User talk:Mendaliv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Level 1

Redirects for discussion[edit]

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

UE Boom[edit]

Information icon Please review the AfD, do not engage in edit warring; per BBB it is you who should initiate discussion on the article's talk page. Dmatteng (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about re: BBB nor what that has to do with the AfD. The article is a pile of... well... it's very clearly advertising copy, and this needs to be fixed. And not with blind reverts. I have restored the advert tag as you have not fixed that issue (slapping {{inuse}} on there does not fix the problem). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a consensus on the AfD that the article is not promotional. It was proposed to do some clean up and I'm working on it. Would you be able to login on wikipedia-en-help now? If yes, let me know your nickname. If not, please let me know why have you removed 'rugged' from the lead? Dmatteng (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There was no such consensus. The consensus was that the subject was notable per Wikipedia guidelines. I don't do IRC. "Rugged" is a peacock term. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Let me quote from peacock term:"Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." However: and other reliable sources mention that the speaker is rugged.
If you haven't used IRC, but would like to try please click on and it will open IRC in your browser without any additional programs required (visit WP:IRC.) Dmatteng (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Adver tag[edit]

I have implemented various changes and did some clean up while adopting majority of your ideas and your edits on the article, especially regarding grammar and use of bold, removed words such as: "special". Please let me know if the adver tag can be removed now.

I have completed the editing up to "Critique" section. Will review the rest of the article later. Dmatteng (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the article still needs a lot more work, per the discussion ongoing at the talk page. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
That is exactly what I wanted to ask you. In the beginning you have performed a bold edit. Removed all the parts that you considered inappropriate and changed every sections. Full edit. And after that, you have slapped {advert} tag.
While prior to your edit there wasn't {advert} tag, it may appear as if your edit has introduced promotional tone? Unless of course you used the tag as a bad badge. Could you please explain? Dmatteng (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Minas Morgul[edit]

I have to say I am, to put it mildly, disappointed by the results of the AFD. We seem to be setting a precedent where, for instance, information in The Star Trek Encyclopedia could be used as a basis for establishing the notability of subjects of a plethora of Star Trek-related articles. DonIago (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure what to do about it though. It got closed as no consensus though, so it does default to keep. That's just how it is. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I think I'm more concerned about the precedent being set than by the article itself...though I do think the article is lacking as well. I was looking at Deletion Review, but they seem to prefer it if a conversation is initiated with the AFD closer first. Do you feel that would be worth pursuing in this instance, or do you think a "let it go" attitude might be better? I'm willing to pursue this since it doesn't seem like it would be a huge time investment or such, but would like to know I have some support before I do so. DonIago (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd say let it go for now. Looking at the AfD, the closer was probably correct in assessing it as no consensus. I'll also note that such a close doesn't preclude a subsequent discussion (even one not at AfD) deciding to redirect the page elsewhere. AfDs aren't really precedent-setting anyway. You might be better served trying to start a discussion at the Village Pump on how articles about purely fictional things are treated. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll give some thought as to whether I want to do anything further with this. Thanks for your input. DonIago (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Good luck. Do ping me if you decide to kick off a policy discussion. I'd be more than happy to weigh in or help craft a proposal. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Can do! DonIago (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)