RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Anti-revisionism
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Anti-revisionism | Result: Kept[edit]
Delete[edit]
- Ill-referenced personal essay, has never been a good article. Missionality questionable, and at present no article would be an improvement. Talk page discussion not helpful. Should be moved to essay space, redirected somewhere useful or removed. David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
- There's no remote reason for removing it apart from "I don't want to edit it" which is silly. The page legit just needs better formatting and extra detail, deleting it isn't productive. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- So add the frickin detail. Or move it to Draft: space until it's actually an article - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would if I had the time for it in between my Masters, which I currently don't. How about you actually pull your weight for once and do it yourself? The article is fine apart from the so called "essay" you complained about, yet when asked to deal with your perceived problem, you pull a fit. How about you work on it, and stop bothering me with your whining. It's sad at this point. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- You don't have time to make it not shit, but you think shouting abuse until others do your work for you will get it done? To draft: I would say - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- "So do X for pointing that out" is not a reasonable (or a polite) response to someone who thinks the article is fine and can just use a few details that overall shouldn't impact the article. I don't see the point in moving it to draft space just for the sake of adding detail when just working on the page suffices. This also applies to both of you, especially Captain Communist; you shouldn't respond with "Why don't you do it too" either, just leave it at "I don't have time for it" and perhaps with my advice above about article critique, without making another rude quip that would serve to escalate the conflict. I also noticed your similar rude response earlier to the initial criticism of the page. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 17:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- It may be rude, but it's a painful fact, which is why I tend to stay away from you lot due to the overall attitude I get off people here. I gave a polite and nice response to David's original complaint, I get cheekiness back. That's disrespect. I'm usually the only person fixing most of these articles, no one else choses to help or assist in any meaningful way, apart from myself. The article's contents are fine and explain the concept at a base level. David thinks otherwise. I'm not fixing his problems. That's the end of the matter. I'm not bothering with these silly semantics, and there is no "conflict" so please stop with the dramatization. I'm off to be actually productive elsewhere. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I believe your attitude is the problem, not everyone else. Nor is it "painful fact". Criticism sucks, yes, everyone will get defensive from some, but you haven't addressed any criticism here which is why David Gerard got impatient with you. Even asking for a elaboration would've been the appropriate response, not sarcastic whining and generalizing wiki attitude, even if David Gerard did act a little cheeky. As for "dramatization", I wouldn't feel the need to step in the moment either of you didn't exchange semi-aggressive retorts. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I believe your attitude is the problem, not everyone else. Nor is it "painful fact". Criticism sucks, yes, everyone will get defensive from some, but you haven't addressed any criticism here which is why David Gerard got impatient with you. Even asking for a elaboration would've been the appropriate response, not sarcastic whining and generalizing wiki attitude, even if David Gerard did act a little cheeky. As for "dramatization", I wouldn't feel the need to step in the moment either of you didn't exchange semi-aggressive retorts. --It's-a me,
- It may be rude, but it's a painful fact, which is why I tend to stay away from you lot due to the overall attitude I get off people here. I gave a polite and nice response to David's original complaint, I get cheekiness back. That's disrespect. I'm usually the only person fixing most of these articles, no one else choses to help or assist in any meaningful way, apart from myself. The article's contents are fine and explain the concept at a base level. David thinks otherwise. I'm not fixing his problems. That's the end of the matter. I'm not bothering with these silly semantics, and there is no "conflict" so please stop with the dramatization. I'm off to be actually productive elsewhere. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- "So do X for pointing that out" is not a reasonable (or a polite) response to someone who thinks the article is fine and can just use a few details that overall shouldn't impact the article. I don't see the point in moving it to draft space just for the sake of adding detail when just working on the page suffices. This also applies to both of you, especially Captain Communist; you shouldn't respond with "Why don't you do it too" either, just leave it at "I don't have time for it" and perhaps with my advice above about article critique, without making another rude quip that would serve to escalate the conflict. I also noticed your similar rude response earlier to the initial criticism of the page. --It's-a me,
- You don't have time to make it not shit, but you think shouting abuse until others do your work for you will get it done? To draft: I would say - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would if I had the time for it in between my Masters, which I currently don't. How about you actually pull your weight for once and do it yourself? The article is fine apart from the so called "essay" you complained about, yet when asked to deal with your perceived problem, you pull a fit. How about you work on it, and stop bothering me with your whining. It's sad at this point. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- So add the frickin detail. Or move it to Draft: space until it's actually an article - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't know what anti-revisionism meant. I read the page. Now I know what anti-revisionism means. What's the problem? Spud (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Decent stub. Perfectly missionable. Let's all settle down. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Entirely missional as an exploration of dogmatic authoritarianism. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I see little reason to delete this page. Sources and expansion are needed but this can be easily be worked on. This is why the improvement tags exist, after all. Moving this to draft is needless; the article is not THAT bad that its continued existence is bad image for the wiki. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- No satisfactory justification to delete this page. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- While this page needs a lot of work in its current state, I do not see this as a reason to delete it. Nerd (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
