User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 11

Spanish Customary Units
Could you please explain in more detail all of the Spanish customary units that are still in use where you are from? How are these units measured, defined?

For instance, does the government calibrate, officially define Spanish customary units, as Spain no longer maintains the standards worldwide? Or is it more of an estimate using metric measures?

Are there still Spanish-unit measuring tapes in Spanish pulgadas and varas?

What about other units like the Spanish libra? What about units of volume? THANKS. ACWMeas (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm trying to think of how you came up with me as a resource for your question. I'm from, and live in, the United States. By the way, a word of advice based on some correspondence I just came across that you've been involved in: Since you've touted your expertise concerning measurement, you must appreciate the value of expertise. So consider the possibility that as you proceed with work on Wikipedia, you will encounter people who have, over the years, acquired a good amount of expertise in the policies and guidelines for the development and upkeep of articles on Wikipedia. Abuse of other editors is unwarranted in any event, but it was particular unwarranted in this case as you were showing a lack of respect for the information you were being given about how Wikipedia works. (Need I mention that you also didn't exactly leave a good public impression of the ACWM?)


 * For what it's worth, I believe it's valid to use a primary source as an indication that a secondary source that has been cited is incorrect. In my opinion you weren't out of line for giving that a shot. However, when SudoGhost expressed his good-faith assessment that the source you'd cited, though primary, wasn't a reliable basis for the conclusion you'd drawn, you ought to have replied in an equally good-faith manner.


 * As for your accusation of meatpuppetry, there are many editors with ongoing active interests in collections of pages. They monitor changes to them regularly and make adjustments when they see something amiss. This doesn't mean they are operating in concert with each other. It also shouldn't be a target for your derision. It's a hobby. I assume you have no problem with hobbies&#8212;hobbies like advocating for the use of traditional units of measurement. You know, some might think that that's an odd way to spend your time! —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Actinic (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Actinic (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The deletion of hanoch Givton
Hey Largoplazo, The question about how did i get the article if i'm not NimrodDD (i think that was probably the first user that created the Hanoch Gibton page) is understandable :) My name is Lior Meiri (this is why my username is Lmeiri). First name : Lior Last name : Meiri

I'm a very close friend of the Givton family.The article content was provided to me by Hanoch Givton son (his only son), Itamar I have no idea who is NimrodDD and my only wish is to owner Hanoch givton for his contribution and memorial. By the way..I was born in 1976 - the year that Hanoch Givton passed away :) I'm just a simple Israeli guy which would like to help the Givton family.Nimrod is an Israeli name also by have no idea who is.sorry.

I'll be gratitude if you could help me to publish this article. Please forgive me,but This is my first time in Wikipedia and i just read the step by step...

I saw that the article spelling and structure is aligned with Wikipedia requirements.The article has a working reliable source.

That's it.

Please tell me how to proceed from here (or is it OK as is?)

In the name of Itamar, Hanoch Givton son, i would like to thank you for your help and patience.

Lior meiri (Lmeiri) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmeiri (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mike Shiver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Above & Beyond (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) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello

 * You're welcome! See WP:NONENG for information about using non-English sources when sources in English aren't available. Within the citations you can include a quote from the source that backs up what you've written, and should also provide a translation of it into English. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about deleting Testize page
Hello,

I just wanted to clarify why the page was removed, because I don't agree with the provided reason "the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic."

I've used the template from the existing article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_(software) that already exist and approved, and created the Testize page in the same pattern without any advertising.

PS: Yes, I'm affiliated to the Testize, but idea to create this page was to update the catalog of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_Australia and I used the existing company template to create description of Testize


 * Hi. If I'm remembering correctly (since I no longer have the article to review), the Testize article didn't carry any indication of what Wikipedia terms notability (which in itself is sufficient grounds for speedy deletion of an article on a company, organization, or website), and I couldn't find any substantive treatment of it by third-party reliable sources via Google. The Blitz article carries what appear to be references from five different independent sources focusing on or making a point of mentioning Blitz. Then, I chose the "promotional" option on account of the affiliation (see WP:COI) as well as (again, if I remember correctly) some promotional-sounding content in the article. By the way, I didn't remember to flag your user name as promotional, but someone else may. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Lorcin Page
I'm confused to your reasoning of the speedy deletion of the Lorcin Engineering Co. page. If it's poorly received, why say otherwise? I can make changes if you think it's going overboard, but if it's viewed as one of the worst firearm companies, nobody can change that. Get back to me, please. I'm willing to make changes but it doesn't deserve deletion. Thanks! (Burmiester (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Hi. Between the time you wrote the article and the time I filed for deletion, Wikipedia was in the position of making negative factual assertions about Lorcin while providing no evidence for those remarks. That's where lawsuits come from. If you can find reliable sources that demonstrate the accuracy of your comments and provide the appropriate citations, then there's no problem! But this is a case where the references must be provided at the content. There isn't any leeway. That is, at least, my assessment of the situation.


 * Even with the references, the tone of a Wikipedia article should reflect a neutral point of view, a dispassionate one, not one that sounds like, "My god, what an awful, terrible operation these people were running!" The article should be a compilation of information from other sources, not treated as a vehicle for personal expression. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You know, I thought I recognized your user name, and I see indeed that you've been around for a few years. Clearly, you're an experienced contributor&#8212;but maybe you haven't contributed this sort of article before? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, but wouldn't it have just been easier to change the page? Was deletion really necessary? I can understand your points, but trust me, it was in no way intended to be an attack page. If I had actually been given time to finish the article before it was deleted, you would see that the final product was not an attack page. But I was never given the time to correct the problem, add more reliable sources and neutral points because the page was deleted. Thanks for the friendly replies, but it's pretty frustrating when something is unreasonably labeled an "attack page" (which I have never done or will do in the future since it's grounds for blocking) before the problem can be corrected. As you can see, the problem can now never be corrected. If you had merely blanked the page until the article could be properly cleaned up, the problem would have been fixed. (Burmiester (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I explained why I thought it was important that the article not be left in the state in which you'd left it, even allowing for plans to provide adequate sources. Virtually everything there was negative, and that did seem to be the purpose of the article. But there is also nothing preventing you from recreating the page as long as you source the negative comments from the outset. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of French naked for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article French naked is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/French naked until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
for letting me know. I've posted at the AfD. Peridon (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks Largoplazo !

 * I didn't do anything. That article is in your own sandbox (not sendbox). You created it on August 31.


 * It's best for people directly involved with a person not to create or write an article about the person: see WP:COS. Articles need to be neutral and balanced and the content in them needs to be based on third party reliable sources. My best advice is for you or a family member to post a request to the appropriate section of each of two Requested Articles pages for biographies: Requested articles/Biography/By profession and Requested articles/Biography/By nationality. Before editing those pages, read the general instructions at the main Requested articles page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, see Translation about requesting a translation from he:חנוך גבתון. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited "Strong As I Am" (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Prime Movers (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) 10:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Six Degrees patent
Hi- The Six Degrees patent was listed under Andrew Weinreich because he was the main author. It's the patent for the site that he created, SixDegrees.com. I will edit the section to reflect his authorship, as it's listed in numerous citations. Kafkas shore (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I understood that. But basically it means a large chunk of the article was about the patent rather than being about Andrew Weinreich, and it seemed to me that its significance is such that it should have its own article rather than being subsidiary to an article about (one of) its holders. I've already moved the material to Six Degrees patent and cross-referenced the two articles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Andrew Weinreich has another patent to his credit that I am adding to his page. It seems to make more sense to have a Patents section on his page than to create separate patent pages. Kafkas shore (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In that case it makes sense to have a Patents section on his page. However, if you're thinking of restoring the entirety of the content I removed, in lieu of keeping Six Degrees patent as the main article on that patent, please consider:
 * There's too much detail about the patent for it to be entirely on the page about the person. See WP:COATRACK. As groundbreaking as the article holds this patent to be, it ought to be the subject of its own main article, where the main exposition on it should be, and any discussion of it on the Andrew Weinreich page is best limited to a summary or deal specifically with his involvement with the patent.
 * In addition, it isn't just his patent. It's attributed to "Weinreich; Andrew P. (New York, NY), Salamon; Mark R. (New York, NY), Zilberberg; Shoshana (New York, NY), Berlyn; Nicole D. (New York, NY), Mitchell; Leeann (New York, NY), Rosen; Cliff (New York, NY), Seifer; Adam (New York, NY), Green; Justin (New York, NY), Haber; David (Great Neck, NY), Samuels; David (Atlantic Beach, NY), Chibnik; Ron (New York, NY), Clifford; Scott (East Moriches, NY), Boddu; Chandrasekhar (Piscataway, NJ)". That's another reason for the material on it to have its own existence outside of an article on the one man who (I'm taking for granted) led the effort.
 * —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Got it- I made an edit to reflect the creation of the Six Degrees Patent page. Kafkas shore (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion pages are not articles
I'm not sure why the talk page archives under "Xiao (mythology)" are problematic. It is permissible, indeed in most cases obligatory under Wikipedia policy (largely due to copyright concerns) to preserve the user contributions represented in the discussion "talk" pages associated with articles. The archival contents of discussion pages are not subject to deletion, speedy or otherwise, except under extremely rare circumstances; indeed, discussion pages,do not meet the technical definition of an "article", on Wikipedia. Indeed, this is perhaps the only time that I have seen someone removing archival material from talk pages, and I am quite certain that this is not at all in accord with Wikipedia policy regarding archived discussion material (in fact, the archiving of article discussion ("talk") pages is a standard practice, even automatically by bot software). Deleting them is against normal practice, and even allowable practice, as far as I know. There may have been a problem with the implementation of these discussion page archives, or a glitch in the Wikipedia software, although it's hard to do an analysis when you have not only nominated talk page archives for deletion, but removed the material from the talk page with which the discussion is associated (it seems the "Hsigo" article is basically being moved to "Xiao (mythology)", and being rewritten, for good reasons, as indicated in the associated discussion pages, some of which you have removed, apparently with the intention of permanently deleting them. I did notice that the non-article pages which you have decided should be treated as articles for deletion did show up listed in X!s Tools, in article space, so I can see why you may have considered them to be actual articles. I'm not sure why, and it's the first time that I have seen this, but I suggest that it would be better to restore the archived discussion material and to instead figure out a different solution to whatever problem may exist with these non-article discussion pages (and, which may indeed have something to do with my implementation of them, perhaps a syntax error in the names). Maybe they just need to be re-named if they are showing up stored in the wrong data space. Thank you for your attention to this matter and taking the time to consider the seriousness of this matter. Dcattell (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Or, am I confusing your actions in this regard with User:Nyttend?

My confusion resolved, thanks
Sorry, I guess I looked at the pages in a transitional state, and it seemed like things were moving along too hastily for me to comprehend (plus I'm unfamiliar with many of the references of the procedure, like "R2"!). But, anyway, now I see. Sorry, I tend to get nervous about archival integrity, and thank you (both) for helping to fix my mistakes. Dcattell (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, my apologies. It would have been simple enough for me to leave a note on your talk page, or at least place the deletion tags manually so you wouldn't be hit by the notices with no explanation right there. I made sure on each move to explain what I was doing in the edit summary, and updated the links on the article's Talk page, but I wasn't thinking about how your first sign of any change would be all those notices on your Talk page with no explanation. I'm sorry for putting you through that, especially the chore of writing to me above! —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please help me
Hello Sir,

I wrote an article in wikipedia about V Star Creations Pvt Ltd. But its deleted thrice. I edited a lot of time, I actually didn't understand what is the reason for deleting my article, I think I didn't intentionally tried to promote or advertise using the article I have submitted. If I did may be because of my small knowldege, I kindly request you to please help me submit my article related to V Star Creations Pvt Ltd.Hope you will help me. Thank You! Jimmy Wendells — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.96.218 (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Household name", "in a short time was able to make a mark among its customers for its good quality and service", "driving force", "astronomical rise", "premium lingerie", "premium range", "finest fabric", "EMPOWERING CHANGE". Wikipedia isn't a place to write about how marvelous a business is. The article is now at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/V_Star_Creations_Pvt_Ltd. If someone feels moved to alter it so that it is an appropriately neutral Wikipedia article based on information in independent reliable sources, then it will be posted, but otherwise it cannot be. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blackout (John Rocco novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackout (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) 11:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Review
Thank you for your review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebrityflorist (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

 * I didn't do much, but you're welcome! —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

List of free educational software
List of free educational software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_educational_software. Addresses to download were removed. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Wikipedia is not a software download portal.

Paulo Francisco Slomp (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Bryce Williams
I've had a couple people try making wiki's about me but i would much rather do it myself. Can you please just tell me what i specifically need to do to fix this issue or what i can do to get around it? I appreciate you sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Williams (talk • contribs) 00:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Truly, that is the point of Wikipedia: People should write an article compiled from information supported by independent, third-party reliable sources. You writing about yourself, based on your own knowledge, are not accomplishing that. Even if you were to write the initial article and it somehow avoided deletion, everyone else would be free to edit it and to add to it. If someone found significant information in a reliable source that happened to make you look bad, that would be an acceptable contribution. So you cannot think of a Wikipedia article as a piece that will say about you what you want it to. There is no ownership over articles.


 * Anyway, in order to justify deleting the article about you, it wasn't even necessary to go as far as noting that you were promoting yourself, or even writing about yourself. It was enough to point out that the article itself didn't give any indication as to why Wikipedia would have an article about you. Even if you had made a claim for yourself that gave a sense of possible encyclopedic significance, you would need to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which basically amounts to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, or else the article could be deleted, not right away, but after a discussion to build consensus. I took a look through Google hits last night and didn't find very much, though I admit I didn't spend too much time looking. If someone does come up with significant, documented information about you, then that person can write an article based on that information, and cite it properly for reference by later readers.


 * You may be thinking, "But that's why I want to have an article: I'm not well known yet and I want to use this opportunity to let more people know about me." If you aren't, that's great, but if you are, please understand that using Wikipedia for that purposes isn't permitted.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Joey Celeste "J.J." Alcid
Why would you delete my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooptorious (talk • contribs) 03:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. As the message on your Talk page says, "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." The person you wrote about seems to be very active in entertainment activities in her school and church, and appears to be ambitious and possibly talented, but none of that indicates that she is known outside of her personal circles. Wikipedia is for articles on topics that are considered notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Aztek Electronic Music wikipedia page
Hi there!

I would like to add the Aztek Electronic Music record label page to Wikipedia. I created the page, however it's assigned for speedy deletion. I am keen and willing to tidy it up and make it as professional as possible in order to keep it in wikipedia.

Please take a look at the label website here: http://aztekelectronicmusic.net

Thanks for your help. Fernando. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfechx (talk • contribs) 07:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello! It wasn't a matter of tidying, though the last paragraph was written in a promotional style and would, if it remained, been fair game for rewriting. In the interest of keeping Wikipedia useful and preventing it from being used as a public bulletin board, topics of articles carried on Wikipedia need to meet the site's standards for notability. Using Google, I was unable to find significant coverage of the label in independent reliable sources. I felt the article qualified for speedy deletion (that is, deletion without a group discussion) under the terms of Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. If you can rewrite the article with information that you can reference to qualifying sources (see WP:References), you can always create another article on the group. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock User:K-Economy Research Alliance UTM
If you want to add to your SPI case, another just showed up: User:UTM Research Alliance. Blocked. -- Alexf(talk) 13:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East Willy B, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bodega (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

NeoVita
Not only promo - copyvio too. Anything with 'we' in it is liable to be copyvio (and almost 100% certain to be promo as well - that's what company sites are for...). Peridon (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed! Though the likelihood of db-advert failing seemed low enough not to take the trouble to look for a backup reason. :-) If it had been in the third person, I would have looked, because then I could have told the author, "Either this is you, in which case it's advertising, or it isn't you, in which case you're violating their copyright." —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing
How is my editing disruptive? I am creating a page for my class And would just like help on what I should do. It has to stay up for 48 hours or I get a 0. Please just Help edit it for Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewaneegender (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it's disruptive in that you keep creating an article after someone originally explained to you that the person it's about doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's requirements that the topic of an article be notable. If he isn't notable, and you can't find someone else to write about, then, it's true, you have a problem. If the person who told you Dan Kindlon isn't notable was wrong, and you can supply the evidence&#8212;substantive coverage of him by independent reliable sources&#8212;with references, then you can go ahead and do that. But since the article is at WP:Articles for creation, you have to follow the process as it's described there. I'm not familiar with that process; maybe there's a way to give it up and create the article directly after all. But, again, you can't do that unless you've got references in there that indicate his notability.


 * The draft you created has references, but all except one of them is to Kindlon's own writing, not an independent third-party source. The single reference you provided isn't sufficient.


 * I'm assuming the nature of the assignment included an expectation that you study Wikipedia's requirements for articles, come up with a topic that meets those requirements, and then write the article in a way that meets Wikipedia's requirements. It's unusual that none of the previous warnings on your Talk page included a Welcome message that includes links to basic guidelines for getting started with editing Wikipedia, but I've just added it to the bottom of that page. Check it out and see if it helps. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dan Kindlon
Our teacher wants us to do the project by our self. What is even wrong with the article? The references are trustworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewaneegender (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that you're asking what is "even" wrong, when I've already explained exactly what's wrong. A lack of notability. Except for one, your references are written by Dan Kindlon. That means that they are not, by definition, reliable sources written by people who are independent of Dan Kindlon that demonstrate Dan Kindlon to be a person who has achieved note among people who are independent of Dan Kindlon. The idea is that Wikipedia isn't for articles about everyone who has ever existed. There have to be criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia has a number of them, and Dan Kindlon doesn't appear to meet one or more of them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Kalman Maklary Fine Arts
Hi, Largoplazo,

I saw your edits at Kalman Maklary Fine Arts. As you are familiar with the material, you may want to take a look at User:Kalmanmaklary/sandbox where the draft for that page is to check that for copy-vio too. Regards, 220  of  Borg 17:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. The whole page looks too much like an advertisement for me. 220  of  Borg 21:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

re Dan20131313
Hi again Largoplaza


 * is lucky to not be blocked right now, they've made at least 2 legal 'threats'.
 * I think they may need to subst the 'delete' template to get it to work. But I don't think an admin will delete their talk page anyway. It's a clear record that that are a single purpose account here to soapbox about an un-encyclopaedic issue. 220  of  Borg 20:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * On second look, I think it's just that they aren't putting their rationale inside the template.


 * Their 2nd legal 'threat' is . I'm not particularly concerned. ;-) ~
 * If you haven't looked, it may be of interest to see the recent edit history of Dennis P. McCann. It seems they were reverted when adding the stalking allegations, then soon after 'Dan' shows up. It's gone now but Google was showing WP saying : "Unfortunately, (redacted) is also an aggressive cyber-stalker who has been targeting a young woman, the former Noel A. Bednaz for the past 13 years." :-\ 220  of  Borg 20:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Waar
Hey, mind checking the history please as I have just changed the tense a few times and added release date. Since the movie has been released, I though it would be safe to put it out of the "supposed to be" box.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranhunzai (talk • contribs) 15:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are your changes. You completely removed the sections that were already there about post-release details, the sections titled "Release", "Critical reception", and "Box office". You obliterated the description of the plot and the section on casting. You removed the movie's gross from the infobox. Meanwhile, you left in place the "supposed to be" about things like the shooting locations. How does this constitute taking the article out of the "supposed to be"?


 * You can see from the article's history that immediately after your changes, people who evidently didn't realize you'd replaced nearly the entire article started making individual corrections and additions that had the effect of undoing pieces of what you'd done, which leads me even more strongly to feel that your changes weren't constructive. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Gascoigne
Thanks, my attitude is that we should always try and help new editors in bringing raw articles to an acceptable standard, rather than demoralise them for their efforts. editors like Lucy should be encouraged in expanding wikipedia and provided with guidance. As you can probably tell I'm not a big fan of many deletionists, particularly where their nominations seem to be based on personal opinions and provide little or no understanding of the topic. Anyway enough of the rant. Thanks again. Dan arndt (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Waar
I just noticed that the changes were unintentional. For example I wanted to edit the caste section but it was moved as a whole. This is probably because I was using the Beta Visual editor for the first time. That is my bad. Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranhunzai (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)