User talk:Nbahn

Joe Klein‎

Firstly welcome to Wikipedia since no has yet wrote on your talk page! Secondly per your comments, I've edited your additions slightly, in line with style and reference format. Also I wikilinked Richard Stengel so it goes straight to the controversy section on his page. If you have make any other edits and want help or a second opinion then I'm always happy to help. Best regards, LordHarris (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have had a look at your edits on the Priscila P page, they seem fine in terms of contents but then I'm no ultra liberal! The links/references do need work though. Also you can add double brackets to directly wikilink an internal wikipedia article for future reference, take a look at Help:Link and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Also Help:Contents is a good place to find out more about how to edit a page. The Wikipedia:Help desk can also be a great source of additional input and help. Best regards, LordHarris 16:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Nbahn! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! BusterD 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

If this is not controversial: [1] then I don't know what is such. Any libelous statements under WP:BLP, whether on an article page or a talk page, must be tagged or removed immediately. You are entitled to your opinion, and of course you have more latitude on a talk page, but this is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a blog. Bearian 14:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted a comment on WP:AN, without naming you, for advice on what to do. Thank you for getting back to me. I don't want to scare you away. See the essays at WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Bearian 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nbahn! I've replied to your original post on Talk:Priscilla Painton. Your comments will be gratefully received there. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Feynman

I recommend the Gribbin biography (last of the references in his article), as well as The Complete Richard Feynman, which is a compilation of Surely, You Must Be Joking, Mr. Feynman and What do you care what other people say. Good-day. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Template Current

It is not enough that something is in the news to be using the several templates related to {{current}} which include the "-section" and "-related" templates. They are PRIMARILY a notice to editors that many (as in a hundred or more) are editing the page, and if only a few edits a day are occring on the article or page, the template/tags are subject to removal.
If the aim is to get on the "current events" page of wikipedia, then take a look at Wikipedia:How the Current events page works]].
The edit history on the removal of the tag states that the policy on use of the several tags is located at: Template:Current#Guidelines.
The alternative, that many hundreds of thousands of articles have this non-informative template appearing on them is not acceptable, and pointless. Every article relies on some other source, often recent, and often not-so-recent. For example, one article constantly in the news George W. Bush never has this tag on it.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

It's important that Time screwed the pooch on this one: it's not important to attack the particular staff members responsible, unless it becomes clear they were acting against the wishes of the magazine -- which definitely does not seem to be the case.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If there were an article written specifically about this incident, Hamsher's call would be relevant: it's definitely not relevant to an article on Time in general, and probably not to Klein either.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that the call occurred, or implying that it didn't happen as reported: I'm just saying I don't think it's in the top N most important things about these people.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 06:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald and Joe Klein

My concerns were similar to that expressed above, namely that the incident seemed out of proportion to its significance to Glenn Greenwald's career and to Joe Klein's especially. The citation issue is just a minor style point, as I do understand it is not Wiki style to refer to other Wiki articles in quite that way. I think you handled that well but my WEIGHT concern remains.--Samiharris (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the materials cited and I am more concerned than ever by the WP:WEIGHT issue here. I see that identical materials were posted in two articles so have amended my comments and also acted to alleviate this serious BLP issue. It is too large for Greenwald too, but in Klein it presents serious BLP concerns, so have reduced significantly the size of the material added there. BLP, as you know, requires that we bend over backwards to do no harm to subjects of biographies, and the "2007 controversy" seems far out of proportion to Klein's career.--Samiharris (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)