User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Orgelkids

Hi Largoplazo,

concerning Orgelkids: you placed some banners on it some time ago. I believe the article has been greatly improved by now, so that the last banner can be removed. If you have some time left, would you please take a look at it? Thanks in advance, --Dick Bos (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Timmins Chamber of Commerce Page

Hi,

I am a student asked to highlight a municipal organization and public service and I am new to the Wikipedia process and didn't mean to interfere w the integrity of the website. I am requesting to retrieve the material that has been flagged for speedy deletion for my persona references and to potentially improve in the future.

It would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Alita Fabiano — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intern at TCOC (talk • contribs) 18:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

JoyLand

Hi, what's the problem? wikipedia is free, i got rare info, would like to share for free and sb deleting it because of no reason; please stop him. thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerr007 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zerr007: Hi. Wikipedia is certainly free, but it's also meant to be useful, which means that there are a lot of policies and guidelines meant to support a quality website. For one thing, topics have to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which generally means they already have to be known and reported on in at length in multiple independent reliable sources. If something hasn't been written about anywhere else, then it doesn't belong here, because Wikipedia is not about everything.

Besides that, I'm guessing that Joyland is something you or someone you know has made up, and Wikipedia isn't for that sort of thing.

If you'd like to learn how to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, see WP:WELCOME. Largoplazo (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Better Than Starbucks is notable

please hold off your speedy deletion. thanks LairdUnlimited (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

article

edited page in line with suggestions of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toyotacorrola1992 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

in Chinese, we have a saying, friendship grows in close-quarter boxing fight. Nice to have fallen into your watch.

LairdUnlimited (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

KVDA TV page you edited.

I noticed that you edited this page 3/1/17. Thanks for the update however there are some inaccuracies. You can contact me if you wish to discuss. Rtopping (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Some" inaccuracies? I removed one (redundant) word. Largoplazo (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Intent to Retrieve & Improve Deleted Article

@Largoplazo: An article titled "InTime Solutions" was speedily deleted when it was still in its early stages. I would like to retrieve the page and improve the content, more closely following Wikipedia's guidelines. Please advise. Thank you. ForceInBlue (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@ForceInBlue: You can ask the deleting admin at User talk:Hut 8.5 to give you a copy in your user space, where you can work on it as a userspace draft. Given that it was removed on account of being promotional, though, you may be asked to start from scratch without a promotional tone (which you might still do in your userspace before submitting it for review and moving it to article space). Largoplazo (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

National Mario Day

Could you please re-evaluate your CSD nomination of National Mario Day?

It might or might not be notable, but it's not A1 or G2.

Cheers, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you rather I tagged it as vandalism? I was giving it the benefit of the doubt. Largoplazo (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, now there's context, text that says what the thing is. Largoplazo (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Google is good for finding that type of info :-)

Anyway, an admin removed the CSD. No worries... 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If I have to Google an article's topic to find out what it is, then the article is serving no purpose. Largoplazo (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

G12

I am very much afraid it does. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: How so? I ask since that appears to be the exact opposite of everything I remember ever reading on Wikipedia guidelines pages on the subject. The entire focus of WP:CWW, which you invoked, is attribution. The sentence

Because of this, copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it.

appears to summarize the requirements conveyed throughout the entire page. Largoplazo (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Czech Republic

Very well said. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 01:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The deletions you mentioned, i.e. the adjective "award-winning" & Samuel K. Friedman Prize, were to avoid conflict on the grounds of "notability" as outlined by Wikipedia.

Christopher Coritsidis

The "local" performance you referenced was printed as being presented at the National Theatre of Kenya, the nation's most prestigious concert hall, by an organization with an international platform and internationally-acclaimed performers, to benefit artistic programs geared towards empowering underprivileged children. As an additional reference, I will include a public link to a televised interview on Nation TV with the performers discussing Opus 1's work. Media coverage across various platforms, in my opinion, denotes notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Schiff (talk • contribs) 00:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem determined not to make your case in the location where the discussion that will lead to a final determination is being held. Largoplazo (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Visa requirements for Georgian citizens

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Visa requirements for Georgian citizens. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! RE: Archiving

Hi,

I just wanted to send a quick thank-you for fixing my archive issue. Not quite sure how the archive ended up in article space; in any case, I am very glad you fixed the error!

Best,Sturgeontransformer (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Regards. Largoplazo (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sturgeontransformer, Largoplazo, I don't want to mess up what you're fixing so I'll just ask - will someone request deletion of Archive1: Environmental Racism in Europe when it's sorted? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requested. Largoplazo (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Session Singers - Session Musicians specializing in vocals

Thanks for your comments Largoplazo but I'm afraid just mentioning a few artist names (who have previously been session vocalists) does not even begin to cover the wide variety of vocal tones, vocal genres and vocal timbres for it to be adequate. The link is nothing to do with me ultimately, but the main point is that over and above a few names, what is really needed to improve the article are audio examples.

When I researched this subject carefully, this site had the most vocal tones and vocal styles I could find and so therefore demonstrates the subject matter far better than the tiny amount that's currently in the article. This article needs to be improved in a practical way and so the link needs to be restored. Thanks. Musicindustryeducation (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to improve the article. The goal is to have encyclopedia-depth information here in preference to directing people elsewhere for it, and linking to a site offering vocal talent for pay is contrary to policy. Largoplazo (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would be more than happy to include a paragraph explaining more about the subject in order to broaden the depth of the topic in the article but having audio examples of the widest possible variety and genre to illustrate the subject is important. The site has many audio examples covering every music genre and vocal tone - so having researched several alternatives, because this includes several additional genres, I included it, so that there are technical audio examples - I would be very happy to change the link to the page where you can actually hear the examples which perhaps would be a better illustration as there is no other text - audio only. Its the audio that's important, nothing else on this page and so this would focus on that in addition to a further paragraph going into the topic in further depth. That would be my offering in order to resolve. Musicindustryeducation (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• It isn't an article on singing in general or on musical genres in particular, so it certainly doesn't need to inform us what singing sounds like or include audio files to illustrate different musical genres. And there isn't anything that distinguishes what singers who happen to do business as session vocalists sound like from any other singer, so there's nothing to illustrate on that score. What you are talking about is way off-topic for the article. Largoplazo (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Translating from Russian Wikipedia From: Huz2004

Good Day Mr. Largoplaza! I knew that I translated article from Russian Wikipedia. You sent me don't translate or give sources from articles. Will You delete article, which I translated from Russian Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huz2004 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking me. It's OK to create articles here that are translated from another language's Wikipedia, but you have to acknowledge the source as I did for that one article on its Talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for move

Thanks for moving my page to the correct namespace. Apologies for getting it wrong in the first place. Cheers, Hcmcf (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

PROD and BLPPROD

Hi, responding to [1], one of your edit summaries did say "Endorsing proposed deletion per WP:PROD",[2] but perhaps that was Twinkle's fault.

What is the point of using both PROD and PRODBLP templates, please? It makes the page appear twice in User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. As PRODBLP allows you to include a free-form explanation, why not just use that one? – Fayenatic London 07:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct, that was Twinkle's fault! I tried to post a PROD, and it replied that there was already a PROD (even though BLPPROD isn't the same thing), so it would make my PROD an endorsement instead. Then I removed the endorsement and manually added the PROD.

The thing is, because it's so special-purpose, I never realized until you pointed it out just now that you can add a custom reason in addition to the standard language of a BLPPROD. I did think they were mutually exclusive. I just tested it out in my sandbox and I see it works fine. Thanks for clearing this up for me! I've fixed my tagging up as it should be. Largoplazo (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

David Astor Dowdy, Jr.

Hello, Just as a courtesy I wanted to let you know that took off the blp prod/prod or what ever that was you guys tagged the article David Astor Dowdy, JR. with, since it looked a bit confusing. However I was not confused about how to type his name in google, at 26 minutes later I had a viable article that shows notability. What's up with that? You stated somewhere there was nothing on him in google? I do not get it. What happened? Is your google broken or what? Antonioatrylia (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You call your tone a "courtesy"? You should reconsider the way you talk to people.

Have you been leaving similar messages every time you come across a maintenance tag and take it on yourself to remedy the issue that it flags?

Any given editor may choose to rectify a given article's deficiency on the spot. Or, if not, because that isn't where his focus is at the moment, because we are all living our lives and have our priorities from moment to moment to moment, whether we're fully devoting our attention to Wikipedia for several hours straight or whether we just dropped in for a few minutes to kill time between other activities, Wikipedia provides a whole variety of maintenance tags and the case of a BLP with no sources, the BLPPROD tag, that we can post to signal an issue that we have noticed but are not personally rectifying at the moment. Largoplazo (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact I do occasionally notify an editor when I remove a blp prod they have placed whether correctly or incorrectly. With that tone of yours, you are coming off as very defensive. Me thinks the editor doth protesteth too much! Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing to be defensive about, so your interpretation is absurd. My tone conveyed that you were out of line, and your response confirms that this isn't the only time you have been out of line (because scolding people and subjecting them to sarcasm when they've done nothing wrong is, by definition, out of line). Go read WP:Civility and, until you have something constructive to say and are prepared to converse in a manner consistent with its terms, stay off my talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

SMMAET

Hi , not sure why error template appearing , its a non profit org, cant we publish non profitable org data in WIKI, just confused :(

OK, got it

Hello. Sure, there can be an article on a non-profit organization. There cannot be an article promoting a non-profit organization, just as there cannot be an article promoting anything else. Wikipedia articles must be neutral. When you write an article about your own organization, written to elicit sympathy with your cause and to convey to readers the importance of your mission and the good you've done, that's promotion, not neutral at all. People with a conflict of interest often have a hard time writing neutrally, so we strongly discourage people from doing so. Also, see the WP:NOBLECAUSE essay that User:Drm310 suggested to you. Largoplazo (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, article topics have to meet the guidelines for what Wikipedia calls notability. Largoplazo (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Smmaet: Also, I've discovered that your page content was copied and pasted from your own website, which is a copyright violation and not permitted. Also, your username is the same as the organization, which is not allowed under Wikipedia's username policy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lithuania

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

Please comment on Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War. Legobot (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Help me to remove the poor english message from this article

Please, help me to translate this article (Diante do Trono) to english for a good english. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:West Montrose, Ontario

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:West Montrose, Ontario. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent wholesale, and large-scale, deletions

Re Patch of Land / Hi Largoplazo

Thank you for your edits to this article. Many of your comments & edits were taken on-board, as you can see from my most recent edits. However, some seemed, well, a little overly restrictive or even, dare i say it, draconian. What's wrong with saying, for example: Before the advent of the Automobile, people could only transport themselves by Horse or donkey? Or, before the advent of in-home plumbing, people used to throw buckets of urine out of their windows? These explanations make Wikipedia better by giving the reader more color, background, and a richer fuller understanding of the topic at hand. You seem to be suggesting that wikipedia should only consist of dry, complicated technical information or data which wouldn't make sense to most readers - especially wrt complex industries - without some background information to fill-in the knowledge gaps...

I'm sure there is a compromise to be made, no? Thank you. (Chadhury88 (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC))

Hi there. I appreciate your interest in Wikipedia's usefulness and the availability of information, which is shared by the active Wikipedia community. However, some of guidelines and practices exist to avoid repetition and digression and to maintain the neutrality of the encyclopedia.

One thing we generally do is avoid going far afield of an article's topic over the course of an article. See WP:COATRACK. Also, Wikipedia articles shouldn't take the form of an essay conveying a problem and then conveying the wonders of a solution and how it has helped people and what it has enabled them to do. (Any time I see "helped" and "enabled", it raise alarm bells for me.) It isn't proper for Wikipedia to persuade the reader as to the merits of an article's topic. This is particularly true for a commercial establishment. But even considering one of your examples involving general topics:

• The article on Automobile really shouldn't elaborate on the history of transport, especially not in a manner designed to lead the reader to think, "Gee, what a drag, I wonder if they ever remedied the situation."
• While it may report objectively on the early impact of the automobile on society (the birth of an industry and effects on other industries, the road-building boom, early trends in car ownership, the rise of the suburbs), it shouldn't be written in terms of "the car solved all these problems, by letting people do this, helping them do that, enabling them to do something else." It shouldn't lead to a conclusion, or have a tone that conveys, "Aren't you glad we have cars?"

That's my take on the situation. In truth, articles about businesses generally are pretty dry, because it isn't our job to give them appeal. If they've won major awards or contributed significant inventions to society, these will be noted, but, again, not in a way that bestows glory or admiration on them. This sort of material belongs on the businesses' own "About Us" pages. Largoplazo (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

---

@Largoplazo:

Thank you for your prompt reply. Again, your comments are heard, understood, appreciated. I am well familiar with WP:COATRACK as well as other related WP guidelines. (Nonetheless, can you at least see where, to some, the administration/execution of these guidelines by certain individuals might sometimes be construed as unduly subjective or overly subject to personal interpretation?) As they say, often, one person's garbage is another person's gold.

Let me do my best to overhaul & re-work the verbiage & messaging here, with your comments in-mind, and should you find any further issues, please just ping me on my talk page rather than obliterate or expunge multiple entire paragraphs... This ok?

Again, many thanks for your notes and your volunteer-work in helping to make WP better. Best, Chadhury88 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

When I see issues that are clear-cut, I deal with them—leaving due, though possibly brief, indication as to why, particularly for the benefit of an apparently new user who may have added the material in good faith due to unawareness of the guidelines and how they are commonly applied. If the reason isn't clear, I'm always available to explain further. I'm letting you know this because it isn't just me, so please don't take it as egregious when it does, but be alert that there may be a decent reason. For further perspective, consider that it's routine to nominate articles for deletion altogether without first consulting with their creator. Largoplazo (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

FOGEL GROUP page

Hi Largoplazo, thank you for the heads up about deleting of the page.

First, I'm really sorry if the article didn't meet with Wikipedia's guideline. Rest assured it wasn't my intention to violate those guidelines. I still have no clear which rules I didn't comply with.

The company I work for (FOGEL GROUP www.fogel-group.com) has entitled me to create a Wikipedia page about our company which has currently 1000+ employees and presence on 50+ countries around the world.

We want to create this article for people all over the world to be informed about the company, absolutely no advertising purposes are intended.

Therefor, in order to comply with your guidelines and create the best informative content possible, can you please help me creating the page in the correct way? I can send you the information for your review and you can tell me how to proceed from there. I see many companies pages on Wikipedia such as PepsiCo, The Coca Cola Company, Anheuser Busch InBev to name a few which happens to be our customers as well.

Thank you very much for your help, and hope to hear from you soon.

Kind Regards.

Otto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MktFoca (talk • contribs) 18:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Well ... for a company to have an article written about itself to inform the world about it is advertising, by definition. The article as you wrote it was clearly written to give a good impression of the company. Wikipedia articles, even though they will list a topic's accomplishments and awards, maintain a neutral tone and point of view, including avoidance of peacock language.

Also, you are writing with a conflict of interest, which is strongly discouraged, though permitted. Wikipedia isn't meant to be used by authors for their own ends, not being a social media or networking site like Facebook or LinkedIn. But if you go ahead with this, you need to pay strict heed to the guidelines at WP:COI, including adding a {{connected contributor (paid)}} tag to the article's Talk page, and so forth.

Certainly, there are articles on many companies here—ideally, written by people who are independent of those companies, just as whoever wrote an article on lactobacillus has no conflict of interest with respect to the lactobacillus. Also keep in mind that articles have to be about topics that meet the guidelines for what Wikipedia calls notability. For a company, these are the general notability guidelines and guidelines specific to corporations and other organizations. If Fogel Group isn't notable, then an article on it here will probably end up deleted anyway. Largoplazo (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

copyvio

Please see report here CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't see that content myself when I looked at the Facebook page but, of course, a lot is hidden on those pages until you click the right "show more" links. It's also the same material that I removed as promotional however, so, assuming the page isn't deleteable for other reasons, those versions will need to be revdel'ed. Largoplazo (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sandro suzart

Hello Largoplazo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sandro suzart, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:42, 18 April 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) 04:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Uesr:Meters/OPNsense

Thanks for moving that. it would be nice if I could spell my own username! Meters (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Fleming (American politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Fleming (American politician). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Lorin O'Neil Caccamise

Please be mindful of WP:BITE when reviewing articles like this one. The three edits that started this article were the editor's first three edits of any kind. Their fourth edit was to go to the Help Desk and ask what they were doing wrong. All within their first hour of editing. I'm not saying that your analysis of the article is wrong, necessarily - just that sometimes WP:AGF comes into play as well. FYI. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand WP:BITE and WP:AGF, but I'm not sure where they come into it. The subject of the article, I believe, doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If that's true, then the article does need to be deleted. New editors sometimes ask me directly "What was wrong?" after I submit and article for deletion, and I explain, nicely, that Wikipedia has requirements that articles and their topics have to meet. If a new editor writes an article about a topic that doesn't qualify, it's the guidelines that are creating the disappointment. Largoplazo (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think BITE came into play when the editor got warned that their article is up for deletion before they got welcomed. Many many first articles get nominated for deletion, as you know - and most of them (correctly) end up deleted. We bite the new editors when they get the impression that the problem is them, rather than their subject. We even have a template for this - {{First_article}} - that refers specifically to the fact that their first article probably ain't gonna work. Like I said, just something to think about in the future. Best. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've been fuzzy on when Twinkle posts Welcome messages automatically in conjunction with other actions and when it doesn't. I'll pay closer attention to that. Largoplazo (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of scandals with "-gate" suffix

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

SOTpay

put SOTpay back in draft on jamesracing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesracing (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if I had the ability to do that, (1) really, is that how you talk to people who you'd like to have do something for you?; (2) given that the deletion discussion found SOTpay to be wholly non-notable, which is not something that can be remedied by revising an article, it's unlikely that you'll succeed in getting the article recreated; and (3) this is especially true given the conflict of interest and your past tendency to write in a promotional tone. If you still want the material back, the place to request it is Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Largoplazo (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Tagging of Daniel Wolf Hohle

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Daniel Wolf Hohle. I do not think that Daniel Wolf Hohle fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because There are possible CLAIMS of significance here. Moreover once an admin has declined a speedy delete request, you do NOT reinstate it. To do so is disruptive editing.. I request that you consider not re-tagging Daniel Wolf Hohle for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page.

@DESiegel: I didn't see any credible claim of significance. He's making a sensationalist claim to "fame" that presupposes that people sit up and take note because a knife thrower is really good at throwing knives. I placed the tag there once, in good faith, and here you are warning me with threats. Thanks so much, I appreciate it. Oh, by the way, sign your messages or I'll put a warning on your talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Stuffed capsicum recipe

Being bold, I redirected this instead of deleting it. Thanks for pointing it out. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of J. Roberts & Son (Gunmakers)

For some weird reason, you've flagged an article that I am writing today... Like right now... less than a few hours into it...

The article I'm writing is no more different than the ones about Purdey (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Purdey_%26_Sons&action=edit), Rigby (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rigby_%26_Company) or Holland & Holland.

I'm putting together historical information regarding a firm and serial numbers for research. This will help others from having to scavenge across the web.

You guys make is really difficult to create content. Flagging before finished? Please. You've even flagged notes in my sandbox for deletion... these are just research notes.

Q: Why are you flagging this work in progress for deletion?

Best- Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankmcb (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if I was premature. I must have thought it looked completed. However, now that you've fleshed it out, with its history, locations, and rifle numbers, there is still nothing that strikes me as an indication significance or importance that would suggest why an encyclopedia might carry an article about the company. Moreover, the entire history section is lifted from the company's website, so I've flagged it as a copyright issue. (It also contains some promotional-sounding content, and twice speaks of "we". Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view.) I've restored the speedy deletion tag as it still appears appropriate. By the way, as the notice indicates, you, the author, weren't permitted to remove it.

The Purdey article at least speaks of royal warrants and innovations leading to patents, and the entire first paragraph of the Rigby article, though backing up none of it with references to independent reliable sources, gives a clear picture of a company of note. In contrast, the Roberts article tells of a company that's manufactured guns for a while. In addition, at least online, I see no independent reliable sources that would contribute to a notability assessment of the company. Largoplazo (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well... give me a few days to work on it. So far I've got a few hours. What's the bums rush for? Best- Frank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankmcb (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ordinarily one of the first things an author thinks to include in an article is an indication as to the significance of the subject. (For example, if someone were to first write about Theresa May today, it's unlikely that they'd spend a couple of hours writing about her life before getting around to mentioning that she's the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.) And many people create a stub of an article and then never add another thing to it. So, unless it's obvious that the author is in the middle of something (in other words, when it looks like the article is a complete article), new page patrollers tend to evaluate it on that basis within a fairly short amount of time.

The best thing to do if you want to take your time is to follow the articles-for-creation process, starting with a draft in your user space. When you're done, submit the draft for review before moving it to article space. See WP:First article. Largoplazo (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

if you change this page while i'm working on it... well... you can write it yourself.

somewhere along the line, you tossed out my opening material where I was talking about the transfer of goodwill and trade name from Holland & Holland.

please leave the page alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankmcb (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

you just jacked with the page again.

you own it.

just stop fucking with other people's material until they are finished with it.

stop being a dick.

just write all of wikipedia by yourself since clearly you think you are the only one who can do it right.

Of course I restored the tags again. What part of what I've already told you don't you understand?

If you have no interest in following the suggestion I gave you, there's nothing I can do about it. The article will likely be deleted, and then there won't be an article. That's your choice. And since you don't even seem to be impressed by anyone's observation that copying other people's copyrighted content is illegal, let alone any other notion that, gee, Wikipedia has rules and practices, I see no further point in trying to persuade you of anything.

If you continue to remove tags from the article, you will likely be blocked.

I just opened every version of the article immediately before an edit by me, and found neither "goodwill" nor "Holland" in any of them. Largoplazo (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

first, it's not illegal if you have permission from the owner. but, of course, you never asked that. you just jump into a draft and start flagging crap left and right.

what are you writing back for? you're the smart guy... you finish the article... actually... just finish everyone's articles... you jump in 10 minutes into a draft... now you own it.

also, your user page has bogus URL's on it. fix it... if you are going to correct others... fix yourself, first: http://www.gggggayot.com/spirits/top10spirits/veev-acai-spirit.html

it's people like you that make the internet miserable.

i stopped on stackexchange because of limp dicks like you. now i'm stopping wikipedia. why bother. you're a know it all on all things about English gunmakers.

what a worm.

besides, i thought i told you to go fuck yourself.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Largoplazo (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quadcopter

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quadcopter. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox religious text

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox religious text. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)