Groupsisxty

Afd nomination

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)

Re:Your work page

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)

Your recent edits

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)