User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 → Archive 30

The Magritte painting you nominated for deletion is staggeringly famous

FYI, the Magritte painting you nominated is probably one of the most famous paintings in the world. It is included in Gardner's history of Art, for example. To put it simply, it is a staggeringly famous painting, which does not merit deletion no matter what condition the article was in. A stub would have been the way to go, rather than pushing to have it deleted. A simple line saying that is was a surrealist painting in the MOMA collection would have done the trick. Now that it is a fine article with excellent references, it would be great if you realized your error and withdrew the nomination, which is wasting people's time. or, I guess you could carry on with insisting it be deleted.198.58.162.149 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Go read my response to you in the deletion discussion. What you did with the article was great. Your attitude and your narrow grasp into what other people here are about and how things work here need a major overhaul if you're going to interact with people here (especially if you have any intention of communicating on my talk page again). It would be great if you realized your error and toned down the way you talk to people and didn't blow a gasket over things like this. Largoplazo (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, I'm moving my response from the discussion to here, below:
  • Obviously you don't understand how this works. We aren't slaves who, when someone writes a horrible article, are all incredibly knowledgeable about the field and capable of writing a good one to replace it, and all possessing a moral obligation to drop what we are doing and rewrite it, or else leave the horrible article place for weeks or months or years until someone comes along and finally does so. What an extraordinary amount of control over our lives you are choosing to attribute to authors who, albeit in good faith, set up articles that, for content-related reasons shouldn't be here.
So, as it happens, I nominated the article for deletion, which drew your attention, apparently, and you personally felt moved to rewrite the article. That's great! That's an ideal outcome! That's about the best possible outcome from a deletion discussion! And, guess what? There's no need to be a jerk about it! 'Cuz if you are, people who would otherwise have been inclined to think you well of you for your deed are, instead, disinterested.
On the other hand, if you didn't come along and rewrite the article, and no one else had rewritten it into a proper article by the time this discussion expired, the article would have merited deletion. Then, if someone decided to write an article about the same painting later, Wikipedia would then have an article on it. That's the way this works. Insulting people about it isn't the way this works. You should read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL before you interact any further with other Wikipedia editors. Largoplazo (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your observation that I could have stubbed it: Yes, I could also make it my life's work to write stubs for every noteworthy subject that doesn't already have an article about it, and you could criticize me for not doing that. It is one of the courses of action one could take for articles like this, and I've taken it before for articles in fields about which I know something. But the fact that someone has chosen to write a (bad) article about something doesn't magically create an imperative that there be at least a stub for that topic where there is no such imperative for articles that haven't been created yet.
If you still see this differently from me, well, then I still see it differently from you. That doesn't justify all the hand-wringing. Largoplazo (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It's very clearly a bad nomination, I am sorry you do not see it that way. It would be great if you withdrew it instead of having others waste their time discussing it. Re: civility, I am talking about the nomination. I'm sure you are a fine individual and made the nomination in good faith. My point is that it was an incorrect nomination that you should now withdraw. 198.58.162.149 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a horrific nomination - and not his only current one. It's clearly a failure of WP:BEFORE - and that User:Largoplazo has the gall to say that WP:BEFORE doesn't apply because he nominated on the basis of being badly written only demonstrates gross incompetence in the AFD process. I'd recommend avoiding AFDing all but the most obvious articles, and instead if an article offends you so much, either improve it, or delete it down to a stub. Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Please show me where I said WP:BEFORE doesn't apply. Largoplazo (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
See here. If you weren't implying that WP:BEFORE doesn't apply, then I don't know what you were trying to imply. Which of the 14 reasons for deletion did you think applied here? (and if it's 14, then surely editing or stubifying is the solution ... WP:BEFORE#Before nominating: checks and alternatives proceeding. Nfitz (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't "trying to imply" anything. I was saying, after the IP user wrote at length about how obviously notable the work is, that I hadn't questioned its notability. Just as when I tag an article for A7 speedy deletion, and the creator contests deletion by observing that the article isn't promotional, I point out that that, while true, doesn't address the reason I tagged the article for deletion. I did notice his reference to WP:BEFORE, which I read in the context of his entire message, which came across as, "If you had done WP:BEFORE, you would have noticed that this is a notable work." That's what I was responding to, pointing out that I hadn't denied its notability. Largoplazo (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Largoplazo, just so you understand this, here is the appropriate section of WP:BEFORE that you failed to employ: "C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Nominating articles for deletion so that they can be cleaned up by other editors is not an appropriate use of the AfD process. You should know that, given the editor badge on your user page. We have cleanup, sources and other tags for that purpose. Thank you for withdrawing the nomination. 198.58.162.149 (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Replacement isn't improvement or clean-up. I looked in good faith at the original article, and it registered with me as fodder for WP:TNT, the purpose of which is to make exactly the distinction that I'm expressing here (and the existence of which demonstrates that I'm not a lone rebel in making that distinction). If you see what you did as improvement or clean-up rather than, essentially, replacement, then I have a different perspective from yours at that level of detail. That doesn't amount to flaming disregard of or contempt for all that is holy on my part. Largoplazo (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • By the way, I've been curious: How did you come upon this article? Was it because of the Afd? Largoplazo (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless you have psychic powers, I advise you to stop attempting to divine what I did or didn't do, because you're doing a poor job of it. I did not find anything about the existence of a Belize under-20 football team. I even looked specifically at the website of the organization purported in the article to be the parent organization, and, as I said in my nomination, they listed under-15 and under-17, but not under-20. Does it turn out that I must have missed some obvious way to do my research? Yeah, it's possible. Gosh, I'm fallible. Are you going to sue me? Boot me off the island?
If you really want to do real research, check my entire history of article creation in the Wikipedia namespace over the last 8+ years. You'll see from the forest of red links that when it comes to deletion discussions, my record of obtaining consensus for deletion is high. Even some of the discussions with blue links, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Let the Music Stop and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalachi, ended in deletion, or at least redirection. I've even been known to realize that I had left an avenue uncovered and retracted my own nomination unprompted: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyepudzayi Bona Mugabe. I do take this seriously, your accusations notwithstanding, and you can imagine how I'm reacting to total strangers, based on cherry-picked evidence, talking to me in such a dramatic manner like I'm a total incompetent. Largoplazo (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I've looked at 3 most recent AFDs, and two appear to have failed WP:BEFORE - and that's not just my judgement - others had made same comment at both AFDs before I did. Cherry-picked - I don't think going for the most recent ones in your edit history is cherry picking. But then I notice instead of pleaing mea culpa, your actually arguing with people about it still. Sure, we all have bad spells, and make horrid mistakes. No biggie - though I don't know how you'd possibly think they'd have U15 and U17, but not the high-profile U20, nor do I understand why you wouldn't check the World Cup qualifying which is always well documented, to see who was in, nor do I understand why you wouldn't click on "what links here" which is always very telling for sports teams; but I wonder if you don't regularly edit in this topic area. Probably not much else more to say ... thanks for listening. Nfitz (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • If there's an equivalent of WP:BEFORE that applies to the research you owe it to other editors to do before you make generalizations or draw conclusions about their work here, I'm certain that a sample size of 3 for an editor with over 60,000 edits would fall short of the requirements.
"I don't know how you'd possibly think they'd have U15 and U17, but not the high-profile U20". Now you're criticizing me for not being knowledgeable about the World Cup, and you're telling me that despite my direct observation that they didn't seem to have anything about U20, it was my responsibility to consider that omission in what ought to have been the authoritative source strange, rather than to take it as speaking for itself. And, you know, this is why we have these discussions, so others can (constructively) point out oversights by the nominator (missing context, gaps in their knowledge) as much as for any other reason. I think we're done here. Largoplazo (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
How could you not see see all the links from various U20 tournaments when you clicked on "what links here"? The only possible way is if you never did it in the first place. I'm surprised you'd choose to edit articles under WP:FOOTBALL if you weren't familiar with such a huge international tournament - but if you did, I'd assume one would be very careful. You weren't - and I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing that out. There's a pattern here ... the bottom line is you screwed up - and that doesn't have to be a big deal - but I'm mystified why you don't simply stick your hand up and say "yeah, I screwed up - oops" rather than being overly defensive, and attacking those who are simply pointing out that you screwed up. This would have been a very short discussion if you'd simply said "yeah, don't know how I missed that one" rather than trying to justify how you missed it. And really, you haven't removed your nomination yet? Nfitz (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)\
"How could you not see see all the links from various U20 tournaments when you clicked ...". I guess I didn't. Do you want me to curl up and die? Your pattern is a pattern of 2 instances that you have observed. So don't give me garbage about "patterns". And, holy crap, I've said a couple of times in one form or other, "Yes, I guess I missed that." Yes, it was reasonable to expect that from me. But your edit summary, about simply moving on, is hilarious, given that you and IP-user are the ones who can't seem to let go of this. The two of you didn't "simply point out" anything. Your remarks were melodramatic and you both accused me falsely of what I didn't do. It's like you're some sort of Truth and Reconciliation Committee that won't be satisfied until you've extracted abject and tearful confessions for war crimes. Both of you need to get a serious grip on how you talk to people if you actually have any intent of being effective in your communications. If you want to talk about screwing up, you've done it big time in how you've approached this whole thing. Now, you, too, stay off my talk page, because I am really sick of this, and I have no intention of indulging you further. Largoplazo (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There's zero doubt that your analysis is totally warped, although I'm getting tired of explaining why. The guideline about giving articles time is for issues that have to do with the creator not having had time to finish creating the content yet. This article was fully written already, so eight minutes had nothing to do with it, unless you think the problem is that the creator hadn't had enough time to remove everything he'd already written. Now kindly stay off my talk page because I truly am sick and tired of your overwrought little war. Largoplazo (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Xpressdocs

Hi there — Trying to gather some more insight into why the Xpressdocs page cannot seem to get published. Anything that would read like advertising/pure marketing was removed, and the remaining information was tracked by independent sources. In terms of notability, the Xpressdocs’ page contained content similar to the earlier versions of comparable organizations (such as QuantumDigital and Vistaprint). Could you provide additional information as to why this page is constantly marked for deletion? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmshort20 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. As a non-admin, I don't have access to the deleted article so I can comment only indirectly, but I'd explained the second deletion at User talk:Missashmarie7. The one issue involved that can't be remedied through content revisions is a lack of notability. Whether or not an organization is notable is independent of whether other organizations of a comparable type are notable. I don't even know whether those other businesses are notable, not having examined them. It's possible that they aren't and that the articles are eligible for deletion. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
None of this means that the article can't be revived if you or someone else finds qualifying evidence that the company does satisfy WP:N. Largoplazo (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noël Coward

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noël Coward. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Liberalism in Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Liberalism in Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Shinagawa Lasik & Aesthetics Center

Hi Largoplazo,

I believe that the article on Shinagawa Lasik & Aesthetics Center is helpful because it's the only medical center in the Philippines that specializes in LASIK and many not many people here are aware of LASIK and laser vision correction at present.

There are also many LASIK organizations that have successfully posted on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK_MD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCA-Vision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_Medical_Optics

May I know which part of the article needs to be revised?

Respectfully yours, Giu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardshinagawa (talk • contribs) 03:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm not an administrator, I can't pull up the text of the article to see what it looked like when it was active, but I see from your talk page that I flagged it for being promotional. It certainly wasn't because there can't be articles on Wikipedia about providers of Lasik procedures. Especially since it's your vision center, you need to be mindful of the messages I posted to your talk page about business listings, writing with a conflict of interest, etc.
There are different kinds of "helpful". Wikipedia is helpful by providing information about topics that meet the notability guidelines that are a threshold for inclusion. It is definitely not helpful as a directory of consumer services. It is not to be used for that purpose.
For insights into the merits and drawbacks of comparing one page or topic with another, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There have been occasions where someone has asked me, "Well, what about these other articles?", and I've found that they, in fact, qualified for deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Universal Monsters (2017 film series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Universal Monsters (2017 film series). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Publication of my article Margit Tevan in English

Hello,

Sorry to disturb you but I published some months ago an article in english about Margit Tevan. I do not understand why only the french version is indexed... and not the englishone.

If you have the solution...

Laurent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentludovic (talk • contribs) 13:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean when you say it isn't "indexed". Can you clarify? Largoplazo (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Largoplazo/Archives,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 812 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Berkeley protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Berkeley protests. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Legobot (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:30 Rock

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:30 Rock. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Westmount shul claim of significance

Regarding the speedy deletion of the article about this particular synagogue, I'm adding that it is Thornhill's Oldest shul and has been celebrated for 20 years of building up the Jewish community in Toronto. Would you please release the article for publication and 15 seconds of fame? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scutarus (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Good day. My name is Glen Lester and I am a representative for Valinteno Kenlock. You seem to be under the impression that Valinteno him self is writing this article. Also after rereading what I wrote in the article, there is no where that indicates or suggest that some one wrote this about them self. Which leads me to believe that you are your representatives did not read the article. So here is some small details about the article. This article is about a African American Casting Agent/Independent Film Maker who was is currently active in the entertainment industry who can be found on IMdb data base with all his contributions. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valinteno Kenlock (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Good day. This is Glen Lester a rep for Valinteno Kenlock. Yes I made an error during typing IMDb. I will try to fix it so IMDb is in normal text form. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valinteno Kenlock (talk • contribs) 13:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Glossaries

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Glossaries. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Balfour Declaration

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Balfour Declaration. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Review your RFC wording

I'm going to ask that you review the wording of your RFC proposal over at Qaboos bin Said. An RFC is supposed to be neutral, and some of your wording, specifically "one editor unilaterally concluded that he was going to remove the material from the article", seems to fail at neutrality. Of course editing on Wikipedia is always done by someone who decides to do the edit. To describe this as "unilateral" makes it sound like something that happened without any discussion or sense of consensus. Actually, it came at the end of the discussion when one editor requested the deletion, another editor (me) concurred with the request, and then a third editor agreed and carried it out... and even in doing so stated that it was awaiting further context and consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I merely meant to say that one editor ended the discussion by saying, "I'm going to do this", without the trappings of a formal finding of consensus and closure of the discussion. I wrote it this way because that was part of my rationale for launching an RFC, rather than considering the outcome of the BLP discussion dispositive. In any event, I've expressed no opinion on what the outcome of the RFC should be, and, in fact, I appreciate the arguments on both sides, so my heart isn't set on a particular result. I actually don't care which way it goes! Largoplazo (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Longquan celadon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Longquan celadon. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

external link

Sorry about that, I did not realize this policy! Dave Drabold aka aldfrith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldfrith (talk • contribs) 17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aldfrith: That's you? Please read WP:AUTOBIO. Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

very much still trying to find my way around here. Rather impressed at how easy it is and the watchers like yourself. totally agree with logic of autobio rule. i was intentionally minimalist, as you see. still if its a problem it can go away. i am trying to fix up the ohio u pages. I think its better, though far from perfect. We need placeholder bios for several faculty members, hence the experiment with myself! thanks, I appreciate the guidance.

It is complicated! But it's in the interest of quality. I did appreciate the brevity of the article you'd created, thanks. Happy crafting. Largoplazo (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Évian Conference

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Évian Conference. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

EsgynDB article

I am not done with my post of the article as yet. It will take me a few days. It might not be compliant even after that and I will need some guidance to fix it. But until then, is there a way to set it up as a draft so it is not visible to folks until I am ready to "publish" it?

Rohit — Preceding unsigned comment added by RohitJain13 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


Hello. Certainly you understand that an article with "The best of both worlds – EsgynDB" in the middle of it, surrounded by a long discourse on the inevitability and necessity of the product, is promotional. Wikipedia articles are neutral, disinterested.
I see that the article is now deleted. If you'd like to write a non-promotional, neutral article, you can create a user draft and then submit it for review when you're done. But, also, if you are involved in this software that you must acknowledge your conflict of interest and observe the guidelines pertaining to that.
If you want the content you already wrote put somewhere you can download it to use as a starting point (but please don't make the draft promotional either), you can ask at WP:REFUND. Largoplazo (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Dame Daniels links

http://www.thisis50.com/video/dame-daniels-ft-princess-digital-crime-mob-shut-em-down?xg_source=activity (resource for the mention on 50 cents thisis50.com)

if you want to see his soundscans please contact t4bookings@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dh1585 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I was focusing on substantive material showing that anyone has taken note of him, as suggested by your claim that he's been on Billboard charts. I'm afraid that having videos posted on the Web doesn't, in itself, convey significance or importance, let alone meet the notability guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hungarians

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hungarians. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Atlantic306. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Maurizio Quaranta, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Atlantic306 (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, thought i'd reviewed it Atlantic306 (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jewish diaspora

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish diaspora. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability template removal - opinion

Hi @Largoplazo:, Thank you for taking the time to review the my first page! I'm reaching out with regards to the notability template you added to the page- I added a number of references on which those facts are based on. I wanted to make sure you agree that the template can now be removed, given the updates that were made.

All the best, Mishi10 (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Largoplazo/Archives, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

PriMedia

Jim Cooney IS a co-founder of PriMedia in 1991 and is a minority owner to this day. Its even listed on the incorporation paperwork. Barry and Ed founded DIALmedia in 1975. Please re-publish what I spent the time editing at the request of Ed and Jim. Questions: Rick rickb@primediahq.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:B254:119:248C:6393:E429:399B (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

From the article itself: "PriMedia was founded in 1975 (then named Dial Media) ...." How, then, could he have cofounded it in 1991 when it was already 16 years old at that point? (When a company takes a new name, it's still the same company.) By the way, see the guidelines on conflict of interest editing. Largoplazo (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Arabeasy transliteration map

It is a new map, not existing before or present on the page. Learners should know of its existence, here is a link to the map: http://arabeasy.net/


from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanization_of_Arabic&diff=789972036&oldid=789970321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.14.3 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I gather, then, that it's a proprietary character set peculiar to one piece of software. It really wouldn't merit inclusion, in that case. If the goal in including it is to draw attention to a character set that is hitherto generally unknown, Wikipedia isn't used for that purpose. Largoplazo (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Nidamahmood

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User talk:Nidamahmood, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Fylbecatulous talk 11:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fylbecatulous: Hi, deleting that talk page is unnecessary. I rolled it back to the version preceding the one where the user turned it into an article, preserving its existing talk page-type content. Even with articles, before submitting a deletion request, make sure there isn't an earlier good version to roll back to. In the case of something that must be hidden (personal attack, copyright violation), deletion of individual versions can be requested, per WP:Revision deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Very good to know and I now understand about preserving talk page history. I also thanked you at the talk page in question.ツ I noticed it because I do follow the 'requested edits'. Basically I do not request speedy deletion except for that falling under G11 (not being a proper NPP anymore). Wishing you happy editing. Addendum: I also owe you a personal apology because the automatic Twinkle notice landed on your page because you were the one who first created that talk page. Mea culpa. It is my responsiblity to make Twinkle behave... I have just amended my Twinkle preferences...thanks muchly. Fylbecatulous talk 11:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Vice AA

Vice AA is one of the most respected producers, songwriters and rappers in the United Arab Emirates. I have written the page 4 times today because it keeps on getting deleted. I believe there is some racism in this, the Wikipedia users do not want to see a SUCCESSFUL rapper of Arab origin get what he deserves simply because he is Arab. He is 16 years of age and everything that I have posted on the site is true. why does it keep on getting deleted? it tells me that there is no importance in this page, is there more importance in the Canadian successful rapper drake than there is in the Emirati successful rapper Vice because Drake is Canadian and Vice is Arab? This is extremely racist. Vice deserves the world to know who he is, he is an amazing man and an amazing rapper, so enough racism for one day yeah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike47812 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


I shut down the instant someone decides that racism must be the reason something he isn't happy with has happened. Because if it weren't for racism, only members of the privileged class would ever have unfavorable things happen to them (for all the zillions of reasons that unfavorable things happen), while everyone else would go through life free and easy, never experiencing the slightest inconvenience? Sorry, I've learned from past experience that there's no way to have a rational conversation once racism has been invoked, because right out of the gate the predisposition to attribute things to racism implies, "I'm not going to believe any valid rationale you give me." If accusing people of racism every time you don't like something that someone has done is your go-to strategy for dealing with life's obstacles, well, good luck to you. Largoplazo (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy notification

Thanks for the effort on that R2 speedy on my page move, but it would be appreciated if you gave me more than 20 seconds to tag it myself. I do know how userfy, so the notification on my talk wasn't exactly helpful —72 talk 18:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PFC CSKA Sofia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:PFC CSKA Sofia. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Plano ISD Health Sciences Academy

Hi! Per school article guidelines, when you encounter an article such as this one (or one on an elementary or middle school), it is quite acceptable to BOLDly redirect it to the school district without going through the process of AfD. If your redirect is reverted, then take it to AfD. If you have occasion to do that, please add the template {{r from school}} immediately after the redirect template. The "r" template automatically adds an explanation to the redirect page and appropriately modifies the categorization. Thanks, and thanks for your interest in school articles! John from Idegon (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC), co-coordinator, WikiProject Schools

Ah, thank you, and I guess I should have thought of that. I appreciate the tip about the {{r from school}} template. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree with using {{r from school}} in this case, since this program isn't a school. I think {{r from subtopic}} fits. Largoplazo (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive_23&oldid=796333057"