From: <kband(a)www.llamacom.com> You are right, and ridiculous is certainly not a word that I would have used. But the thing is that by making such things easier we also stimulate the creation of subpages which, as Larry will explain to you if his wife lets him, :-), is something that we'd rather not have in Wikipedia. Maybe you don't agree with that, but then you should try to convince Larry and the rest of the Wikipedia-gang that subpages are a good thing. That won't be easy. -- Jan Hidders

kband(a)www.llamacom.com wrote: I don't agree with this at all. Don't think of it as "Larry as final arbiter" on the one hand and "policy by consensus" on the other hand. The right way to look at it is that Larry is the final arbiter of what the consensus is. Since agitators on all sides are likely to never concede that the consensus is against them, we need to have a final stopping point. That's Larry, or maybe me if the issue is something technically beyond the scope of his knowledge, but so far, achieving technical consensus has been pretty easy. --Jimbo

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 kband(a)www.llamacom.com wrote: Why should we revert to an inferior technology just to save you a little convenience? That's ridiculous. EVERYONE is having to do extra work in order to make the switch to the (better) new software. Larry