|Hello! I find it easier to follow a conversation if it's in one place. Therefore:
- 1 about the article i wrote for mr clemnet
- 2 Essay like Tag
- 3 DRN
- 4 Themindzi
- 5 Romai Sportswear
- 6 Signs inviting deletion
- 7 sports hall
- 8 Patent nonsense
- 9 TrackingTheWorld
- 10 Delete please
- 11 State of Somaliland Dispute again
- 12 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 13 ERC Institute
- 14 agh
- 15 9G deletion
- 16 Deletion
- 17 Disambiguation link notification for April 21
about the article i wrote for mr clemnet
Hello, I just saw the message you left in my talk, thanks for telling me the guide of posting article in wikipedia. Mr clement's article is wrote by me - a fangirl of this artist, as your advice, what can i do if i want to write a article for my favorites artist? i try to follow the guide of write the first article and i had chosen the article that i wrote for other people, not about me. what should i change or correct?
Essay like Tag
Hi, I saw that you added the "Essay-like" to an article I wrote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_in_India). I request you to explain me the reason so that I can be careful not to repeat the same in my future edits/articles and the ways and means by which I can improve the neutrality of the article.
Dude, what the fuck. Why are you deleting my album page for mastamind? It's one of his legit albums..
- That's an interesting way to phrase a message to someone from whom you were probably hoping for a thoughtful response. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Thoughtful? You're the one removing a great article.. If there's a page for Mastamind, why can't there be pages for his albums? Makes no sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespon (talk • contribs) 05:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- This article was first speedy deleted by User:Peridon on 25 Dec 2014, following nomination by User:DGG
- It was created again on 1 March 2015 by User:Romaiwiki , probably on behalf of the company
- At 05.11 today DGG nominated the page for a speedy deletion
- At 06.44 DGG nominated for AFD, but undid that edit in less than a minute (same timestamp)
- It looks as if DGG's AFD was an error which he immediately reverted, but of course the AFD itself had been set up by the first 06.44 edit, and a bot replaced the template at 07.02
- I deleted at 14.50
I agreed with the speedy nomination, I've blocked the spam user name, and I think the AFD was an error, so I don't see any problem with my deletion. I am, of course willing to consider any points I may have overlooked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I very nearly deleted it, but thought it better not to in view of the previous pairing on it... I've closed the AfD, anyway. Peridon (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I had no problem with the deletion, I just noticed that the reason given in the edit summary seemed awry given what I was able to observe at that moment, and wanted to touch base about it. Thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Signs inviting deletion
I reckon a paragraph about the subject's infant and junior school career (if a person), or a lengthy mission statement plus a full set of profiles of the 'key people' (if an organisation), are both good indications too. Peridon (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Now I agree that there is no need to Capitalize. But I think it should be 'halls' instead of 'hall' since phrase says 'one of the'.
From WP:CSD#G1: "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material." The Truth Behind Pancakes is not incoherent or gibberish, so G1 doesn't apply. It's really either a deliberate attempt to disrupt (G3, hoax), or there's not enough context to understand the work of fiction it's from (A1, no context.) The text doesn't show that it was made up by the author, so A11 doesn't apply. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, The TrackingTheWorld article you recommended for speedy deletion has since been updated to include multiple references, including Popular Science Magazine and CNN to indicate the company's existence and significance in the field of GPS tracking. Please view the changes and leave a message if further items should be changed. We will cooperate and edit to avoid speedy deletion. Tlatoz123 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, speedy deletion would no longer be appropriate. I've removed the tag. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
creation of the McKissy page was unintentional. Delete please. talk→ 16:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, as the tag at the top of the page indicates, I already submitted it for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
State of Somaliland Dispute again
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC) i left a Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#State_of_Somaliland so you know Hadraa (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Please review the changes for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_mobile_payments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinbhimsen (talk • contribs) 05:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Largo Plazo,
Firstly, I would like to thank you for reviewing the "ERC Institute" page.
I notice that the page I created "ERC Institute" has been recommended for speedy deletion by you. The writing was factual and neutral, leaving out emotional verbs and superfluous description of the institute. The page has been modeled after other Private Education Institutes in Singapore - PSB Academy, EASB East Asia Institute of Management. On top of that, the references and citations are not from ERC's website, unlike PSB and EASB which uses sources mainly from their own websites. The citations and URLs used were from government and various international university websites. These universities are internationally known, and have their own wiki pages as well.
Some examples of non-neutral description by EASB and PSB:
East Asia Institute of Management provide a "comprehensive" range of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes across major disciplines
PSB Academy is one of the "largest" private education institutions in Singapore
In what manner would the above 2 pages not be deemed for promotional purposes only and be deleted in the same capacity as ERC Institute?
- Hello. There is no article at PSB Academy, and EASB East Asia Institute of Management was deleted about a half hour ago for consisting of chunks of text copied from Facebook. It's a fair question, but also understand that about half the time someone raises it I find that the articles aren't comparable, and the other half of the time I find that the articles raised in comparison actually do merit deletion as well! See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more on that topic. In any event, I wouldn't be able to do a real comparison because I no longer have access to the ERC Institute article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Now that the article has been restored momentarily, I'm reminded of the marketing language it contains. This includes expressing the intentions behind its existence (intentions are not factually verifiable information) in a way that promotes it: "education with a difference", "raise the bar in education services in Singapore". One wouldn't expect a reference article to mention such trivia as that it's "located centrally at 30 Prinsep Street, it is near Dhoby Ghaut MRT Station and Bras Basah MRT Station". This is clearly intended to increase the school's appeal to potential students. The rest of the article reads like a brochure for the school, not like a reference article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
hello! this guy NawlinWiki deleted my article. I asked some time to finish it but he deleted it...I do not understand in what was the problem...he said that article was promotion/advertising. Is not Bank of Georgia promotion/advertising?Gghonghadze (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't feel it was promotional when I nominated it for deletion, but he may have felt otherwise. My concern was whether the article gave a credible indication of why there would be an encyclopedia article on it. Holding companies are generally fairly anonymous anyway, I think, and having a portfolio of only three hotels doesn't seem to raise a holding company to encyclopedic status. I know you wrote that it's the largest and fastest growing holding company in the hospitality industry in Georgia, but that's a fairly constricted segment that you mapped out for it when you said that, so I wasn't sure I considered that to be an accomplishment per se. Also, being fastest growing is (a) relative and (b) temporary. It could mean that the business has experienced 25% annual growth for ten years running, but it could also mean that it's come out ahead only in recent months, experiencing an annualized growth rate of 1.5% in the last year while other businesses experienced 1.4%. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- As I generally do when I submit article for deletion for reasons like these, I do, in good faith, run an on-line search to see whether there's the sort of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject that qualifies the subject for inclusion under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But there's hardly any mention of it, at least that Google finds. Compare the reference list at the bottom of Bank of Georgia.
- If you feel you can rewrite the article to make a better case for it, and in addition can find sources to cite that establish it as complying with the general notability guidelines or the additional guidelines for businesses, you're welcome to. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Was I right in assuming it has to do with a reference or two that's required? If not just let me know so I can provide the additional information you're looking for.
- It was that overall the article didn't give any sense of why this business would be listed in an encyclopedia. But showing evidence of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject can make a big difference. See the article on demonstrating notability. I looked for myself and didn't find any, but you're welcome to provide some. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If it is no trouble, can I ask why you would delete this? I realize that I don't have sources, and I will get them, but otherwise, it breaks no rules. Thanks
Surfs Task Force, created 1/20/15, has been at the forefront of mobile gaming strategy and group dynamics in the Supercell Game, "Boom Beach". The task force holds a ranking in the top 2,000 task forces, and is well known for its strategy of passive-recruitment (approaching single-man task forces about merging). Its leader is KingDuncsIII, along with major officers, My Lord, LGT, and SneakRecon, have a net game income of $0.00. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Word of Wisdom (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. Wikipedia articles can be speedily deleted if they don't credibly explain why they're significant. In other words, it should be clear why there might reasonably be an article about the topic in an encyclopedia. You say that it's "in the forefront" and "well known" but those are very non-specific descriptions and they sound subjective. It doesn't seem to me that being in the top 2,000 of any ranking is a substantial distinction, and even less so in the context of a single game out of the thousands of games that are out there. This doesn't mean that where the team is in the context of that game isn't cool, but it doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 16-line message format, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TTY (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.