User talk:Ayla
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave any comments, criticisms, opinions, suggestions, disagreements, or anything else you feel like saying. However, please be aware that I reserve the right to alter my talk page, in part or in whole, should the need arise. Usually this would be limited to the archiving of older discussions, the removal of disruptive content, and the reformatting of the page layout.
I prefer to avoid fragmented conversations. Typically, I will reply to postings at the place where I find them (be it this talk page, the article talk page, or the other editor's talk page). However, since the prevailing trend appears to favour replying on the target editor's talk page, I may sometimes take up this latter option.
Generally, I will watch talk pages to which I have posted for five days after my last contribution. (This excludes warnings posted on vandals' talk pages, which I do not watch.) If you wish to draw my attention to some activity on any page which lies outside this time frame, just drop me a note by creating a new section below. If you revere concision, a link to the page accompanied by an explanatory sentence would suffice.
Finally, please do not forget to sign your posts. Happy editing!
Discussions
FYI. Cirt (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, if you can get a chance, it would be helpful to add these same secondary sources as they appear to the "Sources" section, at n:Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" celebrates L. Ron Hubbard's birthday#Sources. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Do you think we should transclude the template into the article from now? Since it will be fully sourced, I think we could. Ayla (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would wait. My inclination would be to work on it a bit, and add it in perhaps by the end of the day, if a multitude of secondary sources come out. As far at the article itself, I have been steadily compiling new sources to incorporate, and listing them on the article's talk page, but just haven't sat down and added stuff in paragraph form to the article yet, but I will at some point soon. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out style considerations in the placement of the template. Because it takes up the entire width of the article, it needs to be placed in a position that's not near images and can fully take up that space without creating gaps in the text. Also, I am of the opinion that it should be placed at the end where it doesn't look out-of-place sandwiched between two sections of text. However, if you can provide a convincing reason and example where it is better in such a position, I'd be happy to concede the point. Maratanos (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Logical flow of text content. The last two paragraphs talk about events which happened after the February 10 protests. However, that section has been worked upon mostly by Cirt, so I'll leave it up to him to decide whether the new layout is acceptable. Also, from your alterations I'm assuming you're on widescreen; keep in mind that most people still use 1024x768. Any width for the template below 90% results in split rows. Ayla (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out style considerations in the placement of the template. Because it takes up the entire width of the article, it needs to be placed in a position that's not near images and can fully take up that space without creating gaps in the text. Also, I am of the opinion that it should be placed at the end where it doesn't look out-of-place sandwiched between two sections of text. However, if you can provide a convincing reason and example where it is better in such a position, I'd be happy to concede the point. Maratanos (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would wait. My inclination would be to work on it a bit, and add it in perhaps by the end of the day, if a multitude of secondary sources come out. As far at the article itself, I have been steadily compiling new sources to incorporate, and listing them on the article's talk page, but just haven't sat down and added stuff in paragraph form to the article yet, but I will at some point soon. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Do you think we should transclude the template into the article from now? Since it will be fully sourced, I think we could. Ayla (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with those templates at the very bottom of their respective subsections. FYI, I have begun to do some preliminary work with a new subsection for March 2008, you may want to add some of those cites for statistics to the new template as I add paragraph-form stuff to the article itself re: the turnouts. I will try to get to add more stuff to the article from the secondary sources I put on the talk page, and I will do it at some point - but a heads up that I might not get to it for a week or so, due to some other stuff on my plate. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Anonymous (group)
An editor has nominated Anonymous (group), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Useful source
Cook, John (March 17, 2008). "Scientology - Cult Friction: After an embarrassing string of high-profile defection and leaked videos, Scientology is under attack from a faceless cabal of online activists. Has America's most controversial religion finally met its match?". Radar Online. Radar Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
- Has info on statistics for February 10 - according to the article 6,000 turned out worldwide on February 10, in 100 cities. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Same source says 200 people attended February 10 protest in Clearwater, Florida. Cirt (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- And says that (according to Anonymous) 500 people were at both the Los Angeles and London protests on February 10. Cirt (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, added (as reference "CookMar17"). Ayla (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- And says that (according to Anonymous) 500 people were at both the Los Angeles and London protests on February 10. Cirt (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Same source says 200 people attended February 10 protest in Clearwater, Florida. Cirt (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sweeeeeeeeeeeet. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Project Chanology summary
Template:Project Chanology summary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Eleven Special (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Reliable Source
What is considered a reliable source for that sort of thing? (referring to the deletion of san juan on project chanology)