User talk:76.102.27.141

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (76.102.27.141) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! ALI ^{nom nom} 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Recently

Hey, nice work so far. Could I interest you in a temptation? It has all these shiny baubles and flashing lights attached.... ALI ^{nom nom} 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Interviews?

Would interviews help with notability issues? Such as here- http://www.buddytv.com/articles/days-of-our-lives/exclusive-interview-shelley-he-18013.aspx She talks about the show, and her being on it. Sami50421 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No because the interview is with the actress, not the character. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this? http://daytimeconfidential.com/2009/07/03/days-philip-and-stephaniethe-couple-who-got-me-over-ghs-liason-video Sami50421 (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please explain yourself

Please explain the reson of your edit in Citadel Press "100" series talk page. Bar-abban (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no context, no references and no notability for a "list of" article outside the article about Citidel Press, which is merely an imprint anyway. It is a textbook example of "minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic." 76.102.27.141 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. On the other hand, this list is a standalone item, which unnecessarily bloats the main page. Wikipedia has quite a few lists separated form main content, for readability. I do agree with the issue of notability. I have to research. A hint that there does exist notability is the existence of knock-offs and the great popularity of some books of the series. Also I would not call this content "minimal": the list is quite long. Bar-abban (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly insist on separate existence of the page. I was merely dissappointed with your unexplained reverts, sorry. I was a bit pissed off with a "warm welcome" from another wikipedian I received today. An additional reason to keep the list separate is that it can be placed in separate categories. Please let us think a bit longer, may be we can find a mutually agreeable solution. Bar-abban (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The list may be long, but the actual content is a single topic; Top 100 whatever. And in this case, there is no "main content" from which to be separated. Citadel Press doesn't have an article, so there's no need for a spin-off article. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact it is a single topic says in favor of a separate page. Please keep in mind that "merely an imprint" says nothing about notability. Quite a few big and notable printing houses had tough times recently and become "merely imprints", a notable example being Springer-Verlag, a former flagship of scientific publishing in Europe. Bar-abban (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the imprint doesn't have an article and is barely mentioned in the main article does speak to it's notability, and not in a favorable way. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with publishing houses is there usually is nothing much to write about them: all glory goes to books they print. Bar-abban (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A corporate history, including how it became an imprint, would be appropriate and probably covered in publishing specific sources. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bar-abban (talk • contribs)

I am not particularly interested in this subject to do any deep research, so let us consider this issue closed. Again, sorry for stupid revert war. Bar-abban (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a place to handle an obvious troll? Bar-abban (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is usually where this is reported. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OOH article

Please explain the removal of the section on emerging technologies in the OOH advertising. I follow OOH news and this is one of the emerging trends in the field. Much appreciated. --OOHtrends (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Your addition is too spammy. Leave out the promotional stuff and just mention the trend. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OOHtrends (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

please review and comment, changes made. --OOHtrends (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting the vandalism to my talk page. I appreciate it. BrendanFrye (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Can You Prove That You're Human

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. I really appreciate it! --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Safe Auto article

You aren't providing any kind of rationale for a speedy deletion. Please stop adding the speedy delete template. Radiofan13 (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A speedy nom doesn't need a rationale. Stop removing the speedy delete template for an article that so obviously fails the notability criteria. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree. This is a national insurance company. How does it differ from Progressive or State Farm? I also wonder how familiar you can be with Wikipedia's policies as you apparently have only been editing for two days. Radiofan13 (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)