User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc

This is Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22: 10 days

Vandalism
Level 3

Minas Morgul

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)[reply]

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/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can do! DonIago (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I got bored sooner than I expected: WP:VPP#Notability of fictional items and tie-in sources. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. I'll try to take a look at it later today. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Domer

I saw your note and I figured I'd write back. I am a grad of NDLS - I hope your semester is ending well, and that your summer is either relaxing (if you're a first year) fruitful (if you're a second year) or effective (if you are studying for the Bar). Best of luck; --NDSteve10 (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm finishing up second year. It's been a real ride. Hope the industry is treating you well! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Your recent editing history at Williams Landing railway station shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

The case is not resolved yet, it's more appropriate to use Citation needed tag rather than completely remove it at this stage. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netmapper (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently in response to this. Without merit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Brigade

Please stop tagging this redirect. There is no possibility of this ever becoming a full article by itself as it is inherently not notable. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REDCAT. Redirects should be categorized. I really don't understand your obsession with this topic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they should not. It's optional only, and in this case it is not needed. There is no obsession, except by the person (not you) who keeps re-creating this article. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who's recreating the article? It's a redirect. Adding a category to the redirect to aid redirect categorization doesn't change the fact that it's a redirect. And frankly, I don't understand the logic behind your argument: it's optional, therefore it should be removed? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history. You'll see a troublemaking 59.101 IP who keeps bringing it back when it's nowhere near notable. I mentioned "optional" because you were making out that it was compulsory, and it's not. It only applies to redirects that could be made into articles - and this one can't be. So for that reason your edit should be removed. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]