":::::You resorting to dishonesty is disgusting and vile Binksternet.
For starters, dating back to the original discussion back in December 2009, while the user Optigan liked FinancialNorth1, he preferred a cropped version of the fourth photo, to which no including PaulH or you for that matter said anything as clearly noted in the discussion. As i'm saying again for the umpteenth time and as the record showed, no decision was made and the discussion ended. Paulh, or you did not say anything. If he wanted the photo then, why didn't he continue to press his case then and convince a consensus then? I would've left it at that then, but instead he and other editors remained silent. I didn't restart the discussion because I assumed that the editors simply lost interest, or didn't have the time.

Furthermore, I did not ""slip in"" as you disgustingly, dishonestly, facetiously say. I only added that photo because I noticed for the time being that no one had made a decision since the original discussion back in January. Again, no one did anything for months. You and Paulh cannot claim you didn't see the change, because you made several other edits throughout the article for months.

Again, Paul did not form a consensus prior to the change, or continue the discussion where it had left off. Once again, he instead changed the photo, got a ""consensus"" from Binksternet. The IP editor liked the photo, but, quoting the editor again:

""Any of the photos in that section (""FinancialNorth.jpg""; ""Montgomerystreetsf.jpg""; ""Federal Reserve Band (San Francisco).jpg"") except #2 (SanFranciscoEmbarcadero.jpg) would be fine as a replacement, and even the cropped version of #2 is better than the one currently there now. Thoughts?64.81.57.93 (talk)""

""I'm going to replace it with ""FinancialNorth.jpg"" and see what happens.""

The crux of it was that Paulh made the change before even Binksternet approved it, or I or other editors could respond.

Binksternet's abusive little crusade against me shows my point that he and Paul have no interest in perusing collaborative editing efforts. Despite my reverts, I at least agreed to having a discussion and a ""photo choosing contest"" as it were. Paulh did not and Binksternet is now acting as some kind of enforcing. I don't see Binksternet asking the IP editor in question or other editors to the SF article including Optigan13 have their say either in this. He is not apologizing to me and asking that we resume the discussion and consensus, something that at least Paulh did earlier. Only showing his intentions as pure slander towards me as attempt to have me banned purely because he disagrees with my edits or whatever personal victory he may get by flaming me
  "