User talk:Nburden/Archives/2007/October

Thanks
Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 08:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Many smileys to you... Prsgodd e ss187 19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability Tag?
I'm not sure what your rationale was for placing a Notability tag on the World Without End article. Ken Follet is has been a major author for decades and this particular novel has received some high-profile notice. Cranston Lamont 23:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So give it some context, find some sales figures, etc. What you've got right now is that a novelist wrote a novel. That hardly qualifies as enough for an encyclopedia article. Nburden 23:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon further investigation, all I did was revert someone's edit (he responded to the notability tag with:"Books from Kenn Follett are ALWAYS important!") I did not add the tag. Nburden 23:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

G12 speedy deletion of Jason Class (LST)
Hello – I've declined the CSD G12 speedy deletion of this article, because G12 is for articles less than 48 hours old. Since the article was created in October 2006, G12 doesn't apply here. You can (and should) list the article at copyright problems, using the stated procedure. If no permission is received after 7 days, the article will be deleted. Thanks for catching the copyright violation, and keep up the good work! - Krakatoa  Katie  21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
Why did you revert my edit? I do not believe that the darwin awards film article is the place to discuss whether or not the trivia section is appropriate. 76.17.124.152 01:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, The Darwin Awards (film) article is not the place to discuss the propriety of triva sections. Rather, triva sections in general are discouraged throughout Wikipedia, as the triva tag says. Thus, the triva tag should remain in the article. N b u r d e n  (T) 07:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Learning disability
Hi Nburden,

why did you revert my contribution ?:

19:16, 23 October 2007 Nburden (Talk | contribs) m (26,892 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 80.178.225.127. using TW) (undo)

80.178.225.127 20:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel the information presented would be more appropriate in an article of its own, with better coverage from outside sources. N b u r d e n  (T) 20:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An article of its own now, would be a stub. In the meantime, it would be worthwhile permitting students and readers have the option of getting acquainted with this aspect of the subject, don't you think so ?


 * Cheers, 80.178.225.127 22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with a stub. There are many wikipedians who try to expand stubs, which means a stub would be very likely to be expanded. Further, it would increase the likelyhood of better sourcing, which was a problem in my opinion. N b u r d e n  (T) 01:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with a stub, besides being a stub, but it is also not compulsory and inevitable. Better sourcing could be added in the same article even though it is not a problem now in my opinion . I still think it would do very well as it is.


 * Cheers, 80.178.221.98 08:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying is that a stub is much more visible. Regardless, I would have pulled the section for the sourcing alone. You had only one source for multiple paragraphs, which makes it look like spam. However, if you want to add it back in, I won't remove it right away again. Just know that if the sourcing doesn't get better pretty quick, I'll tag it. N b u r d e n (T) 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(De-wiki birthdate, per WP:MOS.)
In this edit had the above interesting comment. As far as I know, the MOS specifically encourages linking full dates, in Wp:date. Where do you see otherwise? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The last point on that list. N b u r d e n  (T) 02:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also noticed your edit. The last point on that list doesn't apply to full dates. Full dates are always wikilinked because of the autoformatting mechanism. Garion96 (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see now. By bad. N b u r d e n  (T) 02:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)