This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

I removed the following redundant images from the article. --19:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the merge discussion pertaining to this article? You think ignoring it and continuing to revert is legitimate?--Taylornate (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the notion that individual muscles do not deserve separate articles should be ignored. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because you say so? There is consensus to keep the merge.--Taylornate (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I am trying to convince a self-styled surgeon that individual muscles in the human body are important enough to have separate articles. There is absolutely no consensus anywhere to keep a merge. You have been reverted by half a dozen other contributors and you keep insisting that your preferred talk page is the only legitimate place to discuss this. Stop now! --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reverted by exactly two other editors, neither of whom justified their position with Wikipedia policy. I did back my position with Wikipedia policy and had support from other editors. Until those against the merge can do so, there will be a clear consensus in favor of the merge. Your complaint about location of discussion is silly when you refuse to discuss here as well.--Taylornate (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from your last edit summary that you want to discuss this now? Great, let's do it. My reason for doing the merge is not about how important each muscle is, but about presenting the information in the most effective way possible.--Taylornate (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to discuss anything with you. I've added all the information and all the references now present in the Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand article and if you don't care about individual muscles, ignore those articles (just like I'm doing my best ignore a self-styled surgeon who claim muscles aren't important). I've added all the information you "created" using my references at Hand#Extrinsic and your article is redundant. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said muscles are not important. Did you even read my post? Why did you tell me to discuss on the talk page if you aren't willing to participate?--Taylornate (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've both been blocked for edit warring, can we talk about this? I would suggest discussion at a central location.--Taylornate (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]