User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 6

???
What are you talking about? I've never made a redirect under 'Devil's Dumplings'. --Heslopian (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh. Some kind of sabotage is going on. The edit history for that article shows that you did, but your contribution history shows that you didn't. And I see from the rest of your contribution history that you're an upstanding member of the community. Sorry for the mistaken accusation. You'd better see if anything else is being done in your name. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, I didn't go back far enough in your history (you're so prolific). The redirect was created on December 24. It is indeed in your contribution history. But it was just now reported in Redirects for discussion so I assumed it was new. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose if it's in my edit history it must be right, but I don't remember doing it. I recall making several other re-directs to the breast article, including "ying-yangs" and "wopbopaloobops" (which were later debated on the discussion page), but I don't know anything about "devil's dumplings". Still, as I said, if it's in the history I guess must have done it, so sorry anyway.--Heslopian (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Somody
Not sure what the policy is regarding that. I've unblock Somody now, so that shouldn't be an issue. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You unblocked him?! Well, if you're satisfied ... I mean, it isn't as though he hadn't already been blocked once before, and then warned a bunch of times about his later behavior. But anyway, there is still a block notice on his user page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Todd sines
I wasn't clear about which article was previously deleted. Todd Sines was deleted, and the new article is Todd sines. 16:06, June 26, 2006 RasputinAXP (Talk | contribs) deleted "Todd Sines" ‎ (nn bio) (Also, it appears Todd sines has now been deleted.) -- smurdah  [citation needed]  21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. You were looking for a deletion discussion.  Mea culpa.  I'll be more careful in the future. --  smurdah  [citation needed]  21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I looked for a discussion itself just to be sure. Ordinarily a deletion log entry will say if a deletion was a consequence of an Afd consensus, and that wasn't the case here, but you were claiming db-afd, so I double-checked. Deletion from a previous Afd is the only condition under which that kind of subsequent speedy deletion applies&#8212;it means that the matter has been decided with finality, so we don't need to go over all of it again to justify redeletion, unless conditions have changed (for example, a formerly non-notable topic has hit the headlines) or the freshly submitted article has been rewritten so that it no longer has the flaws that led to its deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Help - Goes railway station
Hey

Could you make my citation on this page work please, and maybe show me how so that i can make a citation again.

Thanks Chris0693 (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. You need to put &lt;ref&gt; and &lt;/ref&gt; tags around the reference, and you can see how the reference is displayed near the bottom with the reflist template. See WP:References for more info. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I Think I Understand Now Chris0693 (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Barn Star
How can I be warded a Barn Star.

--Christian P. (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:Barnstar! —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Google Earth
Just another quick question. Do you know how often each country is updated on Google Earth?

Chris0693 (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't the slightest idea. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

R u an online moderator or something for wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swim28.44 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. Wikipedia doesn't have "moderators" per se. It has unregistered users, who can edit most articles; registered users, who can edit the relative few articles the, because of vandalism, have been protected against unregistered editors, and who can create articles; and admins, who can delete or protect articles, block users, and perform various maintenance functions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

so only admins can propose deletion for articles??? --Swim28.44 (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)swim28.44


 * Anyone can propose deletion. Only admins can delete. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dave Simons
The page was deleted?? With no reasonable excuse?? So how do you keep a page on the Wiki without some faceless cretin deleting it just because they've never heard of the person involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel best (talk • contribs) 06:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so you know before you go engaging anyone else: Wikipedia requires civil discussion (WP:CIVIL) so you ought to avoid calling editors "faceless cretins".


 * Wikipedia does provide for speedy deletion of articles under a variety of circumstances, such as blatant attacks, copyright infringements, and sheer nonsense. Being about someone about whom the article gives no clear and credible indication of notability is one of them (see WP:CSD A7).


 * I was surprised that the one user tagged the article for deletion, because I thought evidence of notability was reasonably well established, but I assumed that when an admin came along to review the deletion request, he would see that in this case notability had been indicated, and would remove the tag, so I'm extra surprised that the article was speedily deleted. Users are asked to show some restraint when an article is new and has just a few sentences, not enough for us to know whether the author has finished saying what he has to say about the article's topic. On the other hand, yours was quite a full article already, so perhaps the tagging user didn't feel any need to wait to see how it turned out. In any event, while I can't swear that the article would have survived a full deletion discussion (see WP:Articles for deletion), I don't think it merited speedy deletion.


 * If you want to pursue this, see DELETION for the procedures for appealing a deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

SamckBot
Thasnk for your note. Fixing now. Rich  Farmbrough 16:47 30  January 2009 (UTC).

RE: Restoring warnings
Yes you're right, thank you for reminding me. It had been a while since I last edited wikipedia and I guess my grasp of policy has been slipping. Anyway yeah, I'll keep that in mind next time. Thanks again for informing me.--Sunny910910 (talk 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Long feng zhi
An article that you have been involved in editing, Long feng zhi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Long feng zhi. Thank you. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Schecter Synyster Custom Electric Guitar.
Hi Largo Plazo. The guitar is stated that it is for sale to the public in the "Synyster Gates" Article. I just thought that this should be added for research purposes and informational. If I created the wrong type of article Im sorry, im new to wiki articles and when i clicked on the link to his notable instruments it leads back to the manufacturer's page and not the guitar itself. I though it would be useful to put this in because if i go to another artist and click on their notable instrument links it brings up the page with the specifications on the guitar they play. But when you clicked on his it goes to the manufacturer instead of the instrument itself. so i thought putting this in would help others when they are looking at certain artist's instruments. Also I can see how it would look as if im just promoting the guitar, but no im not. I apologize on that too, cause i see how it would look as im just a fanboy. I just thought that it would be good to know about artist's instruments and gear, because like you said with the schecter page, it is hard to navigate and i know what you mean about promoting, but i would like to end up doing this for alot of artist's guitars/instruments if its allowed. Not just the synyster gates' article. Sorry for wasting the time on this.

SchecterSyn89 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You are just deleting other pages without having any beneficial contribution for Wikipedia
You are just deleting other pages without having any beneficial contribution for Wikipedia, as you have done with page "SMEmail". It is a peer-reviewed protocol published by IEEE but you are deleting it without any understanding of such scientific material! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.65.2 (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You complain of my acting without knowledge, yet you see no problem with doing the same thing yourself. (1) I understand perfectly well what the article says, and wonder who you think you are to decide that I don't. (2) Being a peer-reviewed protocol published by IEEE doesn't in any way negate the reason for my deletion request. (3) I have written articles and contributed information to Wikipedia. (4) Helping to keep Wikipedia clean is in the interest of anyone who uses it, not just people who contribute to it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The next time you remove a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (User talk: Miller111) 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleting pages that don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines is normal practice. (If it wasn't, it wouldn't be possible to do it.) Violating Wikipedia's article policies and harassing others is what gets people blocked. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct on that point only, Largo. However, if you don't understand something, you shouldn't delete it because it neither benefits the scientific readers of Wikipedia nor Wikipedia itself. Leave the criticism of scientific pages to the people who are more versed on the topic of discourse. Furthermore, as is clearly evident from the comments exchanged between Largo and I, most of his scientific reasoning is fallacious. (Flouran (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

I agree with (Flouran. I checked the contribtions of —Largo Plazo. It seems that Largo is the big killer of Wikipedia pages. He is deleting many pages from different aspects of Science. I do not think that he is really professional in all of subjects so he is deleting scientific issues without having any understanding of them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WMyers08 (talk • contribs)


 * How ironic: two people accusing me of fallacious reasoning and operating from a lack of knowledge, while engaging in exactly those two behaviors as they are doing so.


 * Please write nothing further on my talk page unless you have a specific point to make about a specific article issue that has nothing to do with your complete guesswork as to what I do and don't know or any urge you have to practice casual psychoanalysis. I strongly recommend that you both read WP:Harassment and WP:Civility. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh: I checked the contributions of WMyers08. It seems that 100% of his contributions to Wikipedia consist of coming to my page to attack me. And Flouran isn't far behind at 87%. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See Largo, ALL of your reasoning lacks substance, as do your arguments. You are accusing me of fallacious reasoning with no evidence! Most of my arguments are grounded in evidence! And it also seems that most of the contributions of Largo are DELETING people's pages!! Just look at the comments on his talk page! By the way, if you want us to stop commenting, then stop deleting scientific pages! Learn more science then judge! Besides, I at least have contributed to scientific and mathematical pages, you on the other hand, are DELETING them! (Flouran (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Stop this user from further damages to Wikipedia
This user is used to delete the other pages while not providing any beneficial contribution for Wikipedia. Please consider the contributions of this user. It is full of deletions! He is deleting pages without having any understanding of scientific materials! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.65.6 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My Country Music Comment
I thought it was constructive (think about it, most music nowadays is garbage), and thus I think it is a matter of opinion. However, I apologize if I have offended you. Furthermore, my intention was not to "bash" country music, it was to see for myself the reliability of Wikipedia. The fact that within 30 minutes my negative comment was deleted shows that Wikipedia should be considered as a reliable source.

Now, let me turn this back onto you, are you a casual contributing member of Wikipedia, or a full-time member of the staff?


 * Sorry, there are plenty of forums for your silly side, but Wikipedia articles aren't among them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You still have failed to answer my second question. Who are you with respect to Wikipedia (I really could care less who you are as an actual person or sentient being)? Also, who do you think you are to be calling shots? —flouran


 * I'm a registered editor on Wikipedia, and like all registered editors I can make changes, same as you. In particular, I often make changes to keep articles in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your edit wasn't in conformance with Wikipedia's policies concerning article content, and I reverted it and left you a warning. This is normal maintenance procedure.


 * Your contributions are more than welcome, but they do need to comply with Wikipedia's spirit and its policies! —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, let's pretend I was truly seeking an ill-fate for Wikipedia. Couldn't I easily "revert" all of the pages to their initial states as stubs? I mean, Wikipedia is easy to screw with unfortunately. Hell, even if they block the IP of an abuser, that person can easily change his/her IP and do it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you imagine you're the first person who's thought of this? Yes, it does happen, and yes, there are ways it gets dealt with. And it's really kind of pointless since vandalism can always be reverted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not think I am the first person who thought of this. In fact, I never insinuated that. Besides, the hacker can easily revert those pages back to their stubs. So essentially, they could go back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran (talk • contribs) 04:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you actually think that it's original, you seem to be probing this in the manner of someone who thinks he's conceiving some novel form of mischief. If you're curious about the details, see WP:Block and WP:Protected pages. By the way, please sign your posts on talk page. Please see WP:Tildes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think that I would do such a thing, then you simply fail at life. Also, if I want to sign my talks I will, if I don't want to then I won't. It's as simple as that :). Have a nice day!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran (talk • contribs) 05:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, I really fail at life because of this. Good, clear thinking on your part. As for not signing your posts, if being contrary makes you feel powerful, so be it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to be superior to you in any way. There is no need for sarcasm here just because you feel intimidated but are ashamed to admit it. [User:Flouran|—Flouran]] (talk)


 * Given that there is no means by which you can possibly intimidate me (unless you indeed imagine yourself to have some kind of power here that you in fact do not possess), I wonder how you can possibly come to that conclusion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you would understand how I came to that conclusion if you learned to comprehend what you read. Since you have demonstrated sub par comprehension abilities, I will repeat it for you. I reached the conclusion because you used sarcasm. And, if you ever read any psychology, you realize that people use sarcasm when they have nothing else of substance to contend with their opponent (though I would not go as far as to consider you my opponent, since my intentions are not to perturb you). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You should stay away from the pop psychology, if that's what it tells you about sarcasm. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not pop psychology. You should be more well-versed in a topic before making such premature assumptions.


 * Uh huh. And yet here you are blathering on, making various sorts of untrue comments about me based on the authority of this so-called psychological theory you've supposedly read and are choosing to rely on. And I wonder what those same sources you've read say about people who so transparently dissemble about their intentions&#8212;claiming, for example, not to intend to perturb someone while making one perturbing remark after another. Do you think I haven't met a hundred people like you before?


 * Anyway, this has become boring and pointless, and it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I desist from taking it any further. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You keep on making "do you think I haven't" statements, but you fail to realize that I can't read your mind! I am not different from anyone else, nor am I insinuating that. Furthermore, if you think my remarks are perturbing then just don't respond, and I won't either. Besides, it is YOUR choice to be perturbed by these remarks. Hint Hint, it's called free will, and that's something you don't need to read in a psychology book to find out.


 * More psychobabble. And I see you couldn't desist after all. Care to give it another try? —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's so sad to see your lack of argumentative skills. So as not to embarrass you further, I will stop for your sake (but, if you respond, I would be more than happy to keep this going). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran (talk • contribs) 06:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you were under the impression that it was my job to perform for you and that I would carry this on ad infinitum. Now kindly leave me alone. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Kindly shut up then. :) (Flouran (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Tour Auto
I agree with merging the Tour Auto and Tour de France Automobile pages since it is basically the same event but only renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HHH1950 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Reggaeton
Your request for a 3rd opinion on Reggaeton is not valid because there are more than 2 editors involved. Try an RFC or appeal to the relevant Wiki-project. Also, you are at wp:3rr, so you shouldn't revert anymore or an admin could block you. NJGW (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I think that there is no article on Alawazm. But her grandmother's letters are slightly different and will delete the article that she wrote and try to UNMEE Palmqalp a little old and I thank you--Lucky q8 (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Neretva
Hello there, as you can see I spend great deal of my valuable time developing this article about Neretva and entering the data and the informations, so I find offensive and inappropriate that you suddenly came and mess with it on such a scale, without any previous notice much less consultations (a same attitude you ask from others, right ?!). I don't believe that founders of Wikipedia and wikipedians in general, have on their mind that kind of (mis)conduct - situation where ona building something for a long time and other spoil it in a minutes while passing by. I am geographer-hydrologist with a special interest in environment and cultural and natural heritage, so rivers are my area of expertise, especially rivers of the Dinaric Alps. Having that in mind, I am pretty sure that article I am involved with is and will be, more-less, within wikipedia rules, readable and engaging. There are many issues that I, sometimes, realy struggling with - wikipedia form, English gramar, etc., but I expect that, anyone who want to improve this article, should send a suggestion and try to consult with "author" prior of any considerable changes or corrections. Not to mention that article development is stil in progress, far from finished, and that your sudden interference is REALLY source of a serious difficulties and complications for me (I, also, stealing a time in a attempt to make some productive contribution to Wikipedia). Anyway, I have a lots of work on this article and I intend to finish it, also I want to make it part of the larger whole, project and/or portal that deal with rivers of Bosnia and Herzegovina and/or Dinaric Alps and/or geography of that region in general, etc. PLEASE consider future consultations instead of unilateral action.--Santasa99 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I must add that I appreciate some of your corrections (considering some English grammar and few really constructive changes) but also frustrated and infuriated with other.

Thank you for your consideration and thoughtfulness--Santasa99 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand how you feel, but I should give you some clarification about how Wikipedia operates, as well as about the intent of its founders. For one thing, you ought to read the article at WP:OWNER, which explains that articles on Wikipedia are not owned by the authors who created them. Every article is open to revision by interested editors in a cooperative effort. In the event that someone wants to delete information or make substantive revisions that are likely to be controversial, it can be a good idea to start a discussion first, and if it turns out there is a substantive controversy (in other words, a difference of opinion over facts or over application of Wikipedia's rules), then the disagreement should be carried out in the talk page. But for edits that an editor doesn't feel are controversial (such as when they are definitely conforming an article to Wikipedia's guidelines or making grammar corrections), editing without advance consultation is the norm. Leaving edit summaries is a good idea to answer questions that may arise about any changes that weren't obvious.


 * Further, Wikipedia has quite a number of policies and guidelines, and edits to enforce those are encouraged. I cited one of them explicitly when I made my first edit to the article&#8212;(WP:Lead section).


 * The fact that others edit an article you have written doesn't (necessarily) imply that they think your article is bad or that they are scolding you. In fact, I think you've written a good and very useful article.


 * As for my insertion of the word "the" in front of the name of the river, please understand that this is not criticism. People all over the world are invited to contribute to Wikipedia, even if they don't write English like a highly educated native speaker. It is expected that others will come along to make improvements in grammar, spelling, and usage. This is part of what makes Wikipedia the great experiment that it is.


 * Among the things to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia rather than a magazine, a blog, or a travelogue. It's better not to devote too much of an article to setting the scene with side details (such as a whole paragraph making general remarks about Bosnia's waterways) that aren't really about the article's topic. Wikipedia has an essay that covers this at WP:COATRACK. It is an essay, not an official guideline, but it has some good ideas in it about keeping the focus on the article's topic.


 * Please see WP:Welcome and WP:First article for links to much useful information about the process of working on Wikipedia. Regards —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NO its NOT only but it is UNIQUE - you are uniqly beautifull person yet one of 7 billion.--Santasa99 (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you use the word that way, then you trivialize it. Then everything is unique, so uniqueness is commonplace, and there's no point mentioning it. You might as well write "unique" in every single article in Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I put the word Author under "", so it is an indication that I understand that there is NO ownership but still one who wright something is author, even if bad one. I kknow that your involvment in this case don't imply that you have something against me personally. I also made obvious that I appreciate your corrections considering grammar etc. but that if you really think that article is more like magazine than enciclopedia article than you should review a great numbere of similar articles about rivers on wikipedia, wher "authors" trying to wright less dry text and just a little bit more graphic. As I said my intention is to make article part of the larger whole - about Dinaric Alps watershed and freshwater. I don't know if that is what I really want anymore because I don't have time to spend in vain - you have more excuses (about rules, rights) than I have time. One more thing, prior to making changes on "scenic" you suggested need to make references on "fact" that river is beautiful - if you find a way to prove or more objectively tell that something is uniquely beautiful please let me know. I thought that few pictures can provide an insight and evidence of river beauty.


 * As I said, it's because you can't show objectively that something is beautiful that an expression of one's opinion of a river's beauty isn't appropriate. Wikipedia is intended to be for encyclopedic information&#8212;factual information. Material written to impress readers with something's beauty or to express admiration for something is completely appropriate in other contexts but not here.


 * As for other articles&#8212;all articles are subject to editing, not just yours! For a perspective on the value of comparing articles to each other, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.


 * I'm sorry if the guidelines leave you feeling your work is in vain, but that isn't so&#8212;whatever factual information you can provide about this an other rivers is valuable. Now, if you think the rules are excuses, well, I don't have much of a response to that. When you choose to use any kind of a facility, whether it's a website, a public athletic facility or park or beach, a movie theatre, a restaurant, there are rules for the facility's use, right? I don't understand why you're calling it an "excuse". It seems you're basically saying, "I don't like the rules here." If you don't, well, then you don't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, its strange how one EDITOR thinks that some part should be removed, while other editor don't mind or even thinks that it is a nice way to start, etc. Well are you right or this other guy, which of you is more sensible, brighter and knowledgable.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, that's how Wikipedia works: editors work independently as things catch their attention. We don't gather a congress together and take a vote for every change. Anyway, I don't think you know that "other editors don't mind" or "think that it is a nice way to start". Maybe some would, but then again, I've shown a couple of guidelines that apply regardless of one editor's personal reaction or another. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

 * On the whole I agree, though I think one goes a litte farther than a simple definition. Wiktionary had no entries for them. I am right in the middle of a huge edit so wanted to make some links, which I think add hugely to the value of the Wikipedia project, but definitions didn't exist in Wiktionary so I added brief ones to Wikipedia because I hadn't the time to learn Wiktionary. I did kinda think about it first, but decided that as no definition existed in either place before, it could do no harm. They are marked for also, and are categorized roughly appropriately.


 * My main huge edit is to Right- and left- hand traffic and I am trying to fix up a lot of links and other topics (while not WP:OVerlinking. That's why I added these. In particular, because the article may be especially of interest to those outside the UK, I thought it best to define some UK terms.


 * I don't know if you prefer replies on my page or yours so are copying to both.


 * I should add maybe that I am using sandboxes etc, but one can't do everything at once!

SimonTrew (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dropped a bag of corn
Hello, just to let you know, I've removed the speedy deletion tag you've placed at Dropped a bag of corn solely because it's currently at AfD. I expect it will be deleted either way, anyways, but your edit came afterwards. Regards,  Jd 027  (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize it isn't a big deal either way, but there isn't any reason not to post something for speedy deletion if it qualifies for such, even if someone else has taken a more conservative route which, as far as the first person knows, might just have been because the second person didn't know that speedy deletion was available, or didn't notice a particular aggravating factor (in this case, the fact that one author has created three articles carrying on about the bags of corn, which I'd just as soon not reward by allowing the articles to hang around for five days!). —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. Maybe it'll get speedied.  Jd 027  (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Kimono accessories and related garments
hello and  thank you for the  comment  I' am  new  to  this  and  I appreciate any  comments,   I just  followed  the  format  before  me  and  added  things  I thought  needed  to be  there feel  free to  revise  my  work  and  I will follow  the  guide  lines  much  more  closely Thank you for your consideration Jason Toth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toth2173 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

hello and  thank you for the  comment  I' am  new  to  this  and  I appreciate any  comments,   I just  followed  the  format  before  me  and  added  things  I thought  needed  to be  there feel  free to  revise  my  work  and  I will follow  the  guide  lines  much  more  closely Thank you for your efforts Jason Toth Toth2173 (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Unique characteristic of the Neretva river ...
... IS something, obviously, impossible to argue with you(!) - YES, despite what you might think or know about, it is pretty REMARKABLE in its crastic uniqueness, diversity and even beauty. Also so remarkably different, as much as it can be one crastic river from another, it is even more different from all other types of watersheds and its geo-morphology and hydrology. But, how can one argue about those things when you are an expert, probably, in any field of science and language/semantic, as well as in geology of the fuckin' UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL PHENOMENON called CRASTIC or DINARIC ALPS of Balkan peninsula. Following that line of thinking someone need to inform all those geologist and hydrologist (I am one of them) to review their way of expressing them selfs and who are they, after all, when use that kind of language to describe their hard work and experience. Don't worry I will obey your strange interpretation of the wikipedia rules and even more weird explanation (known in English as oxymoron)(I am sick and tired of mediocrities and self serving, narcissistic ego-maniacs) and I wont bother you with referring you to some dictionaries or unnecessary geological surveys or even wikipedia articles with a same "problem" - their usage of that unnecessary and stupid (unique) word in describing physical facts is, simply, unexplainable and, well, unnecessary. --Santasa99 (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Subjective opinions are not facts, and they don't belong in Wikipedia articles. I'm not saying that you are wrong to feel that way about the river. I'm saying your feelings don't belong in a Wikipedia article. It isn't a place for you to express your personal admiration. This has nothing do with any presumed expertise on my part. It isn't a "strange interpretation". It's Wikipedia policy, and it makes sense, since this is an encyclopedia, not a travelogue. See WP:Neutral point of view.
 * As for "narcissitic ego-maniac", which of us is the one who thinks his personal feelings are factual information that should be recorded in a Wikipedia article and reacts with rage when they are removed? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

First it wouldn't hurt to wright these answers to my talk page (so that I can see it) and second I truly apologize, but I still think that you take much more freedom when you interpreting meaning, consistency, substance and/or subject matter (etc.), then you should according to your editor prerogative (or admin ?). And now, please, let us review these "subjective opinions", "travelogue" and "personal admiration" of some expert writings on web sites of choice (as if you don't know how or can't find for yourself or as if you are interested at all):

-- GEF Project on address : http://dinaric.iwlearn.org/ ; home page contain following text: "The Dinaric Karst Aquifer System, shared by several countries and one of the world’s largest, has been identified as an ideal opportunity for applying new and integrated management approaches to these unique freshwater resources and ecosystems." ; -- Dinaric Karst Transboundary Aquifer System Project on following address : http://www.isarm.net/publications/277  ; project description say something like "...protect the UNIQUE groundwater dependent ecosystems that characterize the Dinaric Karst region of the Balkan peninsula." ; - WaterWiki - Dinaric Karst Aquifer System on address : http://waterwiki.net/index.php/Protection_and_Sustainable_Use_of_the_Dinaric_Karst_Aquifer_System ; follow the same project but contain some interesting links, mostly referring to the same "unique" characteristic of dinaric region and its rivers ; -- and last but not least in this small disagreement of ours - actually THIS one is my FAVORITE 'cause its concerning an ENCYCLOPEDIA - moreover BRITANICA, which stated : "In addition to areas of fluviokarst, doline karst, and pavement karst, the karst of the Dinaric Alps region is UNIQUE for its large number of landscapes...etc." ;

Now, you can always find new explanation or another reason to say something about use of the word "unique", but it's absolutely unnecessary because, nor I wanted to express my feelings, neither to use the word attributively as adjective or adverbs of degree - it's simply a fact, the UNIQUE geological, hydrological and ecological feature of particular geographical area, habitat, environment, surroundings and/or refuge, yet diverse within.

Should I mention en.wikipedia.org articles : Lord Howe Island, Franklin B. Sprague, List of national parks of Thailand, Yankee Springs Recreation Area, ... and some 5oo to thousand articles on a search frase "unique beauty" - You must try, you will get mostly references to landscape and geographical features. I prefer this one : Rupal Peak article that begin with Despite its unique beauty, steep north face and impressive height, Rupal is greatly overshadowed by Nanga Parbat, ...--Santasa99 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You've made my point that all this use of the phrase "unique beauty" renders it meaningless. Rather than feeling like any of these articles has informed me that any of these places is uniquely beautiful, I feel like the author in each case is adding unwarranted and ineffective fluff to what's supposed to be a factual article. Also, see WP:Other stuff exists. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't you read ?! IT'S UNIQUE (geological) PHENOMENON, you &%$#*?$%#&= !!! (most of the time in nature, if something is unique geologically or hydrologically, it MUST be beautiful too !) But much more impolite and brattish then your ignorance and this petty power-and-control exercise, is your selective argumentation, exactly what I referred to in my really rude answer earlier, for what I made my apology (that I now withdrawing). You are an arrogant, absorbed with self-importance and presumptuous and brassy person, when you selectively decide to use and manipulate with more manageable and corresponding argument of those I presented. You first argue that this (Wikipedia) isn't a travel magazine but encyclopedia, and when I presented you with, let's see, an example in (probably) most important and surely most famous ENCYCLOPEDIA on the world (Encyclopaedia Britannica) you turn to some other explanations, in this case you take my example again but less important one (what I really assume, I knew that this will happen). And who knows, maybe, If you read as you write-spell then I understand a nature of this stupid correspondence. And, by the way, you are not admin, right, just editor ?--Santasa99 (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Backstreet Girls
I've no idea what you are talking about.--hnnvansier (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes two of us: I have no idea what you're talking about. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha :D Well it was probably my roommate who wrote about backstreet girls (who are them anyway).--hnnvansier (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Astrigawood
An article that you have been involved in editing, Astrigawood, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Astrigawood. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

mala (plasticine)
I see you have deleted my contribution about Mala and asked me to redirect it onto the plasticine page. Clearly you are not Irish. Had you been educated in Ireland you would realise the cultural importance and nostalgia it holds for many generations and I feel that warrants it having its own page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cath9841 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. You didn't write an article titled, "Plasticine in Ireland", containing substantial information, not about plasticine, but about the lore of plasticine in Ireland. Instead, your article (a) was titled "Mala (plasticine)" and said that "mala" is a word used in Ireland for plasticine, which is not the basis for an article on Wikipedia because WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and (b) it said that some particular Irish artist uses it. I'm sure there are Irish artists who use paint or clay as well, as well as Italian and German artists who use all of these, each with its own words for those things, but one wouldn't normally expect an article in Wikipedia on any of these combinations unless it said something significant about the specifics of that medium in that country, beyond the unremarkable fact that they are used and that there is a word for them in that country's language.


 * Are you even certain that the nostalgia of Irish people for plasticine is any different from the nostalgia people from other countries feel for the molding compound they played with as children?


 * The comment about "mala head" seems out of place.


 * See Painting in Brazil for an example of an article that matches a medium with a country. I'm not saying you need to write an entire, long article like this one all at once&#8212;certainly not!&#8212;but a stub leading in that direction would be helpful. If you have only a couple of comments to make, it would be better to simply create a section in the Plasticine article.


 * I have to point out that now your article contradicts itself. First you repeat that mala is plasticine, and then you write "Mala, as opposed to plasticine ...." You seem uncertain as to whether mala even is plasticine. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. In a way you are right, I am still trying to figure out the right wording for the article. It may sound simplistic to say but it is true that unless you grew up in Ireland you cannot understand the significance of mala. I will try reword it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cath9841 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki of Licence to print money
Hey Largoplazo,

I see you have transwiki'd that to Wiktionary. I've no problem with that (as the author of the article), but I am not au fait with Wiktionary and don't want to learn lots of new rules right now. It looks OK on Wiktionary except we have lost the references. If it is possile to translate the references (I assume etymology, or at least citations, are encouraged on Wiktionary-- they are in the OED) then I am fine with it. It might mean shortening the definition. Should I put { { holdon } } while I have another go? I don't want to set the clock running again just rejig it a bit to make it more suitable for a dictionary entry.

Also probably need to note license/license spelling difference.

Thanks SimonTrew (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that. I don't know much about Wiktionary either, beyond appreciating the differences between its purposes and Wikipedia's purposes. I've removed the PROD for the time being. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made it more like a dictionary entry, I still don't know what to do about the references, if you can transwiki it (for myself I don't mind just doing it rather than going through prod again) then fine and I will add them back in after, on the other side. SimonTrew (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For want of knowing a better place to put it, I've left a few questions about the information Uncle G left at the AfD discussion, since that's now closed as speedy delete. These don't have to be answered straight away but may be worth checking if the suggested article is ever created.


 * I don't see why you have a problem with private money-- that's what a cheque is, or for that matter a credit card, and plenty of banks issue those. It's not really a regulation issue to control the money supply; the only difficulty is if the bank can't bank up what it issues--- ahem.


 * Eh? A check is a demand to transfer money I already have to someone else. It isn't an increase in the money supply. A credit card charge is a promise to pay money I already or that I expect to have by the time payment is due; banks are not supposed to issue credit beyond the cardholder's expected ability to pay. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe in the UK some Scottish and Northern Irish banks still do issue private money. It's not, as such, legal tender, but then the actual definition of legal tender is generally (depending on jurisdiction of course) a lot narrower than most people think.


 * It's probably not the wisest thing to put this discussion on user talk pages instead of assembling them, but in the absence of an article (and hence an article talk page) not sure where best to put them. Please feel free to move this somewhere. SimonTrew (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My remarks were a personal communication to another user, not a contribution to the discussion on the deletion of the article, so it was entirely appropriate for me to leave them on Uncle G's user talk page instead of muddling the Afd page with it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)