User talk:104.175.42.84

The article Rome Viharo is up for deletion at RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Rome Viharo. You may wish to take part in that discussion. PacWalker 02:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Really, though: your essay won't get anything changed by itself, but taking part in the deletion discussion might. I strongly encourage you to give a brief version of why we should delete your article there, sans the misinterpretation of previous discussions: say, the notability issue, the fact that scarce little else is said about you on the wider internet and so this source is perhaps overly prominent, etc. That might sway some opinions. PacWalker 03:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting rational wiki to delete the article, I think i even mentioned that. I will however continue to protest these harassing articles and methods for as long as this article is here and bring attention to the abuses that occur on this platform, and the paltry methods you have for resolving them. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So basically, ignore our processes and troll us. PacWalker 10:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

To misquote a less than wise man:

You have won the "Most level 2 headers created on one AfD page" award! You really need to stop doing that.

PacWalker 04:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nah: I won that last year when I was here. You must be a noob. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I know you did; that would be the source of the misquoted "award." PacWalker 20:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it was still dumb last year too. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Article will be kept.

The votes are in, the article stays. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes thank you Aging Hippie, I was expecting that. I've also closed with my [1] on Rational Wiki - I didn't find the deliberation process here very compelling. I do want to thank you however for your vote to 'delete' especially you're motivations for doing so, which appeared to me to be very thoughtful - so to me personally you are hope for a 'Rational Wiki'. Also thanks for giving me the heads up on Ronson's new book! I'm a big fan of his and have read all of his books, didn't know this one was out. Viral marketing? (smile). Peace to you as well. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's say the deliberation process is not compelling. Why isn't it? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: No transparency, contradictory and personally motivated arguments comprised of comments, not deliberations. comments were intellectually lazy and fuzzy, dishonest, irresponsible, unwilling to review evidence based facts and claims. And this is before we even get to the inherent problem of Arrow's Impossibility in consensus building. Longer answer: I'm hoping you can extract that from my [2], and if not I'll be blogging about this plenty over time. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You keep citing Arrow's impossibility theorem, but no third alternative is being considered in that discussion, is it? PacWalker 20:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean did anyone propose merging? If no, an AfD decision is between deletion and retention, and Arrow's theorem doesn't make statements about choices involving fewer than three options. PacWalker 20:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not since there were many choices the editors here could choose to establish their reason for a keep. I could be mistaken there too but either way I'm still baffled how a process no more dissimilar to Reddit style upvotes and #personal #commentary is a valid, deliberative, or viable review process to claims coming for a 3rd party asserting harassment and public shaming on your evidenced based encyclopedia. Why the article even fails to mention I publish a website specifically critiquing the Rational Wiki and Wikipedia skeptic editing communities. Oh wait, you do, you call them 'conspiracy theories'. Group think publishing at it's finest. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)