Talk:Bothriospilini
Latest comment: 2 years ago by YorkshireExpat in topic Recent edits
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Recent edits
editRecently BilledMammal has tried to add disputed content three times,[1][2][3] so I'm opening this as a reminder that this talk section should have been opened after the first edit instead of ongoing edit warring. You need to gain consensus for those edits per WP:ONUS at this point. The current AfD doesn't change that consensus is needed.
This is already a pretty standard list of genera, and the additional information that's been added belongs at the relevant articles, not here. KoA (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- @KoA: The comment I made on your talk page addresses most of this. Why is this reversion so urgent that it cannot wait until after the AfD closes, to avoid disrupting the AfD? BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Why is your reversion so urgent that it cannot wait for required consensus? You're shifting the burden for consensus, and the AfD you started does not change that.
- As for your comments on my talk page (content discussion belongs here), they did not address this appropriately. Elmidae removed all of that content, so is not appropriate to say something akin to, well they technically didn't mention this part in the space they had for an edit summary. If you wish to develop content here related to what you've been doing, you need to get consensus here. KoA (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
to avoid disrupting the AfD
. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)- Nothing is disrupting the AfD here. Again, you don't get to bypass consensus requirements because you started an AfD. This talk page is for getting consensus on relevant content related to the article. KoA (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is disrupting the AfD, in that the AfD is predicated only on WP:CONTENTFORK. But I've never seen another AfD predicated on CONTENTFORK, where the content forking was performed by the AfD nominator shortly before opening the AfD. Nobody in the AfD has yet brought up the fact that the nominator did the forking (I plan to do so; I had started writing my !vote, but it referred to BilledMammal's version of this article, so now I need to rework it (but I don't mind the disruption)). Performing a content fork and then arguing for AfD based on the content being forked is an...interesting tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantdrew (talk • contribs)
- That is true, I guess I should have been specific on where the source of disruption wasn't going from. I have mentioned this a bit at the AfD, but it's also moreso being discussed at the ANI right now. KoA (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- It strikes me that a taxonomy is basically a massive content fork!? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- It is disrupting the AfD, in that the AfD is predicated only on WP:CONTENTFORK. But I've never seen another AfD predicated on CONTENTFORK, where the content forking was performed by the AfD nominator shortly before opening the AfD. Nobody in the AfD has yet brought up the fact that the nominator did the forking (I plan to do so; I had started writing my !vote, but it referred to BilledMammal's version of this article, so now I need to rework it (but I don't mind the disruption)). Performing a content fork and then arguing for AfD based on the content being forked is an...interesting tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantdrew (talk • contribs)
- Nothing is disrupting the AfD here. Again, you don't get to bypass consensus requirements because you started an AfD. This talk page is for getting consensus on relevant content related to the article. KoA (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)