  :::We achieved consensus, it is true. Then systematically our consensual version was eliminated. Why did you not object to that? I hung round for hours waiting for you to note to other editors that this had been discussed, and that you and I had agreed, and no one else objected, to the mention of this.  Our consensual version was then successively challenged. I tried, as is my practice, to find a mediation, by shortening the text to meet lead requirements, and satisfy these new objections.  So, since we did obtain consensus, and you acknowledge that this is okay, why don't you restore the text. I'm not to blame for this, Jaakobou. Your fellow editors are to blame. The proper thing for you to do in this case is to restore our text. We agreed to it, no one else challenged it for a while, and now I find the whole text removed. This is extremely irrational. We have as you note already agreed on the page to the prior version. Awaiting your response, and I hope, coherent textual restoration of our consensual version. I am finding the incoherence in policy on consensus deeply troubling here. You and I are the most unlikely people to find consensus, but we managed it with civility, and now with no regard for our work, it is botched and scotched, and not a murmur from the corridors   