Let's be absolutely crystal clear on this, as there are editors who pull these mind & word games all the time and it drives me up the wall that they are allowed to get away with this behaviour: never in my entire life have I been in a real-life conversation with anyone in which "Q.E.D." was intended to mean anything but "So, F.U."  The game?  If anyone calls you out on it, you can respnd by linking to Q.E.D., a cute dodge which allows you to appear superficially to have been "the civil one" in the conversation and humiliate your "opponent" at the same time. 

 My response to this mind game was to point out that you were ignoring valid arguments: This "argument" is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALAAAaaa!"—pretty spot-on exactly what you did.  Not nice to pull open the Wizard's curtain, but certainly not anything like the "incivility" you demanded I apologize for. 

 As to the validity of the "argument" itself, I'd like to point out a very recent discussion at Talk:Claude Monet.  Not long ago, there were extensive galleries in the article: 28 images in one gallery, 40 in another.  Attempts to do something about these sprawling galleries were met with resistance from editors who insisted the Visual Arts Manual of Style used the Monet article specifically to excuse such galleries (déjà vu?)  After several long and often acrimonious discussions involving over a dozen editors the consensus fell strongly in favour of reducing the number of images and rearranging the remaining ones into smaller, easier-to-navigate and higher-context galleries. 

 The fact that "Chinese characters" has been chosen as an example for the guideline in and of itself means little, especially given there is little evidence that much discussion went into its selection—the fact that it was moved specifically to be made the example sets an awful lot of bells ringing (Merry Christmas!).  Just how valid, or even thought-out, was that decision? 

 Now if you could get around to responding to my concerns, we can let this ugly tangent die an ugly death.  Maybe you can even get consensus on the side of your argument—as it stands, that's not the case.