User talk:Largoplazo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

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[edit]

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.


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


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

Tommie Grabiec Deletion[edit]

Dear Largoplazo

I hope you are doing well.

After doing some research regarding similar actors who have a Wiki Page and are at the same level as Tommie Grabiec, I ask that you look at the Wiki page of another actor with a similiar name Tommie Earl Jenkins

If you have a look at his Imdb page here: His website:

and then compare them to Tommie Grabiec's:

Tommie Grabiec Imdb: Official Website:

Then there are great similarities.

Thank you for your time

Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by FutureProf (talkcontribs) 07:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. I looked at that article and felt that Jenkins, too, falls short of the notability requirements, so I've submitted it for a deletion discussion. Sorry. I'd suggest taking a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Largoplazo (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of my page for 'advertising' or some such nonsense[edit]

I point you to your spurious reasoning for deleting my entry for 'because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic' which is exactly what the page for International Migration Institute does yet that has been allowed,, why the double standards?

I am in the process of editing the page to add in details about publication theories. I do not expect it to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamMinenor-Matheson (talkcontribs) 13:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I point you to your spurious reasoning that there's any comparison between the article you wrote and the article on the International Migration Institute. The latter article consists entirely of neutrally stated, externally verifiable assertions. Your article takes the form of a communication from the organization designed to engage the public by conveying the subjective motivations, aims, and purposes of the organization's leadership, none of which are facts externally verifiable by anyone who isn't inside their heads.
Besides that, Wikipedia article topics need to conform to Wikipedia's notability policy. Given that Google turns up no independent coverage for an organization named "academic antidote", I think you're going to have to take the initiative to supply convincing sources sufficient to demonstrate that the organization meets the general notability guidelines or the additional criteria available to organizations.
Re "I do not expect it to be deleted": That sort of imperious talk has no effect around here. Largoplazo (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete all from my situs thanks.[edit]

Yes all my site. Muishadi4 (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Why dont you help me contribute to the article i have created — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcaldar (talkcontribs) 01:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi Largoplazo,

I saw your edit on Orgelkids. The point here is that the (reliable) sources are in Dutch and are given on the Dutch Wikipedia. I did link to that, but perhaps that was not clear enough. Please, tell me how I can fix this problem. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Dick Bos: If the only independent, reliable sources with substantial coverage are in Dutch, then give the Dutch sources here. That's permitted. Also, you should remove the "reference" in the article to the Dutch Wikipedia article (because Wikimedia articles aren't valid, reliable sources), and, instead, post a {{translated page}} template at the top of the talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I've done that. Please check if it's alright now. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
It looks generally good! Except ... I've replaced the earlier tag with one calling for footnotes in the article, directly sourcing the various assertions in it to one or more of those sources. Largoplazo (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Eddwins Ra Mendieta[edit]

Looking at the what links here for Eddwins Ra Mendieta it seems they added that name to a page-not sure though if it is suppose to be a infobox type thing or if it should be removed though. Wgolf (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There was an infobox until today's edits. Looks like the editor messed things up. I don't know whether he realizes it and is planning to fix it. Largoplazo (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay not sure what to say then, maybe go back before all the vandalism. Wgolf (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
True, it was left like that over an hour ago. I've restored it to the October 20 version. Largoplazo (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

About 1965 Carnegie Tech Tartans football team[edit]

Hi Largoplazo,
I've declined the speedy deletion of this article. I admit I've only had a cursory look for references in reliable sources, but would appear to me that the "Tartans" did play college football in 1965.
Oops, update. I'm struggling to find references that indicate that Carnegie Mellon Tartans football had an NCAA team in 1965.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Shirt58: I understand. It just seemed it should somehow be speediable, and it looked as though, regardless of the title of the article, that its core was a personal reflection, a sharing of the creator's personal reminiscences. Largoplazo (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi Largoplazo,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Largoplazo.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Largoplazo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of page[edit]

Hi, the page I created on Windwhistle Warren was deleted because it's not deemed significant? It's the only rescue centre in Gloucestershire, a big county, and has been going for 15 years. Why is that information not useful for the public but random biographies are? Baloo123 (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. While the information is useful, and the Warren is a worthy cause, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia rather than a directory of services, has a policy that article topics must be what is termed "notable", as discussed at the page Wikipedia:Notability. The article didn't make what I saw as a credible claim of significance, which is necessary to avoid, at least, speedy deletion, but even if it did, based on an online search I ran, I don't think the organization meets the general notability guidelines that call for substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. For that reason, the article would be subject anyway to a discussion that could lead to its deletion depending on the consensus.
I don't know which biographies you're referring to, but their topics also must meet the notability guidelines. Any that don't are subject to deletion as well. Largoplazo (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen many biographies, created by colleagues, of researchers who people have never heard of, or had any newspaper coverage. Can this be referred to a second opinion? I fail to see how one person's opinion on what is notable should deem whether this page can be created. It holds a unique position within the county and deserves recognition as such. Saving hundreds of lives is surely noteworthy? Baloo123 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

There should be no biographies of anybody "who people have never heard of". If that is true, then those articles are subject to deletion. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Since you are giving me no examples, I cannot comment on specifics.
I'm not saying by any means that the organization isn't noteworthy. However, we don't judge that it is noteworthy by our evaluation of it, but by evidence that others have found it so, through coverage as I've already described, or through alternative avenues such as you may find described on the page about alternative notability guidelines available for organizations.
As for one person's opinion sufficing: (a) I requested speedy deletion, which involves two people (the person who requested deletion and the administrator who decides whether to delete the article or deny the request). Indeed, this avenue is limited to cases where the content of the article doesn't give an impression of significance. It falls far short of being an affirmative finding that the topic isn't notable (a decision which isn't based on the content of the article). (b) As long as the article gives a credible impression that the topic is significant (which, the way I interpret it, means that one can imagine it being notable), deleting it for a lack of notability does require a discussion that leads to a consensus for deletion.
Even we two people (the deleting administrator and I) aren't the last word. You can ask to have the deletion reviewed. See WP:Deletion review for guidance. Largoplazo (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter[edit]

Hello Largoplazo,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 287 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .


Hi. Thank you for reviewing new pages. Simply removing promotional content does not automatically mean that an article is no longer promotional. Any stub that is similar in kind to an entry on a company listing site is still using Wikipedia for promotional purposes and should be tagged both for A7 and G11. For more information please see the tutorial. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Hi there, Kudpung. I have to say that I am mystified by this. I see what the NPP tutorial now says. It contradicts the terms of WP:G11 as I've been applying it.
First, to say that an article is promotional, regardless of its content, because it was written by someone with an interest in the topic would be to say that we don't allow COI editing. But we do, and we say so at WP:COI. We strongly discourage it, and paid COI editing has to be disclosed, but it isn't prohibited.
Second, WP:G11 strictly, explicitly discusses content, not intent. It applies "to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform". You didn't indicate which article you're referring to, and it may be one that was deleted, so I can't see it, but based on my recollection of the last 12 hours there was an article from which I removed one sentence of the two sentences that were in it, and what was left was a neutrally worded stub. G11 then says "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." After my edit, that was the case. G11 basically does say that removing promotional content automatically means that an article is no longer promotional, and that being in that condition "is preferable to deletion". Of course, A7 may still apply or, if not, the article may still be otherwise deleted for a lack of notability.
G11 references WP:NOTPROMOTION. There, too, in the details, the focus is on the content. It mentions nothing about intent.
So, I'm confused by the two conflicting points of view of how promotion works. As far as I've always been able to tell, if an article would have been acceptable if it had been written by a disinterested author, then it's acceptable even if written by the CEO of the company it's about. I haven't liked this because I've felt that Wikipedia could take a stronger stand against allowing itself to be used with promotional intent, but it's made clear repeatedly that it doesn't. What I'm reading in the NPP tutorial seems like it's a contradiction of existing guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


I invite you to an ongoing RfD discussion about those redirect to WP:AADD#Just a vote. --George Ho (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply on the pages[edit]

Hi ‪Largoplazo, thank you for you kindness. I am going to work on the Charlie Chaplin page these days and have saved it in my sandbox, please do not remove it. Another translated page "伊卡博得·克兰" is also an assignment that i am improving, please also keep it... I also replied you in my talk but i am not sure it was linked to you or not... So i also come here. If there are further problems or suggestions, please feel free to contact me. It is interesting work with Wikipedia hhaha~ Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cococui (talkcontribs) 21:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, User:Cococui. User:RHaworth deleted the draft, for a reason that puzzles me and that I've asked him about. But then I realized that the article would be deleted even after you translate it because English Wikipedia already has an article on Charlie Chaplin. If you want to translate an article from Chinese Wikipedia into English for publication to English Wikipedia, it has to be about a topic for which English Wikipedia doesn't already have an article. (The same applies to "伊卡博得·克兰": we already have Ichabod Crane, so we don't need another article on that fictional character.) Largoplazo (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I am translating from English into Chinese. You mentioned "deleted the draft", I am not quite clear the draft refers to which one.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cococui (talkcontribs) 22:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The Chinese version of Ichabod Craneis link is: This is my first translation for English into Chinese, and I am still working to improve this one. Another is "Charlie Chaplin filmography", also a translation from English into Chinese, but the translation has not been finished, please do not remove it. Thank you very much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cococui (talkcontribs) 22:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Largoplazo (talk) I appreciate your help, I'm learning to collaborate here. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja.espino (talkcontribs) 15:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, his film name is Editor venkat but the actual name is venkatesh avula. We can change if you want — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilsoft (talkcontribs) 20:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)