Well, I tried to remove as much bs as possible and make things more neutral without raising any red flags for the editors of Wikipedia. Hopefully, that’s a bit better and they don’t revert it.
I just saw your changes. Nice. I’m not asking you to do to anything more, but as it stands, it still seems unnecessary for a whole article to exist. It could very nicely fit as a single sentence here. Deletion would be ideal, but that is expecting a lot from Wikipedia admins.
I agree. I really don’t see where an execution takes place changes the fact capital punishment is legal. It’s not like there’s an article over execution facilities in the US or Russia.
However, deleting is a long bureaucratic process where you have to argue with a bunch of no-life randos. Many editors consider it bad form to delete and reword large parts of an article then nominate it for deletion. This is viewed as intentional sabotage and bad faith, even if all you do is delete the unreliable sources. This article touches on this crap.
Well, I tried to remove as much bs as possible and make things more neutral without raising any red flags for the editors of Wikipedia. Hopefully, that’s a bit better and they don’t revert it.
I just saw your changes. Nice. I’m not asking you to do to anything more, but as it stands, it still seems unnecessary for a whole article to exist. It could very nicely fit as a single sentence here. Deletion would be ideal, but that is expecting a lot from Wikipedia admins.
I agree. I really don’t see where an execution takes place changes the fact capital punishment is legal. It’s not like there’s an article over execution facilities in the US or Russia.
However, deleting is a long bureaucratic process where you have to argue with a bunch of no-life randos. Many editors consider it bad form to delete and reword large parts of an article then nominate it for deletion. This is viewed as intentional sabotage and bad faith, even if all you do is delete the unreliable sources. This article touches on this crap.