User " Darx9url " even went so far as to complain on the talk page under my request for discussion-- so he obviously knew there was a debate.
32.
On the other hand, a request for discussion would have been more appropriate, especially since more people seem to disagree with the inclusion ( of assumed religious beliefs ).
33.
However, given that the anonymous editor won't answer any of my requests for discussion, is there any chance that a " third opinion " will carry any weight?
34.
One editor's reaction was to direct me to the AE report where he made a comment referring to my requests for discussion as " chaff " i . e . nonsense.
35.
He posted a comment on the Talk page in response to my request for discussion and " four minutes " later began edit warring, claiming that he did not need consensus.
36.
I also don't agree with the content being put into the article but the said user refuses to acknowledge any request for discussion-which I have started on the talk page.
37.
My request for discussion is not entertained ( except for " Mukkhuu " and we can see that there are biased editing ( singling out a person ) which is not healthy for the community.
38.
Despite my patience in describing why much of what he inserts falls outside the bounds of the page in question, he re-inserts, and ignores, save for one exchange, my requests for discussion.
39.
I also informed this user to discuss his changes on the talk-page ( diff1, diff2, but user ignores requests for discussion and continues to revert back to his preferred version, removing reliably-sourced information.
40.
*User Ari89 has again this morning replaced the same content without any discussion after a talkpage request for discussion and to seek consensus for the disputed content . talk ) 11 : 30, 16 March 2010 ( UTC)
