There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Block booking
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I'm reluctant to get rid of such a well-sourced article, but I must question it's missionality. Thoughts from other users?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- My thought is that, considering the trouble you've caused, you don't deserve to express an opinion here.
02:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- You do realize just how pathetic this vendetta of yours looks, don't you?--"Shut up, Brx." 03:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Moving on... I agree with Brx. The Faux News bunch having engaged in shady business practices does not automatically mean we need articles on said practices. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 05:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- You do realize just how pathetic this vendetta of yours looks, don't you?--"Shut up, Brx." 03:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted because RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Block booking --MtDNotorious Sodomite 09:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)