Your page on Population replacement looks somewhat unfinished. It might have been better to keep it under your user area until finished. You could have placed it at User:Jack-arcalon/Population replacement for example until it was fully formed. You can still rename it. -- Crew (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Any editing comments or suggestions (style, format, content etc) can be posted as comments on my blog, where many posts discuss ongoing Infogalactic.com issues (with a strong focus on new articles). - - - http://jack-arcalon.livejournal.com/ --Jack-arcalon (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Articles moved to userspace for time being
Your articles have been moved here for the time being since they read as opinion/promotional rather than factual or encyclopedic, and will probably have to be reviewed for accuracies.
For the record, IG is not "Kings Wiki", it is meant to be a serious encyclopedia project to rival Wikipedia on the market, rather than just a catalogue of original research and opinions.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
For the record I created t--Tears of Ovid (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)hat article, and after looking at the website more I don't think it deserves any attention. I won't go into all of the details, but it's more or less dead except for one editor, and nearly every article I've looked at is either complete crap written on a junior high kid's level, or is only 1 sentence long, so it barely qualifies as an encyclopedia, or even a Reddit blog in my opinion.
As far as 'original research' goes, I talked to Vox Day and he doesn't want this to be a self-promotional website, but written in the tone as a professional encyclopedia, so articles promoting self-coined neologisms are probably discouraged, we're looking for factual and sourcable content.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)