Talk:Codrus

Edit warring on sourced content
has repeately removed content claiming that it is sourced to Wikipedia rather than the actual source cited in the article. The source is clearly cited in the article to the Constitution of Athen. Sundayclose (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring on un sourced content
Sundayclose has repeatedly added content claiming that it is properly sourced and has been warned several times as to why and how that's not legitimate and doesnt live up to Wikipedia's standards to make such a claim. PaUZz LYte (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you click the links I gave you repeatedly to the actual source, which is not a Wikpedia article? Did you read the source (again, it's not a Wikipedia article)? Sundayclose (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep I read it again, not seeing anything about Aristotle having an alternative view on what happened specifically however. Only more confirmation of the original story.I like this bit on the first page: "it is now generally accepted that the current manuscript (MS.) is not the work of Aristotle but
 * very likely one of his students PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

From the actual source (which is not a Wikipedia article), page 6: "Medon was the son and successor of Codrus". If you want to challenge whether Artistotle was the actual author of the source, that is an entirely different matter which does not justify removing all of the content. You need to restore the content (which is the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS), then bring your concerns about authorship here rather than edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Quotation request
@Sundayclose provide the quotation in your newly provided evidence that states it was "possibly" one of Aristotles students that made the claim as well as the claim your making that the student had an "alternative view" of some sort. PaUZz LYte (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to read my comment above you would see a quotation. Read that for the quotation about Codrus being succeeded by his son. As for "possibly one of Aristotle's students", you yourself pointed out that the document is possibly attributed to one of his students. But look at page one of the document: "It is now generally accepted that the current manuscript (MS.) is not the work of Aristotle but very likely one of his students." "Very likely" does not mean 100% certainty. If you want to challenge that wording find a reliable source to support your challenge. I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you, but in case you are tempted to edit war again, note very carefully: You are required to get WP:CONSENSUS here before changing the article, per WP:BRD. The current version is the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. I suggest that you actually read some of the many policies that have been linked for you numerous times. Pinging, , , and . Sundayclose (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can assure you, it's only you that sees this as a "pissing contest". Generally accepted doesn't mean "possibly", it means that the majority support the claim.  Again do you mind please for all that is holy just copy and paste the quotation here, the place where were tyring to reach consensus that states the claim your trying to make?  In order to properly document it and to hold your hand as to why I removed the completely unsourced and already proven false claim (not yours, the origianl from ages ago) that one of his students didn't make. PaUZz LYte (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The quotation is right there. In the comment you just replied to. If you're going to make requests, at a minimum you should read the replies. MrOllie (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, I don't believe I asked any Sundayclose's good friends. I believe Sundayclose is the one that redid my revision in the first place correct?  But please
 * el free to mediate as much as your already going to anyway, thanks!e PaUZz LYte (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to add i suggest you actually read whats stated on page 6 of your recently cited source numerous times. PaUZz LYte (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Why?
@Sundayclose PaUZz LYte (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You simply resumed your previous edit warring (for which you were blocked) with no additional reliable sourcing and no consensus. Once again, I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you. Get consensus or drop the stick and move on. Sundayclose (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)