User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Request for help

i noticed on a user talk page with whom i'm having a problem, that youd also had questions with said user, so i'm just reaching out with hopes you might be in a more knowledgable position to help... this person just recently deleted an archive page i created for Talk: Babel (film): my attempt to reach out to the user appears under the "~2013" section header... i'm getting the feeling this user is making drive-by moves but neither qualified nor experienced enough to be doing so... my activity on wikipedia is limited to editing, so i'm not sure how to proceed with pursuing what i believe to be an obvious administrative-like abuse of privilege by that user... i have no vested interest except that i'd created an archive on a talk page which was overrun with off-topic chatter; if the Talk i'd attempted to archive is lost, so be it, BUT, that user is still in the wrong and potentially making problems where there is none... any help/advice is appreciated; thanks in advance and sorry to interrupt you with this! Japanglish (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I've responded at User_talk:Antideregister#speedy_deletion_.22.7E2013.22. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Father Fitzpatrick

Hello Largoplaza, I am in the process of obtaining citations, links, etc. in reference to accompanying documentation for Patrick G. Fitzpatrick who played an instrumental role in the creation of the Catholic Charities organization who have helped countless millions of those less fortunate and in need around the globe. Thank you, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internationalenquirer (talk • contribs) 14:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I did try to find corroborating material but was unsuccessful. If you find some, that's great. Be sure that enough of it non-trivial (not the obituaries, for example), independent (not published by the dioceses or Catholic Charities, for example), and reliable to establish WP:BIO notability as required for Wikipedia. Also, you should note your intentions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick G. Fitzpatrick, which is where any discussion on the merits of deletion will take place. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your assistance. Fitzpatrick was a righteous man that helped countless people. I am still familiarizing myself and navigating the Wikipedia site so I do it properly with solid sources. Happy New Year! Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internationalenquirer (talk • contribs) 21:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Derived stem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reflexive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DynamicWeb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Notable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Page AmanKonark Ibaadati and my Beloved My page

Please do necessary changes to make it without the ad i.e add free .....or tell me that how to make it add free — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vande.matram2701987 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have a personal interest in the book, then it would be tough for you to write an article about it without it seeming promotional, and you shouldn't be using Wikipedia for the purpose of publicizing the book. If you are just a person who happens to have learned about the book and were interested in putting an article on Wikipedia, all I can tell you is that you have to write objectively. Don't think in terms of trying to impress people with the book.

However, even an objective article about this book would get deleted from Wikipedia, I believe, because I can't find evidence that the books meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, particularly the requirements for books. A Google search turns up almost no independent coverage of the book. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Weixinism

I think the page should be kept. I know there's not independent material covering the topic at the moment, but searching on the web, especially in Chinese, the movement appears to be relevant as it has a visible presence in Taiwan as well as in China (it also represents the special case of a non-recognised religion operating in China after an accord with the Henan government). Also, I don't think the page contained the same material of the previous version. --Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Though I hadn't seen the earlier article, I agreed with the reasons given in the original deletion discussion, even without regard to the contents of the article, based on the lack of independent coverage. (First I PRODded the article before I know about the discussion; it was the PROD notice that informed me that there had been one.) There are no grounds for exempting Wikipedia topics from the coverage requirements. I did search for the Chinese name and still found very little. If it achieves greater focus elsewhere, possibly because of its visible presence or because of its special nature as you described it, then it will meet the notability guidelines. But it isn't Wikipedia's role to anticipate future notability: see WP:CRYSTAL. As the article stood when I saw it, all its references were from the movement's leader, and I found no opportunity to supplement or replace them with appropriate references. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've found some independent information. The movement is the subject of a number of lectures (1, 2, 3) of the MingDao University, an article about its activities has been published by Taiwan Broadcasting System, Macroview Television, and another article by Apple Daily. --Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I am actively adding sources to: Psych_Central thank you for your research. Igottheconch (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that I established notability. Thank you for your diligence! Igottheconch (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The fourth reference, the mention in the print book, is a step in the right direction. The first one leads to Page Not Found. The third one doesn't say anything about Psych Central, it just cites it as the source for some information on SAD. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Largoplazo. You have new messages at Talk:Psych Central.
Message added 03:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Text of ani:

Stalking, Harassment and Bullying of first Largoplazo and EagerToddler39

I choose to redact the below ANI, in the hopes that we can come to a civil agreement, best wishes. Igottheconch (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

No one deserves this kind of abuse. good lord.

• Contacted User:EagerToddler39 asking him to close the Tom Wootton AFD.
• He then began to stalk me.
• He put Psych Central up for speedy deletion.
• He then started checking all of my edits. "I was going through your edits and noticed that you recently removed a cleanup template" Removal of cleanup template from page.
• He then ask User:Largoplazo to join him on the Psych Central talk page.
• User:72.66.102.173 deleted the speedy deletion template and also intentionally deleted the best sources in the article, and then five minutes later User:Largoplazo put the article for deletion. This anon and User:Largoplazo have edited the same page before, User:Largoplazo reverted another anons edit after User:72.66.102.173 edited the same article. There is good evidence that User:72.66.102.173 is User:Largoplazo. If that is the case, User:Largoplazo intentionally deleted the most important sources, then five minutes put the article up for deletion.
• User:Largoplazo then put the Psych Central up for speedy deletion again, after User:72.66.102.173 removed the speedy deletion. So we have one article that has both a speedy deletion AND a AFD.
• User:Largoplazo then deleted the alleged Psych Central copyright. So we have Psych Central that has a speedy deletion request for copyright and yet User:Largoplazo removed the alleged copyright violation.
• In the meantime, User:Largoplazo and User:EagerToddler39 bombarded me with templates about what they were doing.

This is a clear case of WP:Stalking and WP:Harassment, and if User:Largoplazo is User:72.66.102.173, he should be blocked for intentionally deleting references, then putting an article up for deletion.

At the least please, please warn these editors they will get blocked if they edit any of my edits anymore.

Igottheconch (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• "He then ask User:Largoplazo to join him on the Psych Central talk page." False. When I first became aware of his existence, I had already been to that page. He was merely letting me know that he'd left a communication for me there on the Talk page. Nothing out of the ordinary.
• "There is good evidence that User:72.66.102.173 is User:Largoplazo." True. I accidentally made one edit without being logged in, then I realized I wasn't logged in, then I logged in. So?
• As I wrote right there on Talk:Psych Central, I at first thought only the history section was a copyright violation, so I thought Toddler was misusing speedy deletion and removed the template. Then he explained to me, again right there on the talk page, where the rest of the article had come from. I saw that he was right, so I put the speedy deletion template back. The article is a copyright violation. Writing an entire article from material copied from two sources isn't "fair use".
• "Stalking" and "harassment": False. I'm following ordinary Wikipedia procedures for maintenance in good faith.
• Removing the "most important sources": (a) One source is not "sources". (b) A work written by the site's own founder isn't a reliable source. (c) It was that reference that demonstrated your infringement of the founder's copyright.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Miguel Ángel Catalán

Hello, the reason I've tried to change the entry Miguel Ángel Catalán is because that was not his real name. His name is Miguel Antonio Catalán, however, he was known for Miguel A. Catalán, and that's the name the entry about him should have. Can we change the name of the entry? or is it necessary to create another and delete this one? Once I know, I will try to upload two images and a paragraph. Thank you Regards Ezequiel Triviño (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. That sort of situation is handled by moving an article. I tried to move the article to Miguel A. Catalán but because couldn't because, I think, that article had had more than one edit. I've submitted a delete-and-move request on it so that Miguel A. Catalán will be deleted and then Miguel Ángel Catalán will be moved to that title. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dato Sri Tahir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indonesian people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

PredictWind

Hi Largo

Can i have what I wrote back. Even email it to me don't care.. I wrote it you deleted it. It's not a nice start for any kind of Wikipedia user...

I'll be looking into how I can convey the information that I could not find on Wikipedia, on Wikipedia, within the Wikipedia rules.

Mike

Mike, I'd advise you against posting your personal contact information anywhere on Wikipedia. I've removed it from here.

You can get the text of your article from NawlinWiki, the administrator who did the actual deletion. I believe that what happens in that case is that he'll copy the text to a subpage of your user page. Be sure, if you resubmit it, that it's neutral (nothing in the way of a personal observation as to why PredictWind is better than something else, for example), and that you include appropriate references. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Largo

Thanks I'll look into it. I appreciate the advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejscullin (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Largoplazo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English.
Message added 17:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peridon (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

An Article Made By The Person's Him/Herself

Hello this is my second message. Sorry for spamming I had a problem last time. I am a guitarist-songwriter from Los Angeles, CA. I an article about me. It is made by me but it is going to get deleted because it has no reliable sources. How am I supposed to prove that person is me ? I have my twitter if you won't believe. Name is Joseph Allen. Thanks... (Canfenerci (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC))

Hi. It isn't enough simply for an article to be true, or even verifiable through reliable sources, though that much is necessary. Wikipedia articles are further required to be about topics that meet its notability guidelines. There are additional guidelines for people in general and for musicians and bands in particular. Rather than make its own judgments about whether someone, or some topic, merits an article, it looks to see whether that judgment has already been made elsewhere, as represented by adequate non-trivial coverage in independent sources, or by some other measure (winning certain awards, being president of a major university, etc.).

As for the article being about yourself: Wikipedia very strongly discourages autobiographies, or even articles by people who have a conflict of interest with their subjects. One thing Wikipedia is absolutely not for is to achieve note. Moreover, being covered in an article isn't necessarily a desirable thing, as it becomes a vehicle for any notable negative occurrence involving you that someone might be able to document from independent, reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the feedback. How can I delete it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Solanky (talk • contribs) 16:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Hi How can I delete that article / account ? Ravi Solanky (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! You can put {{db-author}} (with the double braces) at the top of the article, and an administrator will come along and delete it. Accounts can't be deleted, but you can blank your user and user talk pages if you want. See alternatives to account deletion at WP:USERNAME. Thanks, —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wilbur Hobby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COPE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hunter Ahrens

Reputable source for Hunter Ahrens www.neftar.weebly.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamfordneftar (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. A couple things about that:

• There isn't anything there. "Site Not Published - The site you are looking for has not been published"
• If they/you did have a website there, it wouldn't be an independent website that would qualify as a reliable source for purposes of establishing the notability of your organization or its officers, based on Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of organizations and for people.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, check out Wikipedia's guidelines about conflicts of interest and, in case it should be applicable, autobiographies. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

Thanks, Largo Plazo. I know there is a difference, but yes, I am not too familiar with the different options. And yes, the moment I typed in that bullet, it occurred to me that it looked like the beginning of a yes/ no list. As you said, I wanted to support the deletion, specifically because of my linguist background. I saw that someone added an endorsement on the page itself, but I didn't feel comfortable doing the same, as I don't recall seeing other cases of strings of people adding a {{Proposed deletion endorsed}}. But thanks, I appreciate and learn every day. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, the endorsement template exists (also known as {{prod2}}), and I occasionally use it myself, but only if I think I have something to add that will help make the case for others that the deletion is warranted, something beyond what the first person stated as his reason for proposing deletion.

By the way, in showing me the template you were referring to, you actually embedded it on this page, which gave this page the status of one the deletion of which had been proposed. If you look at the source, you'll see that I've changed it to {{tl|Proposed deletion endorsed}}, which allows one to refer to a template rather than using it, and which also makes the template's name clickable so the reader can click it and go to the template's page. Alternatively, you can use <nowiki>{{Proposed deletion endorsed}}</nowiki>, which won't link the template's name but will keep it from being treated as a template. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Redaction

Hey Largo,

I knew that it meant "edit" (which itself in English is a back formation from the Latin Editor), and I slipped. But still it is a false friend. I'll correct the PROD to say so since I don't think there is material damage in doing so. There was so much wrong with this article I am sorry for my slip; it is because each section said "redaction". I think in the French it should be Rédaction, no? But that's okay not having the accents in English. It is particularly sensitive because articles released under the Freedom of Information Act (United Kingdom) often have sections "redacted", in the UK Government's terms, i.e. blacked out or deleted, so it is rather a loaded word.

Thanks for spotting my mistake, I took it out of WP:PNTCU onto the talk page of the article as I was rambling far too long. As I say, it is a tar pit and I very nearly fell in to it.

May I say by the way thank you and others for all the hard work you do at PNT, it is noticed by at least one other editor.

Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• User:Yngvadottir removed the PROD at Serge Guinchard, I have taken it AfD. I am happy to spend some time recreating the article but I feel it is too far gone as it stands to have any hope of cleanup (or rather, that cleaning it up would take longer than starting from scratch). I have added another long ramble at the talk page but nothing at the AfD itself. I am in theory an inclusionist but I think it should be deleted because its inclusion makes the encyclopaedia worse. I should appreciate your views. Si Trew (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)