Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aerobird/CSA Citizen Userbox

PMC -- This project page was prematurely closed. There are valid, glaring issues raised which were left unaddressed! Specifically, those are the acceptable use of the CSA flag in some userboxes as an exclusively geographical symbol, and the hypocrisy of selective indignation against racism/slavery while condoning userboxes favorably approving genocidal philosophies of far more extensive and egregious human rights violators such as Maoism, Sovietism, etc. Examples of each are posted at the bottom of the page. Both points require an honest answer. - JGabbard (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No one's obliged to respond to every argument made at an XfD. Despite that, both Rhododendrites and I did respond to your arguments. You just didn't like the answers you got. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 21:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct on all three counts, Tamzin. Whether I agreed with them or not, I actually had no problem with any of your answers, because they were full and complete. It is the responses by that I found to be unsatisfactory and incomplete, even if only because of the timing of the closure. I don't expect every decision to be in my favor, but I do expect issues raised to be fairly addressed. - JGabbard (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you insist on taking this matter further, you may appeal by following the instructions at WP:DRV. But I would bet anything that you will get a most unfavorable reception there: the closer could not possible have "prematurely closed" a discussion when the full 168 hours had elapsed and consensus was crystal-clear. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have two valid points to press that went unanswered, so I may well do that whether the reception is frosty or not. Thanks, EW.  When there's still active conversation with "an elephant in the room," I consider it premature in spite of apparent consensus and whether the prescribed time has elapsed or not. And the closer should have been able to notice that had she given it more attention. - JGabbard (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an unfair aspersion to cast against PMC. I don't know why you're unable to conceive of the thought that you just weren't making a very good argument. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 00:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is, and if so I apologize. But had I come across the page, it would have been very clear to me that the conversation had not quite played out.  However, when others decline to respond because one party has pointed out the inconsistency of their position, that's an indication that a good argument has been made, at least one worthy of some kind of honest and straightforward answer. - JGabbard (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)