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.

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]

Sure, people who make films give people ways to watch them and tell them where to see or buy them. That's called advertising. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. If someone—anyone—added Amazon sales links to the Wimpy Kid article, they would be removed very quickly.

You writing about your own film doesn't make it notable. You putting it on YouTube or on DVDs doesn't make it notable. Notable, on Wikipedia, mostly means that it's being discussing at length in reliable, reputable publications. Your website and your blog post aren't "reliable sources" for information because we don't know you. When the New York Times writes about something, we feel much more confident that they aren't writing out of self-interest and that they have done their homework. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E-Commerce Security 2

Hey Largo Plazo Nice to meet you. Yes I'm new. Can you help with E-commerce_security_2? The grammar for the title was wrong and that 2 on the end. I screwed up. I'll study more on making edits to be a better wikipedian. =)--Inetbiz (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your history of deleting other editors contributions

I see that you continue to delete other people's good faith contributions as you did Psych Central, My message to you. I am saddened that you did not reevaluate your behavior after I recreated the article you so vehemently wanted deleted with 38 references.

Editors like you are a big reason why editing is down. People come to this site, try to add legitimate content and are treated like shit. I am really not talking to you, bc you are not changing your destructive behavior at all. I am addressing the editors who come here and argue that their contributions were unfairly deleted, and they will see there is a pattern in this treatment. Igottheconch (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look through the guidelines for inclusion, you'll see that Wikipedia has scads of criteria under which articles not only may but should be deleted, the good faith of authors who are unaware of these criteria notwithstanding. These guidelines reflect a consensus of those in the Wikipedia community who developed them based on their conception of what's best for Wikipedia's utility and quality. It isn't a matter of me going around making things up for myself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you're running around looking for people to share your grievance with? Did you see the Four biomes article? If so, can you explain why the grounds for deletion were mistaken (basing your argument on Wikipedia's guidelines and practices) and can you tell me what percentage of page patrollers you think would have left it alone? If not, are you taking the position that Wikipedia should keep everything anyone cares to post? In the latter case, your argument is with Wikipedia, not with me. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I was looking for an article about a particular mental health topic, and Psych Central was the best article on the subject, number one on Google search results.

I immediately remembered your reckless, ruthless, senseless successful efforts to delete this article when I first created this article.

Irrespective of the rules you hide behind for your behavior, the way you handled editors contributions is detrimental to Wikipedia's future growth. You treat editors with disrespect by treating their contributions with disrespect.

Of course there is no self reflection when I criticize the way you treated me and treat other editors. You are just making Wikipedia a better place by edit warring and deleting other peoples well sourced contributions.

Igottheconch (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion: Forzine

That is my article bro. I want it to be posted badly beccause this magazine is the first digital magazine to bepublished by an enormous anime page/community. Will you help me so that this article would pass your standards? I need your help becuase they keep on deleting it. If you will help me I will do what it takes for that magazine to be read here at wikipedia. Thank you. please reply

Sorry, but there is no way in which that article can stand. A Facebook page that is to become an electronic fan magazine does not promise much in the way of notability, and no evidence of notability is provided. Please see WP:N, for instance. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely that notability could be established now for a magazine that hasn't even been released yet. See WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Besides, of the two sources you provided, one doesn't mention the magazine at all, and the other says it shut down four years ago, which would appear to contradict, not support, the text of the article. The very first thing a Wikipedia article has to be is verifiable (which is a greater standard than "true").

In any event, you've made it clear that your interest is in drawing attention to the magazine. Using a Wikipedia article on some media topic to attract interest is promotional, which is strictly prohibited. Wikipedia is meant to be a reference to topics that are already known, not to make them known when they aren't already. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys. I will recreate the article once it already paid-off thanks for your replies. I'm looking forward for you guys to help me in the future.Carlo_ramos08 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping about the Forezine (Anime Forever) until next time! :) Carlo ramos08 (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sedentary behavior

Largoplazo,

Perfectly alright to delete the Sedentary behavior page, I was thinking that it would be simple to redirect the search to another page, as it was something I figured would search for, but couldn't find an appropriate article. thank you for alerting me to the problem, BoredBioStudent (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The redirection to Sedentary lifestyle was genuinely useful, as that article does contain the same sort information that one might expect to give someone looking for information on sedentary behavior. So I've restored that redirect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

autobiography

So...I think you can made some modify? I'm not the subject, so you can contribute visiting the website of the subject! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudioWA (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't the subject? I know that there are more than one Claudio in the world, but I was assuming .... —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

then you're in bad faith! :) I'm Claudio, but not Brizi...--ClaudioWA (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Though the template says "may be an autobiography". :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I2 haplogrupa

Makes sense... We'd otherwise end up with a lot of foreign language redirects. A10 seems like the right criterion. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble! I figure people put them in the same category as R3 deletion for redirects from implausible typos. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

חד לשונית

Since the article is a duplication of Monolingualism, wouldn't it make more sense to CSD it per WP:A10? G S Palmer (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, true. I usually think of A10 for non-English articles that are translated from the English version. Definitely, it covers that topic and adds nothing. Thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of Enteros

Hello Dear,

I have followed complete guidelines of wikipedia and uploaded the article titled Enteros but it was deleted. Please undelete it or provide me instructions if you need additional information.

Kind regards,

Saeed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeed5443 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The article appeared to meet the criteria for speedy deletion described at Wikipedia:CSD#A7: it was about a company but didn't indicate any particular significance that would lead one to understand why it would be listed in an encyclopedia. I checked online to see if I could find any obvious signs that the company would meet Wikipedia's guidelines regarding notability for businesses but I didn't find any. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yotta Solutions

Dear Largoplazo,

First, I respect your opinion about my company that it has no value to be here on Wikipedia saying that it is no important.

I am not advertising or spam editing, I am just talking about an important company like what I mentioned in the (talk) page of the article before deletion. The company is worth to be here on Wikipedia Encyclopedia because of it's popularity and the work it's making. For an example, I received many questions as the co-founder and the owner of this company that why it doesn't have a Wikipedia page as they tried to look up for information about Yotta Solutions company but they couldn't. All I did is providing more information in my second edit to let you know the importance and the need to publish this article which it offers the helpful using for users, knowing that its websites have million of views and thousand of users and registrations.

If you require me to add much more information I will fill a huge big page about this company and if you want me to edit/remove any part I will, just keep it here.

Let me know with everything you're thinking about and what can I do.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon, Thank you very much, MoAtoum — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoAtoum (talk • contribs) 16:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's that posting information for your own customers is not what Wikipedia is for. If people are asking you why you haven't posted a page about the company on Wikipedia, it means that they are sharing your misunderstanding about the nature of Wikipedia. It isn't a web host where people are free to write about themselves or their businesses. It's for unbiased presentations about topics that are ideally written by contributors who have nothing to gain from the appearance of the article.

We can't rely on people's own assertions that something is important. We generally expect to see an article provide evidence that multiple, independent reliable sources have found the subject important enough for them to write about—and we expect the content of the article to be verifiable from those sources. I checked Google just now, as I did last time, to see if any independent reliable sources have written about Yotta Solutions. The few possibilities I found are discussing a Yotta Solutions that's in Vancouver and Andhra Pradesh and was founded seven years ago.

Especially since it's your company, it really is best for you to wait till someone not connected with the company finds sufficient reliable information in independent sources to write an article about it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]