User talk:Largoplazo

I find it easier to follow a conversation if it's in one place, and I think it's easier not to leave {{talkback}} messages. Therefore:

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Speedy deletion declined: Tech geeks

Hello Largoplazo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tech geeks, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: vandalism assumes a bad faith attempt to disrupt WP, which this is not. Send to AFD after WP:BEFORE. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SmartSE: Hi. Do you really not feel that use of Wikipedia to make disparaging remarks about a type of person doesn't constitute an intentional abuse? Especially when the person's intentions are corroborated by the kinds of edit summaries the author has left? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the message he's now left directly below this. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely late reply - I must not have noticed your ping... I hadn't noticed the edit summaries, but regardless, it looked to me like a (crap) article started in good faith, so I didn't want to delete it as vandalism. Redirecting it was a good idea. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the UK, Many software engineers etc are kinda proud of being called "geek" (I am a bit of one myself) and it does not have negative connotations, in fact the opposite that it is a mark of respect that someone knows their job (and not just inside the trade but from the outside too), I don't know how WP:WORLDWIDE that is. But personal abuse is simply not acceptable, editors should come in good faith and assume good faith in others. I was inclined to redirect this to PC World (retailer) as their service department used to be called "The Tech Geeks" and they advertised it as such etc, but there is no mention of that at the article and I don't think they call them that any more, so it is no a very good redirect. There is Apple geeks but that is a bit too specific. I would take it to RfD (but you kinda know more about this kinda process than I do). As penance for my mistake with the false friend, I translated the rest of Olivier Charbonneau today. :) Si Trew (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I said on the ES but I don't think my remarks really belong at your talk page but don't know where else to put them – feel free to move them or copy them to where you think they might be more appropriate, or if you think they are inappropriate after all it is your talk page and just delete them! Si Trew (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Geeks

Your request for speedy deletion was already declined by another user, yet you tried to reinstate it. This shows you are acting in bad faith and your deletion request is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarlive (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For removing copyvio, even when posted in Arabic! Kyle^(talk) 22:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! That article just looked a little suspicious. I had to go hunting. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naked block of text

Hello. The web site at http://152.111.1.88/ is the official archive of a newspaper. If you visit the root page, you'll see it. I don't know why they prefer to use an IP address instead of a domain name -- prestige, maybe (since root IP addresses aren't exactly easy to come by)? :-) Anyway, the company's web site is here: http://www.media24.com/. And the person quoted is Rocco Hough, who is well-known in South African Deaf circles (for one, he's a director at one of the Deaf schools) -- leuce (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's no way to know from looking at the reference that it's the official archive of a newspaper. Websites identified by raw IP addresses are generally the sort that malware attacks come from. Your assurance concerning this particular site personally doesn't really establish the reliability of it because (a) we don't know who you are and (b) I'm the only one who's seen your assurance.

I'm not saying I have any reason to doubt the veracity of the statement, just that this source isn't really sound enough to verify it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for rainscreen

An article that you have been involved in editing, rainscreen, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jim Derby (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Regarding Article 'Quram':

Bro, this article could have been redirected and I was just one click away of doing so. Should I do it anyway?... as they'll send me a note afterwards for removing the deletion tag. Or You can do it. But, sending it over to admins for such tiny tasks seems overkill. Abhinav (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking that it was a likely typo meriting a redirect, but I guess it is. I'll take care of it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For TJY ii Menn

-You're right, not vandalism exactly, but it is blatant misinformation. It's the templates that are not perfect. Abhinav (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the template. But is there blatant misinformation? I didn't read closely enough. It just looked like a lot of trivia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, the article is certainly written by 'TJY' himself. Secondly, there are more than a couple of mentions about him (or his fellows) being the most talented artist(s) around, their singles being sensational, everybody respects and honours TJY, and heck, it goes on to describe his day-to-day experiences and mischiefs. XD Abhinav (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a misuse, but vandalism implies an intent to do harm, to get a rise out of people. Your mileage may vary, but my reaction is that he just doesn't understand that this isn't like Facebook. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again (I agree it's not vandalism), and the tag was based on what I had seen other reviewers and rollbackers doing around previously. I see to it, and be more careful next time :), Thanks. (But one can't deny that there are times when the tags are unable to convey the complete message). Meanwhile, the author had removed that speedy tag. I've placed it back. Abhinav (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user Anurag Bishwas

hey! i got your message on my article that my article is going to be deleted. pls don't do this. i can't understand what it wants. i always do all they guide me to do. pls, tell what i have to do to save mave my article..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurag Bishwas (talk • contribs) 17:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of information about topics that meeting Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. You don't appear to meet those guidelines, though if you can cite independent reliable sources that contain substantive information about you, you should add them as references. Articles about non-notable topics can be deleted after a discussion, and in some case, as when the article doesn't credibly why the topic might be significant, they can be deleted based on one editor's request and one administrator's agreement to delete it. The bottom line is that Wikipedia isn't a place for people to write about themselves, to post their CVs, etc. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Bishwas

Why are you continuing deleting my article i cna't understand the problem. pls, let me know what is the problem i will try to fix it. pls, reply fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AB 1995 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason I did the first time, and I explained the problems to you then, immediately above. There are plenty of web services where you can post information about yourself, but Wikipedia isn't for that purpose. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jpowell3404

hey dude you really make my mad ok I just want to put on all biomes reports. But you came along a said "oh this is stupid and I want to make new users suck yayaya." well no I want my stuff o Wikipedia so what if there are multiple pages. Just delete tem no! let them put on there arcicles!!! pls dot delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpowell3404 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sorry you're unhappy, and I do understand. This is definitely not about you being a new user. Many new users write, or at least start, great articles.

For Wikipedia to be valuable, users need to be able to find information easily. That's why it's important for article topics to be clearly defined and for information to be well organized. If, out of the many biomes that exist, you write information about four of them in an article called "Four biomes", how will anyone find that information? No one would think to look up "four biomes" on Wikipedia to find that information. If you have specific information that you believe will add to and improve the information already available at Prairie, Savanna, Steppe, Pampas etc., then please do contribute it to those pages. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion: Rescreatu

Hi Largoplazo! I saw that you requested a speedy deletion for the page Rescreatu, and if you scroll to the bottom of List of artificial pet games, you'll see that Wikipedia actually included Rescreatu on that list. I am just letting you know! -User:Sig/Summerleaf

Hello, Summerleaf. I see that, and I just removed it from the list. (Interesting, it had just been added.) The article says the site is popular, but there are almost no Google hits. If there was a lot of buzz about it in online reliable sources, there'd be lots of Google hits. So while it might become popular, it doesn't seem to be yet. I restored the speedy deletion tag. Please read the tag: the article's creator isn't permitted to remove it, but you can use the link it gives to explain on the article's Talk page why you believe the article should be kept. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JLife Haircare page???

Hi,
I do not know why the JLIFE Page came up. That is not what I submitted. That page should have been already deleted. The company dissolved and I haven't worked for them for many years.

I am so unfamiliar with your system that I cannot figure out why it is still coming up. I submitted something completely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryakiwiki (talk • contribs) 18:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Un-deletion

You have deleted my movie article. It is not advertising. This is about a new movie from February. Please can you remove the tag? - Pnffan (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You devoted a great deal of the article giving them abilities to watch it, giving them places to watch it. That seems really promotional. Take a look at how your article compares with, say, the article about Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film).

Anyway, articles on Wikipedia need to be about things that are already notable, and the information in them can't come from just stuff you know. It has to come from reliable sources, like newspapers and magazines, that are independent of the subject. I tried a Google search and couldn't find anything for "Josh Gets Grounded" except for articles about the Adventures of Drake & Josh series that happen to have that phrase. So, at least for now, this movie doesn't seem to meet the requirements for inclusion here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And of course I would give people ways to watch it. People who make films don't make them without ways for people to watch them. I edited all the promotion and even though you haven't found anything for that, go into Google again and put in words like GoAnimate and there are no other movies but there are grounded videos. I wasn't saying anything like I would give them a million dollars or anything. Yeah sure, but I wasn't asking them to get it and it wasn't promotion or an intent to advertise so it's not material to have advertised off of. It should never matter how popular the source is or how you got it. If anything, I am the creator of the film so I shouldn't have to sell newspapers or magazines for "reliable source". If you searched "Josh Gets Grounded" in Google, I saw an episode where he gets grounded at the top of the list. I do know that my source would be "Hey dude, I have this DVD and with this DVD, I know what is on this thing". I don't know why videos and DVDs cannot be reliable sources and Wikipedia's rules which I'm not a fan of say that it matters how I got the stuff I have. You know the phrase "A true magician never reveals their tricks"? And yet again, people are true Wiki magicians revealing how they got their stuff. Josh Gets Grounded should lead to one of my grounded videos and I have a movie on my channel. And advertising to me is not about giving ways to watch it. It's like saying "Hey dude, I watched this movie and you can watch it on DVD or on YouTube" and calling that advertising. If anything, what you mean by advertising is "Hey, I have a link to this DVD and I have a way to watch it for free", and I wasn't trying to get views to my YouTube channel, I wanted to just say something on Wikipedia that hasn't been covered. Does Diary of a Wimpy Kid have a DVD? Then, they would tell you "This movie has a DVD." and "This is viewable on TV" and "This has been released in these countries or those countries.". And calling THAT advertising when I do that exact same thing? Can you view the edited version and point out what promotion has been deleted? - Pnffan (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]