On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:37:32 +0200, you wrote:
>> Please look at the talk pages. I've never
shied away from
>> any discussion. And 3 reverts in 5 days can hardly be called
>> edit-warring, nor does it explain a block for 1 week.
> It can if it's against consensus, and you
*know* it's against
> consensus, and you repeatedly do it anyway.
Many editors think that numerical supermajority equals
consensus (it doesn't). Consensus is strictly reached only
when all concerned have accepted a position.
Wise words - I winder who said that? But the lack of 100% agreement
does not mean you can go ahead and enact the minority view in the mean
time.
30 image removals per week clearly shows that no
consensus
has been reached, this is what I know.
No, it means that most people think one thing and a small coterie of
edit warriors think another.
> Your version of debate
> appears to be to re-state your position. Which, to be fair, is pretty
> much where everybody else there comes from.
Well, I don't think so. Please look again at
Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons
controversy/Arguments/Image-Display
I've been responsive to almost all arguments stated,
leaving out only personal attacks.
You've been responsive in the sense of not changing your view. As has
pretty much everyone else.
Come up with a new compromise.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG