User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Hugsyrup. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Firestarters Productions, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hug^syrup 09:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Suppression sous pression...

...and I had used supprimé avant. That's what we speak in Brussels...DENGLISHFRANCESPANOL. Lectonar (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Haha! Gee, the language has changed since I lived there in the 1970s. It reminds me of Euro English which I would have named "List of mistakes Europeans commonly make when they speak English". 🤔 Largoplazo (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I would simply call it "Bad English"...try searching "Oettinger Rede mit Untertiteln" on youtube...., and listen to it if you dare :). Lectonar (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Urechis unicinctus

Hello, just so you know, Urechis unicinctus is actually also known as penis fish. In fact: all of the Urechis species are. They are all very similar and all look like a penis. It is a "common" name for them. I have added a small reference, uniprot, to the page so it is clear. I have also copied the text you removed and added it to the Urechis caupo page as it was this species.Garnhami (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Files with German text

A tag has been placed on Category:Files with German text requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The text I wrote for Neural Machine Translation talk

I in fact reverted old edits by mistake when I was checking Revision History. I deleted those old edits afterwards.

Now here is the text I wrote to explain why the text of the page could not be improved.

PLEASE SEE IF IT'S OK. I simply wanted to explain why the page would never hold any consequent information. I was RIGHT ON TOPIC. Do you see vandalism there?

As for the old edits, as I said, I reverted old edits by mistake.

Thanks for your cooperation.

---

How to improve this page? Forget it. Neural MT is shrouded in mystery

I agree with you 100% when you say that: Also there is not much information about how this technology became so popular and who introduced it first.. This has nothing to do with the competence of Wiki editors (You guys and gals are EXCELLENT! A pleasure to read your work!)

Well let's say for starters that for a reason or another, this new technology is shrouded in mystery.

This is how the Google people explain it: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.08144.pdf?fbclid=IwAR21rxrFrNqJ3G-flYcqbpUbhG79ChD9DBG8uzo9htlnu-dXhAWaaKwBuGw lol

However: What we know of the way it works is this:

1. You inject millions of translated sentences into the databases

2. The words are supposedly turned into numbers

And then the program performs very complex operations. What are they? No one knows. They are too complex to be explained.  :-)

If anyone of you, readers or writers wants to reverse-engineer the algo, you go right ahead. Be my guest. I know how it works: Like all other translation software. :-)

HINT: Info # 2 is baloney. Words are not turned into numbers. If they are, they will return into words afterwards. This pretense is only geared at pretending the program is super complex and works according to some very complex maths algo.

NOW let me say that I have had a translation app that does better than Google Translate and Microsoft Translate programmed since 1998, way ahead of everyone else. It is interactive. It does translations on the whole sentence level like the Neural MT. I wrote Bill Gates a few years back to sell my app to to Microsoft. Mr Gates never answered. Too bad for him for he would have been ahead of Google Translate since 10 years. Well it is his loss! And mine too! :-)

Now this being said, let me use a metaphor. Aerodynamics. How many ways are there to fly a plane? 100? 200? Well don't ask me how aerodynamics work precisely. But what I DO KNOW is that there is but ONE set of principles that is involved in the concept of flying planes. It is the EXACT SAME THING with translation by computer. There is but one way to deliver excellent translations and it is via comparison of patterns between the sentences of the source language and the sentences of the target language (the so called translated sentences). That's the only way to fly (no pun intended :-))

Now what I strongly suspect is this: A company that wants to remain discreet (Systran probably) has figured out a very simple algo that will do the job of changing millions of sentences into patterns. Nothing revolutionary in that. Once this is done, the sentences entered by the users will be translated according to the patterns established. This is as simple as that. This is the ONLY WAY it can be done

This thing about Artificial Intelligence, neurones, predictions and all the baloney is simply aimed at pretending this is a super complex algo that only Martians can understand. Computers have a brain of a 2 month-opld baby. How can you feed them complex data? lol

What the company who markets it wants is this:

1) To hype the product

2) To make sure they have the monopoly but not revealing the algo.

So in conclusion let me say this: What you have on the page is as far as you will get, as much as you will know and as much as the public will know. Do you know what Coca Cola is made up of? No! You don't. It's a trade secret. 'Well so called Neural MT is the Coca Cola of computing. :-) How it works is a trade secret. However, versed compu-linguists can reverse-engineer in a couple of minutes. QUITE A TRADE SECRET! :-)

-- Robert Abitbol

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.3.100 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC) 

How many times do you think I'm going to read essentially the same rant? I don't even know why you think I'd be interested another run of your argumentation based on scorn and scoffing disbelief. (That wasn't a question, I'm not asking you to enlighten me as to why you think I'd be interested.) I read your first three lines above, and here's my answer: Accompanying a very long exposition on a topic with comments to the effect that "and this is why this article can't be improved" doesn't turn your diatribe into a discussion of improvements to the article. Nowhere on Wikipedia is an appropriate place for your personal analysis or meta-analysis of a field of study.

Note that I'm not looking for a reply from you: Your discussion of the subject matter will continue to be of no interest to me; my comments on the appropriateness of your contributions here aren't subject to debate. As for article talk pages, you're up to your final warning, so another misuse of one of them will almost certainly lead to you being blocked. Largoplazo (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

OK so be it. Let users in the dark as to why Neural Machine Translation is shredded in mystery. As we say: I have other fish to fry. I was rendering you a favor by writing stuff on the Talk page and if my favour is not appreciated, well ... :-) What did Rhett Butler say to Scarlett OHara?: Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. :-) Well this is what I'm saying to you.

What I think of you? You're clearly incompetent but for what Wikipedia pays you they shouldn't be too demanding. :-)

You should take a course in logic, it would help you.

Arreverderci!

-- Robert Abitbol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.3.100 (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll give your comments careful and deliberate consid- ...Look, a squirrel! Largoplazo (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bergenaars

Hello, Largoplazo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bergenaars".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Devendra kula vellalar, Devendra kulam & Devendra kula

Devendra kula vellalar is being directed to one of its subcaste alone. Devendrakula Velalar has its own Wikipedia page where it includes all the subcastes.

For Devendra kulam and devendra kula both are also referring to one of its subcaste under devendrakula velalar. Devendra kulathan has its own Wikipedia page where it is also known as Devendra kulam.

That was the reason I removed it from the pages. Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mamallarnarashimavarman: There are three things one can do with redirect pages:

• Change the redirect destination.
• Replace the redirect with an article.
• Initiate a discussion at WP:Redirects for discussion with a recommendation for the disposition of the redirect, which may be deletion or some other outcome, and a justification for your recommendation.

Simply deleting the content is never a correct way to handle any page on Wikipedia.

• If "Devendra Kula Vellalar" is another way of spelling "Devendrakula Velalar", then the solution is to change the target of the redirect at Devendra Kula Vellalar to lead users to Devendrakula Velalar instead of to Pallar, not to blank the page.

If there wasn't already an article under any spelling, that the redirect to Pallar would have been reasonable, because redirects aren't only for synonyms. They can lead to articles on topics at a higher or lower level, or that are related in another way, if those articles carry information that will at least tip off the person making the inquiry. (In this case, Pallar covers Devendrakula Velalar under two different spellings.) We categorize redirects like that by placing appropriate templates (tags) after the #redirect statement. In this case, the correct one to use would be {{r to subtopic}}. See WP:Categorizing redirects.

If you change the redirect to point to Devendrakula Velalar, then you should add the template {{r from alt spelling}} to it.

• Likewise, if "Devendra Kulam" is another name for "Devendra Kulathan", then the redirect at Devendra kulam should be changed to lead to Devendra Kulathan. You should then also add the template {{r from alt name}}. Again, you should not blank the page.
• As for Devendra, if there is no good single redirect destination for that title where a user can find information about Devendra, and you think it should be removed: again, blanking the page isn't the correct solution. You should, in cases like that, raise the question for discussion, following the procedures at WP:Redirects for discussion.

Let me know if you have any questions! Largoplazo (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I took care of the first of these, since it was obviously the correct thing to do, so you can see how it's done. See . Largoplazo (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

why removing my question to User_talk:Winged_Blades_of_Godric#hi for GD Vashist

May I know the reason why GD Vashist page has been drafted? and please tell notability criteria for Astrologers and Saints--Babitahamdard (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Babitahamdard: I didn't remove it. I moved it to the bottom, where new contributions to talk pages belong, as I explained in my edit summary. Largoplazo (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ella Carmichael, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtic Union (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Response to your comments on ABC Television Network

Hello. Thank you for noting why you changed my entry. However, I was surprised to find my original edit deleted 5 years ago, and was contacted by a film/tv student when asked about the very thing I entered ("Didn't ABC go by America's Broadcasting Company instead of American Broadcasting Company?) The student at USC Film and TV remembered to on air change from his elementary school days. I noted yes, and referred him to Wiki, but my entry jad been deleted 5 yrs ago, citing that I had no proof that this happened. Having produced and worked 6 Oscars(R) for the Academy, I was closely tied to ABC, so I then satisfied the editor who took down my tri-color branding post by pointing him/her to that YouTube promp, proving I (and the kid's memory) was correct. Now you go in and make a change commenting to me 'we don't say here's the proof.' Why is Wiki CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT? Don't you want the added value of people who actually work in the industry (and get Emmy nominations as my team does on the Academy Awards (R)? I am not arguing about your edit, but I don't need yet another "editor" 3 days from now to remove the factual item and say, 'There is no proof of this.' Duh! It makes for a terrible experience and then Wiki becomes a handicapped, incomplete service of bias. Keoni Tyler (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Keoni Tyler: Hi, sorry, I get your frustration. It's especially annoying to people with first-hand knowledge, but see the policy on original research and note that information in Wikipedia articles should be traceable to reliable sources, which are referenced through footnotes. You could create a footnote to the YouTube video, but it would be better to have a reference to a secondary sources conveying the information—it's better than signalling to readers, "See for yourself".

As for the narrower goal of convincing a single other user in prose that something is true, the article's Talk page can be used for that purpose. If you want to get the other user's attention when you comment to them on the Talk page, you can use the {{reply to}} template to notify them. Largoplazo (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Uncontacted people

Hey, thanks for your edits to Uncontacted people. We had an edit conflict at one point just now and I had to patch my stuff back in ... just a heads-up, I'm quite sure I did not undo any of your work but apologies if I did! --Cornellier (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cornellier: Thanks for checking in with me. It looks in order; I just made some more tweaks and added a couple of {{clarify}} tags. Largoplazo (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Can't read, can't understand

Really the first time in 13 years someone has written so appallingly and at length on my talk page that I've felt the need to do this

1- Her article says she is from Chicago. 2- IL is the state abbreviation for Illinois. What state is Chicago in?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Hey, @WilliamJE:, can you read? I made it clear in my edit summary that I had read yours, and had followed it, and had found nothing in the page guidelines that justified your explanation for deleting my entry. So, you meant Illinois. Since one does where someone was born have anything to do with the relevance of that place to the overall significance of that person? And how does it make any place to which they were connected during the rest of their life irrelevant? If someone was born in Alaska but moved to Hawaii at the age of three months, grew up there, went to university there, and had her entire career there, do you seriously think it's people interested specifically in Alaska topics to whom a deletion discussion regarding that person would be of special concern? I believe the point of deletion sorting is to get discussions in front of people most likely to have comments to contribute. In that light, your understanding of the point of deletion sorting seems seriously flawed. As is your understanding of how to converse with people on Wikipedia (which I write even as I have chosen to adopt your aggressive, contemptuous style). Largoplazo (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Second sentence of a very short article and it says native of Chicago. If you can't see that and need an explanation that doesn't necessarily mean born, you need help of some form. "Topics and subjects that are U.S.-based, whereby the article does not provide a specific state of origin or where activity occurs." Illinois, Missouri or New York where she worked (Though it is long help consensus that people aren't categorized being from a community just because they work there) all fit the guideline or be argued they can. You're the flawed one. Can't admit you screwed up multiple times....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC) @WilliamJE: You keep asking me whether I noticed things that my previous writing to you already shows that I noticed. Are you deliberately being oblivious? For your information, "native of" means "place where one was born. Latin natus, "born". So, if you're going to be pedantic, do it right. Even if you want to apply an extended definition along the lines of "place where one grew up", that still doesn't address the point of deletion sorting: unless discussion of her encyclopedic relevance is going to focus on where she grew up, then where she grew up is not the relevant nexus for deletion sorting. Her activity that is of relevance to consideration of her notability or otherwise relevance to Wikipedia is not Illinois-based. Her inclusion was based on her work in Missouri and her future work in New York. In other words, her activity isn't tied to a single state. Do you see where the guideline also mentions activity? So, can't you admit you screwed up multiple times? And, in addition, were an absolute jerk, in violation of WP:CIVIL, from the very beginning, before the first time I'd even addressed you? Largoplazo (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Let's dissect your edit summary reverting my edit. 1- I don't know what IL means. Reply- You have heard of the United States, been there, and don't know state abbreviations? 2- and the guidelines shed know light on that. Know? Spell that no. And right under the words page guidelines it reads- Topics and subjects that are U.S.-based, whereby the article does not provide a specific state of origin or where activity occurs. 3=She is US-based and not associated with specific state. Chicago is in Illinois. She has worked in Missouri and New York. That's three states not none. Your edit summary was ridiculous and insulting....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC) @WilliamJE: Let's discuss your comment immediately previous: 1. You appear to be unaware that initial can have so many meanings, and, so, no, it didn't occur to me that you were referring to a state (because it's so hard to spell out "Illinois") rather than perhaps using one of the hundreds of abbreviations (WP:N, AFD, MOS, IDHT, etc.) commonly thrown around Wikipedia among people who know what they mean, one that I didn't happen to recognize. 2. The article does not provide a specific state. It provides multiple states. If the intent behind the guidelines is to convey that the US deletion sorting category shouldn't be used when one or more specific states are given, then it should say that. As it is, I had no reason not to understand it as "unless a specific state has been mentioned" because I interpreted "a"' as an indication of the singular, and not plural, number. 3. Again: Just as you say, she is associated with three states. Three states is not a state. And, again, I understood this to mean that if a person can be associated with a single state, then do so, but, otherwise, it's perfectly suitable to give them the broader association of "United States". If the intended guidance is that the US classification should be used only if no specific state(s) are listed, that's absolutely fine, but, currently, that isn't unambiguously what the guidelines state, and they should be fixed to remove the ambiguity. Unless any response you have to this is of the form "OK, now I see your point", then I don't foresee it being any less an exercise in sarcasm, contentiousness, inflexibility, and misguided insults to my reading ability than your previous notes, so I request that you refrain from adding it to this page. Largoplazo (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Largoplazo. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right after demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I saw your draftification of Finno-Basque languages and looking through your contribution history, I think you would find the ability to suppress redirects helpful. Thanks for your work! — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Largoplazo (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Geography

The Americas is a term that only exists in English. In any other language it is all considered a same continent.

We are not going to discuss this by tectonic plates, since that way none of the existing continents would make sense.

Just because English speaking countries regard it a such means it is right. For example, math: 1,000,000,000,000 = “one trillion” Any any other language, that number is referred to as “one billion”. Or referring to the US as America (they are the “United States” within “America”). I’m Mexican and I’m American too, like the Brazilians and etc. Not important now.

No one is going to change the English language and its features. But since the English Wikipedia is the most read on the Internet, from people all over the world, a note mentioning this ambiguity situation should remain. I am sorry for the previous edits that were rather radical. LyonnaisLozannais (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@LyonnaisLozannais: As has been pointed out to you, the article does make note of the alternative conventions, and declares the one to be followed in the article. You might be interested to know that the Manual of Style also specifies the convention to follow on this Wikipedia when using terms like "billion" and "trillion": MOS:NUMERAL. Largoplazo (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m not going to change numbers in the English Wikipedia. I was just giving an example of the many ambiguities that has the English language with quite literally any other language. That was it. So, it is not something you should be worried. I’m the one who’s been “threatened” recently (not by you), not the one threatening with editing things to annoy someone. Which, I won’t be doing. Half the discussions I’ve had with editors have lasted too long because they don’t pay attention to my replies. I’m not going to cause trouble, I’m going to follow the protocols.

Having said that, about the bullet point, yes, it is not well written. The current bullet point is the equivalent to saying smoking is bad for your health but prohibiting to explain why. Plus, its source is a dead link.

The usefulness of my proposal on changing the bullet point is already on the corresponding discussion page (though the reply there doesn’t appear despite saying it has been saved). LyonnaisLozannais (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Largoplazo/Archives,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of WaniKani

The article WaniKani has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guidelines for products and services. Article is supported only by primary sources. Secondary sources exist, but I can find only one which could be considered reliable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

-- Pingumeister^(talk) 20:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pingumeister: You've notified the wrong person. I didn't create this article. Largoplazo (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I notified you because you hold the biggest contributions to the page. Cheers -- Pingumeister^(talk) 12:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pingumeister: I appreciate the thought, but all I did was tag the page, remove a couple of redundancies, and revert other people's improper changes! I have no authorship investment in it. Largoplazo (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, I'll look more carefully at the log next time! -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Re

Oversighters are advised on the case of that IP user, they will perform block when necessary. Please note that per WP:OV we should remain as discreet as possible. Posting information about such abuse on publicly accessible, highly-viewed noticeboards is not necessarily good idea. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tymon.r: Understood, thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Immediate draftifying of the article Blitz Club

Hello Largoplazo, I can't understand at all why you immediately draftified the article I just created. The article has been translated from the German Wikipedia article and the contents formulated there are very accurately supported by 47 reliable and serious sources so far, such as mostly specialist journals, newspapers and news magazines. During the research I took great care and followed the corresponding sources: each single sentence or section in the article is supported by sources, and what is written there is the opinion of the corresponding technical literature. Can you please tell me where exactly you see promotion here? Since the relevance of the article is clearly proven by the numerous reliable sources, an immediate deletion of the article or a postponement to draft - obviously before the sources have even been looked at - is incomprehensible to me. Please explain to me what exactly is bothering you about the article, so that I can improve it and it can be put back in. Rio65trio (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rio65trio: I appreciate your interest in contributing, and it looks like the club is a suitable topic. But the entire tone of the article is "This place is amazing" and it tries constantly to impress and marvel the reader with its subject.

From your comments above, it appears you believe "promotional" means "false", and that if everything in the article is sourced, it can't be promotional. Not at all. An entertainment and nightlife magazine may carry an article on a club that is 100% true and verifiable, and yet by far won't be suitable for publication in an encyclopedia. Even if praise and admiration and vague, subjective words like "renown" and "prestige" can be found in reliable sources, Wikipedia doesn't that enthusiasm as though it were Wikipedia's own.

I've taken promotional tone and language out of numerous articles, but after I started to do that with this article, I felt I would have a hard time doing that while leaving a still-cohesive article. That's pretty much the standard for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G11. My afterthought was that with effort, you or others might whip it into shape, but that, in the meantime, it really is too much of a puff piece on the place to be included for now in main article space.

I do think I already covered the above in the note I left on your page. If you follow the links I've given you, they should give you a great understanding of what I'm talking about. Largoplazo (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hezekiah

You might want to see User talk:98.248.78.32. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Request notability tag review

Hello Largoplazo. You left a notability tag on Paper Mayhem. No issues with the tag when you left it—the article was in sad shape while I was putting it together and I should have used a sandbox. Anyway, besides the few Paper Mayhem sources I used for coverage which don't really count for notability, I wanted to see if I've addressed your concerns with the secondary sources I've added since then. Thanks for your time. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of them contribute to notability. All the sources with links (which leaves just one) have no more than passing mentions (albeit in some cases several of them, sometimes by different people in the same source), generally consisting of "that was a great magazine" and "David Webber did an amazing job with that magazine" and "I miss that magazine". There's nothing approaching the significant coverage in any of them, let alone in multiple sources, that notability calls for. Largoplazo (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Airborne84: I forgot to ping. Largoplazo (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I felt that the passage by the editor in chief of Dragon Magazine Roger E. Moore that Paper Mayhem was the "'best established and ... most informative' of the various play-by-mail magazines available at the time, providing 'game reviews, playtesting notes, announcements, new releases, playing hints, and more' in every issue" was significant in establishing this as the most notable of the play-by-mail periodicals of the period. But you felt this does not sufficiently contribute to notability even given his stature and scope of his comments? --Airborne84 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

On the latest reading, I see how Moore's comments could be taken into consideration. That would make two. Even so .... As with any AFD nomination I make, I'm always prepared to find out that others have found sources that I didn't encounter. In this case, the first respondent gave me to realize that it would have been worth my while to check a newspaper archive for this sort of thing, and as a matter of principle I'm sorry I didn't—but I'm about to comment there that all of the sources that person listed have no more than bare mentions of the publication. I'll do my own search later today, though, because it happens that I've recently subscribed to newspapers.com, so I can. Largoplazo (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and I'd be interested in what you turn up. As a side note, I acquired a number of hard and digital copy Paper Mayhem and other older gamer magazines working on another project and discovered how hugely important Paper Mayhem was then and still is now. I decided to make the article and continue improving it along with some other projects. I recently considered enlisting the help of a reference librarian, given the subject matter. I understand you're working on principle here, but you've got an editor working diligently on a tough project that, with all indications (given the editors' comments), was notable and influential, I'd suggest that deleting it may not be the best thing for Wikipedia. I likely would not return to it, and I don't know if anyone else would. Thanks again for your note and I am interested to see what you come up with. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for review

Hello Largoplazo, I hope you are well.

This is Aanuarif, I am also a contributor to Wikipedia. I created a page for popular Norwegian model Fariba Rahimi with strong references. However, it was nominated for deletion by some editor for God knows what reason. I have added more links to establish notability. Can you please help me avoid the deletion by reviewing it? I would be grateful. Aanuarif (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Aanuarif. Notability isn't determined based only on the sources in an article, as the definition of notability as the word is used here is based on factors that are independent of whether an article has even been created here. However, here's my review of the 11 sources listed at this moment:

• Reference 1 isn't really coverage, just a bare profile of her such as news publications commonly store in a database for retrieval when there is a story.
• Reference 2, with the hashtag "#MYSTORY", is an interview in which the subject is telling her story. These aren't considered coverage that's independent of the subject, as is required when evaluating a source for its contribution to a subject's notability.
• Reference 3 is her talking about herself.
• Reference 4 is giving an error.
• Reference 5 I can't read because it's behind a paywall.
• Reference 6 is a blog entry posted by the subject. Not independent coverage.
• References 7 and 8 are the subject being given space on trondheim24.no to spread her own message. Not independent coverage.
• Reference 9 is behind a paywall. What little I can see doesn't mention her.
• Reference 10 is a modeling credit, not coverage.
• Reference 11 is behind a paywall so I can't read it.

In conclusion, none of the sources you provided that I can see contribute to a finding of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

References