geni wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking majority with consensus.
General aggreement isn't going to happen any more on anything. As such in order to get things done we have to shift over to super majority. If you don't like this go and join a smaller project.
That sounds like a deletionist manifesto.
That seems characteristic of the gang of punks that has been dominating the deletion process. These fanatics are so obsessed with pushing their POV through deletions that they have completely lost touch with anything constructive or creative.
I'm also disappointed in those who are in a position to act against this clique that just whine and do nothing. Sometimes it takes a little courage to deal with these disruptive influences. Even if a large proportion of these articles deserves be deleted that doesn't justify the inflexible attitude about all the deletions.
If they can't make some effort to reach compromises with others who do suggest alternatives for problem articles then maybe they should go troll somewher else.
Getting pissed off with the incessent complaints, Ec