Content deleted Content added
Line 1,171:
:::5. You have your policy based arguments, other editors on this page have theirs which they’ve already stated, but at the end of the day, no matter how invalid you think other editors’ arguments are or how answered by your points they are, you don’t have consensus, and per WP:SATISFY, no one is obligated to satisfy you. [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 07:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::You seem to think 'consensus' means that you get to veto the inclusion of this source no matter the majority opposing you. I'm afraid that's not how it works, and I would ''really'' appreciate it if you'd read the writing on the wall before I have to waste hours of my life writing up a complaint to the administrators about your extremely blatant POV pushing. [[Special:Contributions/212.36.63.7|212.36.63.7]] ([[User talk:212.36.63.7|talk]]) 13:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::No, consensus means not having half the thread against inclusion. But please, if you find that problematic, ask ANI, and you can explain how it’s not just me that’s challenging the inclusion of this source, it’s @[[User:LokiTheLiar|LokiTheLiar]], @[[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist]], @[[User:Usr Trj|Usr Trj]], and I *think* @[[User:Maddy from Celeste|Maddy from Celeste]](?) - none of whom are obligated to satisfy you simply because you don’t find their reasons for opposing inclusion to be good enough.
:::::I’m not the only one vetoing inclusion. I’m just the one you’re arguing with right now. If it was just me, you’d have consensus since consensus doesn’t mean unanimous, but it isn’t. By my measure it’s about half the editors in this thread. But please, if you believe that to still be an issue, I invite you to ask ANI. [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 13:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
==Restructuring==
| |||