Difference between revisions of "Ghyll talk:Agarttha"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Morbus Iff (talk | contribs) (There is one inline, actually...) |
Snafu Bohica (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:In this case, the existing entry is Occultologists, inline. The scholar just forgot to link it in his '''Citations''' line. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 21:11, 18 May 2005 (EDT) | :In this case, the existing entry is Occultologists, inline. The scholar just forgot to link it in his '''Citations''' line. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 21:11, 18 May 2005 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Oy vey. I've made a muddle of this one. I do know my genitive case from my contraction, on my best days at least. That's what I get for rushing it. Sin in haste, repent at leisure, I guess. | ||
| + | --[[User:Snafu Bohica|Snafu Bohica]] 10:18, 19 May 2005 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 09:18, 19 May 2005
From the FAQ:
- Each turn after the first, you're required to cite two phantom entries (which may be existing phantoms, brand new phantoms, or a mixture of both) and one existing entry.
Emphasis mine. As of right now there are only two phantom entries and no existing entry. --Lisa B. Underhalh 20:35, 18 May 2005 (EDT)
- In this case, the existing entry is Occultologists, inline. The scholar just forgot to link it in his Citations line. --Morbus Iff 21:11, 18 May 2005 (EDT)
Oy vey. I've made a muddle of this one. I do know my genitive case from my contraction, on my best days at least. That's what I get for rushing it. Sin in haste, repent at leisure, I guess. --Snafu Bohica 10:18, 19 May 2005 (EDT)
