Wikipedia talk:You are not a reliable source

Not clear to me what is being said.
Here is the full sentence with the sample extracted:
 * Even if you don't know how to format a reference properly, at the very least put the source in the edit summary ... as any editor who nominates an article for Articles for deletion is obliged to follow the instructions at WP:BEFORE, so should run into your edit summary and (in theory) be able to format your references properly.

The text before the sample stands on its own. But then it's followed by "as ... so should" text which could also stand on its own (depending on how the grammar errors are fixed) and seems unconnected to the beginning of the sentence. Why are these two sentences being combined? And what to make of "so should run into"? Who or what should run into "your" edit summary be able to format references property? I'm guessing "another editor." but that is just a guess. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @User:Launchballer, I'm looking forward to your thoughts. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't work out what you're saying; to me, this makes grammatical sense. I've simplified a couple of bits though.-- Laun chba ller 08:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have:
 * Even if you don't know how to format a reference properly, at the very least put the source in the edit summary . . . as any editor who nominates an article for deletion is obliged to carry out checks before nominating and should find your reference and be able to format it properly.

Am I correct that the basic message is "if you put your source in the edit summary then a later editor should add it to the article rather than revert your edit"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I've added a link to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. I think I'm clear enough that this is only for those who don't know how to reference, though.-- Laun chba ller 11:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that the basic message is lost because the two principal thoughts ((1) put source in edit summary and (2) later editor should fix it) are separated by the comparison of this process to the article deletion process. What do you think about putting the comparison in a separate sentence after the basic message? Or, perhaps, just leaving it out altogether as wp:KUDZU? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it so the AfD process comes later in the sentence.-- Laun chba ller 16:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)