Talk:Eu'Vend: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
pointer to deleted version |
23matthias (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Note for editors: the article in its current text was speedy deleted as spam in February under the title [[Eu'Vend]]. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 13:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
:Note for editors: the article in its current text was speedy deleted as spam in February under the title [[Eu'Vend]]. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 13:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
I understood the the old article from February was to much in the tone of a promotional flyer. That's why I tried to merely summarize factual information. That's why I nearly used no adjectives. I agree that there are still some adjectives in the History part. Would the article be fine, if I rewrite this part? [[User:23matthias|23matthias]] ([[User talk:23matthias|talk]]) 13:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:25, 15 July 2010
In my point of view the articel is writen neutrally. If you don't agree, please let me know which part isn't neutral.23matthias (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's the overall tone of the article. It's written like a promotional flyer for the event and not an encyclopedia article about it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note for editors: the article in its current text was speedy deleted as spam in February under the title Eu'Vend. —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I understood the the old article from February was to much in the tone of a promotional flyer. That's why I tried to merely summarize factual information. That's why I nearly used no adjectives. I agree that there are still some adjectives in the History part. Would the article be fine, if I rewrite this part? 23matthias (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)