If you want another voice on the talk page regarding the consensus, you can add mine. I'm with, well, everyone else. What this article doesn't need is to be full of puffery, with iffy sourcing. You've come to this page, accused Hullaballoo of vandalism (a note: edits that you disagree with are not vandalism, and referring to them as such is offensive and flies right in the face of WP:AGF), decided that consensus is "bogus" (which I don't agree with) and reverted yet again, joining the side of a basically disruptive SPA. Not the best entrance, I must say. You might want to think carefully before insulting any more of the editors involved in this article and before reverting with the claim that consensus is "bogus". Consensus is not voting - counting heads doesn't gauge it. What's most important is policy, and I don't believe the version you just reverted to is particularly in line with the BLP policy. OohBunnies! (talk)