RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Power set

Power set | Result: Deleted

Power set (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Hopeless stub. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 04:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Two meters. AgingHippie (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Set theory is witchcraft. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{A ⇒ ¬A.} 15:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
4. Why is this an article in the first place? Like, did we have some crazies asserting bullshit about sets? Ever? Ikanreed (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

   No, idiot. We had an original member of the site adding something he thought was interesting back before this painful deletion culture arose. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

   You're pretty fucking crazy about missionality when it comes to things that actually have pseudo-scientific bents, but then something arbitrarily dictionarylike is precious memories.

   Is this some kind of fear-of-change thing? I don't get what's going on in your head. Ikanreed (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

   This is a little longer than I prefer because I continue to observe a bad habit of yours that I bristle at. Let me walk you through this. You asked a question. I answered it. See that part? The editor wrote something because he thought it was interesting. That was common back in the day. That's the answer. You may not like it, but it has nothing to do with me. Now you're putting words into my mouth and ascribing intent to me that you've fabricated out of whole cloth. I did not express any wish the article not be deleted. Some need to be, however in this instance I feel like I'm remembering correctly that there was already a big discussion of what to do with math related articles. I certainly didn't express any wish that it not be deleted because of my "precious memories". I simply made an observation based on my understanding of the prevailing sentiment about content when this site was young: people generally felt comfortable creating article because there wasn't a cohort of deletionists jumping to smite articles hours after being created. In other words, it's all too common that Youkantreed. I hope you take a moment to consider this and learn something about reading what people actually say. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

   I see. yet another "I was overtly hostile, framing things as a disagreement, and clearly trying to make a point, but don't you dare ascribe intent to me" reply. Fine. I don't know what you get out of that pretext, but I'll grant you it. Again. Ikanreed (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

   Actually, Nutty, the article was created 11 December 2014, or 42 days ago. So "an original member of the site adding something he thought was interesting back before this painful deletion culture arose" doesn't seem accurate, since he added it after "this painful deletion culture arose". Anyways, this has been a lovely conversation. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:08, 22 January 2015 (UUTC

   Thanks for correcting me. You are right. I was absolutely positively incorrect in making any assumptions about this very early editor's lack of savvy on how you all run things now. Delete delete delete. Did you delete yet? Oh good. Nutty Roux (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

   Before I confirm yet again that it's time to show your your ass from a hole in the ground, please do me the courtesy of explaining your analysis there. Dude, you're a moron. It's ok. Lots of stupid people learn they're stupid. The smarter among them never will. That's you. Nutty Roux (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

   I am not going to respond. Please, calm down. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 12:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)