User talk:Largoplazo

Hello! I find it easier to follow a conversation if it's in one place. Therefore:

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Largoplazo}}), so that I will be notified.
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.

Once I've left a message on your talk page, I'll generally know if you've responded there even without the "reply to" because I will have watchlisted you. However, some automated messages, like the ones for speedy deletion, don't add the addressee to the sender's watchlist. Also, if I'm away for a few days, my watchlist may not go back far enough for me to see your reply.

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Grupo paranga, Largoplazo.

Unfortunately Jackmcbarn has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Article has a lot of issues other than the COI, so it needs further review (and quite possibly tagging for deletion)

To reply, leave a comment on Jackmcbarn's talk page.

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Evans Sylvestre, Largoplazo.

Unfortunately Josu4u has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I think someone needs to review this, whether it meets speedy deletion or not.

To reply, leave a comment on Josu4u's talk page.

Futuristic

brooooooooooooooooooo, I took 1-2 total hours on that page instead of doing the homework.

Sorry

I appreciate towards your efforts in Wikipedia, I am Sorry for what I have done.
Sincerely:
Pakelectrical talk 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey Largo,

You've asked for a third opinion, but as there's no discussion taking place - the other editor doesn't seem to be following the TP - a 3O would be useless. I removed the request, and suggest you approach WP:AN3 (or another relevant board) instead. François Robere (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere: Actually, WP:AN3 was the first place I had in mind to go, but I thought that under the circumstances I needed to be able to say I'd gone to WP:3O as a matter of following protocol. Indeed, there was no verbal dispute about which to seek a third opinion, since he refused to answer, but I thought the two-party dispute was implicit in his actions: He's reverted my changes twice. The second time was after (a) I had explained my changes to him; (b) I'd given him several days to digest my commentary, during which he made several rounds of edits on other articles, so I know he was here; (c) I tried to prompt him by telling him that I was interpreting his silence as acquiescence; and (d) he had made one more set of edits so I knew he'd seen my final comment and still hadn't responded.

Under the circumstances, I'd thought that that constituted a two-party dispute and that, to be able to show that I was following protocol, I should go through WP:3O before heading to the next round of resolution. So, really, I should just forget about that and move on to WP:AN3? Largoplazo (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that one could opine simply based on the changes, but I'd like to think 3O helps resolve discussions, not just disagreements. If no discussion is taking place, then a 3O is as arbitrary as one's understanding of another editor's actions, and I'd be hesitant to give one. I think you did well to try, regardless.

Unfortunately Wikipedia has a policy lacuna on dealing with non-responsive editors. You can try AN3, but the result depends on the admin that catches it. If that won't work, you can try claiming WP:DISRUPTIVE and hope it'll work. François Robere (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere: WP:AN3 appears not to apply until 3RR has been broken. It also occurs to me that since my initial set of edits was to remove material that had been added at some point in the past, that maybe I'm the one who'd be seen as "reverting", and I certainly don't want to be the one charged with violating 3RR. All I want is outside judgment on this. Should I make an RFC out of it, to get consensus that my changes were appropriate? Then I'd have a solid claim against him in an ANI report. Largoplazo (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I changed back the nine out of the original 13 pages that he reverted for second time. (He'd reverted all 13 the first time.) I guess I can also see if he does it again with no edit summary, and then I'll be able to base a case on unexplained changes and failure to discuss. Largoplazo (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, however if the conflict continues then it'll quickly go down that path. As for who's reverting - it's not you: the material has to have been added relatively recently for the removal to constitute a "reversal".

An RfC can be a good idea if this continues (keep it clear, short and with an example edit that people can refer to). Bear in mind it's binding and won't necessarily go your way, but it is a learning experience of sorts even if it doesn't. Good luck! François Robere (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glover

He's admitted he owns the press in a now deleted article talk page post. COIN? Doug Weller talk 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page review

Hello,

My name is Maria Dima and I am writing on behalf of Tello Mobile.

Thank you for your recent review on the newly added page on Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tello_mobile.

I could sure need some help with it, if you don't mind, especially since I don't really understand why the content is viewed as an advertisement. I've listed facts about the service, an objective short description of how the service works and references from widely-known sites like CNET, AndroidCentral, and PCMAG that covered Tello in one of their articles.

Moreover, I've used as an example this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ting_Inc. that has the same type of service, Wiki content, and references.

Can you please help me with this?

Thanks, Maria

Mihaela.georgescu.uratoriu (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mihaela.georgescu.uratoriu: Hello! Since you are writing on behalf of Tello Mobile, you have a conflict of interest, so you need to read WP:COI, and pay particular attention to the rules regarding editing in connection with an arrangement (employment, a contract) for which you are paid. You should also understand that COI editing is strongly discouraged.

Details of "what customers can do", how payment works, the absence of additional charges for this or that service, all fall under the heading of marketing. Anything that isn't an inherent, objective fact about the product but that deals with specifics meant to entice prospective customers, which isn't appropriate here. Wikipedia articles are neutral, and Wikipedia doesn't communicate to people why they should or shouldn't consider a product or service.

I've just tagged Ting Inc., as it suffers from the same undue attention to marketing details. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS about the perils of picking other articles for comparison! Largoplazo (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

clean up aisle 5

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For wielding the mop extremely well today in fixing the messes mentioned by Emma7231. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Thank you!! Largoplazo (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You just requested protection for an article that has been deleted. (Sooo, no more worries about vandalism I suppose... ) - wolf 11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Yes, I know. Indefinite protection against creation, which is applicable pretty much specifically to articles that have been deleted. Largoplazo (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. That makes sense. Otherwise, at a glance, it just seemed odd. Thanks for the reply. - wolf 11:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Largoplazo, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018^[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New article review

Thank you for reviewing this new article. I'll be adding to the article and supplementing it with additional sources to correct the issues you cited.Allisev23 (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

non liquet

this aritcile is correct as to the notion of legal gap and its sorts but it is suspicious as to the notion of non liquet since this notion concerns rather the question of proof than the question of operative law and it should be not equated with a lacuna and gap or loophole which all mean more or less the same. The diffrence bewteen lacuna and loophole is rather none. The loophole is a gap extra legem as the lacuna in its common usage. That is, the article should start from legal gap (lacuna, loophole) and at the end mention about non liquet as a far less common name of a legal gap.

Hi. Article discussion goes not in hidden comments in the article but on the associated talk page, in this case Talk:Non liquet.

Because your remarks recapitulate my own feeling that there are problems with the article, that vocabulary is being used with imprecision and the commentary is meandering, the tag I placed there is appropriate and should remain until there is greater clarity as to what the article should say, and the article has been revised accordingly. You removed it, so I replaced it.

By the way, when you leave remarks an an article or user talk page like this one, you should sign your contributions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the second paragraph is totally stupid, but try to delete something in the wiki. You will be charged with being a vandal if not a scammer. I may try, but ...