User talk:67.184.160.211

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sources

It'd do ya very well if you would cite sources. I noticed you added some episodes to the List of Psych episodes and in your edit summary you said the episode titles were listed on usanetwork.com; why not add a link to the List of Psych episodes article to the tidbit on the USA Network website about this? Th 2005 17:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 23:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] notability

I think such a highly promoted episode such as the 100th getting leaked is quite notable, while I only posted the link to confirm it existed for the people that kept removing the statement. I feel its notable, and various other pages comment on leaked episodes such as dexter, 24, and more. Although getting leaked is a newsworthy an notable item by itself. I agree no info such as plot details and findings should come from the link, but noting that it was leaked a few weeks early seems to violate no rules. 67.184.160.211 —Preceding comment was added at 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not notable. One year from now this will be too unimportant to call trivia. Promo items go online all the time — it only becomes notable when it has some impact on the product, and the impact itself would need to be sourced. / edg ☺ ★ 23:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)