User talk:Largoplazo

Thank you for participating
Just wanted to say thanks. Azeriking55 (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2020

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello , Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to ), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also. Software news: and  have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved. Suggestions:
 * There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
 * Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
 * Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
 * This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog: Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
Hello , The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day. won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
 * Backlog
 * 2022 Awards

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from  to  '''

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as and  have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
Hello , Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by  and  with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of, and also some patches from , has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and on IRC.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Lisp ancestry of JavaScript
I presume the claim of Lisp ancestry comes from, to quote JavaScript:

"During these formative years of the Web, web pages could only be static, lacking the capability for dynamic behavior after the page was loaded in the browser. There was a desire in the flourishing web development scene to remove this limitation, so in 1995, Netscape decided to add a programming language to Navigator. They pursued two routes to achieve this: collaborating with Sun Microsystems to embed the Java language, while also hiring Brendan Eich to embed the Scheme language."

"The goal was a 'language for the masses', 'to help nonprogrammers create dynamic, interactive Web sites'. Netscape management soon decided that the best option was for Eich to devise a new language, with syntax similar to Java and less like Scheme or other extant scripting languages. Although the new language and its interpreter implementation were called LiveScript when first shipped as part of a Navigator beta in September 1995, the name was changed to JavaScript for the official release in December."

with a derivation from Lisp through Scheme. Netscape management rejected Lisp syntax, but there may have been some structural ideas from Scheme. Guy Harris (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read MOS:PBUH to the end before making changes based on it
Please note that the sentence whose beginning you quoted in restoring religiously biased phrasing to the article on Oman ends by not allowing "the prophet Muhammad" even in the first reference, only "the Islamic prophet Muhammad." Thanks, UrielAcosta (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey
Sorry for using disrespectful manners its just that I have anger issues about Caillou CoolBaljeetFan12 (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The "prophet Muhammad" (lowercase 'p'). Thank you. ~  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   09:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleting link
Why are you deleting my link? This is indeed a retail page but this is an article about the Grand Bazaar. If you would be consistent then you should take also the last link down then.... this is also a retail website. IDP de Jong (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello. Well: it isn't the bazaar's website. It isn't an academic or authoritative or journalistic account of it. It's mostly not the sort of material that external links should lead to: marketing ("The vibrant colors and intricate patterns captivate your senses and entice you to take a look") and visiting information, all of it leading up to an advertisement for shopping on the website.
 * You're right about that last link: I'd thought from its domain name that it belonged to the bazaar but on following the link I see it's just an on-line store. I've removed that link too. Largoplazo (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi thank you for your explanation. I thought as this website’s link was there that I could post as well. Otherwise I would not have even bothered. Have a good day. 78.190.145.141 (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

List of largest stars
I refer you to the discussions on the subject:. Note that the discussions are closed, and I didn't take part in them, I just thought it was a funny example to add. Tercer (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha, I did see the discussion, and I thought the reasoning was surreal. (Yes, I know you aren't responsible!) The logic of many was that we obviously don't know about stars we don't know about, therefore obviously our list doesn't include unknown stars. Well, yes, the list doesn't include unknown stars, that's exactly why the title "List of largest stars", which implies we do know about all of the largest stars, is a falsehood. But, anyway, the fact that they made what I consider a misgotten decision about a title doesn't alter the reality, which is that the title "list of largest known stars" isn't a laughable example of poor writing such as we lampoon in that essay: it's what the source text should say. Largoplazo (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's a clear example of belaboring the obvious. You don't believe it is possible to have a list about all the largest stars, and nor does anybody, so there is no point in stating that we are not doing the impossible. Tercer (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I continue not to see the logic whereby we correct misstatements all over Wikipedia all the time unless everyone knows they're misstatements, and then we cherish and protect them. I'm not seeing the appeal of having the title "List of the largest stars" so that everyone who sees it can think to themselves "No, of course it isn't a list of the largest stars, are these people idiots?" or else "Of course it isn't a list of the largest stars, but it warms my heart to see this blatantly false characterization of the list and I'd hate to imagine them correcting it." Largoplazo (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is only a falsehood if you interpret the title to mean "list of all the largest stars". But the title is "list of largest stars", it is ambiguous enough to allow the correct interpretation. Same logic applies to List of numbers.
 * In any case there is no point in arguing, as there is nothing at stake. Tercer (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Except that with the use of the word "largest", it's possible that the largest star on our list is only the 785,917,345,129th largest star. So calling our list "largest" is ridiculous. Largoplazo (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't even know whether the universe is finite, so there might not even be a largest star. Tercer (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 24saat.org for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 24saat.org, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/24saat.org until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

NPOV RFK Jr
There is a neutral point of view discussion in the RFK Jr talk page that I would like to personally bring to your attention. I feel like you are one of the best and most active expert I could contact on this issue. I also contacted Girth Summit on this issue. Thank you. Logawinner (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Basanth Sadasivan
FYI. The AfD template was removed again, contrary to (I believe) two prior warnings against it. I leave further steps (if any) to your judgment but wanted you to be aware of these continuing disruptive edits. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's hard to count because the user keeps removing their talk page messages but I think they're up to six or seven warnings including two at level 4 and have shown no inclination to respond in any manner other than vilifying everybody else, so, yeah, it was AIV time, thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Only today, in checking inbound links to the now-deleted page for cleanup, did I become aware of User:Bsadasiva16 - plainly the subject of the article - who created a previous version of the page and was indef blocked in May 2014 for edit warring. User:Teddybrutus was created a few weeks later, made a few edits and then lay dormant for 8 years before beginning to edit pretty much the same pages that the blocked user had focused on, including (eventually) recreation of the now-deleted article.  It looks like a pretty clear case for SPI but I figure that if he's going to try an end run around the AfD result, which is not implausible, at least right now we know where to keep an eye out.  For that reason I'm disinclined to do anything with this at the moment; but I don't feel too strongly about it and I'm passing this all along to you in case  your judgment is different.  JohnInDC (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft Submission
I'm new to editing, so I was not intending on resubmitting without edits. It appears the merge did not work appropriately. The updated submission is in. Apologies. Sabanas1987 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)