User talk:Avatartar20

Re: Nibiru
The article is in need of a major clean-up, so the wiki appreciates if you're willing to help with that. Also, no worries: feel free to rewrite it from scratch you need to. -- BlueFrackle (talk) 01:20, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
 * In your mind, whats at least one thing that is wrong with the article? ... so that i dont make the same mistake. Nibiru is a difficult article because it is not just science fiction to a certain audiance... and is surrounded in controversy. What is one thing you would like to see better on the article? If you dont know, its okay... i can still work through it. Its gunna take some time because its not easy with its current editors and interested audiences. (You can also sample my direction of this article on my User Profile page). - Jsosa (talk) 07:29, December 14, 2018 (UTC)


 * Nibiru now re-written. Please let me know if it meets the scope / standard of this Wikia. Thanks Jsosa (talk) 11:01, December 14, 2018 (UTC)

About Nibiru
I'm sorry, I should have told you to read the wiki rules on the Main Page before editing. The fact is that we cannot have sentences copied straight from Wikipedia or any other external source. You need to write everything with your own words.

Other than that, the page looks good, but there are also way too many Wikipedia links, including some which are completely unnecessary (e.g. "List of Star Trek planets (M–Q)": in cases like this, if you feel the need to have a link, link to planet Nibiru's page on Memory Alpha instead). Overall, since we are not an extension of Wikipedia, the external links should be used sparingly, only when they feel most necessary. If a user wishes to read about Babylonian cosmology, they can do so without us directing them to Wikipedia. The excess of external links pollutes the page and feels gratuitous.

So, to improve the page, I would recommend getting rid of most Wikipedia links and rewriting the sentences that have been copypasted. Do so and the page should become excellent. -- BlueFrackle (talk) 13:57, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I did skim through your policy notes, but my own MOS got in the way. Im glad we are having the dialogue so i can modify. Every wikia’s MOS is different. I will make adjustments and find other Wikias to link to. I only had done one link to w:c:babylon.


 * Also, you can see my preparation for the article here, before i had originally posted it in one shot: edit history for Nibiru.


 * okay i did a cleanup. Let me know if thats good. Although some parts were copy and paste from wikipedia, i had tailored them for this wikia even earlier...but i made further edits so it wouldnt look so copy and pasted. Further, for attribution, the sources are referenced to the wikipedia pages that are appropriate. But you let me know if it works or not for this Wikia. Thanks - Jsosa (talk) 15:17, December 14, 2018 (UTC)

About Nephilim
The word "Nephilim" has been used for several different creatures in science fiction. That alone justifies the existence of the article as within the scope of the wiki in my opinion. Usually, articles like this are built with a brief introduction talking about the mythological creature, and then a section listing down aliens and alien-related concepts which have been named after it and/or inspired by it. See for instance, Angel, Vampire, Centaur and so on. That said, I don't think the Nephilim page should be deleted, but if you wish to rebuild it, feel free to do so. -- BlueFrackle (talk) 13:57, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood. Which means dreaded research....because that page is top heavy with the mythology. Jsosa (talk) 14:19, December 14, 2018 (UTC)


 * You can follow my progress here> User:Jsosa/Nephilim


 * Please see if Nephilim is to spec. Thanks for your time on this. Jsosa (talk) 19:30, December 14, 2018 (UTC)

Nibiru and Nephilim pages
Great job, man, both pages look much better! I only did a minor correction on the Nephilim page: all mythological content is considered (for practical reasons) to belong to the real universe, so I changed the infobox accordingly. Other than that, it's all good. Thanks for helping out with this -- BlueFrackle (talk) 20:24, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
 * Im glad you like. There are many perspectives. And if you see in the Nibiru history before my edits, someone made the comment that the article content was “shit”. There is a lot of controversy and a lot of info... so i tried to keep it concise with a broader perspective. Sometimes the articles are written with too much focus from a Christianized perspective, which makes content unbalanced... especially when referring to “fallen angels” a very Christianized concept...that has its place, but not to take over the article. (And im not saying these things as a knock toward Christian thinking...im just looking for balance... as every ideology: religious, atheistic, evolutionist thinkers all bend toward fanatical thinking and bias. Its a paradox man, because we are human...thus im biased too. That said, i thank you for your eyes and helping me shave this stuff down to something more digestible. Hopefully, we will see less “this is shit” comments. -Jsosa (talk) 20:44, December 14, 2018 (UTC)