User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 10

Kazakh words
Umm.. I'm still working on it and I will have something on it within an hour. I just need to deeply check my soures.(LonerXL (talk))

Xantus gabor
Hello. Just for your information, I've removed your speedy tag from this one. The person described does look somewhat noteable to me, so let's wait if the article gets translated. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Academia de Artes de Islandia
Hello Largoplazo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Academia de Artes de Islandia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Not unambiguous I think. Needs to go to the copyvio board.''' Thank you. Ged UK  20:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, but what did you feel is ambiguous about it? It's a direct translation, which is still a copyvio. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Largs, I've declined your speedy deletion of the Amfisound page. The page is very relevant seeing as there are a couple of famous Finnish musicians using the instruments crafted by Amfisound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneArchetype (talk • contribs) 12:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Too speedy
I think this speedy proposal was clearly a mistake. The article was clearly written and the topic was clearly notable, even though the writing was not at all consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Very likely it was original research and should have been deleted on those grounds. (If so, it differed from most OR on Wikipedia in that it was probably good original research. It should probably be posted to the arxiv if it hasn't been already.) Michael Hardy (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the article consists of a statement of intent to prove something and an initial setup for the proof. But it contains no information about the topic, "inverse problem for effective resistances", not even a whiff of context from which one might guess what an "inverse problem for effective resistances" is. Working backwards, I'm guess that there's a more elementary problem, computing effective resistances in a similar connected graph when the original resistances are known. But I only figured that out because I'm a scientific type and I know a little bit about electronics. Good luck to most people with that, though. So, wordy as the article is, I don't think my placement of the speedy deletion tag was inappropriate! On the other hand, I'm not exactly broken up about it. PROD is fine! —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly had no idea what the inverse problem for effective resistances is before I saw this article, and it didn't take me more than a few seconds to understand that by reading what it said. Of course, it does not explain it the way it should, but the remedy for that is to revise it. But the main problem is that it's probably original research. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

About the NYCS station disambiguation articles
(I'm sending you this Talkback, because it has been almost a month since this discussion began.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2010 March 2

Angelica
The first article was created had a wrong name, but I didn't know how to delete the article (Angelica (product)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikolaj73 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Kalamandallam Tirur Nambissan
please help me to keep this article in the wiki.the person who reffered in this article afamouse person in the world of kathakali in kerala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohanantirur (talk • contribs) 19:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If he is notable in the Wikipedia sense, then you should be able to find unbiased, third-party reliable sources you can cite to back up all the information the article carries about him. See WP:REFERENCES for the proper way to cite these references in the article. An article can't carry information that isn't supported by such an outside source: as an encyclopedia, this isn't a primary source for any of the information it carries. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Souhegan

 * Convenience lk: Talk:Souhegan

Thanks for adding info on the farm to the talk page. I'm not sure i've caught the drift of the shifts in intention that led to your multiple edits (whose tone, BTW & in case you were concerned, offered no problems i could see), but in any case, your making the background explicit should save effort by careful editors and inhibit errors by careless ones. I'm aware most of our colleagues don't worry much about this, but under the circumstances i'm going to share my own concerns about the practice of editing one's own talk contribs:
 * In the situation you faced, what i would have done is as follows:
 * 1st version
 * And this was close to unverifiable and patently non-notable and that's why the article on it was deleted. Articles_for_deletion/Souhegan,_North_Carolina. Hypothetical Editor (talk) 14:01, 04 July 1776 (UTC)
 * 2nd version with which i would have replaced the 1st
 * And this was close to unverifiable and is patently non-notable and that's why the article on it was deleted. Articles_for_deletion/Souhegan,_North_Carolina. Hypothetical Editor (talk) 14:01 & :03, 04 July 1776 (UTC)
 * 3rd version with which i would then have replaced the 2nd
 * And Right, this was close to unverifiable and is was found to be patently non-notable and that's why the a previous article on it was deleted. Articles_for_deletion/Souhegan,_North_Carolina. Hypothetical Editor (talk) 14:01, :03, & :06, 04 July 1776 (UTC)
 * (A reader who put in the effort might deduce the exact content from the 3rd version, but really the point is to alert those interested that there's more than one version; the multiple time stamps alert them to look at the diffs via the edit history, if they care about the exact sequence.) I frequently retrofit such markup in discussions, esp'ly those that don't involve me, or are charged enuf that the belated discovery that someone failed to acknowledge saying something could later prove inflammatory. But in this case your edit summaries suggest completely appropriate intentions and the situation is pretty straightforward. But to make a long story short (as if it weren't too late for that!), i did want to present some considerations to you that don't always occur to those who have second thots about what they've added to a discussion:
 * Users may, even when removal or replacement comes within a few minutes, read and either remember or continue reacting to an original version -- even if they view a later replacement, they may not read it in detail bcz it seems familiar, or read it (believing they are re-reading) with less attention and/or without giving up the significance they unconsciously assigned to it in reading the original. (On user talk pages, the fact of a change becomes visible to the page owner upon changing pages or refresnhing -- except that a user who views the diffs of one change without viewing the page itself doesn't clear the notice nor thus distinguish it from notices of the subsequent ones, and may act in response to the first without ever seeing that it has been withdrawn; in discussions on any pg other than the reader's user talk page, even quickly restated or removed comments may be read and remembered by those not looking for newer versions, due to an editor checking frequently for their edits to stop being labeled as "top" on their contribs pg, or to a user frequently checking their watch list or having a non-editing bot monitor pages of interest.) A marked up re-write is more likely both to be reread (and more thoroughly and carefully) and for the change in tone or details to be understood well enuf that the words succeed in overcoming the initial reaction to the earlier version.
 * While bad-faith alterations or removals in active discussions may run a high risk of detection, that is a weak deterrent to many IPs, socks, and meat-puppets. Such actions after a discussion has died down are far less likely to be detected and may be effective in tilting the outcome of future discussions of the same issues. Efforts to audit against this are beset by false positives if editors have created new versions of their own contribs that lack text that was in those contribs' original diff entries -- especially if the old dates have been left in place, creating self-forgeries by effectively back-dating the final contrib.
 * I hope you'll consider more transparent and accountability-oriented approaches in the future when restatement is warranted. Thanks!

--Jerzy•t 22:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pohta_ce-am_pohtit#Your_user_name
" I keep trying to guess, and Google isn't helping! Finnish? Slovak? Some native American language? Completely imaginary? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

-It´s Romanian, in a stupid slang style. 1c33y37 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See my talk page for the official explanation ;-) Pcap ping  13:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Rasch
There's plenty of sources with which to verify that Raymond Rasch got an Oscar along with Chaplin for the Limelight score. But the allegation that Chaplin stole Rasch's work seems to be quite unique to Wikipedia. Flutedude (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you writing this on my page? I didn't have anything to do with the edit. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sketch comedies
Template:Sketch comedies has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Compiler construction
Hi - just in case you're not watching it, I've added a reply to the comment you wrote on Talk:Compiler construction some time ago. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Inalienable possession
You posted about a deficiency in the article on Inalienable Possession. Please see my comment in the talk section there. (Answering there would be fine.) Miiknaans (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Makana (musician)


A tag has been placed on Makana (musician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. red dog six (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Outline of Hawaii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Midway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sardar Ali Takar
Thanks for the translation of Sardar Ali Takar! I just realised that the page was a duplicate of Sardar Ali Takkar, though, so I've redirected it - sorry about the wasted effort. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks for letting me know. It was a quick translation anyway. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Africa
I noticed you recently removed a lot of extraneous and/or soapboxing information an IP-hopping editor added over time to various Africa-related LGBT rights articles. He (or she) has reverted your changes today. Based on my experiences he always reverts removal of any content he adds; I gave up on LGBT rights in Kenya some months ago simply because I didn't have the time to pursue this ownership issue. As you've been working with the other articles too perhaps you might have time to try to engage with him directly or, failing that, take it to the relevant WP:DR venues. I'm happy to provide occasional support if you keep me informed. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was afraid that would happen. Thanks for letting me know! —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He's reverted yet again, this time calling the removals vandalism. I've placed a warning on the IP account's talk page, and both that warning and my edit summaries direct him to your subpage.  If he continues to revert without discussion, or to assume bad faith on our parts, we should probably stop reverting him so as to avoid edit warring, and instead report the problem to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, including links to this thread and User:Largoplazo/Note on LGBT rights in African countries. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't going to delete again because of the three-times rule, so I'll go to the next step. But since there is no way to engage this person who refuses to be engaged, I was thinking of going directly to requesting semiprotection for those pages. What do you think of that, procedurally speaking? —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Another editor has already filed an edit warring report at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may want to suggest your semi-protection remedy there. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Largoplazo. I will be busy with travel and travel-related duties for the next several weeks, and will probably not be able to edit much or at all. If during this time there is any further DR-related activity for this topic, feel free to reuse anything I've posted on the matter with or without attribution. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, Psychonaut. I'm contemplating my strategy. :-) Take care in your travels! —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I have just opened an RFC on the matter at Talk:LGBT rights under international law. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll stop by. I'm afraid I was too occupied at the time to deal with the situation after all. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)