174
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
→Allowance of (critical) reviews: why is it even relevant?
(→Allowance of (critical) reviews: why is it even relevant?) |
|||
| Line 261: | Line 261: | ||
:::::::::::::It depends on the implementation of the review system. I'd prefer to have my "review" incorporated into the article though (it already is to some extent: "While Conservapedia continues to be a major focus of RationalWiki, they have branched out into many areas of skepticism.") instead of having a mess of multiple, possibly redundant opinions in the article. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 17:28, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :::::::::::::It depends on the implementation of the review system. I'd prefer to have my "review" incorporated into the article though (it already is to some extent: "While Conservapedia continues to be a major focus of RationalWiki, they have branched out into many areas of skepticism.") instead of having a mess of multiple, possibly redundant opinions in the article. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 17:28, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::::::::::Well don't you think it important that your claim of "no one objects" be noted as ''your'' claim? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ::::::::::::::Well don't you think it important that your claim of "no one objects" be noted as ''your'' claim? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::::::::::::I do not understand why it even has to be in the article. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 17:46, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
== Criticism and rebuttals == | == Criticism and rebuttals == | ||