us coming to an agreement (which we probably would have), and then changing it afterwards, you went ahead and ignored me and did what you wanted.
You also had to push your edit through on the Bone Charms page.
Assumption, conjecture, speculation – all perspective-based, or as the MoS puts it, "interpretations" rather than factual and confirmed. Established rules in MoS > badass head wiki lady, I'd say (ok, maybe;) ).
I believe in discussing matters and compromising, obviously, as I did with you in chat about the subjective Delilah headquote matter, so long as said discussion is warranted. I'm afraid that I won't be discussing in-full every little undo I execute. I additionally don't see why I must initiate these things, especially when in both cases, you had no objective evidence to the contrary.
The Bone Charms edit was "pushed through" to comply with the format of the "spring razor"/"springrazor" stylistic difference on Spring Razor – as I explicitly stated in my edit summary – for the sake of consistency. I say pushed through in quotes because it wasn't "pushed through" at all; in fact, it was a change that I made with my first edit to the page. But rather than simply remove "in Dishonored 2" (which I agreed was incorrect to add on my part), you removed the ENTIRE reformatting in the lead. So, naturally, I re-added that specific part, once again, for the sake of consistency and due to "also called" still being unnecessary. Additionally, when re-adding your "assumption", you re-added a gallery header space, which I thought we both agreed were unnecessary, so naturally, I had to go back not only to remove your "assumption", but the additional spacing you re-added too.
If you somehow feel antagonized when your edits are undone, I can at least assure you that I personally am not intending to do so. I simply undo poor revisions made by anyone, including myself (and I make plenty of 'em). However, if this is going to be a reoccurring problem with you, I can't promise I'll always be inclined to write walls of text like this to "compromise" unnecessarily.
First of all, accidentally re-adding a space (or a second edit further down below) while undoing an edit because you just did not see the other change happens sometimes, so I don't think Geist added the space back because he believed it belongs there.
Next thing, that whole "reformatting for the sake of consistency" was pretty over the top in my opinion. You yourself stated that the difference was only stylistical. Next time, let it be. This urge of you and others to have any wording EXACTLY the same way as done on other pages is nitpicky and tiring. I agree that re-occuring pages like for the books and notes should have the same overall layout, but in this case Geist's wording carried the exactly same meaning as yours (to me anyway), so either is fine. Next time you come across such a thing, ask yourself if it brings the message across correctly, and if it does, leave it at that.
Since you wish to call up rules, how about this from the Rules of Conduct:
"No edit warring. If you and another editor disagree, discuss it in the comments."
We disagreed on a point, and following the RULES, I suggested we discuss this. You chose not to, and decided to change the edit anyway without discussing it. To use another of your expressions, in my opinion: Rules of Conduct > Manual of Style.
As I stated above, we probably would have agreed, but you chose not to respond, because in your mind, it didn't warrant the effort of you responding. However, the edit did warrant enough effort on your part to change it twice.
As to the Bone Charm edit, you claim this to be in compliance with how it is done on the Spring Razor page. Where exactly in the Manual of Style does it say that the Spring Razor example is correct? Perhaps it is wrong, and that article should be changed to the way the Bone Charms page was, instead of the other way around.
Again, instead of asking or discussing anything, you chose to do what you wanted. That shows little respect for your fellow editors, especially for those who called for discussions but are summarily ignored.
Finally, as much as I correct the formatting on the articles here, I was not trying to re-add the extra space on the Bone Charm page; that was an accident on my part. I'm not sure how that can be interpreted in any other way nor why you chose to even bring that up, especially seeing as how I'm probably the one doing the most to obliterate such occurrences of the wiki.
It didn't warrant a discussion because there was no disagreement; I didn't disagree with your point, as I stated in my edit summary ("likely as it may be"). I was simply following the MoS – removing speculative/conjectural content, no matter how well-reasoned – and made a point to state that, so as to highlight the guideline being ignored on your part.
If your edit was even somewhat against the MoS – which you seem to believe we would have agreed on anyway after discussion – then why did you feel compelled to undo the revision and only then seek discussion rather than seek compromise initially, especially with there being two editors against the addition of your "reasonable assumption"? At that point, you should have either discussed the issue with the disagreeing parties yourself or accepted that it wasn't in compliance with established standards. But instead of doing so, you started an edit war and undid the removal of your assumption for a second time. I will attest to having participated in the edit war, but it was you who started it.
As for my Bone Charms edit: now you're arguing in a circular pattern that I'd rather not partake in. I'll simply take Piko's advice on the stylistic/cosmetic/syntactic front and leave things alone if they are understandable as they are, so as to avoid these tiring consistency disputes.
If I come off as disrespectful to my fellow editors in these situations, please know that's not the case. I'm simply a tad bit too conscious about consistency and formality – products of being one nitpicky bastard. :/
I didn't mean you directly Giest, Recludam said "especially with there being two editors against [your edit]", referring to me as I was the one who removed the sentence that started the edit war. That comment was aimed at him, as he had just said that I was on his side. It could have been preemptively aimed at you, I suppose, but that wasn't its intention.