I have no idea why you are posting the slang definitions of 'fuck'.  That is a total non-sequitur.  I have not seen anyone here assert that there aren't any ways of using 'fuck' that are slang.  The point was, and remains, that the standard use of the word 'fuck' as both a noun and a verb - the only ways that this word has been used in this entire discussion throughout this entire week up until your latest post - has been the standard definition that is widely understood and accepted as a normal word that is nowhere near slang.

You used this non-sequitur as your basis for reversion.  And to this day you are persisting in it.  Yet again another example of a huge logic disconnect that permeates this entire exchange.

As for the meta-discussion (the discussion about the discussion), Andy's revert was based upon his assessment that the issue needed to be discussed before such a change could be accepted.  And where did he choose to raise that discussion?  Over on my User Talk page.  That is the most inappropriate place to have such a discussion.  I suggested to him that the discussion be moved here.  Instead he moved it to an Admin page where he called for me to be blocked.  Is that the action of anyone who wants rational discussion?  (This too are questions that I do not need anyone's answer to.)

As for your opinion that this issue is now resolved, I never shared any such view.  I added the 'See also' link as a step in the right direction.  Not as a cure.  I can't have stated that more clearly that I STILL see the article as broken.  My decision to leave here, for the time being, is because I see a critical mass of editors who are bent on keeping it broken (my opinion / my view).  It's fine if we agree to disagree, but that doesn't mean that the problem has magically gone away.

Toxicity label: obscene