Jump to content

User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

RE

No I was referring to him blanking to remove the vandalism notices. Wasnt aware he was allowed to do that. JakeDHS07 15:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

swekey deletion

Hi Largo,

The article about our swekey authentication key has been deleted.

I just wanted it to be informative, I removed any external link. I think this article is important because the swekey is the first and only authentication key designed for web sites and web applications.

I read your guidelines very carefuly and I didnt find what in the article caused the deletion. The fact that I write an article on our own product is only 'discouraged' but not forbidden, and since our product is not yet commercialized I have only few chances to see somebody else but me writing the article.

Can you please tell me what I did wrong and what I can fix it to have my swekey page published ?

Thanks,

Luc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swekey (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Granted, it's a judgment call on my part as to whether it's advertising or not, but when your user name indicates explicitly that you are behind the effort that the article is about, I interpret that as promotional intent. And you have expressed as much here in your note to me. Even if an article about some software application isn't advertising, it has to be notable, or else it's subject to ordinary deletion. If it hasn't been written about by anyone yet, then it's a pretty good bet that in a deletion discussion it would be deemed non-notable and the consensus would be in favor of deletion. That's why writing about your own effort is discouraged. First of all, it's pretty much original research, whether you provide no references or provide only references to your own sources. Second, if your software were truly notable, then someone else would probably write about it. Wikipedia articles should consist of verifiable information supported by third-party reliable sources.
You say your article is "important", in essence, for the purpose of making this information known to people who can really use it. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be written to achieve notability, but to report on that which has already achieved it.
For more information, see WP:Welcome to Wikipedia, WP:First article, and WP:What Wikipedia is not.
Finally, on another topic: when you leave a note or comment, please sign your post.—Largo Plazo (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi largo,
I explicitely used the 'swekey' user name to write this article to make clear to everybody that we are the initiator of the article.
It would have been realy easy to use a fake identity but we have an ethic and we want to stick with it.
So I'm a little puzzled to discover that the only cause of the deletion is our will to be honest and transparent with the other users...
That's an encouragement for using fake identity and that's very sad...
Swekey (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
What you're suggesting is that Wikipedia's policies shouldn't be enforced against people who make it obvious that they're violating Wikipedia's policies. That's specious reasoning. I got a message yesterday from someone who used the same argument to try to prevent a page she'd created that was a copyright violation from being deleted. (She'd provided a link to the web page from which the article was copied.)
Besides, user names themselves aren't allowed to be promotional, and if I thought people were likely to know what "Swekey" meant, I would have submitted it for blocking as I've done with user names that are clearly the names of businesses. On Wikipedia, the issue of honesty in user names is concerned with people representing themselves consistently on Wikipedia rather than hiding under a multiplicity of user names for the purpose of engaging in disruptive or duplicitous behavior. See WP:User name policy.
In any event, as I also already explained, if your software isn't notable, then the article would very likely be deleted anyway, though it would be after a five-day discussion period rather than right away.—Largo Plazo (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi largo,
I don't have a problem with Wikipedia's policies but those policies should apply to everybody even the big companies.
In respect of those policies I don't know why the iphone article was not deleted...  !
It has link to AppleCare and external links to Apple in every place !
Swekey (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
In what way is the iPhone comparable to Swekey? Are you under the impression that the iPhone is a barely known product about which nothing has been written outside of its manufacturer's website, and that Steve Jobs himself sat down and wrote the article for the purpose of making the public aware of it? Of course not: it differs from Swekey in every aspect relevant to whether an article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Those aspects are the ones I've already noted for you.
So that you don't expend time needlessly hunting down an article about another product that IS comparable to yours: if it really is comparable to yours, then the consequence is that it too may be subject to deletion, not that yours should be kept. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dude

Once you go Specknock, you never go back. Woodyallenfan2004 (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

SkyBullet71519

Why did you delete famous animators on youtube. Srsly >:C user:Skybullet71519 {talk} —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

Explained in the notice on your talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nimbusania

I am sorry I created the page. I was confused when I was creating a user review page for myself, and accidently created the page. И i m b u s a n i a talk 07:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, I figured that out afterwards; from your talk page I realized you're a force for good. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Art Object

Why did you delete this entry, and the talk page or it? Please give reasons. I didn't write all the text for fun. It was duplicated, because people kept deleting the page when I first put up the text.Research Method (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Several comments:
  1. I didn't delete the entry.
  2. An earlier version of a non-deleted article is always retrievable from the article's history.
  3. My edit summary explained specifically and clearly why I changed it to a redirect, so I'm surprised that you're asking me.
  4. I don't care whether Art object is a self-standing article, but Art Object is not to exist separately as a copy of it! Either they both redirect to Work of art, or Art Object redirects to Art object.
—Largo Plazo (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hermes Project

Hi, the page of the Hermes Project was marked as advertisement. I was rewriting it using a more neutral language and adding references, but someone deleted my edits swiftly. Now the page is in its original form, marked as advertisement again. What did I do wrong? 24.242.19.236 (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never touched or even looked at Hermes Project, so I have no idea what's been going on with it. I suggest you contact whoever performed the actions you're questioning or initiate a discussion on the article's talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Company Names

This is to make it consistent with Easy Company which is already there as an article. I cannot see what is so special about Easy Company. The others were just as important. Those who died in Fox Company deserve just as much recognition as Easy Company. Do you not agree? Wallie (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be used for the purpose of commemorating people, and creating trivial and nearly identical articles about 26 different companies when all the information they contain is already contained in the article NATO phonetic alphabet (which I now realize—the old names are in there as well as the new ones) doesn't do a whole lot to commemorate them anyway. As for the Easy Company, well, first of all, it doesn't commemorate anyone either, and second, the answer any time someone questions the value or merit of an article on Wikipedia, is not to compare it to another article, because if the other article suffers from the same problems, then it, too, is subject to deletion.—Largo Plazo (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. I see what you have done. I was not attempting to go up to 26, as there would not be so many possible! I have never heard of any Company Yoke for example. There is all this stuff about Easy Company and in the 506th too, and virtually nothing for the others like Company Able, which lost a lot of men on D-Day. Also, Easy Company in other Regiments is hardly mentioned, for example Easy Comapany in the 503rd. I find this rather strange. Wallie (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
PS: I am very happy with the way you resolved this. Wallie (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased! :-) Regarding what you mention above about the 506th, that's the thing: one of these names doesn't refer to just one company; if there's a particular company that is worthy of an article, then one can be created as the Easy Company articles were, and the pages that you created, which I've mostly turned into redirects, can be converted into disambiguation pages instead, just like the Easy Company article is now.
Meanwhile, I figured out that the core information you and I were both trying to communicate was already in an existing article, so I changed all the redirects I had already created to point there instead, and requested deletion of my superfluous battalion naming article.
Regards, —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Military company names

I thought the individual articles were okay. There's a lot of interest in military subjects and military history. I think there must be substantial independent news coverage of accomplsihments and interviews establishing company specific coverage. I would support keeping them separate with an expansion needed and additional sourcing needed tags (easy company already has an article it looks like). Articles on these subjects would be a lot more encyclopedic subjects than some of the stuff that slide through... :) Just offering up my 2 cents.ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has to do with what those articles were. They were a collection of articles that were exactly the same with the exception that each one had a different letter of the alphabet, a different old-style name, and a different new-style name. As names, there is nothing particularly notable about any of them individually, warranting an article. This kind of thing is best dealt with in one place.
As for specific companies, of course there is no one company called Bravo Company, no one company called Charlie Company, etc. These articles weren't about specific companies, so my handling of them doesn't imply any disregard for the value of individual companies. In fact, the original article, Easy Company, did have a reference to a separate article that was about one company with that name, and I kept that reference when I made that page a disambiguation page. That is an appropriate way to handle specific companies that share these generic names and that, in the way that you note, are worthy of articles of their own. Regards, —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. It sounds like you've got a handle on the subject, and I appreciate your consideration and response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

medical diagnostics TEM

Hi there - I have redone the material; it is now in EM applications under diagnostic electron microscopy. No complaints yet and I think this is the best place for it. I have more material to add and will do so as I get a chance. (Hedgemonkey (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Perimeter deletion

I have removed the \{\{dated prod|concern = Software article with no indication of notability, no references.|month = November|day = 24|year = 2008|time = 13:55|timestamp = 20081124135503\}\} tag from Perimeter (EU Project), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the \{\{prod\}\} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Haemmerlech (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Request (Station Casinos)

Before requesting deletion of an article please check category assigned to it and see all other articles that set precedent for article. Can you go back in and remove the deletion request tag for Texas station gambling hall. Thanks, --BoldSolitude (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no precedent. Certainly there are articles about other casinos. Articles about casinos that are notable are fine. Articles about casinos that aren't notable are subject to deletion. Whether or not an article is about a casino isn't relevant to application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was moved from article Texas Station that wasn't named correctly and that was never contested. Other articles like this have been contested and they have all failed to get approved for deletion. Notable depends on ones own definition. If you're talking about world renown then all casinos need deleted. Can you name any casino in china? If your talking about notable because it's noteworthy of what casinos are open in Las Vegas as the category casinos in las vegas is setup for then it applies. Again, I saw a similiar page contested for deletion and it was denied. If you don't want to remove the tag then that's fine. I was just trying to inform you of the categories that it is assigned to and why those categories are noteworthy.--BoldSolitude (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "notable" doesn't depend on one's own definition, because Wikipedia has guidelines for assessing notability. Therefore, it won't serve any purpose for you to generate arguments that don't reference Wikipedia's guidelines. Further, and this should be self-evident, the fact that an article pertains to some category, whether casinos or anything else, doesn't have anything to do with notability. There are notable buildings and non-notable buildings, notable bands and non-notable bands, notable software and non-notable software, and so forth. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It was amazingly fast how these articles got deleted. Is orangemike another ID of yours or a friend of yours? I was going to add more about these casino's when I had the time. That is why they are stub articles. I will file a petition with admin. More than two opinions should be taken before something is deleted. This is not wikipedia intention either, to delete possible valid articles without a real consensus. Two opinions do not create a consensus. As I mentioned, both of these articles were moved from other articles that were named wrong. These articles were never challenged, thus the consensus must have been that they are valid. Did you or orangemike read any of my comments or look at the history of the articles before deleting them? I really don't understand the purpose of deleting these. They are noteworthy. A category is setup for them. It's not a directory, it's information. We'll see how this turns out. I'm just trying to help improve wikipedia and be constructive. I don't understand why articles are deleted without a true consensus. If you can provide me with links on how to contest this then I would appreciate it, if not then I'll find them on my own. Thanks, --BoldSolitude (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Response:
  • OrangeMike and I are two different people. I'm the person who requested deletion, and he's an administrator who agreed and executed the request. Please be careful of making unfounded accusations.
  • When you say that "more than two opinions should be taken before something is deleted", you are basically disagreeing with a normal, established Wikipedia activity, the speedy deletion. For the articles for deletion process, a consensus is required, but not for speedy deletion. Furthermore, it isn't particularly controversial that you have provided no evidence of notability as described in Wikipedia's guidelines on notability—have you read those yet? (I ask because you continue to talk about this as though this were a completely arbitrary assessment on my part.) I would suggest that before taking this on, you understand that what you're taking on is in this respect a general condition of Wikipedia, not just some special treatment to which you've been unfairly subjected, and I also recommend that you spend some time familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and learning how they work rather than assuming that you're covering untrodden ground.
  • You keep mentioning that these articles were moved from elsewhere. I keep wondering what it is you believe that that has to do with anything.
  • Even with a stub article, if you don't already know of something that makes the topic notable, then you ought to hold off until you have something. See WP:STUB for information on the minimal qualities of a proper stub.
  • As for "it's not a directory, it's information", well, yeah, it's information—and by your own comments on your user page, the information you are trying to provide is a complete listing, without regard to notability. In other words, what you're trying to do amounts to turning the category into a directory. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave reason for why it is notable. Definition of "notable" is not well defined. My definition of notable is that it is a casino operating in Las Vegas which is one of the largest gambling capitols in the world. I think it's notable of what casino's are there. It's not a directory. I'm sure when wikipedia was in its infancy there was a category (States in the US). So by trying to complete that category will be creating a directory? Couldn't anything by that definition be called a directory? Again, it comes down to opinion. Since both articles that you and orangemike deleted were well established shows that no one found any problem with them. Also, since these articles were well established then that at the minimum would suggest more care be taken in considering deleting them. Neither you nor orangemike seemed to have taken the time to look into that aspect of it. Actually, the speed in which they were deleted allowed no time at all to look into them. I have requested third party unpartial mediation, I found the link on my own. If you had wanted to help me you could have gave me suggestions on how to make it "notable" by your definition instead of deleting it. You didn't look into the history or comments of the article at all, or you would have found that it was moved from another article. Some research on your own before marking something for deletion should be part of wikipedia guidlines as well. --BoldSolitude (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Response:
  • Do you see anything in any Wikipedia guideline on Notability that says, "If a business is a casino operating in Las Vegas, then it is automatically notable"? It isn't a matter of opinion that it says no such thing. Naturally you won't accomplish anything by approaching this matter as though it does say that. (Making up your own guidelines isn't part of the process.)
  • Every state in the United States is notable on its own under Wikipedia's guidelines. It isn't worth your effort to compare your articles to other articles that aren't comparable.
  • I have tried to help you: I went to your talk page to sympathize with your frustration, and I directed you to ways in which you could address the issues and have the articles recreated if their topic is notable. I also have NOT deleted the other articles you've written, on the off-chance that you might have understood the issues at hand and might go ahead and add to them what they need to prevent them from being deleted later.
  • I know what a directory is, and what you described is a directory.
  • Why are you again bringing up the fact that these were moved from other articles when I already asked you why you think that has anything to do with anything, and you haven't responded?
At this point I've explained the situation every way I can, I don't want to keep repeating myself, and I'm weary of dealing with points that you raise that aren't germane to the issue at hand. Therefore, it's my intent to end my participation in this discussion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, one more thing, about the way you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you've complained that the articles were deleted too quickly. On the other hand, you contend that because the predecessor articles had already existed for a while, that they are "well established" and should therefore be immune from deletion. You can't have it both ways. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue to respond here. This will be my last post. I don't think you understand me or you're not fully comprehending what I said. I am not saying that anything is immune to deletion, I never even hinted at that in the least bit. That is your interpretation of my words, please go back and read exactly what I said. What I said was that since these articles were moved from well established articles and the history of those articles show that no one had any issues then more restraint should have been given in deleting these. At least a 24hr timeframe insteead of a couple of minutes. That is all I have ever suggested in any of my comments. This is what I was trying to point out on the talk page. I'm not the one contradicting myself. --BoldSolitude (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Westin Causarina Las Vegas Hotel, Casino & Spa

Looks like there's already been a similar discussion in the previous section, but I'll leave you this note as a courtesy. I declined your speedy deletion request on Westin Causarina Las Vegas Hotel, Casino & Spa. An article with that many editors over that long a period of time is unlikely to be an uncontroversial deletion, so it would not qualify for db-corp. If you think notability is an issue, AfD is the way to go.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you say so, perhaps it's OK, but that seems like faulty reasoning to me because I think that for every person who gets involved in Wikipedia as far as tagging articles for deletion, there is some large number—10? 100?—of people who edit articles and nothing more, many not even realizing that they have standing to delete an article, many not having any interest in taking the trouble to become familiar with the deletion procedures. It shouldn't be surprising that there are articles on Wikipedia that slipped through initial vetting (and I know that that happens because even at the end of the 30-day new article period there are still a few stragglers that are clear CSD candidates that haven't been touched) and that plenty of people have gone on to edit, without any of them having gone back to square one and considered that the article didn't belong here. I don't see that that makes such an article any less controversial or any less appropriate a candidate for speedy deletion, rather than wasting a lot of people's time needlessly on AfD.
In the end, the point of this CSD criterion isn't based on fine interpretations on notability but on a fairly uncontroversy-provking criterion: does the article indicate notability? If it doesn't indicate notability, it doesn't indicate notability, no matter how long it's been that it's been sitting there not indicating notability. In fact, now that I think about it, in one sense this makes an article even more appropriate for speedy deletion: in all the time it's been sitting there no one has managed to add anything to it that indicates notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You might want to go back and read A7 again. It says "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." The article says "It is noteworthy for being one of the very first Vegas resorts that prohibits tobacco smoking in almost all parts of the property" -- most admins working in CSD call that a claim of importance.
Additionally, A7 goes on to say "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at articles for deletion instead." Most admins, when seeing the number of editors who have made non-trivia edits to the article, will say that it's not reasonable to assume the deletion would be uncontroversial. Having done a lot of work in CSD, PROD and AfD, I can assure you that Realkyhick and Vegaswikian at a minimum are very familiar with deletion procedures.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 09:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a problem with inconsistency in the wording, and as far as I know the "claim" part comes from Twinkle, not from the Wikipedia guideline, which says, "just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". An indication of why something might be notable is a stronger requirement than a claim that it is, and is also the right standard. Imagine if we had to put through AfD every one of the silly articles a teenager writes about his friends just because they say something like, "Stinky is the most notable hacky-sack player in the world!!! LOL!!!"
I admit that I blew over the claim about being the first non-smoking establishment, and I agree that that bares discussion. Looking ahead, in AfD, I've taken issue with Vegaswikian because there are newspapers that write about every last thing that creeps within their local domain, so using them as evidence of notability for local phenomena amounts to making everything and everybody that resides within their primary distribution area notable, which runs counter to the purpose of WP's notability criteria. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

your interests

you state on your user page that one of your interests is linguistics and that i can appreciate very much. you also say that you are interested in judaism. just out of curiosity, why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somody (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensbedingungen_der_kirgisischen_Minderheit_am_Ausl%C3%A4ufer_des_Pamir

Hello, I just created the above article and got a message that you want to delete it. What can I do to prevent it? Explanation: This article was created as a homework for my computer class and we are obliged to maintain it until the end of January 2009 (end of semester). Currently, I am having a hard time to upload some of my private photos. Please tell me what I can do to prevent deletion, but please take into account that my native tongue is German, not English. Thanks, CIvictim CIvictim (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sieh doch hier. Dies ist die englische Wikipedia. Die deutsche Wikipedia findt man bei http://de.wikipedia.org/. Die Wikipedien sind aber nicht für alle gebräuchen, trotz den Wünschen von deinem Lehrer. Sie sind keine persönlichen Hauptseiten. Sie sind keine Blogs. Sie sind nicht Bulletin Boards für deine Aufgabe. Sie sind Enzyklopädien. Wenn dein Lehrer will sich besser informieren, soll er bei de:Wikipedia:Richtlinien und de:Wikipedia:Was_Wikipedia_nicht_ist schauen. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
(See here. This is English Wikipedia. German Wikipedia is found at http://de.wikipedia.org/. The Wikipedias are, however, not for all uses, despite your teacher's wishes. They aren't personal home pages. They aren't blogs. They aren't bulletin boards for your homework. They're encyclopedias. If you teacher wants to find out more, he should visit (the German equivalents of WP:GUIDE and WP:NOT). —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WPAS Draft

Hello! I was wondering if you had a chance to look at the draft that we posted. Let me know! Happy Thanksgiving. Thanks so much. WPAS (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)WPASWPAS (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

faroe islands

Hi, I read your critics about my additions to faroe islands. Why do you say its vandalism? These informations are true and the picture too. People need to know what is happening to whales in this region. I hope you answer me. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voodoo911 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

By saying "people need to know what's happening" you highlight the fact that your intent is advocacy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Since I'd already told you that once, I marked it as vandalism the second time you did it, since, though it was toned down a bit, it was still obviously worded to incite emotion. Normally I'd mention that you're perfectly welcome to add a completely neutral, or at least balanced, description of this aspect of Faroese culture, but as it happens the topic is already covered in that article, complete with a link to the grindadrap article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your request

Dear Mr. or Ms. Largoplazo:

I am sorry about creating these articles that do not meet wikipedia criteria. I work at a publishing company and the author requested that some articles be posted on Wikipedia in order to bring more publicity. As you said, the series of Tyranta has not been selling well, though it has been called an interesting series.

Though the author by the name of Cheryl Grant may be thoroughly disappointed that the articles did not meet criteria, the publishing company will not object to their deletion as it has been saved in a file.

Cordially-

Linda Mancia (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC) L.M.

One more thing......

Mr. or Ms. Largoplazo

I am fully aware that Wikipedia does not want any advertizing. But the information in the articles in question are completely 100% valid, in addition to being unbiased. Maybe Tyranta is a little-known series- but I believe that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and encyclopedias should tell all. If you have an article on Louise of Savoy or Marguerite d'Angouleme, shouldn't there be one for a little known author as proof that this person wrote a series, something described by one fan as "lost art"?

Cordially-

Linda Mancia (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I find your reply rather surprising, given that (a) I didn't say anything about advertising, (b) I didn't question the accuracy of any of the information in your articles, and (c) I didn't imply that they contained any bias. On the other hand, to what I did say, which is that the articles don't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, you haven't responded. So you can imagine that I'm perplexed.
Wikipedia is not intended to "tell all". This is explained here. Wikipedia does have policies and guidelines that govern its development and operation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that this section was the second message you'd left me. I hadn't noticed the previous section till now. That explains why you mentioned advertising. Well, yes: now that I understand that you in fact wrote the articles to promote the literature, I can only affirm that achieving note for that which isn't already noted and preserving evidence of the little-known for posterity is simply outside of Wikipedia's scope. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
As an administrator here with interest in fiction, I carefully checked, and can find no evidence for the publication of the book, or any other works of the author. (in either library catalogs, amazon, or google). You therefore did well to propose it for deletion. WP:WAF, is somewhat of a disputed guideline, & I try to look for things proposed for deletion via PROD on the basis of the various fiction guidelines, as many of them really need afd, or else merging--and I almost sent these to afd, until i thought to check on the book and the author. I left some comments on the new ed's talk p. Good catch, and if there are further complaints, let me know and I'll help explain. DGG (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the note. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hi! Would you mind weighing in on this AfD: Brownmark Films The discussion has been re-listed several times and I'm hoping to finally get consensus on it. Thanks! SERSeanCrane (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of C&A Industries

Last week the article was fine. Today you say that C&A is not relevant. I disagree. That company employs over 450 people in Omaha, NE, which is a huge part of the local economy. Please look at other company articles (NetShops, etc) and tell me why their articles are acceptable and mine is not. I plan to add quite a few Omaha business articles so it would be good for me to know how to satisfy every editor here which is evidently what I need to do considering that (as I mentioned before) the article was fine last week, but now you feel it should be deleted. Accessomaha (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would assume you'd disagree, since it's your article. I don't know what you mean when you say your article was fine: it was deleted seven times in a row, so evidently others disagreed. I'd be interested to know where you think you saw me write that the company isn't "relevant" or even where you think you saw me say anything about the company (as opposed to one of its subsidiaries) at all. I don't even know what that would mean, since relevance only has meaning when it's relative to something. Relevant to what?
The guidelines for notability of a company are at WP:Notability (companies). See WP:First article for additional useful information. I'm not going to randomly look at other articles on companies. Many of them do meet Wikipedia's standards; the ones that don't are subject to deletion.—Largo Plazo (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Bnuttsin2/FANET

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. digitalmischief (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bnuttsin2/FANET

Absolutely no problem, thanks for the heads up. --digitalmischief (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Largo: Did you mean this to go on User:Bnuttsin2/FANET? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, shoot! I forgot the User: prefix—that was the problem. I'm embarrassed. Mea culpa. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for not eating me! --digitalmischief (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.........

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this all. And I'm not sure what you want me to do now either. At first I had the idea that you wanted me to follow a type of formatting that fit the appropriateness of Wikipedia, but now I'm utterly perplexed. So what do want me to do?

Secondly, I'm not quite sure what you mean about writing about Tyranta. Is it too little known to write about? Did Marguerite d'Angouleme deserve an entire Wikipedia page when she's almost as unknown as Tyranta? Was Mary of Burgundy so well known that she has a link too? I mentioned these questions in my last post, and you didn't answer them.

Contrary to what you may think, Mr. or Ms. Largoplazo, I am not upset or offended by you at all. But I'm furious at the response by this administrator.

I do not know this so called administrator having never spoken to them before. I do not trust them. I will not even rely only on their word that they are an administrator. Is he/she trying to tell me that Tyranta nor Cheryl Grant exists? I have personally sat down with Cheryl to talk about her books and is there any other proof than that? Just because this administrator "carefully" searched google and amazon, does that mean that Tyranta is a farce? I checked out a book that there is definitely proof existed, and it didn't show up on amazon or google. It took Cheryl 15 years to write the series and has nearly devoted her life to it. Cheryl would be shocked at this administrator's response. I'd rather not think that this administrator would have to go to Mr. or Ms. Largoplazo to talk about my articles without sending me a message too.

In conclusion, I'm not quite sure where this leaves me besides a false accusation. I'm starting a new article in what I believe is the correct format, and I hope it will not be deleted.

Sincerely,

Linda Mancia

Linda Mancia (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're finding yourself perplexed, but I don't know why. Between me and at least one other person I've seen correspond with you, you've been led to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding notability. You don't need to consider whom you do or don't trust because you can read the rules for yourself. They're all you need to know.
Nobody has said anything about not believing you—at least, not that I've seen. What I have said to you, and what I've seen someone else say to you, is that there is no evidence that the series or its characters are notable under the standards of this encyclopedia. Therefore, yes: they are too little known to be the subject of a Wikipedia article.
You say you are not sure what I want you to do. If Tyranta and its characters don't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, then there is nothing to do. Any articles you write about them will be deleted again and again no matter how you go about writing them. That Cheryl devoted a good deal of her life to her books is immaterial. Claims to me of the existence of unspecified sources that will verify the existence of the topics and establish their notability won't accomplish anything. If suitable evidence exists—as judged under Wikipedia's guidelines—then by all means go ahead and create articles that duly demonstrate that notability. Compose an article with the necessary citations. Otherwise I'm afraid your efforts will be in vain.
—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the other articles you mentioned, you do understand that you're comparing a real-life queen and a real-life duchess, both of them amply documented, to make a point about fictional characters who aren't? For some insight on the pros and cons of comparing articles to each other, see WP:Other stuff exists. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming Committee

After reading your reply to User:Linda Mancia above, I have to ask: Have you ever considered joining the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee? You definitely have the right attitude for the job. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Brooke Weston

This school has had a new Principal of the school, Michael Masson, as of December the 9th. Every time I change the principal section of Brooke Weston, it gets edited. Could you please refrain from doing this as it is an update on the college info. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.179.77 (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence in Google of anyone named Michael Masson associated with Brooke Weston, and you are the same person who just a few minutes earlier edited the article to show that Rick Astley was once the principal. Oh, and look who else you wrote had been principal: Gary Glitter. Chuck Norris. That was part of a whole spree of vandalism coming earlier today from your address. So forgive me if I'm skeptical. In light of all this activity, because of Wikipedia's requirement that all information be verifiable, I'm going to suggest strongly that you not post that alleged information again until you can include a citation from a reliable source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Come again?

I'm sorry I couldn't respond sooner but the Internet was down in my area. I wish it could've stayed down until next week, though, as soon as I read your reply.

This being the third time I have spoken to you, it is obvious to me that as our small talk phase draws to a close your replies have clearly gotten nastier. You have abandoned all polite pretenses in order to say what you've wanted to say all along: that you don't care what I have to say, you think that Tyranta is a bunch of trash that isn't worth noticing, and that you obviously don't care about the fans of Tyranta. So unless you have an apology somewhere in your next reply don't bother responding: talk to the fans.

I have already phoned up Ann Rice (its Mrs. Rice), who has a website based on Tyranta, in order to show you that there are people out there who think that Tyranta is a Wikipedia page worth reading. She in turn phoned up book clubs who have rated Tyranta an A+, and gave me a list of 50 names of people who are willing to create Wikipedia accounts in order to show that they care about those pages. I know one of the names, Dr. Diane Fisher, who I've seen reduce people to tears. She is a major fan of Tyranta through her daughter. I'm not threatening you, but in the events that have led up to these matters it calls for emergency action.

After reading reply after reply of yours that gave me more questions than answers, I'm beginning to think you want me to leave you alone. But you said things that have definitely upset me and upset Ann too, once I told her about them:

1) The things the administrator said: "I couldn't find anything about Tyranta.... you did a good job proposing it for deletion...". The person was clearly implying that they thought Tyranta didn't exist, putting their entire faith in vague search engines. They were not saying anything about notability, and I was telling the truth about not knowing if they were being truthful. Maybe this person should word their phrases better. In addition, whatever is said about me should go directly to me.

2) I never said Cheryl (Ms. Grant to you) devoting her entire life to Tyranta was going to save my articles from deletion. I think that after someone claimed she nor her books existed I had to say something. If you spent 15 years trying to do a good job publishing a series and someone who clearly has never done anything like it came around and said: "Your books don't exist." there is a perfectly good reason for you to respond angrily. Cheryl isn't here to defend herself, so I will. If you can't put this into perspecive, try doing a similar thing for 15 years and then call me back.

3) What really upset Ann was what you said about Tyranta not being significant enough. Ann first read Tyranta over the summer when the Twilight series was starting to get popular. She took out the first Twilight book and the third Tyranta book for contrast. Ann said that after reading Tyranta she never wanted to look at another Twilight book again. It's not just Ann either, anyone who read Twilight then Tyranta has agreed it's better. The point of this story: If Tyranta surpasses the leading book of the times it definitely is significant enough in the eyes of the readers. Something about it should be out here on Wikipedia.

4) Cheryl's books are not unspecified sources; they are primary sources that helped me write the articles. Her books are eight, fully true, sources. I don't think that anything else is needed but I'll gather some info from Ann's website. There are some reviews in there from clubs and stuff. Or "if it meets Wikipedia standards" maybe that's okay.

5) Yes, I believe I do know plenty about Marguerite d'Angouleme and Mary of Burgundy, but most don't. You didn't either until I made you look. After reading the Heptameron (which you probably don't know about) I have taken a writer's word for calling it a famous play. I've mentioned it, people stare at me blankly. The point is, no one goes looking up Marguerite or Mary unless they're doing a history report, they're French, or they have too much spare time. There are a few people who know Marguerite, but when it comes to Mary, they know more about Tyranta. I ask them about Mary: "Why would a woman rule over a shade of reddish-brown?" But Tyranta: "Wasn't it that book written by your author-friend.... Charlene?"

I cannot believe people want you for their welcoming committee unless it's a sarcastic one, I having handled myself better than you given the position I was in. Understand that I'm upset, but if you fly off into a rage and don't apologize for the hurt you caused me, you have heard the last of Linda Mancia.

Formally,

-Linda Mancia

Linda Mancia (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Mancia: The deletion of your articles was a consequence of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the ones you agreed to abide by when you registered as a user. From your latest note I gather that you feel that you might prevail, not by demonstrating notability for your topics as called for in Wikipedia's guidelines, and as I suggested to you, but by addressing issues not germane to the reasons for the deletions; taking issue with the rules themselves (that option is open to you, but my talk page isn't a forum where you can make that happen—they aren't my rules); and treating the matter as a personal one instead of as the administrative and procedural one that it is. I don't understand why you would expect to succeed by following that strategy, but I wish you luck with it. Regards, —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Beg your pardon?

Hi there! What was this about? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 13:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. My explanation is included in the text of the deletion notice, with links to what I believe to be the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines governing the admissibility of articles. (The text and even the title struck me as more of a subjective personal essay rather than a neutral encyclopedia article.) There is also a link to information on Wikipedia's proposed deletion process, including courses of action you can take. You could edit the article to conform to guidelines; or you could leave it as is and remove the notice, though I or someone else could follow up by submitting it for a full deletion discussion (WP:AfD). —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you've already removed the notice and continued with the article. Regarding your edit summary, "This article was created just 4 mins before and still being expanded. What the heck?" I can appreciate that in some cases, but in this case my concern wasn't that the article was short or missing substantive information, it was that it was a personal analysis reflecting your perspective on the situation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec)::You will have to look at the article history before you tag something. With all due respect, it was just 4 mins before your tagging that the article was created. You don't expect a 30K article to apear in one go, do you? Wait for 20 mins and visit the article page again. I expect an apology from you for messing up the work without bothering to look into the history. I know I sound anoyed, which I hate doing myself. But after spending days on reading materials, someone doesn't bother to look into the history and tags it within 4 mins? Put yourself in my place. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
My analysis? O please! You should really have waited a bit. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Ordinarily if someone begins an article in opinion-laden terms, there is no reason to assume that they will be going away on the author's own initiative. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I reckon its far better for you to accept that you tagged it too quick. You know that by now. The article was built in my Sanbox and am moving it bit by bit now. You can clearly see that it is not my POV but loads of peer reviewed journals have said this. FYI, this article itself was born because a reviewer of Dravidian parties for GA status said that the extensive use of movies by Dravidian parties is missed in the article. The reviewer was an American, so there is no regional POV either. I have also made sure that I use non-Indian authors to once again avoid bias and POVs. I think its best for both our interest that we assume good faith, and you remove the warning you left without analysing the situation. Tagging regulars is not very encouraged in Wiki, if you didnt know the rules. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I do see that now and for the sake of clarity I decided to go back and reread the article is it was when I came across it, and I do owe you an apology. It would have paid for me to have read it one more time. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks mate. I had a cuppa and my anger has subsided. Sorry for the volcanic eruption. :D Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Volcanic? I thought it was rather restrained, and now I appreciate even more so that it was under the circumstances. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey Largoplazo, it's Ann Rice here. I got a call from a very distraught Linda Mancia yesterday about your comments about Tyranta. I wasn't actually going to post until Linda said you said "No one cares about the Tyranta" right to her face! People do care about Tyranta, and a lot more than they care about Marguerite d'Angouleme or Mary of Burgundy, seeing as they're both dead. Linda's not going to respond to you because of the extremely rude and nasty comments you posted about her. She also said that if you didn't try and resolve things no further contact will be pursued.

It was around one when I got the call. Linda sounded like she was in tears. Through all the pauses for breath I could make out the story: She had some articles that didn't meet the criteria, you proposed them for deletion, she tried making new ones. It wouldv'e gone well if a certain administrator hadn't posted some very rude comments about Ms. Grant that Linda angrily responded to. You defended the administrator, criticizing Linda for not knowing the rules. You even insinuated she was stupid at one point in the message. Yes she does know who they are, she graduated at one of the top colleges in the country and as a major in history.

You could not have read the entire thing that she posted. I can believe that, after you angrily burst out at Linda in her second post without bothering to read the first one. Please read it all. It has five, fully true reasons about how you offended her. Granted, she definitely could've been nicer, but she's not the only one at fault here. You definitely are guilty, in addition to the administrator and the person who recommended you for the welcoming committee for instigating.

Furtermore, you could not have read the part about Cheryl's books or my website, or you would probably have said something about them instead of going "you will not prevail". It was a good thing Linda's not here to respond to you, otherwise she would have a heart attack!

Posting articles about Tyranta in order "to prevail" is not what Linda wanted to do. She did give you reasons for significance of Tyranta. People care. I care. Dr. Fisher cares. We have a website devoted to this series and how can you possibly say Tyranta is not significant? How can you possibly say these aren't "germane issues"? You don't care about people who read Tyranta and the people who don't that are missing out on a good story? How could you!?

Linda also knows that the articles have been deleted. I myself checked and they aren't there. She isn't nearly as upset as I was when I heard about it because most of the fury was because of you. You ganged up on her and then you had the nerve to say its because the rules of Wikipedia her articles have been deleted? Is there a rule in Wikipedia about being polite to other users? Looking at the responses to different people whose articles you mercilessly deleted, I am shocked. I never expected you to be Eleanor Roosevelt but I never thought you'd be an executioner. Is this your day job? Does Wikipedia employ soulless people who don't care about others for a welcoming committee? What is this: Welcome to Wikipedia, abandon all hope because your articles will never be published before deleted by executioners? Yes, you have every right to apologize! Because if you can't face Linda you're going to have to face me, Dr. Fisher, and 50 other people.

-An upset citizen named Ann Rice

Ann Rice (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have an entirely mistaken idea of how Wikipedia works. It would be best for you to understand its operation before joining in on the attack.
"You had the nerve to say its because the rules of Wikipedia her articles have been deleted? Is there a rule in Wikipedia about being polite to other users? Looking at the responses to different people whose articles you mercilessly deleted," Fact: the articles were deleted because they weren't in conformance with Wikipedia's rules. They were not "mercilessly" deleted, they were deleted in accordance with Wikipedia procedures. I put it to her bluntly because after I and someone else had already explained the situation to her, she proceeded to turn it into a personal issue that she supposed would be influenced by expressions of indignation and distress. If you and she choose to believe that explaining this to her is "ganging up on her", there isn't anything I can do about it. If she takes offense that something near and dear to her isn't deemed "notable" in the context of Wikipedia, there isn't anything I can do about it. If she feels that a productive course of action is to run and tell other people of her distress and get them involved in the non-productive battle that she appears intent on prolonging, there isn't anything I can do about it. If you are all intent on making this a personal issue, there isn't anything I can do about it.
Linda gave me reasons she felt established the significance of the topics of the articles. Yet they didn't have anything to do with Wikipedia's criteria. She compared her articles to other articles. I believe I referred her to Wikipedia's article on the ramifications of comparing articles to other articles and also noted that, in the respects with which Wikipedia is concerned, they weren't even comparable articles. I pointed out that if she doesn't like the rules, my talk page isn't the venue for getting them changed. There's no more to be said. In fact, everything I'm saying here, I already said before. I trust you and she and everyone else in your lives will understand that there is no value in pursuing this conversation further. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry

But what IS acceptable on this site? That's my userpage, and I should be able to write what I want on it as long as I refrain from vulgarity and anything offensive. If I cannot submit a biography, at least let me have my user page the way I want since no one is going to see it anyway... No harm done by keeping that the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmarino27 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I directed you to the guidelines that discusses what's permitted on user pages. Keep in mind, this isn't a blog or MySpace of whatever, where each person's "site" is more or less his domain, but a collaborative work. As the guideline indicates, even user pages, while allowing some latitude, are meant to be used primarily for the purpose of contributing to Wikipedia and to supporting its development. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Aww, well Im keeping my user page the way it is. It is a contribution to wikipedia, I live a fruitful life and it can enlighten people. I made myself relevant by referencing my contributions to the internet through my famous blog and made myself significant by discussing my existence as an aspiring restauranteur. So yes, I am significant AND my page is useful and contributed greatly to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmarino27 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A Stern Warning Issued by Ann Rice

A personal issue, huh? Linda is not turning this into a personal issue. You and two other people have offended her deeply, but she's not writing these articles for you. She's writing them to put a topic onto Wikipedia that was not previously there before. I've heard destroyers can't grow things, but you may have put some articles for the same reason. Why do people post on Wikipedia anyway? To put information on something. If you think that the topic is insignificant, that's your problem. Because you're just one person, and me, Linda, Dr. Fisher, Cheryl, Sarah Webber, Gillian Reed, Rhonda Denton, Charlotte Jackson, Maria Somers, Elizabeth Kelly, and 50 others are 60 persons. One person will not bar the way of sixty, no matter what way you look at it.

We of the Tyranta fans are not going to be stopped by a person who's not even going to tell us their real name, their gender (though its obvious you're male), won't apologize for offending two people, disregards half of what we say, says that we are insignificant, refers us to the gestapo, and hides behind the rules of Wikipedia, all the time in a really sarcastic, haughty way. The person who posted I'm Sorry did a good job on relaying some info of your dastardly doings. You open up people's user pages and then delete their personal things? Is that morally right? Apparently you like feeding on people's upsetness and indignation. Are you some sort of human leech?

The things that you do really make me feel ill. But I'll have know if you touch a single one of Linda's future articles and do the exact same things that you're doing now, we will respond. We have those old articles saved up on file, so I'm going to put them up again just to see you speedily delete them. I'll put them up again. And again. And keep doing it until you leave us and Tyranta alone.

Don't think I'm not restraining myself, because if I acted on my feelings, there'd be blood all over this talk page!!!!

-Ann

Ann Rice (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia works is spelled out in its policies and guidelines, so I don't know why you persist that what's involved here is a vote, let alone a vote out of a limited set that consists of me on one side and all your cohorts on the other. Have you encountered any guideline that says that Wikipedia works that way? As for the sort of behavior you are proposing, users become blocked for that sort of thing. And, a stern warning? Honestly. And for future note: people also get blocked for harassment. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, do you and Linda expect that either your using the name "Ann Rice" or your actually being Ann Rice would make some difference in the outcome of this discussion? —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you!

Hi largoplazo. This is Gillian Reed, one of the admirers of Tyranta. Ann Rice made a post on her website today telling everyone to create Wikipedia accounts. So I did. The post also mentioned someone named Largoplazo using usertalk interfering with getting a Tyranta page on Wikipedia. So I searched and here I am! After reading your messages to my fellow Tyranta lovers, I understand there has been heated conflicts between you, Linda, and Ann and that you're probably sick of us all.

While Linda's messages have been relatively decent, what Ann said in her last post was pretty blasphemous. She called you a human leech. I can understand why you threatened her with being blocked. Knowing that Ann will never apologize to you, I'd better say sorry for her. Sorry!

This still doesn't exclude you from the thorns of justice, though. You said things that I have taken offense to. I don't particularly enjoy it when someone calls me a cohort without knowing anything about me. Where I come from, "cohort" means "mindless robot". I just happen to enjoy the Tyranta series, that's all. The poetry and the conflicting emotions, particularly in the character Juliana, are amazing. I'm the poet/artist in the group, so I pay attention to those sort of things.

As a page about a book there must be some exceptions in Wikipedia guidelines. Take sources for example. There are the primary sources of the books themselves and the secondary source of Ann's website, but outside that I'm not quite sure about sources. But if it is about the books and its plot, setting, theme, characters, and conflicts, as well as reviews that can be found on the site, wouldn't that be enough to support a Wikipage?

Once again, I apologize for any sort of anger we have caused you. Linda and Ann are slightly sensitive if crossed. A little less so when it comes to criticism, I am trying to be polite in order to cover all inconveniences done. But it would be good for Wikipedia if Tyranta was one of its topics and I don't appreciate it when people try to stop that from happening. Gillian Reed (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for writing and for approaching this in a calmer tone. It greatly facilitates focusing on the matters of substance.
An important point I have been trying to convey is that pleading with me won't solve anything. Even if I were so bold as to agree to some set of conditions under which I would leave all articles relating to Tyranta intact, unless the rewritten articles met Wikipedia's requirements there are many other people who, if they came along, would have the articles deleted. Please, please, please, all of you: If you want to write these articles and believe you can write them so that they conform to the guidelines, go ahead. Otherwise, either refrain from doing so, or do so and accept that they may be found not to pass muster.
I understand that there are some people who are fans of this series. Unfortunately that fact in itself doesn't suffice. One thing that Wikipedia is insistently not for (see WP:NOT) is promotion. It isn't meant to be used as a means of gaining public awareness that doesn't already exist. It also isn't a personal site of any sort, including a fan site. The guidelines are all the outcome of great processes of consensus building among ordinary registered Wikipedia users. They aren't arbitrary decisions by two or three people. They aren't perfect but they are meant to serve Wikipedia's broader purposes.
Now, surely if we were responsible for avoiding appropriate and non-pejorative words because they might have an unsuspected pejorative meaning where someone else in the conversation comes from, we wouldn't be able to speak at all, no? The "mindless robot" meaning seems obscure. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Tyranta on Gilliam Reed's talk page

To everyone watching this page who is interested in the Tyranta issue: Please see my comment on User talk:Gillian Reed#Tyranta. Largoplazo: Sorry about abusing your talk page like this, but I think this is the one page where everyone interested is looking. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manthravadham

Somehow, Twinkle failed to complete your nomination. Only the log listing has been done, and your deletion rationale is lost. The tag itself has not been inserted. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Gudivada

this is new place in guntur district all ready existing one is krishna district the name of gudivada is two differnet places actually old post was wrongly mapping please correct that map —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raviperni (talk • contribs) 21:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems strange, because your Gudivada is, according to you, only 7 km from Tenali, and, going by the latitude and longitude given for Tenali and Gudivada in their respective articles, those two places are only three or four kilometers from each other. How many different Gudivadas are there within 7 kilometers of Tenali?
Anyway, I have no control over the map. The best place to discuss your disagreement and to ask about it being changed is on that article's talk page. That's where you'll be most likely to find other people who have information on the subject. Also, please sign your comments on Talk pages, as described in WP:Signature. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Demand Generation AfD Comment

Largo, Thanks for your comments, I have added a clarification in the Demand Generation talk page, as I believe is the correct process. Stevenwoods99 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Chicken pizza

First of all I have not been playing any silly cat and mouse games in regards to chicken pizzas. I thought the article was noteworthy but if you don't then just remove it. You will see from my contributions that I take my responsibilities to Wikipedia very seriously. I do not appreciate you writing that I am playing silly games on my talk page for all and sundry to see, in fact I take it as a personal insult. I would be grateful if you could post an apology to it under your comment.

Thank you and Merry Christmas

--Bravo Plantation (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I did try just removing it, and twice you evaded the deletion request by creating another article about the same thing and replacing my deletion attempt with a redirection, each time without paying heed to the notifications that explained why neither the topic nor the article was appropriate. I'm surprised that you feel that that sort of activity would be immune from negative comment. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But I thought that the redirects were more helpful, obviously I misjudged the severity of the situation and for that I humbly apologise for any inconvenience caused. That said, I still do not expect to publically be accused of playing silly games on my talk page that any member of the public can see. I feel that you used a very unfortunate choice of words and I am deeply offended by them.

--Bravo Plantation (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How do i join a deletion request?

Sometimes articles are tagged for deletion. How do i join such a request? Unfortunatly I want to join your deletion request on Philiosophilia since the article does not correspond with wiki rules (yet) as you convincingly pointed out. Therefore I'll try to have the rules changed before i'll add it again. ;) --Sophieophil (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. An author can request speedy deletion by putting the tag {{db-author}} at the top of the article.
As I just noted on the article's talk page, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. If Wikipedia were to accept articles for everything that someone might make up, it would be a lot less useful and a lot less reliable. WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability are two of Wikipedia's foundational policies. Besides that, as I noted, even if a term constructed that way came into current use, it would be "sophophilia", not "sophiophilia". —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?

It wasn't enough to let my articles sit there and wait to be deleted, this one didn't even have the chance. You had to speedily delete the article and why? Because you were entitled. Because as soon as you heard the words "Tyranta by Cheryl Grant" you went "She's not giving up! I'll take things to the next level." So now I can't even plead my case because you speedily deleted my article. Did you even read it? No? It was different than the other ones. It did establish notability. Oh, sorry, I'm not going to serve it to you on a silver platter because that would ruin the article, but seeing that there are people think Tyranta is notable to develop a site, as well as links to ther sites that establish its notability. I have that in my sources. And you should try asking me before speedily deleting my article, because then I would be able to actually do something. You stole my rights as a citizen of the Wikicommunity. So take that automated bot thingy off my talk page and bring the Davis Sable article back. There are 24 significant characters in the Tyranta series, so unless you want to go through this 23 more times, you had better give me a thoughtful, apologetic response.

From, Linda Mancia (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it? Please look again: you are mistaken. But be that as it may, your article qualified for deletion for the same reason your earlier articles qualified for deletion, a reason with which you must be familiar by now since several people have explained it to you and given you links to the pertinent Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It will be very helpful to all concerned if (a) you participate in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's actual ground rules (as you agreed to do when you registered); (b) when you don't, you stop interpreting routine procedures that are firmly within the scope of Wikipedia's policies as outrageous personal attacks and infringements of non-existent rights; and (c) you stop issuing demands and ultimatums. (I don't understand the threat of going through this 23 more times, by the way. You're the one doing the work. If the articles you take the time to write don't meet the requirements, deleting them is easy.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Cris-Tim

This is my first time i post on wikipedia and i don't know how to put it on romanian language. I will translate it in english also but i want it in romanian too. maybe you can help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himnosiss (talk • contribs) 09:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is ok. Thanks for the tip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himnosiss (talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks largo plazo old buddy i'm sorry about the old hampster jibe. toodles, adam x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamamirsmith (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive_5&oldid=1144747284"