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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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 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)
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)
- Ah, the assumptions that you make. I've only been editing with this IP address for two days. And those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones - according to your history, you've only been around for 5 days. The difference between this article and the others you mention is references, claims of notability, and third-party mentions. If you've got material for the article, then by all means add it. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sock puppetry Editing with multiple accounts is a serious violation on Wikipedia. Radiofan13 (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Editing as an IP is not using multiple accounts. Quite the opposite, actually, since it uses no accounts. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Please indicate other IP addresses and/or accounts you use. Radiofan13 (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |