Revision as of 21:04, 7 October 2007 editEdgarde (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,109 edits This section has been removed by three different logged-in editors. Please don't restore it without consensus.← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:08, 7 October 2007 edit undoGscshoyru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers24,512 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
This section has been removed by three different logged-in editors. This suggest you are going against ]. Please don't restore it. Better to start a stub article and link it from ]. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | This section has been removed by three different logged-in editors. This suggest you are going against ]. Please don't restore it. Better to start a stub article and link it from ]. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
==Edit warring== | |||
Please stop edit warring on the ] article. ] 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not edit warring. The content is not notable. I'm about to comment on the talk page as well, but consensus is against you. The fact that it may be notable one day doesn't mean it will be notable now. And you may want to see ] ] 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:08, 7 October 2007
On adding "Student erotica" section to Erotica article
Even if sourced, student erotica is too small and recent a genre to add to a broad article like Erotica, especially with details of known publications. If "Student erotica" is a real phenoemon, consider creating a new article with this information.
It would be helpful if you registered an account since this allows an editor to create new articles, but if you wish to remain anonymous, you can request an article be created. / edg ☺ ★ 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: Erotica
I added the section back in. The section is referenced, and it is a new movement among student publications. Rather than deleting it, it should be expanded or moved to another article. In fact, it is the most referenced part of the article. If you delete it again without first discussing it on the talk page, it may be seen as vandalism. 151.197.111.178 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you value talk page discussion so much, you could have started that discussion instead of reverting and accusing me of vandalism. / edg ☺ ★ 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Are you objecting to my not putting my comment in the correct section? / edg ☺ ★ 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't move the discussion to my Talk page after telling me to discuss this in Talk:Erotica. / edg ☺ ★ 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This section has been removed by three different logged-in editors. This suggest you are going against WP:CONSENSUS. Please don't restore it. Better to start a stub article and link it from Erotica. / edg ☺ ★ 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring
Please stop edit warring on the Erotica article. 151.197.111.178 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not edit warring. The content is not notable. I'm about to comment on the talk page as well, but consensus is against you. The fact that it may be notable one day doesn't mean it will be notable now. And you may want to see WP:3RR Gscshoyru 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)