User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 14

Yotta Solutions
Dear Largoplazo,

First, I respect your opinion about my company that it has no value to be here on Wikipedia saying that it is no important.

I am not advertising or spam editing, I am just talking about an important company like what I mentioned in the (talk) page of the article before deletion. The company is worth to be here on Wikipedia Encyclopedia because of it's popularity and the work it's making. For an example, I received many questions as the co-founder and the owner of this company that why it doesn't have a Wikipedia page as they tried to look up for information about Yotta Solutions company but they couldn't. All I did is providing more information in my second edit to let you know the importance and the need to publish this article which it offers the helpful using for users, knowing that its websites have million of views and thousand of users and registrations.

If you require me to add much more information I will fill a huge big page about this company and if you want me to edit/remove any part I will, just keep it here.

Let me know with everything you're thinking about and what can I do.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon, Thank you very much, MoAtoum — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoAtoum (talk • contribs) 16:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. It's that posting information for your own customers is not what Wikipedia is for. If people are asking you why you haven't posted a page about the company on Wikipedia, it means that they are sharing your misunderstanding about the nature of Wikipedia. It isn't a web host where people are free to write about themselves or their businesses. It's for unbiased presentations about topics that are ideally written by contributors who have nothing to gain from the appearance of the article.


 * We can't rely on people's own assertions that something is important. We generally expect to see an article provide evidence that multiple, independent reliable sources have found the subject important enough for them to write about&#8212;and we expect the content of the article to be verifiable from those sources. I checked Google just now, as I did last time, to see if any independent reliable sources have written about Yotta Solutions. The few possibilities I found are discussing a Yotta Solutions that's in Vancouver and Andhra Pradesh and was founded seven years ago.


 * Especially since it's your company, it really is best for you to wait till someone not connected with the company finds sufficient reliable information in independent sources to write an article about it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Your history of deleting other editors contributions
I see that you continue to delete other people's good faith contributions as you did Psych Central, My message to you. I am saddened that you did not reevaluate your behavior after I recreated the article you so vehemently wanted deleted with 38 references.

Editors like you are a big reason why editing is down. People come to this site, try to add legitimate content and are treated like shit. I am really not talking to you, bc you are not changing your destructive behavior at all. I am addressing the editors who come here and argue that their contributions were unfairly deleted, and they will see there is a pattern in this treatment. Igottheconch (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you take a look through the guidelines for inclusion, you'll see that Wikipedia has scads of criteria under which articles not only may but should be deleted, the good faith of authors who are unaware of these criteria notwithstanding. These guidelines reflect a consensus of those in the Wikipedia community who developed them based on their conception of what's best for Wikipedia's utility and quality. It isn't a matter of me going around making things up for myself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Really, you're running around looking for people to share your grievance with? Did you see the Four biomes article? If so, can you explain why the grounds for deletion were mistaken (basing your argument on Wikipedia's guidelines and practices) and can you tell me what percentage of page patrollers you think would have left it alone? If not, are you taking the position that Wikipedia should keep everything anyone cares to post? In the latter case, your argument is with Wikipedia, not with me. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, I was looking for an article about a particular mental health topic, and Psych Central was the best article on the subject, number one on Google search results.
 * I immediately remembered your reckless, ruthless, senseless successful efforts to delete this article when I first created this article.
 * Irrespective of the rules you hide behind for your behavior, the way you handled editors contributions is detrimental to Wikipedia's future growth. You treat editors with disrespect by treating their contributions with disrespect.
 * Of course there is no self reflection when I criticize the way you treated me and treat other editors. You are just making Wikipedia a better place by edit warring and deleting other peoples well sourced contributions.
 * Igottheconch (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Reginald Waywell
Reginald Waywell is one of the most famous artists in North West England next to L.S. Lowry. The Warrington Museum and Art Gallery have his paintings on permanent exhibition. The BBC own one of his paintings and it can be viewed on their website. Because his work is on display in a public gallery he deserves a place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.40.18 (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. As I explained the previous time, Wikipedia is reserved for topics that meet its guidelines for "notability". See the guidelines for evaluating the notability of people. I couldn't find any substantial discussion of him in reliable sources other than ones connected with his family, which seems strange if he is indeed famous. Given this criterion for inclusion, if such sources exist, you could have cited some throughout the article, as indeed articles on Wikipedia should cite appropriate references. If you can provide such references, feel free to reintroduce the article, but you should be sure that they are satisfactory for the purpose.


 * Also, notability is not inherited. An artist's notability isn't determined by who owns his paintings or where they are displayed. Even if a painting is well known, if for some odd reason the artist himself hasn't been discussed at length in reliable sources that discuss the painting, then the painting may be considered notable but the artist not.


 * Finally, the concept of "deserving" a place on Wikipedia doesn't exist. Coverage by a Wikipedia article isn't an award or an entitlement. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Undefined
Thanks. That was a bit annoying, him reverting me after I pointed him to MOS:DABINT. He didn't even respond on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Weirdness
I was pinged by you, through this edit, which is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen--you corrected the brackets so you know now, I suppose, but this took me a while to figure out. It's almost as weird as that time when made me make a vandal edit, though some trick that has to be ranked as the most perfect Wiki-crime ever. Later, Drmies (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! It was pretty wild as I was trying to figure out why my entire talk page was appearing on his. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I may have done that with a user page once. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Judy and Liz
Hi Largo-

A lot of bios assume Judy and Liz were at the MGM school together, probably because Judy said so herself on Jack Paar, Johnny Carson and to numerous interviewers. The problem with her story is the age and studio signing gap between the two. Whomever wrote the wikipedia entry originally also mentions the myth. I tried to dispel the rumor with my edit. It's just not possible that Judy and Liz were in the same schoolroom at the same time. Same studio, yes. It made for a great tale, but a tale it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengwin2014 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the background. It is a bizarre tale. Maybe it was just cattiness by Judy to make it sound like Liz was older than she was. If there is a reliable source for the Jack Paar tale, it would be an interesting tidbit. It might make sense to make the rumor the focus (at an appropriate place in the article!), and then discount it, rather than leading with the fact that they didn't attend school together and then back-explaining why you brought it up. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Not promoting
Dear Largo

I wrote that aritcle not to pronote but to let the film be remembered. That is all i wanted. I want my film to be remembered — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickproduction1815 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that still isn't what Wikipedia is for. To qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, something would already have to be memorable for reasons that have nothing to do with Wikipedia! —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 18:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Puntland
Hi Largoplazo. I understand your perspective; Puntlander is indeed a demonym. It's just that the nationality is Somali/Somalian because Puntland is a Federal Member State of the Federal Republic of Somalia. At any rate, there's apparently a separate nationalities parameter, so that should disambiguate it. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, definitely, their nationality is Somali! —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The nationalities parameter appears to be non-working/deprecated, as it's not displaying properly. Perhaps it's not coded in correctly? The template doc also indicates that the demonym parameter is for term/s describing those associated with the country/territory (e.g. "Belgian" for the country Belgium). So it could be used for Somali/Somalian->Puntlander if the nationalities parameter coding isn't fixed. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be used for that, and there's no reason to. "Puntlander" is the term for describing someone associated with Puntland. While Puntlanders are Somalis, "Somali" doesn't mean "someone associated with Puntland". If someone wants to know the demonym for people from Somalia, they would visit Somalia. The infobox at Africa gives the demonym "African", which you won't find in the infobox at either Somalia or Puntland. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See California or Ontario for comparison. Or Phoenix, Arizona, where the demonym given is "Phoenician", without "Arizonan" or "American". —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Largoplazo. I am still learning how to work wikipedia, and I am sorry for accidentally posting my unfinished article in the Mainspace. I tried to create a subpage in my user space but it didn't work, which then lead to me accidentally making the page in the mainspace. I will see if I can do it right this time. Thank you for correcting my mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimedoubleD (talk • contribs) 19:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

AppalArts Magazine
You removed the external links provided along with the main sites though a pseudo-sister article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalshop) has their networking listed as well. XGuyFawkes (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)XGuyFawkes
 * Thanks, I've taken care of that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see what you meant. You were using that as a justification for restoring your links. Sorry, nope. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I cited for you the applicable guidelines at WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again
I'm as you see I'm new, I agree Largoplazo with the relevance of an encyclopedia. However my edit to KK is correct I assume. Thanks good looking after — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrichomeGOLD (talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, you're welcome. But about that entry on the KK page: First, it didn't sound like something that would be supported by reliable sources, and you didn't cite any. Given the sort of claim you were making about a living person (see WP:BLP), it can't stay if it isn't properly sourced. Second: see the guidelines for disambiguation pages. A disambiguation page exists to help users to navigate among articles, not to distinguish among things out in the world. There isn't, nor will there ever be, an article about what a particular musician calls his cannabis. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just realized that part of what I removed was almost a legitimate entry: If there was an article for the track, or if the Blacc Hollywood album had its own article, or if its track listed was included in the Wiz Khalifa article, then you could mention the KK track from that album and WP:Pipe the link to whichever article mentioned it. Again, see MOS:DAB for details. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of my article
Hello,

It's me again :) I read the deletion review of my article - mr. clement, So Is just because mr. clement not famous at all so I can't write an article to talk about him? Or just because I can't find any source for you? actually if you search "Astrolapin" can find more interviews or news about it.. For the detention about promotion .. Actually I tried to write it not like a promotion but I don't know which part that you or other people will think this is a promotion article.. I read some article of my favoure artist like: Oliver Jeffers , it just wrtore the history of his work, so I follow the format to write my own.. Still can't understand what's wrong with my article.. Is it the information that I write wrong? I hope I can write it in Wikipedia's guide and could you please tell me what I did wrong?  I just can't find it..sorry and many thanks :))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapin mrclement (talk • contribs) 01:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, did you read the commentary at Articles for deletion/Mr clement? That explains the reasoning. You should have participated in the discussion there, though I did add a note there to let others know about the note you'd left on my Talk page.


 * It looked more promotional than it might have otherwise because your user name implies that you are Mr. Clement. If you are not Mr. Clement, then you shouldn't be using that name because you appear to be impersonating him, and that isn't permitted. You should ask to have it changed.


 * It is true that articles are removed when their subjects aren't "famous" enough. The word used on Wikipedia for this is "notable". Because those of us who considered the deletion couldn't find sufficient suitable articles to support the notability of this artist and because he didn't seem to meet any of the other criteria specific to artists, the page was deleted. To be suitable for supporting notability, articles need to be independent of the subject (not written by him or those close to him), not written by the venues displaying his works, and more substantial than short write-ups on event calendars, and they should provide substantive information about him. If you can find a number of suitable sources, more than the ones that were already considered in the deletion discussion, then you should feel free to recreate the articles and cite those sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

about the article i wrote for mr clemnet
Hello, I just saw the message you left in my talk, thanks for telling me the guide of posting article in wikipedia. Mr clement's article is wrote by me - a fangirl of this artist, as your advice, what can i do if i want to write a article for my favorites artist? i try to follow the guide of write the first article and i had chosen the article that i wrote for other people, not about me. what should i change or correct?

Best, Lup

Jonah Bryson
Hi Largo, why do you need to delete the Jonah Bryson page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonah Bryson (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an email or phone number so that we could talk? Thanks. I'd appreciate. I' still learning ho all this works!

Jonah Bryson (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Jonah


 * Hi, Jonah. Because though it's great that at 14 you have ambition and that you have accomplished what you have accomplished and have had the experiences that you have had, it doesn't seem to reach the level of making you a topic that an encyclopedia would cover. In addition, it's because the article, along with a couple of related ones, were posted by you. Wikipedia isn't meant to be used by people to attract attention to themselves or their own projects. More generally, it isn't for people to use as though it were a free public webhost.


 * Besides, all of that, article topics have to be notable. That generally means they already have to be topics of substantial discussion in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic. You did give a lot of references in each article, but nearly all of them are to sources associated with you, such as your own website or the website you created for your film. IMDB doesn't count because films are included there like people are listed in the phone book: it doesn't indicate that a film has achieved any particular recognition.


 * Let me know if you have any other questions. Also, check out the links above in my response to you, and see more information at WP:Welcome. I'm afraid I can't give you my outside contact information. This is the best place to communicate. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A Sweet Spot in Time
How about my documentary. This is a film I did with Chris Hadfield and Steve Spangler, Ellen DeGeneres' science guy. Is that not notable? I'm just not understanding this. How are films added on wikipidia? Why is mine getting deleted?

I know these filmmakers quite well. How come their film stayed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Before_Dawn It was not that popular? Sorry getting all intense, but I'm just not getting this at all? :)

Jonah Bryson (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Jonah


 * I kind of covered all your articles in my response above, and I can't find any reliable sources giving the film significant coverage through Google. Wikipedia has some specific guidelines notability guidelines for films that go beyond just looking for reliable sources, but your film doesn't seem to meet any of those either. The closest it comes is in having some notable people associated with it. However, the guideline says "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career" [emphasis mine]. So even if George Lucas were to help you make a film, that probably wouldn't make it notable, unless somehow for him the film turned out to be a significant production. But if that happened, then there'd be significant press coverage, and you wouldn't have to resort to this particular guideline anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the reference list for Dead Before Dawn. You can see that it has received substantial coverage in a number of independent publications. If A Sweet Spot in Time attracts notice and starts getting written up in a similar manner, then an article on it will fit in quite well. However, remember what I wrote about not using Wikipedia to attract attention to your own work. Wikipedia discourages contributions by people with a conflict of interest. Wikipedia requires neutrality. If the film really becomes notable, then perhaps someone else will write an article about it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for the help. Could you please delete the pages now then? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonah Bryson (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding. Their deletion has already been requested. An administrator will come along and take care of the deletion. Take care. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restorative_dentistry&oldid=615388005&diff=prev
Hi, Largoplazo, I noticed your edit. References should not be in the text, that is for the references section. I will now revert your edit. Lotje (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You misstated it: references should be in the text, as you have it now. It's external links that shouldn't be in the text. Anyway, I didn't notice that detail when I reverted the rest of your previous edit, and you were right to change it back. I reverted your edit because I didn't feel that a photo of a person who happens to teach restorative dentistry was helpful to the article since it didn't actually show anything dental. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maureen White, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toll booth. 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) 08:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * What mistakes, the template you used? No trouble, glad to help out! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

AN DN LN BN & Amme Narayana, Devi Narayana, Lakshmi Narayana and Bhadre Narayana
The page you speedied, AN DN LN BN and its 'cousin' Amme Narayana, Devi Narayana, Lakshmi Narayana and Bhadre Narayana have appeared again. Wondering if it/they are any better than their prior incarnations? --220  of  Borg 07:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I speedied both as they were a copyvios of http://www.chottanikkarabhagavathy.org/home.html. --220  of  Borg 07:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I could see the insistence on them being real, but establishing that an incantation said by worshipers at a single temple is notable would have been a challenge! —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wizard101 Central
You left a message on my page a few days ago and per your request I made the reply back to my page. However given that it has been about a week, I'm assuming that you either aren't watching my page (like was implied) or perhaps you somehow missed my response. I would appreciate a response (particularly since you deleted my page under what I read to be a questionable application of A7). Given that it was speedily deleted while I was at work, I had zero chance to make any defense. As a long time monetary contributor and a first time content contributor to Wikipedia, I'd rather not unnecessarily escalate the issue. RedValkyre99 (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)RedValkyre99


 * I'm sorry for the disconnect. Unfortunately, the automated routine I use (one of the options available through the Wikipedia Settings panel) for submitting speedy deletion requests doesn't set a Watch on the user talk page to which the notification is posted. If I overlooked relevant material on the page and applicable guidelines, and my deletion request was inappropriate for that reason, then I apologize. Please consult with the deleting administrator, User:Peridon (talk), about having it undeleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Mohit_beniwal
Hi, I'm User:Anupmehra. I noticed that while patrolling new pages we both simultaneously tagged a newly created article Mohit_beniwal to be deleted for prod and csd. I've removed the prod tag and let the csd stay on the article because I believe that subject is completely non-notable and there's zero rs that could be attributed to subject and this way it does not warrant to stay up even a week. I may be wrong, if so, please consider bringing it to wp:afd. Thanks and happy editing! Anupmehra - Let's talk!  16:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. In general, if you feel that an article is suitable for speedy deletion, you should leave an existing PROD tag in place. It doesn't hurt to keep it there, and if the speedy deletion request is denied (it doesn't matter how unlikely you think that will be), the valid PROD will still be there. This is especially true in the case of a BLPPROD, because for a living person a reliable source must be provided, and the PROD template must not be removed until one is. For that reason, I'm going to restore the tag. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure your speedy request will succeed because the article does make claims that can be interpreted to be indications of significance. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Aw, thank you! :-) That was out of control, eh? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion notice on my talk page
Hi Largoplazo. I was just wondering why you left that speedy deletion notice for Call centre software on my talk page? I didn't create it... -- Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 14:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The notice is left by an automated process that looks up the creator of the article. I think the article today was created today by someone who was spamming, and moving articles from one place to another. It might have been some article you created a long time ago that he moved to that location, I really don't know. Sorry. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Largoplazo,

You have just removed Snaptrax wikipedia page and I would like to know why?

Media all over the world would like to access information and we providing that through Wikipedia. We are also launching the product globally tomorrow and since deletion our website @ snaptrax.co has been reopened.

I have revised twice two remove any advertisement style copy and it is all straight fact about product, where it is located.

Please reply asap or can you remove the page completely.

Kind Regards, SydneyTechGuy SydneyTechGuy (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm afraid this is an example of why the guidelines on conflicts of interest are important. "Baseball caps are worn frequently, and by many, and by incorporating this blue-tooth technology, Snaptrax provides an unrivalled host of advantages" smacks of "you potential financial backers should want in on this and you potential customers will love what these will do for you". You don't see this?


 * Do you think "Snaptrax provides a durable product, which is built to move no matter what the forecast may be" isn't promotional?


 * Anyway, you've just made it explicit you are using Wikipedia to serve your own business purposes, as your own communication outlet. It isn't that: Wikipedia is not your web host. There's no reason why the media would be looking here for your answers to their questions, because that's not Wikipedia is for. If the media are looking at Wikipedia at all, it's to find the sort of information that Wikipedia is supposed to carry on its topics: neutral information posted by unbiased parties based on, and supported by references to, reliable sources independent of the topics. Your best bet is to answer their questions on your own website.


 * As for Pebble, I haven't looked at the article, but if it is also a problem article, then see the essay on how the existence of other problem articles isn't justification.


 * I just looked at Pebble (watch). The number one thing about the article is that from the very beginning the article established the notability of its topic, observing that it was the subject of the then most successful Kickstarter campaign, and documenting this with an article from Forbes Magazine. The thing is, even if the article on Snaptrax were written neutrally by an unrelated person, I haven't found evidence that it meets the notability guidelines. As far as online coverage is concerned, a Google search didn't turn up many hits and, while I didn't review all of them, the ones I scanned didn't seem to meet the criteria. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Chris Arpad
Hi there. I see your name on a notice for the attempt to delete the article Chris Arpad. How did that not get deleted? Where's the record of the rationale? It was one of the most ludicrous bunk articles I've ever seen, including his entire high school resume of working at gas stations and grocery stores! I just cut it down to at least remotely notable content in an attempt to see if anything actually notable was ever there at all. If so, it seems like it would just barely be by the slightest amount, and only in his original Kansas region long ago and not where he has resided for a long time in California. Thank you! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. The article did get deleted: . I don't remember what it looked like at the time I submitted it for deletion, but I tagged it as a G2 deletion, as a test page, so it must not look the way it looked when it was created the second time around, because I wouldn't have tagged the recreation as a test page. With the recreation, I got as far as noticing that the title was a poor choice, so I moved it, but that's as far as I paid attention to it at the time. —Largo Plazo (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my screw-up!
I should pause until I get my morning coffee. Favonian (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Google Public Alerts
Hi, you left on my talk page about the speedy deletion of the page I created. Unfortunately, I left on the page's talk page about how I think about it, and I responded to you on my talk page about the story. Thelogoontherun (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Die Swart Luiperd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transvaal. 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) 09:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules
Hello! (I replied to your message on my talk page). I've a question about Wikipedia rules not in English version but in other versions, what if they weren't neutral when Translating articles and used wrong names?

Personally, I won't change anything in Wikipedia Arabic, but, they are using wrong expressions and they don't let you edit it!

e.g. Maghrebi Varieties are translated as Maghrebi Dialects (or accents). Tunisian Arabic is Translated as Tunisian dialect, there isn't one Tunisian dialect! there is a Tunisian variety with many dialects! but nobody will understand that, and I'm not ready to do such discussions like that.

So, what does Wikipedia do to those things? --GeekEmad (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I wish I had information for you but each Wikipedia's infrastructure of guidelines and practices has developed independently, and I don't know anything about the way they work. What you can do is visit English Wikipedia policy pages and check to see whether there are language links on the lower left and, of them, whether one leads to a corresponding page on Arabic Wikipedia that will give you some guidance. For example, at Dispute resolution, under Languages in the left-hand column, you'll find an العربية link, which leads to ar:ويكيبيديا:حل النزاع. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeremy Lelliott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack (film). 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) 09:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Alcatraz
Hi, Largoplazo. I see that years ago you removed "alcatraz" from here, claiming that the Spanish founded the place bla bla bla. The list is about the origin of words, not names of localities in the US. Alcatraz is a word of Portuguese origin. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was all the way back in 2006! Is there no statute of limitations on Wikipedia? Anyway, the list is of words in English that can be traced back to Portuguese. The word "alcatraz" as a common noun doesn't even exist in English; it's used only as the name of the island in San Francisco Bay and the prison on it. It was the name the island already had when English speakers arrived. Per Alcatraz Island, "The first Spaniard to document the island was Juan Manuel de Ayala in 1775, who charted San Francisco Bay and named one of the three islands he identified as the 'La Isla de los Alcatraces,' which translates as 'The Island of the Pelicans,' from the archaic Spanish alcatraz." As for how it got into Spanish, the dictionary of the Real Academia Española says "(Quizá del ár. hisp. *qaṭrás 'el de andares ufanos')," that is, from Hispanic Arabic, which was my first guess because it starts with "al-", the Arabic definite article, like the other Arabic-derived words "alcohol", "álgebra", "alquimia", "almanaque", "alfombra", "algodón" etc. Even if Portuguese also has the word, English didn't derive it directly or indirectly from Portuguese. The two languages obtained it, whether directly or indirectly, from a common source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I take it back. While the word is hardly common or current, it has been used in English language texts as a common noun, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which tags it "Now hist. and rare". The entry there says, "In Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking areas: a pelican" and includes such samples as, from 1582, "Ned Gylman took an alcatrash on the mayntopmast yerd, which ys a foolysh byrd but good lean rank meat." —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm SmileBlueJay97. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Care the People, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. SmileBlueJay97 talk 11:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Review of LazPaint page
Hello, you have reviewed LazPaint page and asked for references. For which assertion do you required a reference? Are there references here that you would not consider as sufficient? Regards, --Circular17 (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. The emphasis in the tag is on multiple reliable sources, as defined in WP:Reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. At the time I added the tag, there were only four references, and at most only one of them qualified as such. There are now a couple more apparently independent reviews, so I consider the verifiability requirement satisfied, but now I'm wondering about notability (and specific notability guidelines for software) as well. Part of the problem is that most of the references are from LazPaint itself or from you. Your citation of your own videos and review doesn't take what you write here out of the category of original research. The independent reviews that you cited may not be sufficient, as the software notability guidelines explain. I'm going to replace the existing tag with a notability tag. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand. I have added some other notability links, for example a poll of 2011 where LazPaint gets the 7th place out of 13, and also the facebook page that has 118 likes (and going up). --Circular17 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Likes on a Facebook page are not a reliable source! —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the Paint.NET page does not have much more, does it? And most of the references are from Paint.NET website and his author. --Circular17 (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at it, but maybe that article also has problems. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You know, LazPaint has existed for some years, it is just that I have seen some reference to the page LazPaint in the list of Comparison of raster graphics editors ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_raster_graphics_editors&oldid=617054010 ) so I completed a bit that page and thought that it was a bit ackward that it would not have its page like other painting software. It is clearly as good as Tux Paint and I would rather say better. Now I appreciated that I created the page personally. However I did not create the facebook page even if I am now the admin, I did not write those reviews and I did not query them in the first place. I am simply happy that people are interested in my program. And I don't really care about creating this page, I am just being consistant. LazPaint has already its own wiki. But I think that more than 2000 downloads per month is notable. --Circular17 (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)