Talk:Trilegal

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

RE: Use of tag article issues tag on page[edit]

Timneu, if you do not discuss the use of the article issues tag over here within 6 hours I will remove it from the article page. Telco (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags are placed on pages so editors can know what to fix. Instead of continuing to be so combative, maybe you should try to fix the article. You have had this same behavior from the beginning. Every time I make an edit, you make a threat. — Timneu22 · talk 09:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making a threat. You are the one who is creating problems for me without reason or rhyme. I have fixed the article, point out specific instances where the article needs to be improved. Stop accusing me of having a conflict of interest, point out instances where the article has content that seems to read like advertisement or promotion. Stick to the subject at hand and stop making personal attacks. Telco (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out my personal attack. — Timneu22 · talk 09:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Telco (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a personal attack. A personal attack is if I told you to fuck off or something similar, which I have not. Now, stop tring to own the article; just address any concerns that may have been raised. — Timneu22 · talk 10:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please list out the latest concerns. I think I have cleared most of them. Telco (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOW LISTEN TO ME. You have been the most combative, know-it-all, do-what-you-want new editor I have ever dealt with. I'm simply applying maintenance tags, not changing content. This is not an edit war. Just address the concerns on the tags. If you had listened to me in the first place, and had the article reviewed by other editors in your user space prior to posting, the article would have probably been in 100% good shape and there would be no maintenance tags. Either fix the article or get help to do so. I'm not going to do it, because I have no time and frankly I'm past trying to help you. You don't want it. — Timneu22 · talk 10:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being helpful and have simply been trolling me from the start. I think I have addressed all your previous concerns, and you STILL FAIL to point out any that you might have.

The article does not require additional verification. There are multiple, reliable and independently verifiable sources which are listed as references on the page.
The notability of the article *IS NOT* in question. I have clearly established otherwise.
The article *IS* wikified, unless you can't see the intrawiki links.

If you have any more problems either POINT THEM OUT specifically or fix them yourself. As an "experienced" user you should know better than using the rollback tool to revert-war with me.

Telco (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references are poor, and mostly vanity. This doesn't establish notability. Wikify doesn't mean wikilink. Go do some research, or better: ask someone else for help. Honestly, if you had left this in your userspace instead of moving the article AGAINST MY SUGGESTION, then someone would have helped you clean it up. Why do you need to rush to put this here? It is exhausting dealing with you. — Timneu22 · talk 10:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On close examination out of the first seven references, only 5 and 7 appear to be reliable and/or significant coverage of this topic. #2 and #6 are in fact the same link, and it's just a place where users add comments or something. I imagine all the other refers are similarly questionable. — Timneu22 · talk 10:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

Hi Wifione, do you think it would be appropriate to move the year of founding and the areas of practice to the top paragraph and the achievments to the second? Thanks. Telco (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]