" 
 :::::::::Sorry, but you're just passing the buck on your own actions. You're the one reverting the changes, issuing ultimatums, and invoking (nonexistent) consensuses to support what you ""would prefer"". If we're going to talk about ""surreptitious content dropping"" we can look at your edits, where you removed the established material while claiming it was the ""duplicate content added in the merge"". However, this conversation (and AGF) convince me that this was less intentional dodging than it was you not paying attention to what you're doing. 
 :::::::::As far as ""conceding"", uh, what? I already explained that most of your change to the wording was fine and it's still in the article. Literally the only issue is that pointless and distracting quote in the citation you're so fixated on. Even after all of this you still haven't clearly explained why it's so important that you're holding up all other changes over it. It doesn't sound like you know yourself, considering your current argument is totally different than what you said yesterday. 
 :::::::::Moving material wholecloth without changes simply isn't possible without just dumping a bunch of redundant material into the Tropes article, considering much of it is already there (and has been for months). Like it or not, we're going to have to make editorial decisions on what to say. We certainly shouldn't be replacing better material with worse material for the sake of arbitrarily making ""a closed transaction"". / "