Jump to content

User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

CSN Structural Analysis

Greetings Largoplazo

I received your notes a few days ago and and am just catching up on correspondence...

To answer your 1st question re: the use of lyrics, I frequently see copy written lyrics used on WIKI, including on the "Suite:Judy Blue Eyes" page, so I am puzzled by concern. Given that the only way to accurately track the structure of "49 Bye-Byes" (shy of displaying an entire musical score) is through the use of lyrics. Simply displaying the phrasing and sub-phrasing without the text on that song would be useless because of the song's melodic complexity. This is not the case in "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes" where the phrasing is more self evident.

Both of these analysis came from my work supervising advance composition students. They have been presented at numerous seminars. My qualifications include two UC music degrees, teaching since 1974 (including at several universities), teaching other teachers since 2000, and being an award winning composer with published articles. I have 6 reviewed CDs which feature world renowned artists.

My understanding is that WIKI is an open sourced publication that is dedicated to making a contribution to the general public. There are no peer reviewed publications for structural analyses of pop music that I'm aware of. (Not so for jazz, classical, and several non-Western musics). If you can direct me to one, I'd be grateful. If you have any further advice, please send it my way.

Ivorymallets 142.254.1.58 (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I just flagged the possibly copyright problem on Suite: Judy Blue Eyes. Someone may investigate it and find that the clip is short enough to qualify for fair use but we'll see.
Wikipedia has a whole page of guidelines on What Wikipedia is not. One section explicitly addresses lyrics.
Wikipedia is intended to compile and summarize notable content obtainable elsewhere from independent reliable sources. Under its policies and guidelines, it expressly isn't a forum for contributing your own research to the public, or even your own analyses of or conclusions drawn from facts that, on their own, do qualify for inclusion. I'm afraid, though, that I have no knowledge on alternatives for a specialized purpose such as yours. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Fuck you!

Fuck you! Dont delete my band article {Frio} and pages! MarwinSalazarFrio52 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you're right, MarwinSalazarFrio52. "Fuck you" is an incredibly good reason. By the way, in case you missed the point of the message I left on your talk page, Wikipedia is not a place for you to write about your own activities. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Okey sorry!

Sorry to you. :( Pls dont delete my article in my band!MarwinSalazarFrio52 (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bibliometry article

I tried to shorten the article and remove the contested inclusion of the website materials from the University of Granada. Considering the importance of their work, I rather would suggest that you qualify the article for the time being as a "stub" and that you now remove the deletion tag. Considering the importance of the results of Spanish scientometry by the Granada group and also the SCImago group of the CSIS and Malaga University inter alia, I hope you can contribute to improve the article instead of deleting it. Writing for Wikipedia is hard work and demans a lot of energy and experience.

best wishesAl Andaluz Toledano (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

On CSD Tags on Userpages

Just asking for clarification if anything - WP:BLANKING seems to exclude CSD tags as appropriate to remove from user talk pages. I didn't mention that in the edit summary is all. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@NottNott: Hi. That's about removing a speedy deletion tag from the user's talk page, one that someone might have posted to it to request the deletion of that page, the user's talk page. It corresponds to the prohibition throughout Wikipedia against a user removing a speedy deletion tag from a page that he/she created. The page has to remain flagged until an administrator comes along to evaluate the situation.
What's on this user's page are speedy deletion notification tags, which are informational to that user, and whose removal isn't disruptive to any process. He/she is free to remove them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha. Said like that it makes me feel silly. Thanks for explaining it! ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't feel bad. I had to read the blurb at WP:BLANKING several times before I realized what was going on. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Gonist language

Hi Largoplazo, a note re: this edit and some of the other changes you've been making. In TV and film articles, the community tends to shun the use of labels like protagonist, antagonist, and all that other tritagonist, deuteragonist stuff because it's considered interpretive (and when we start seeing crap like "Joe is the tertiary deuteragonist", we get very irritated. ) Feel free within Film and TV articles to cut these if you find a good way to do that. I'm not sure what the Book community feels about this, but I've dropped them a query. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I discovered the preference for avoiding the terms later, and I understand it. Alas, after seeing one page with "main protagonist" that irked me and initiating a campaign to seek out other instances on Wikipedia and oblierate them in a semi-automated manner using AWB, I discovered that there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of those out there. After fixing maybe 500 or 600 of them, I'm bored and defeated. So I don't think I'm going to get to the even more labor-intensive work of removing such references altogether!
Re "tertiary deuteragonist", that's amazing. Yesterday I came across "the main protagonist character".
I can't say that a description of a character as the protagonist is necessarily interpretive. Lemuel Gulliver is undeniably, indisputably the protagonist of Gulliver's Travels. But I can see that people regularly use it where it simply doesn't apply and, in addition, in most cases it doesn't add any value to the description being given. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

too quick deletion !

Please you don't leave me the time to edit the pages and add content before you propose the pag efor deletion. This is not fair. --npettiaux (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything unfair about it, since the notice gives seven days to provide references. If you just don't like seeing the notices there, a solution would be to create one article at a time, with references, before moving on to the next one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll create on article at a time, and ask personnally for help to expand the articles to the best person who knows them : the person himself --npettiaux (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia discourages articles being written by people about themselves, or at their direction. Articles are supposed to be neutral, which is best achieved by not reflecting the tendency of people to want to present themselves in their best light. See WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. One way I have found is to ask others to write also, to edit the page, to comment. It works. Students do that well. They are numerous, have different perspectives, some + some - but too often they do NOT want to edit wikipedia, that they take for granted. One of the things I want my students (and friends) to do is : everty time they look something up in WP, they contribute ... or give money to WP. Have you other proposals that work ? --npettiaux (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

RevDel request

Since it's not a real name, and since the whole thing seems like a fairly trivial local squabble, I don't think it needs RevDel, which is for "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material." I have zapped the article. If the need comes up again, it's better to make RevDel requests by email, to avoid giving links to the problem from talk pages. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Turns out some of the Material on the sites are the same since Film Maker Jayant Maru is a Notable personality and if carefully seen places where his films have shown and won awards can not be changed. and that is what has been detected as copyrights.. But I have sent a mail to the websites listed to send a mail to permissions-en@Wikimedia.org and indicate permission to use the article.. (jaimar123) Jaimar123 (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)jaimar123Jaimar123 (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

John Cadman MBDA

Why is there a problem with Joshua Cadman MBDA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.101.242 (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Joshua? The article says his name is John. You fooled me for a minute, but I see that there is a Joshua Cadman. I Googled that name, before my realization, to see if there is any online evidence that he is a notable person and found where he identifies hismelf as the son of "head person for MBDA Missile systems for the uk."
As for John Cadman: Nothing in the article made it apparent to me why he would be the subject of an article in an encyclopedia. Further, an online search doesn't turn up any signs that he would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

RackaRacka Speedy deletion

Hi, can you tell me where it says speedy is one shot only, like PROD is? I wasn't aware that a speedy deletion tag can only be applied once (I thought that was only the case if an admin declines it). Have I missed something? Thanks Adam9007 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe you're right, sorry about that. As a practical matter, restoring an A7 may not be worth the trouble because then the person who removed it in good faith once may just do it again. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I would have restored it but it's been taken to AfD, and the article seems to be undergoing improvements so it may not be valid any more. Adam9007 (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Netraa sharma

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User talk:Netraa sharma, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. | Uncle Milty | talk | 10:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sangam Kumara Swamy

Hello Largoplazo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sangam Kumara Swamy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's probably just enough to get past CSD on A7. For G11, it wouldn't take much to trim out the body of the article and just leave the biographical parts. Let the AfD run its course. . Thank you. GedUK  12:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Miss Courtie

WP:PRODNOM says articles are not eligible for PROD if they have previously been PRODded - and yes that includes articles deleted by that method. If an article has been re-created after being deleted by PROD then that indicates that the deletion is no longer uncontroversial/unchallenged. AFD is the correct next step. GiantSnowman 12:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Surely you understand that simply repeating an assertion that someone has questioned doesn't constitute support for the assertion and doesn't address the question. 13:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Your ping didn't work because you didn't sign. Being an editor of nearly 10 years, and an admin of nearly 4, please trust me when I tell you that my interpretation/description of PROD is correct. GiantSnowman 13:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
That's your answer? I've been editing for nine years myself. I'm not an admin, but I would expect that an admin standing on solid ground would point to that solid ground and not fall back on "because I'm an admin and I say so". Therefore, if you intended to convey a sense of authority on this question, you accomplished the opposite, because I'm understanding "because I say so" to be your only basis for your stance. If I'm wrong, please replace imperiousness with actual support for your interpretation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Because of what WP:PRODNOM says and because of how it works in practice. Can't get any clearer than that. GiantSnowman 13:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I already explained to you that your interpretation of WP:PRODNOM seems unlikely, and "in practice" isn't clear because it's entirely possible that it means that you've been following that interpretation regularly (and, by the way, I'm assuming that you've been doing so in good faith). I'm not saying you aren't right, but I was really expecting something more substantive by way of explanation, because I really don't understand the logic behind your interpretation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologise! GiantSnowman 17:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contesting

Hi, Just to notify you, I responded to your speedy deletion here Talk:WikiToLearn. --Ruphy (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've declined the CSD, but you're welcome to put it through AfD. I think notability is a bit dubious but it does assert notability. NativeForeigner Talk 10:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

For global communications see the Global Resource Bank network @ GRB.net.

Hi Largoplazo: How do I get Global Resource Bank included in Wikipedia? John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpozziweikipedia (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johnpozziweikipedia: Hello. If you're associated with it, which is the impression that I have, then, ideally, you don't. See Wikipedia's stance on conflict-of-interest contributing. Please understand that this isn't a networking site, a place for a business to have a presence. Businesses that meet the notability guidelines may have articles written about them, but in the same way that an article may be written about Alexander Pope or Bocce: as a subject of academic interest, in a neutral, disinterested manner based on information that can all be referenced to existing reliable sources that are independent of the subject. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

AdnanMokalpur and more

See my comment at the SPI page you opened. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Concarne (Eiland)

Thanks for reverting my edit. AutoWikiBrowser was lagging and I accidentally hit the Save button for two articles in a row. Entirely inadvertent. Andrew327 17:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I figured it was an automation glitch because I saw "AWB" and also because I didn't figure you'd have gone out of your way to correct the Dutch in a hoax article. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

http://es.scribd.com/doc/55710570/El-Codigo-de-la-Rosa#scribd

This is the link of "The Conspiracy Arcadia. The Code of the Rose" and already An Article also added. Vitrubius32 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vitrubius32: Hi. Yes, I understand that the book exists. In saying so, the article conforms to the Wikipedia policy that information in articles must be verifiable. However, Wikipedia policy also requires article topics to be notable. This generally means that they are already adequately known and established. Wikipedia is a reference to existing sources of information, not a place for original information or observations. The most general notability guideline is that there should be evidence that there is substantial, direct discussion of the topic in a variety of reliable sources that are independent of the topic itself. Further, ideally, all the information in the article should be traceable to one or more of these sources. Using Google, at least, I find no qualifying coverage of "código de la rosa" or "code of the rose" or "conspiracy arcadia" or "conspiración arcadia". —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that this is you writing about yourself. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for promoting or publicizing oneself and one's works. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

oopsy

I didn't revert you, exactly, I meant a gross revert of that user talk page to the version with the block notice. Seems it decided I had reverted you more than anyone else. Mea culpa. Fiddle Faddle 13:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Universitas Press

Hi, I've left you a message on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universitas_Press. Anyway, I think all publishing houses (except maybe vanity presses) are notable, especially academic ones.Quatrocentu (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, virtually nothing is considered inherently notable. It may be, though it wasn't my impression from my own scan online for material meeting the guidelines for establishing notability. Can you provide examples of substantial coverage in any independent reliable sources meeting the general notability guidelines, for example?

Flemish

Concerns your edit on Flemish.

I left your edit to move the term in front intact, but won't accept deleting "informal" and "incorrect".

Your argument that the term Flemish is more commonly used than "southern Dutch" might be true, but doesn't make using Flemish correct. There is a lot of common knowledge that is wrong, and that doesn't make it OK to put it on wikipedia as a fact. Fact: Flemish is neither a language or dialect. Using it as a language is as naive as saying American is a language. Not informing people about this is just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.113.39 (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a fact that "Flemish" is the name by which it is most commonly known. It's a fact that Wikipedia has a preference for the names by which things are most commonly known. It's a fact that I never said that Flemish is a distinct language from Dutch, so I don't know why you're trying to school me about that. But if it isn't treated as a distinct language, then it certainly is a dialect, or collection of dialects, of Dutch. It's a fact that it isn't "wrong" to call it "Flemish", any more than it's wrong to call Scouse "Scouse" or to call a specimen of Pan troglodytes a "chimpanzee". It's a fact that American English is a dialect, or collection of dialects, of English. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

universitas press

Well, notability guidelines would have me provide secondary sources, such as books and newspaper articles. The problem is that, although publishing houses publish books, there aren't many books about publishing houses (except the really big and old ones). The "sources" proving the notability of a press are, first and foremost, the books it publishes (mentioning them would seem like promotion, though); second, it would be famous awards and bestsellers (but academic presses don't get any of those); third, it would be the fact of being mentioned/reviewed in newspapers and/or academic journals. Here, the problem is twofold: first, that the kind of books published by an academic press are only mentioned in academic journals (and these do not appear as regularly as newspapers - I promise to look for any of these in the future); second, such discussions in the academic journals would make the books notable, not (at least not directly) the press. Right now Wikipedia has 114 articles in the category Book publishing companies of Canada. To me, a good deal of them seem less "notable" than Universitas Press (according to the notability guidelines) and, although a Google search for most of them would provide many more results than the one I wrote the article about, these results come from book retailers and the like. You certainly are right if you mean to say that it is a bit early to decide about the notability of this press. I may have gotten a little too enthusiastic about having a new academic press in Canada. Do as you like: remove the page or remove the tag about speedy deletion. I trust you'll do the right thing. I'll continue to look for their books.Quatrocentu (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

If you do find any refs WP:RS, let me know and I'll move it into your user space if it has been deleted. Peridon (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
In fact, I'll move it sooner if you want. Peridon (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Frenchish communication

I agree about that OR one - and I'd say they were using an English keyboard too... Peridon (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ack, I can't remember, which article was that? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The one in sort of French that you prodded and A1ed. About telecommunication and something. Peridon (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You tagged it yesterday - Informatique et telecommunication quel difference. No accents...
Oh, yeah, that one! Thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your part in dealing with the vandal, User:Xavier12121108. I knew the moment the user removed the speedy deletion templates from the articles and placed this on my user page that there was going to be a problem. DarkKnight2149 03:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're welcome. It was when he started moving articles that already had speedy deletion templates to other locations that I started getting more frantic than necessary, because the templates that were appropriate in one location were out of context in another and I'd have to replace them. It was too bad my entry at WP:AIV didn't get picked up on earlier. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

re Mithoon rv

Interesting -- I used the New Pages Feed > Review toolbar to mark this, but it didn't complain that the page had been edited after I'd opened it. Cheers, Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it magically accepts dueling edits. A minor nuisance. :-) I was using Twinkle. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Just reverted an edit of yours

I think it is just the right side of the border to have the FTI entry in there. It can be referred to as a DART, as the entry said. Fiddle Faddle 00:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The question isn't whether it can be referred to as DART, but whether there's an article on it. Disambiguation pages aren't definition lists but guides to further navigation.
  • "The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct a reader seeking information on a specific topic to the right page." See WP:DABNOT.
  • "An entry with no links at all is useless for further navigation." See MOS:DABENTRY.
However, if there's a page that does include some coverage of the topic, even if it's not the main topic of the article, then you can include the entry following the approach illustrated at MOS:DABRL.
I'm going to revert your reversion for now, but feel free to put it back if you can find an appropriate article to direct people to. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I see Bkonrad took care of the reversion already. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I discovered subsequently that FTI linked not to an article but to a further disambig page. That altered my view of the entire edit. I am content with the outcome. I chose to make no further comment after Bkonrad's further edit. Fiddle Faddle 15:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah! FTI includes a link to Flight test instrumentation, which, in three consecutive sentences, covers "data acquisition", "recording", and "telemetry". So you might reasonably link to that:
But, a question: Is DART a generic term in the field, or does it appear only as "DART pod", a Terma product? That would change the approach to wording the disambiguation page entry, I think, and use a red link. More like:
Your thoughts? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I wish I had more thoughts . The page is on my watchlist for reasons of the river. I like your thought processes. Do you fancy making the edit to the target article and (re) instating the redirect. Flight instrumentation is not an area I am competent in. Fiddle Faddle 16:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah. I have no knowledge of it so I would refrain from doing it myself or speculating any further than I've already done. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Computational anatomy

Hi thank-you so much.

I am a professor at Johns Hopkins and a "virgin".

I have a sandbox and I am now trying to create hyperlinks to more technical subcomponents. The section you want to delete is in the public sectioon I guess. I didnt mean to do that. SORRY!

anyway, I have tried out figure out how to make my extra pages be in the sandbox as well.

for now I will not hyperlink to anything until I figure this out.

sorry to be a nuisance.

best Michael I. Miller Mim.cis (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all, these things happen! Thanks for the explanation. Regards —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Boasting (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Boasting (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Boasting (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stone Age may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • partly [[Wiktionary:contemporaneous#English|contemporaneous]] [Wiktionary:genus#English|genera]] ''[[Australopithecus]]'' and ''[[Paranthropus]]''. [[Bone tool]]s were used during this period as
  • distinction remaining between Oldowan and the Acheulean is the preference for large flakes (>10 cm) as blanks for making large cutting tools (handaxes and cleavers) in the Acheulean."<ref>{{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack directed at editors

Information icon Hello —Largo Plazo (talk), Thank you for your feedback on خراج بارد in here: [1] Indeed the article, as you correctly stated, shouldn't have been submitted for an AfD based on the "non-English" fact; and I agreed and merely pointed that the article shouldn't have been nominated for an AfD deletion in the first place (speedy deletion was the way to go). If you read the discussion carefully, you will see that no one had disagreed with you on this. Therefore, I find your long comment back to me that included "Are you psychic?" inappropriate. LjL (talk) was quite polite in responding to you for this as "Go on, be more pedantically". Nonetheless, you went ahead and shot back more insults at him like: "Hooray for the preservation of ignorance!", "If you're going to troll", "what you're trolling about?", "no longer be trolling, and therefore less fun for you?". I am surprised these insults are all coming from an experienced editor like yourself!


I am going to let this go this time, and blame it on a misunderstanding that got needlessly emotional, provided that I don't hear back from you words like these ever again. Best. MarkYabloko 06:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello!
If someone were giving medical advice in public that seemed faulty, would it be an attack to ask, "Are you a doctor?" Or would it be a reasonable question?
If someone presumes to know what's going on in someone else's head, is the reply "Are you a psychic" an attack, or is it a reasonable retort, given that knowing what other people are thinking is, pretty much by definition, a psychic ability?
WP:NPA stresses, in its second sentence, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Indeed, I was commenting on LjL's content, which consisted of his comments on my behavior. I said not one thing about LjL himself.
If you thought something I'd written implied my failure to have noticed something and felt inclined to comment, a constructive approach would have been to ask, "But did you notice ...?" You may not have thought about it this way before, but telling people what they think is disrespectful. People naturally don't like to be told by others things that the others can't possibly know about them. In the end, I can't tell you that you didn't feel attacked. By the same token, though, you can't tell me that I didn't feel attacked by your original comment to me. And I did take being called pedantically bureaucratic as an attack, despite your calling it "polite", above. Neither "pedantic" nor "bureaucratic" is devoid of negative connotations.
Does this all make sense? —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sale catalogue

Hello, The content of this article is similar to that at Donative (canon law); in that case an editor reported that such redirects are not speedily deletable (see here.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, I see. Criterion A3 doesn't apply. I'll undo it if you or someone else hasn't already. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems an admin made the same mistake I did and deleted it already. Nevertheless: Perhaps it makes sense to have a soft redirect for "donative" because it's a technical concept that might well lend itself to encyclopedia coverage, so people might reasonably come here looking for it. Since we have nothing yet, but Wiktionary does, we provide them at least that much help.
Is there anything encyclopedic about a sale catalog? It's a catalog of goods that are on sale. It doesn't seem like something anyone would look up in an encyclopedia. Others may have a different opinion on that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for lokking into the problem. If you search on "sale catalogue" and "sale catalog" (less common in WP) you can find examples of its usage. I would think it is encyclopedic as sale catalogues (the catalogues of sales by auction) are a useful resource in the history of art and the history of libraries; auction sales have been important since the 18th century as a method of selling works of art and book collections and are collected by specialist libraries (e.g. the Thomas J. Watson Library). However on checking Wiktionary neither of the terms yet have an entry so I suppose directing readers there is not useful at this time.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

i have deleted my info so i dont have to be deleted now. sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJ Kicks (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits rejected

Hello,

I submitted some edits for the Wikipedia page, Visitor Health Insurance, that were rejected. I am an industry expert with 30+ years under my belt, and have a lot to offer the page (which currently lacks a lot of vital information). Please advise on how to submit edits that will be approved.

Zain Jeewanjee gooneglobal@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zain Jeewanjee at G1G Travel & Visitor Insurance (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is that you are writing with a conflict of interest and sourcing your contributions to your own company's website, which amounts to using Wikipedia to bring eyes to your commercial website, an inappropriate use. If you can source the information to a neutral, independent reliable source, that would be a different matter. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Swpb. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, The Era (footwork dance crew), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. —Swpbtalk 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clean (weightlifting), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weightlifting. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you monastery of st.michael zadar

I would like that a page the monastery of st.michael zadar to be rewritten in englidh and also to stay on croatian...thank xou very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iura municipalia (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Translation of articles is voluntary. Of course, it also requires the attention of a bilingual person who is capable of creating a translation. Therefore, the article will be translated into English only if a person who speaks both Croatian and English sees the WP:PNT listing in the next week and volunteers to translate it. Otherwise, it will be deleted.
If you want the Croatian version of the article to stay alive, you'll need to create it on Croatian Wikipedia.
If the article is deleted from this Wikipedia, you can post a request to have someone create an article about the monastery in English. In your request, you can suggest creating it as a translation of the article on Croatian Wikipedia (if you create it there). You'll still have to wait for someone to see the request and volunteer to take care of it, and there's no guarantee that that will happen. See WP:Translation for more information about requesting translations. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

thank edition

Thank you for changing Usuario by User, Gracias ;-)

OscarRGomez-Osy (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Bevan Chuang for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bevan Chuang is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bevan Chuang until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- haminoon (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Radoshitz (Hasidic dynasty), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radoszyce. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's only right...

...to let you know about the comment I left on the talk page of Emotion in animals. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  01:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Nick Bateman's review

Hi dear friend As far as I'm concerned the word "followers" is used on instagram;moreover, this word is mentioned earlier which it points to the first word "followers". He has 4.2 million followers on instagram and liked by 3.6 millions on Facebook. That's why I corrected it. Sincerely yours Artakhshir (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Regardless of the word that's used, the sentence is clearly applying it to both websites, and, therefore, implying that his number is over 4 million on each of them. If you want it to say he has more than 4 million followers on Instagram, then, for the sake of clarity, you should revise it to say that he has more than 4 million followers on Instagram, not more than 4 million followers on Instagram and Facebook. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The page you deleted about " Daim DN" should be made.

A cup of coffee for you!

Because you are very bitter. Bml2424 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Monastery of st. michael zadar

Hello!! Can I just write a new page on English about monastery of st. Michael in Zadar Croatia? Would it be ok? So delete this page on Croatian and I will write another page on English... Thank you very muchIura municipalia (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, and I see you already did. The old one was deleted about a week before you wrote. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Jetzy

Hey Largoplazo,

Thank you for having review my article. However, I understand that Wikipedia is not Yellow Page, the goal of the creation of the Jetzy article has nothing to do with a commercial purpose but just make people aware about what is Jetzy by who this app has been created etc. So maybe you can indicate me a way to present this article by a better way.

Thank you

Max — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxjetzy1 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. From your user name I'm supposing that you're connected to the company, and you wrote an article that reads as an advertisement. Writing about subjects over which an editor has a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. Wikipedia articles must be neutral and information in them should be available from independent reliability. See the articles on notability and verifiability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive_18&oldid=1252077533"