Please follow instructions on Afd template when nominating an article for Afd. Georgia guy ( talk) 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I thought I did. What did I miss? -
Groupsisxty (
talk)
15:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, you just forgot the {{afd2}} template on the AFD page. I've fixed it.
Kesac (
talk)
15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- When you create the AFD page, you have two options -- you can click the "preloaded debate" button on the AFD template on the page you are nominating for deletion, or you can create the AFD page with the following template:
{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~Kesac ( talk) 15:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- When you create the AFD page, you have two options -- you can click the "preloaded debate" button on the AFD template on the page you are nominating for deletion, or you can create the AFD page with the following template:
- Basically, you just forgot the {{afd2}} template on the AFD page. I've fixed it.
Kesac (
talk)
15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
S'alright, any time. I was just sorting some articles in Category:Stubs when I found that page, so though I'd sort that too :) Grutness... wha? 12:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop the amount of wikilinking you have been doing on Scientology-related articles, or for that matter on articles in general. WP:OVERLINK has some good info on why this is not constructive, but in addition to that it is not necessary to wikilink terms numerous times throughout an article - it is sufficient if the first instance of that term is wikilinked in an article and just that one time. Thanks. Cirt ( talk) 04:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you added a source that does not satisfy
WP:RS. And the wikilinks are either duplicate links that are already present elsewhere in the article, or simply
overlinking and not really appropriate, IMO.
Cirt (
talk)
11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The type of conclusions and inferences you are trying to draw by using that source in that manner really go against
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR, not to mention that no, that is not really a
WP:RS source.
Cirt (
talk)
11:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- You can take this to WP:RSN if you want to for another opinion, but yes, my take is that it is best in this case to rely on a secondary source and not a primary source to draw these types of inferences and its usage as such is inappropriate. Cirt ( talk) 16:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The type of conclusions and inferences you are trying to draw by using that source in that manner really go against
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR, not to mention that no, that is not really a
WP:RS source.
Cirt (
talk)
11:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Please follow instructions on Afd template when nominating an article for Afd. Georgia guy ( talk) 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I thought I did. What did I miss? -
Groupsisxty (
talk)
15:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, you just forgot the {{afd2}} template on the AFD page. I've fixed it.
Kesac (
talk)
15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- When you create the AFD page, you have two options -- you can click the "preloaded debate" button on the AFD template on the page you are nominating for deletion, or you can create the AFD page with the following template:
{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~Kesac ( talk) 15:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- When you create the AFD page, you have two options -- you can click the "preloaded debate" button on the AFD template on the page you are nominating for deletion, or you can create the AFD page with the following template:
- Basically, you just forgot the {{afd2}} template on the AFD page. I've fixed it.
Kesac (
talk)
15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
S'alright, any time. I was just sorting some articles in Category:Stubs when I found that page, so though I'd sort that too :) Grutness... wha? 12:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop the amount of wikilinking you have been doing on Scientology-related articles, or for that matter on articles in general. WP:OVERLINK has some good info on why this is not constructive, but in addition to that it is not necessary to wikilink terms numerous times throughout an article - it is sufficient if the first instance of that term is wikilinked in an article and just that one time. Thanks. Cirt ( talk) 04:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you added a source that does not satisfy
WP:RS. And the wikilinks are either duplicate links that are already present elsewhere in the article, or simply
overlinking and not really appropriate, IMO.
Cirt (
talk)
11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The type of conclusions and inferences you are trying to draw by using that source in that manner really go against
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR, not to mention that no, that is not really a
WP:RS source.
Cirt (
talk)
11:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- You can take this to WP:RSN if you want to for another opinion, but yes, my take is that it is best in this case to rely on a secondary source and not a primary source to draw these types of inferences and its usage as such is inappropriate. Cirt ( talk) 16:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The type of conclusions and inferences you are trying to draw by using that source in that manner really go against
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR, not to mention that no, that is not really a
WP:RS source.
Cirt (
talk)
11:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)