Revision as of 14:40, 27 August 2010 editMartinPoulter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers24,093 edits →Suggestion: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:53, 27 August 2010 edit undo68.163.100.214 (talk) →Suggestion: Because it's a controversial single-author article that's being proposed for deletion, per Misplaced Pages's Deletion Policy.Next edit → | ||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Generally speaking, any single-author article that generates controversy and conflict on Misplaced Pages is better published as a signed article by a self-identified author on Google Knol. There, you can take ownership and personal responsibility for your article, invite selected co-authors to collaborate with you to present a selected point of view, or open the article to anonymous or pseudonymous unmoderated editing comparable to the Misplaced Pages model. In either event, there is a space for comments at the bottom of articles on Google Knol, functionally equivalent to Wiki talk page threads (like this one). | Generally speaking, any single-author article that generates controversy and conflict on Misplaced Pages is better published as a signed article by a self-identified author on Google Knol. There, you can take ownership and personal responsibility for your article, invite selected co-authors to collaborate with you to present a selected point of view, or open the article to anonymous or pseudonymous unmoderated editing comparable to the Misplaced Pages model. In either event, there is a space for comments at the bottom of articles on Google Knol, functionally equivalent to Wiki talk page threads (like this one). | ||
] (]) 14:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC) |
] (]) 14:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:What's the point of this baffling suggestion? Why not just leave the article on Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | :What's the point of this baffling suggestion? Why not just leave the article on Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:*Because it's a controversial single-author article that's being proposed for deletion, per ]. —] (]) 15:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:53, 27 August 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Suggestion
Cirt, I suggest you copy this article to Google Knol.
You can copy/paste from a fully rendered HTML page directly into the WYSIWYG editor on Google Knol and most (if not all) of the copy & paste contents will be replicated without distortion of the layout. If necessary, you can drop down to HTML editing to fix up any rendering anomalies. You can also select from among three different licensing options for your signed articles on Google Knol.
Generally speaking, any single-author article that generates controversy and conflict on Misplaced Pages is better published as a signed article by a self-identified author on Google Knol. There, you can take ownership and personal responsibility for your article, invite selected co-authors to collaborate with you to present a selected point of view, or open the article to anonymous or pseudonymous unmoderated editing comparable to the Misplaced Pages model. In either event, there is a space for comments at the bottom of articles on Google Knol, functionally equivalent to Wiki talk page threads (like this one).
Moulton (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- What's the point of this baffling suggestion? Why not just leave the article on Misplaced Pages? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because it's a controversial single-author article that's being proposed for deletion, per Misplaced Pages's Deletion Policy. —Moulton (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Scientology articles
- Low-importance Scientology articles
- WikiProject Scientology articles
- Start-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Start-Class Misplaced Pages articles
- Low-importance Misplaced Pages articles
- WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles