:::WP:RETAIN happened to be athe key policy-based reason for the RM#8 consensus.  If the essay is about Yogurt, the WP:RETAIN is at the centre.     

 ::B2C wrote> The point you keep missing or ignoring is that "the rule" or "reminder" from Yogurt is for closers to give even more attention than usual to analyzing and weighing the arguments over counting !votes in situations where there is a history of "no consensus"  

 :But there is no rule or reminder from Yogurt.  It is simply not established, and so write assuming there is is to mislead.  This is not acceptable in a ProjectSpace essay. 

 :You think that a series of “no consensus” closes gives a later RM’s closer *more* latitutde to perform a !vote analysis?  This is a weird, though acceptable as an opinion essay, if clearly written as opinion. 

  
 ::B2C wrote> to consider what if any policy-based arguments there would be to reverse the proposed move if it goes through.  

 :This is a very worthy idea for exploration in an essay. 

 ::B2C wrote> That derives from the saga (yes, it became evident and noted before the saga was over, but after it was well under way - it was not noted or recognized prior, so far as I know).  

 :No, it does not “derive” from the saga.  It does not “stem” from the saga.  Maybe, it was formulated in your mind during the saga, was shaped by the saga, but it came from you, not the saga.  It’s only appearance in the saga is in your posts.  In the saga, there is no evidence that your idea gained more than isolated traction or made a contribution to resolution.  It is not OK for you to fabricate a historical precedent for your idea. 

 ::B2C wrote> That's the lesson to be learned from the saga, IMHO.  

 :If it is about you, and your thoought history, it belongs in your UserEsssay in your userspace. 

 ::B2C wrote> And during and immediately after the saga it was a proposed theory.  
 
 :Diffs please. 

 :“During the experience of the yogurt, the following theory was proposed…”  

  
 ::B2C wrote> Now that all this time has passed and the title remains remarkably stable and unchallenged, there is much more basis to the theory.  

 :I don’t think you are very profficient with the words “basis” and “theory”.  New data does not modify a basis of a theory. 

 :“Now that the title remains remarkably stable and unchallenged, there is much more weight added to the premise of the theory” 
 Exactly what the “theory” is needs exploration.  Is the theory:  “The lack of corresponding counter arguments for a reverse move mean that stability will result from making the move” 

 ::B2C wrote> You may disagree, but that's a reason to write a different essay, not to change or userfy this one. 

 :Do you intend to fight tooth and nail for the wording “This reminder for RM closers stems from the case of Yogurt”?  I consider it a minor absurdity (no reminder is established; the theory doesn’t “stem from”).  If you insist that the essay must state your unique perspective, then it should be userfied.