This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nol888(talk | contribs) at 13:45, 27 February 2008(Switching to MercuryBot, hopefully that works.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:45, 27 February 2008 by Nol888(talk | contribs)(Switching to MercuryBot, hopefully that works.)
To keep conversations together, I will generally reply on this page to messages left here. If you would prefer that I reply on your talkpage or elsewhere, please feel free to let me know.
Tip of the day...
The lead section
The lead section is an essential
summary of an article, located above the first heading.
In the source text (the text in the edit window), a heading looks like this:
== This is a heading ==
The lead section is a very important part of every article. The length should correspond to the overall length of the article: an article of 50,000 characters might well have a three paragraph lead, while one of 15,000 or less should limit itself to one or two paragraphs. The text should give a good overview of the article, but it should also get the reader hooked and interested in learning more. Take a look at some featured articles for inspiration.
It is often a good idea to align a representative image with the lead by placing [[File:Filename.jpg|thumb|caption]] just before the first heading. (Filename is the name of the desired file and caption is a description of the image).
If you read my userpage, please leave a short message(optional) and sign your name.
Revision to Poloc Cricket Club entry
I've re-done the entry for Poloc Cricket Club that, I think, you edited and "knocked back". Sorry if these aren't the correct terms but I am new to WIKIPEDIA. Can you now re-review the entry and let me know whether it is now "acceptable". Many thanks.
I saw you created the article, so I'm leaving a comment here on your talk page. A similar article, landphoon, was deleted from wikipedia despite having seven unique references. Tornadocane has one. Neither term (including landcane) exists in the glossary of meteorology, so it can be delisted as not being encyclopedaic. Also, the meteorology community doesn't even use the tornadocane term, though landphoon and landcane come up from time to time. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Tornadocane
An editor has nominated Tornadocane, 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/Tornadocane 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) 16:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD of talk archives
As far as I am aware, user talk archives cannot be WP:CSD#G7 deleted in the same way as user talk pages are exempt. Is there a particular reason why you want these deleted (other than "not needing" them)? Happy‑melon18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]