User talk:Nbahn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Nbahn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! BusterD 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

Please don't reinstate the possibly BLP-violating language until a second opinion or more has been obtained from the BLP noticeboard. Really, there is no rush here. Let's wait for some more views. The rule is "do no harm" and it is unseemly to push language accusing someone of professional incompetence unless there is proper sourcing under Wikipedia rules.--Samiharris (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, there will be a reply on the BLP noticeboard. It sometimes takes a while because of the backlog. No hurry. It is always best to be cautious on BLPs, and policy requires such caution.--Samiharris (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems that Klein "did" admit error after all, according to a Howard Kurtz article quoted on BLP Noticeboard or elsewhere. So I am withdrawing my objection. See? Waiting a bit wasn't so bad, and the process improved the artice.--Samiharris (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your request for my comments

I'll take a look at the pages if I have time later tonight. Re. cold fusion: I'm afraid that enthusiasts have been running over the article here, but the basic summation is that cold fusion is impossible, if by cold fusion you mean fusion in the absence of high-energy particles (which is what the enthusiasts would like to be true). With a small source of high-energy deuterons and a little tritium, you can make a fusion source a few cm long that does release a very little energy - but it all comes out in neutrons. These designs, derived from atomic bomb triggers, are 'cold fusion' in the sense that the bulk of the device is not at high temperature, but there are a lot of high-energy particles flying around. Michaelbusch (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually rather surprised you sought my opinion on this: I do not have much experience editing political articles on Wikipedia, particularly those with a history of controversy. Now, looking over the articles, I don't see anything terribly bad, and I don't see anything too contentious on the talk pages. I may have distorted standards, given some of the editing disputes I've been involved in. Michaelbusch (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do try to keep a cool head. I'm afraid that is the only advice I can give. Michaelbusch (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Greenwald and Joe Klein

Unfortunately, I'm a little busy right now. I might not get to looking these over for another day. Just so you know I'm not ignoring the situation. Cheers, Pigman☿ 19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HELP NEEDED

I'm working on an article (see my user page) and I need to know if I have provided the proper documentation for an image that I want to use. Thanks a lot!

Can you pls provide the image link itself? †Bloodpack† 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
How's this?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabu-chan/167934737/

I see, but do you own that image? If you want to use that image on the article youre working on, first you have to upload it here in wikipedia. Afterwhich, make sure you tag the image with the appropriate copyright info. When youre set, you can now add the image to your article. Hope this helps. Happy wikiying! †Bloodpack† 22:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Inappropriate use of user page space

I realize you are trying in good faith to find some method of bringing certain content into the encyclopedia, but I do not believe that turning your user page into a POV fork of Joe Klein is an appropriate use of the space. It really belongs in a journalism or political publication.--Samiharris (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Samiharris is probably correct. I might suggest a solution which serves everyone: a subject-matter-specific sandbox which allows user to collect worthy sources and quotes, but keeps them off the user front page. I'm taking the liberty of creating such a page and copying the material over: User:Nbahn/Joe Klein sandbox. If this action is inappropriate or unwanted, please say so here, and I'll request speedy deletion. BusterD (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Use the links I added above. I forgot to add: good first month! You are contributing in a good-faith, meaningful way on a very controversial subject, yet you are keeping pretty cool throughout. Try editing outside your interest area; you'll find it makes you a better editor in your area of focus. Do remember to use edit summaries; they help other editors to follow your intention. Again, nice work. BusterD (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If you wish, you can now delete the content-specific material from your user page. I made no edits to the material I copied and pasted. BusterD (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that lovely? Now you can use your user page to say something nice about the kind of user you've become. Mine is a poor example and rarely updated. Look at Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy and related articles. IMHO, User:Yellowdesk has created a model for how to create a more encyclopedia-looking article out of what began as a series of current events. Yellowdesk's userpage is very functional too. Here's an example of a current event which was developed into a featured article: Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. Anyway, love your work. Edit boldly, but be prepared for worse treatment than you've seen. And remember to be genuinely nice, especially in the face of personal attack. BusterD (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lamentably, the material on the user page seems to have been transplanted as an article, Joe Klein's 21st November 2007 Time magazine column, a blatant POV fork now justifiably nominated for deletion. This is an even worse use of the material than the user page. Rather than waste your time using this voluminous material where it does not belong, you really should work on getting it into a proper political or journalistic magazine.--Samiharris (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Joe Klein's 21st November 2007 Time magazine column

An editor has nominated Joe Klein's 21st November 2007 Time magazine column, 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/Joe Klein's 21st November 2007 Time magazine column 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) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: technical question

<br. /> is not an HTML tag. <br /> or <br> is. Actually, these line breaks were not needed at all because paragraphs are automatically made whenever there is a blank line.

Like this. I've removed them to show that there is no difference (except for some of the quotations, where there were no blank lines around the ellipses). –Pomte 01:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Captcha at Wikinfo

Fixed. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I have answered your question on my talk page.Unschool (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So you've experienced your first AfD (and lost)

Good for you. You survived. In fact, User:Nbahn is unchanged in any way. You didn't throw a tantrum, or threaten to leave. You asked somebody for assistance and guidance. You haven't even really gotten testy with anybody. You are now a wiser and more careful editor. You've engaged in a meaningful way with several vastly experienced editors, and stood your own. Now what?

  • Keep maintaining the pages you now watch. If your work is important to you, defend it against vandalism.
  • Read other folks' articles. Find out what does work. Read some recent featured articles.
  • Try editing in pagespace that relates to the subject matter you've covered. Expand your watchlist.
  • Trim the work on your user subpage until it looks like an encyclopedia article, then repost it under a better name, or more likely as a section under another more embracing page name (Stengel, Klein, Painton). Don't get in a hurry on this. The more distance you put between now and then, the better perspective you'll have on exactly what inside your accumulation is encyclopedic.

But don't give up. And don't forget you still have this important work to do. All this is just one user's opinion, I'll grant, but I (and now others) have seen you bring something to the wikitable. Henceforth, I'll refrain from offering unsolicited advice, because I'm satisfied you can handle yourself without any additional help. If you ever do need help, remember to ask somebody. I'm not going anywhere. BusterD (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Do be aware of this helpful article. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And the work you've done (all perfectly preserved in your user sub space) is really very detailed, as many users have commented. The point the AfD really boiled down was encyclopedic tone and undue weight. If you feel you must convey this material immediately, then you should post to a group blog (Like Kos or DU), a watchdog (like Media Matters) or create your own blog. If you honestly believe this belongs on the pedia, then you'll have to earn the privilege (with one strike against you: the successful afd). Remember that a successful article isn't just a collection of minutia. A good article explains itself well, has a solid basis in notability, and stands the test of 1000 paper cuts (the edits of others). As is, you're not there. Again, read articles based on events. There may be a wikiproject for current events. I know there's a portal. You'll see there's a method which works. BusterD (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
All this made me remember a talk I had with a professor in my last year of college. I had done a very technical and detailed piece on a very interesting historical figure, but the work was way too long and didn't explain itself well. Discussion got heated, this guy who occupied an endowed chair at a major university is screaming at me: "But why is it important? Why should anybody bother reading it?" My replies were rapid and pathetic: But he did this, and he did that, and he did the other thing. "But why should I care about any of that?" the professor begged. He made me feel bad for not making a better case. And this was like that for you. The AfD was screaming: "But how does all this worthy detail make the whole thing an encyclopedia article?" Minutia is important, but explaining the entire subject and giving perspective and proper weight is far more important than a listing of links from which the reader could decode the very points you're trying valiantly to make. BusterD (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that kindness costs you very little. BusterD (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Re: screaming - I thought it strange at the time, but the guy was at wit's end trying to get me to understand the entire purpose of the study of history, he could see I was right at the edge of making that discovery, and he hoped his extreme passion might get me there. It did. Years later. Outcome: He's the only one of my former professors I stay in touch with, consider a friend. The story I was trying to tell then has become my life's avocation. Might end up with a PhD over it.
  • Re: your first broken heart/article for deletion - It heals. You get passionate about other things or you make this passion stick. When you can look back at a lengthy writing career, you'll be happy you got this first one out of the way. Hey, sometimes the story comes right back at you: imagine how much fun this becomes if these players are again engaged in the sort of mucking with history you've detailed. Be ready. Don't stop gathering info. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You asked for advice this time

Sorry it took me so long to formulate what is going to seem a very basic and simple solution to your desire to say something significant on the subject of Joe Klein. If I understand your premise, the subject misled the public. The subject is a Living Person, so you can't just write what you want. You must take a neutral stance and approach the subject as an encyclopedian. So I'd say: Let's make Joe Klein a featured article. Let that settle in your mind a bit before you take ANY action. Let's not bash the guy. That wouldn't be a good idea anyway. Exposing the guy through his own actions and writing? That's fair game, so long as the rules are obeyed. And since Wikipedia is not a tabloid, if you were actually successful in getting Klein's page to FA, it would be a mighty and perhaps worthy achievement to say something profound during this year's insubstantial insider political punditry. You'd find it difficult and contentious, but you'd sleep well at night. That's my advice. And I'd help. I suspect you'd find a few others already working in the content area. BusterD (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Watch what's going on at Mike Lupica. The issue is very similar to the issue with Stengel/Klein. Stay out of it, but watch what happens at the page. BusterD (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Good links here. BusterD (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see you're back. Make sure to edit at your own pace. Trust yourself. Allow your gumption to build up. Anyway, nice to see your timestamp today. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for the kind welcome! Wutzit2ya (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I responded to your comment in my Talk, there.

I hope your health improves. --Abd (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)