] and ): I've had it and am taking this to a page over which you have less sole control.    

Taking this outside:  See new section...    

Show 'n' Tell

A question for   It may seem an odd question to WP purists, but considering the importance WP places on reliability of secondary sources, why does WP not require a same or similar vetting process of its editors, particularly those who seem to speak only for themselves?  The entire concept of requiring contributors to discuss/argue with a username is absurd in its most basic interpretation.  For all I know, I could be spinning my wheels fighting for accuracy with a demented, mind game-playing geek living in inner Mongolia.  It is imperative, in my mind, that those who demand respect offer up some sort of evidence, as I have, of their actual ability, credibility, reliability, accountability...  their authority to control.  If it's required of the sources, it should certainly be required of those who quote them and write about them.  Similarly, how do I "call for consensus?"  Who may be a member and how is each identified?  Thanks in advance...    

: That's the beauty of Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it. That's the point. You have no more authority than any other editor here, regardless of your credentials. Also, anyone can participate when trying to achieve consensus. Just remember: it's not the number of people, but the strength or the arguments that matter. darian