" 

 ===Consensus and civility=== 
 Hi, Elonka.  I was away for a couple of days, and noticed that in the conversation at TV:NC, in response to a couple of people who asked why you hadn't responded to my comments, you said: 

 :I've been asked why I don't specifically reply to everyone's comments here, and one reason is, that as soon as someone resorts to personal attacks or uncivility, I tend to ignore anything else they have to say (as is recommended in WP:CIVIL). So if you want your voice to be heard, please concentrate on being polite, being civil, and showing that you have as much respect for the opinions of editors who disagree with you, as respect for the opinions of those who agree with you. 

 I hope that I am not among the editors whom you have put in this category.  I did not mean to attack you, or to be uncivil to you or anyone else in the discussion.  If there is any specific comment that offended you, please let me know — I believe that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are two of our most important principles, and if I have violated either of them I am extremely sorry.  If I have offended you, I don't know what it was that I did — I don't consider identifying you in the debate is incivil or a personal attack.  My tone may occasionally betray a certain impatience, but I hope it never sinks to the level of incivility. 

 TobyRush (whose equanimity in this discussion I have a great deal of respect for) has quoted the most relevant bits of my posts above, and he's linked to my full comment.  I also made a comment replying to yours at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Summary of naming issue, which I think is worth your consideration.  To make it easier for you, I'll repeat it here, since the conversation has moved on since then: 

 :Elonka, the existing consensus on this page is not based on the poll, but on the extensive conversation that has followed it.  You are correct that the poll was altered, and some of the poll-related discussion may have been unclear, but there has been a great deal of discussion since then.  Remember that polling is evil, and Wikipedia prefers discussion over voting.  Accordingly, I take the many, many kilobytes of discussion into greater account than the poll, which was only a preliminary gauge of opinions.  Please read Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote#Policy and guidelines — although that page has not been approved, it is an accurate description of how policies and guidelines are formed on Wikipedia. 

 :I have yet to see any response to my summary of the arguments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Reasons for exceptions.  In this section, you have merely restated the arguments which I believe I  and others have successfully argued against.  All your arguments can be summarized by ""consistency"", ""precedent"" and ""context"", none of which are supported by other Wikipedia policies.  ""Common sense and the occasional exception"" is a completely different matter from establishing a guideline which codifies those exceptions. 

 :I also oppose having another poll on this subject, as I feel that the discussion (not the poll) has reached an adequate consensus, and we should move on to the next stage.  You and Matthew Fenton are the only editors who disagree with the existing consensus, and consensus does not mean 100% agreement.  Let's move on. —  •   

  
 Re-reading that, I can see some of the ""impatience"" I mentioned above.  I believe that came from the fact that you had not responded to my earlier comment, which took a fair amount of time and consideration.  However, if you had categorized me as incivil and thus to be ignored, that would explain why you had not responded.  That's understandable — I hope you can also understand my perspective.  I want to be able to discuss the issue of the guideline, and what I believe to be the consensus on the page, without being bogged down in personal misunderstandings.  Is that OK? —  •   

 "