User talk:RomeViharo

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Please see here for my statement. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:RomeViharo Please see here for my case study http://www.wikipediawehaveaproblem.com RomeViharo (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I am suspicious that you might not be the real Viharo, there has already been three people on this website posing as Viharo in the past on different accounts and some IPs. Check the talk page for the Rupert Sheldrake article. A number of IP addresses were claiming to be Viharo:

76.167.97.23 76.167.98.236 178.238.131.186 77.92.71.77 69.31.70.189 69.31.70.44

Are those you? Philips (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This should satisfy that concern https://twitter.com/rome_viharo/status/416953930266857472 RomeViharo (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dude[edit]

Don't edit your own article. If you want to "express opinions", use the RW Saloon Bar [1]. ..Leuders (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I edit my article? Who else is going to clean it up? you? do you actually expect me to just drop off some notes and assume that the 'disinterested editors' here will naturally make the changes? RomeViharo (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
See [2] ...Leuders (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay fine RomeViharo (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're not getting the point.[edit]

Doesn't this sound familar, Rome?

Losing an argument on the internet isn't "cyber-bullying." Part of your problem is you keep asserting things that don't appear to be the case. I don't see any clear "cyber-bullying" at all. As best I can make out you went to Wikipedia to push pseudo-scientific nonsense and lost. You came here in search of support for your various opinions and haven't found any.

That's why I'm so pissed at you. People have told you why you're wrong, you get angry and call them cyber-bullies. Judging from the first result I get searching your name, You're mad because the first result is your page. Let me show you a few reasons why you should stop.

  • You're just driving up the page on Google.
  • At this rate, the page will become even more negative, as did Kevin Martin's page did before you.
  • You're going to encounter more hostility from users like me.

So I'd suggest if you're only here to turn your page into a ego-boost, You'd better leave. Oh, and making several Level 2 headers everytime you're bitching is quite annoying.--The Madman (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

Oh I got the point[edit]

I want attention to come to this page, that's the point I think you're not getting. RomeViharo (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, as for the annoying 'level 2' usage - I'm making it easier for you or anyone brilliant mind here to refute each under those headers. So if you want to refute me, go to the 'level 2' section of your choice such as 'conspiracy theories, really?' and refute that point, etc... I'm making sure all of my responses are 'extra snarky' because I know that is the style of this forum and your a big boy and can handle it. cheers! RomeViharo (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

So you want the page showing why you're a fucking idiot to be the top result?You are stupid.--The Madman (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

Let's just wait and see. don't want to spoil the surprise. And are you going to have your little 'revert' war on my home page too? Is that part of your refutation? lol RomeViharo (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Rome! Instead of doing what anyone with any experience with Wikia does, you continue to create your Level 2 Headers! So in honor of your great achievement...

LP Ratlogo.svg
You have won "The Most Level 2 headers created in one talk page" award! You really need to stop doing that.

--The Madman (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

lol, now that was funny. RomeViharo (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I really don't get the point[edit]

Is the "surprise" a lawsuit for libel? Maybe you'll get a real Wikipedia mention out of it. Who knows? With their record on things like Essjay they might give you a whole article some day. Janosz (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Just keep following you'll see. I can assure you I am harmless  :) Nice to meet you by the way. I guess not everyone on here is a crank, eh? RomeViharo (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
No offense, but this isn't interesting enough for me to follow and I really doubt you'd ever get an article over there. I only stepped in because I saw your meltdown in Recent Changes and I have strong feelings about the effects anonymous asshats like myself can have on real people. But okay, good luck with whatever it is. Happy New Year. Janosz (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You wanted a empirical argument? Here ya go, Rome![edit]

One of our users has gotten the evidence and constructed a argument around it. Here ya go.--The Madman (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Tush[edit]

I'm not accepting any claims about your tush unless you provide objective evidence. Like pictures. >;->

The article has been deleted.[edit]

So you can go away now. Thank you. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I shall. RomeViharo (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Awesome. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

AL 0 1 2[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that this is a collaborative system/algorithm that basically works out consensus on a topic, and sorts it into one of three possible categories: Yes, No, Unknown. Thus, if the consensus cannot converge to "yes" or "no", it ends up in "unknown". Is this correct? - Grant (Talk) 16:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Kinda. Not 'Yes' or 'No' necessarily, more like rational, personal, and open question. the article would begin in 'unknown' but more than likely components of an article will be true, some components personal or opinion, and will have some remaining questions. and the way the algorithm works is that consensus WILL form and it will be rational and deliberated without riff raff. the algorithm is unique in that it rewards collaborative behavior with editing permissions. thanks for asking! email me if your interested in participating in the first wave of discussions (closed) that we will be doing for phase 2. RomeViharo (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)