|
|
→Re: Fallout closure: Reply
|
||
Line 1,312:
::Obviously if you're still convinced that the arguments were equally strong on the whole, that is fine. I just want to make sure we don't treat every comment in a [[one person, one vote]] kind of way. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 10:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::In this case, however, your rebuttal was a subjective one, not an objective one - it is possible for such a rebuttal to swing consensus, by convincing other editors of your point of view, but it doesn't permit the closer to down weight the !votes of those who disagreed with your rebuttal. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal#top|talk]]) 05:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::OK, but how do you not assess some of the opposition as subjective, then? :D I entered a fair bit of objective data into the discussion, and I followed it up with much more data in [[Talk:Fallout (disambiguation)#some page view statistics]], where I also then listed data points that contradict the claims that it's only nuclear fallout that is referred to as fallout because I found a couple of articles in the encyclopedia already that actually do that; one of those was about an attack on a nuclear reactor, no less. Did you see that? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 07:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
| |||