Talk:Professional snooker career of Ronnie O'Sullivan

O'Sullivan reaction to 2022 World Championship win

A separate consensus exists for the content of each separate Wikipedia article. Adding a single sentence here, about the reaction of O'Sullivan to his 2022 World Championship win, as suggested at Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan, does not constitute any attempt "to try to subvert consensus on main Ronnie O'Sullivan page". Nor should it be considered "trivia", having been reported by a number of WP:RS sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The content of that sentence is the same as the one you were trying to add to Ronnie O'Sullivan. While consensus is related to each article the two articles in question are inextricably linked. Therefore your addition in this article is clearly an attempt to get you own way and push your POV against the consensus that was expressed in the other article. Robynthehode (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I took the direct advice of User:Lee Vilenski. But great of you to follow me here, just to make sure I don't "get my own way" by reverting me - you have almost as many edits to this article as me, i.e. one? I had expected you might have wanted to discuss the value of my addition, instead of just making unfounded accusations. My addition was made wholly in good faith, to improve the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You can't pass responsibility for your actions onto the advice of another editor. These articles are linked and you knew you were trying to add content that was objected to. If you were acting in good faith as you claim then you should have stated in the Ronnie O'Sullivan article talk page that you were going to make the edit that you made here and asked editors if this was acceptable considering the discussion that had already unfolded. I am perfectly entitled to revert your edit according to WP:BRD and I did discuss (as did many other editors) the value of your addition - in the Ronnie O'Sullivan talk page. Your addition is the same content in both articles and objections to it remain the same from me and very likely from the other editors that objected to it in the other article. So stepping back here - you may have done this in good faith as you claim but it appears otherwise to me. Let's see what other editors say and please do not re-add the content you want before a consensus is achieved here. Robynthehode (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

How incredibly uncharitable. Good luck with your improvements to this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Uncharitable? I clearly stated that you may have made the edit in good faith but you still have to follow Wikipedia protocols. Hardly uncharitable. It's tough sometimes having content reverted but if we don't follow the protocols we won't be building an encyclopaedia of quality. And I am happy to have my opinon of your edit challenged by you or other editors so if you feel that strongly please make your case. Robynthehode (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Both articles now off my watchlist, thanks to you. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Needless to say, RSes report on all kinds of trivia that do not belong in an encyclopedia. WP:NOT applies. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Worth just noting I stated that this is a much more suitable venue than the main page. I can't say I care if it's in there or not. The whole summary needs work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)