Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (38)

You're imperious attitude doesn't really work when you've repeatedly demonstrated that you can't read.

You know, I get the idea behind "Truthiness", but outside of beckoning Beetlejuice, repeating something incessantly doesn't make it true. So while you may wish to push other's people views or them noting your errors aside under the auspice that "they can't read", it really isn't going to add strength to your argument or support your point.

Though I see there is at least some progress in you no longer claiming that people are calling your work/observations/etc infinitesimal. Victimhood is so unsexy and counterproductive.

But you still wish to handcuff all discussion on the use of this tool to celeb/pop culture article which do, INDEED, account for an infinitesimal percentage of articles on en.wikipedia. While I duly acknowledge that issues with those articles are reasons to discuss how the tool and dashboard can be improved, I can't buy into the idea that any discussion or gauging of the usefulness of the tool should be relegated to the impact on this <1% of articles. As demonstrated amply elsewhere, it is nonsensical to take drastic measures that impact a large scope based on the results of <1% of anything.

=
''The problem with your cute little cell phone analogy is that cell phones are USEFUL. This tool is NOT. It doesn't make sense to let a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very small number of "developmentally challenged" people defending the tool (and who have never written a Wikipedia article in their entire LIFE) have undue weight on the decision to keep it.''

1.) Personal opinion on the usefulness of cell phones/AFT. Some may share your personal opinion on one, both or neither. Whose personal opinion is valid? Still doesn't discount the point of the analogy that having a small percentage of "abusers" misusing a tool is not reason enough to completely banish/shelve said tool. It is reason to have a rational, civil discussion on how to improve the tool.

But rational discussion is what leads to things like cell phone driving laws and hands-free headsets. Irrational, uncivil discussion leads to people name calling their opposition and advocating the complete shelving of a tool instead of working to improve something.

2.) Your whole pontification about people who disagree with you having never written a Wikipedia article has been demonstrated as false (and is a very weird dick measuring contest BTW). Which begs the question, do you still need a saddle if you're trying to beat a dead horse?