Board Thread:The Last Sovereign Discussion/@comment-31763506-20190504042018/@comment-31763506-20190516022418

Look, let me outline the sequence of events as I understand them here, because you are either utterly clueless or being deliberately obtuse.

In February of 2017, you first proposed the Races page be subdivided into individual race pages. It was overruled by Decanter and MallieKerchief, and Lostone2 also rejected the splitting of the article in the subsequent discussion of adding subheadings with little content as placeholders.

OK, so you brought up the change beforehand and it was rejected. That should have been the end of it.

In October of 2018, you again proposed that the article be split. I responded to your comment saying that if you wanted to do the work I was fine with it, because I wasn't paying attention to the previous conversation. That was a mistake on my part. Decanter responded that he still saw no need for an article split.

On December 13th, you deleted most of the Races page and created a set of individual race pages. Decanter reverted your edit to the Races page immediately and opened a discussion in the comments on whether anyone had changed their minds on the article split since the previous discussion. Fulminato and BetatesterFP concurred that a split remained undesirable but BetatesterFP argued against deleting the new pages, and no action was taken to do so. On December 19th, Lostone2 concurred with Decanter in rejecting a split of the Races page. He then placed a warning on your wall regarding the incident.

Honestly, the only reason I'm still bothering discussing the matter is that I suspect you must never have read that discussion from December.

On May 3rd, you came back and began making modifications to the various individual race pages, and then made your edit to Timeline linking to these new pages. When I went to look at what you had done, I found the links to the individual race pages, and noticed that the warning on your wall from Lostone2 regarding the inappropriateness of having created them.

Since you appeared to be deliberately flouting instructions from both admins, I pushed the undo button. The discussion from there got heated owing to my bad temper and natural defensiveness.

OK, so you proposed a major change before making it, that change was rejected by a consensus of the other editors. You brought it up again and then proceeded to make that change despite a lack of permission (which was partially my fault). The original consensus from 2017 still held, but it was discussed again and the change was rejected again. You kept working on implementing the change regardless.

That's why we're having this conversation.