", 22 December 2006 (UTC) 

 ::::I'm disappointed that you would characterise this as a ""pissing match"", and the only viewpoint I am interested in advancing is that of objectivity.  Nothing among the diversity on my talk-page, past or present, has any bearing on this matter.  On the whole, your last post seems to be mostly an attack on me and my supposed motives.  There's no need or justification for such (seeming) personal rancour.  Certainly I do not feel any.  Please don't take personal offence at this or any editorial disagreement between us, if that is what has happened.The problem I see here is that this article is a ""fork"".  Although forks multiply the number of articles, they do not help to ""build the web"", but interfere with its good structure.  I've considered, at length, the reasons that this article is a fork, in my last post.  I hope that you will be willing likewise to consider the matter dispassionately, and to reply in kind.  In the end, we may still disagree, but there is no good reason that we cannot do so and yet remain cordial.The thoughts of other editors are, of course, most welcome by me (so at least we agree on one thing!), whereas the concept of ""consensus"" hardly applies to only two people.Sincerely,  21:39"