User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

WP:RFPP.

Very sorry, I could have sworn I saw it was already semi-protected indefinitely. :/ I've done that now. · AndonicO Engage. 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see it was a talk page; I've unprotected it. · AndonicO Engage. 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Isotropic Vector Matrix

heh i wanted to bring more info about b. fullers ideas regarding octet truss, but if you are happy with this stuff in "space frame", then be happy, i will not try to contribute any more...

(Boed00 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Hi. You yourself wrote that it was a synonym, and as a synonym there is no need for it to have its own article. I was going by your own explanation. Also, the article was misnamed anyway, in terms of capitalization. It should have been isotropic vector matrix (for which Wikipedia would then automatically capitalize the first letter of the first word anyway). See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Halo - Interactive Strategy Game

It's not advertising. I wrote that it's an upcoming game and linked to a site with more info and a link to the trailer. Resident Evil: Degeneration did the same thing but they didn't get deleted.OsirisV (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand that, but (a) the article carries virtually no information itself; therefore (b) its main purpose is to get people to the two links. The link to the wiki looks OK, but now I see it's been deleted. The trailer is, frankly, advertising, and since that link was virtually 50% of the article and is now virtually 100% of the article, my overall reaction is that the article is purely promotional and therefore a violation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't the Speedy-delete template, it was db:Spam that you placed there. Also, the Halopedia page has NOT been deleted.OsirisV (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That IS one of the speedy delete templates. What part of "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion" was difficult to understand? Also, other pages on Wikipedia and how others have or have not handled them or whether anyone has or hasn't raised an issue with them has nothing to do with it. I'm one person, I came across your page, and I dealt with it as I thought was appropriate. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

David Andrew Smith

Hi, thanks for your message. It's not ideal that someone writes about themselves and it's not recommended but it's not necessarily a reason to not have an article about that person. This chap seems to be notable and now that we've got the article, the thing to do here is to make sure that the article complies with our content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Looking at it, it does need rewriting in encyclopedic style and also some better sourcing. There is a link at the bottom of the article that verifies a little of the information in the article but more need to be found. These things can be handled through the normal editing process. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Washington Performing Arts Society

A tag has been placed on Washington Performing Arts Society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Below is a message copied from my reply to User:WPAS

First, the article is a copyright violation as a substantial copy of this page, which is marked © 2008 Washington Performing Arts Society .

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at the talk page with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article talk page.
  • Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at the article talk page with a link to the web page details.
  • Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement.

Secondly, advertising does not mean that you have to be selling something. Articles have to be neutral and encyclopaedic in tone, and provide independent verifiable sources to justify any claims made and to show that the subject meets the notability guidelines.

So, apart from sorting out the copyright issue, and assuming that you may meet the notability requirements, you need to remove or justify with independent references claims such

  • has created profound opportunities
  • lifelong opportunities to deepen their cultural knowledge, enrich their lives, and expand their understanding of the world through the universal language of the performing arts
  • the organization flourished
  • inspired leadership
  • widely recognized as one of the leading presenters of the performing arts in the nation. (should be US, there are other, insignificant, countries)
  • Embracing both the traditions of the past and the vibrant artistry of the future

There’s much more, basically spam so thick you could spread it on bread.

Now, you may have been removing the spam, but the copyright issue remains, and you have to show notability as above, not just claim it.

The page is protected now due to persistent recreation without even waiting for the reasons. This won't be a permanent block, I just wanted you and User:WPAS to read the reasons, instead of constant recreation. I'll unprotect within an hour or so, so that a neutral, non-copyright, encyclopaedic and referenced article can be produced if desired.

Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as the copyright violation issue is concerned, whether or not you created the article initially does not change the fact that it is a copyright violation, and can be speedied as such. The article was created by WPAS, whose message was above yours, but no action has been taken yet. "without even waiting for the reasons" - my error, since WPAS had just left the message, I assumed he had recreated, very unusual for recreation to be by a different user. A "hangon" isn't the only route to get feedback, I'll always reply to queries on my talk page.
I accept that your edits were in good faith. Regarding notability, you are correct that if that were the only issue, PROD would be appropriate. However, one or two independent refs would avoid that necessity. Anyway, it's unprotected now, let me know if you need the deleted text. jimfbleak (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair points (and I had noticed that you tagged the Halo article that Osiris complained to us both about). However, it seemed to me that version 1 of WPAS, which was both a copyright violation and clearly spam needed more attention than I expected it to get in a reasonable time span. Very little is lost for ever on Wikipedia, and I'm always prepared to restore if I get it wrong, or more often, put deleted text in a sandbox for improvement. This got a bit out of hand because it hadn't registered that the recreation was by a different user, my apologies. jimfbleak (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll put text here jimfbleak (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Largoplazo, Thank you for your interest and help in the WPAS wikipedia. I am working here in the marketing department, am completely new to creating a wikipedia, and appreciate your guidance. WPAS (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)WPASWPAS (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting WPAS know what's happening. I'm not going to check sentence by sentence for copyright violation, it's just that the original version was just a cut-and-paste of the web page. jimfbleak (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Thank you again for all your help. I have a few questions that I am wondering if you can help me with: --How exactly do we "establish the notability of WPAS"? Should this be a description or a disclaimer or a news quote? Even after reading the wiki on it, I'm still not sure how to do this. --Is it possible to access the version that you edited and work on that, but not to publish it online yet? Sorry if these questions seem simple, but I am just figuring all this out. Thank you! WPAS (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)WPASWPAS (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really see how having a WPAS wiki page would be spamming...it is an extremely reputable organization that has served the D.C. area for over 40 years and has a very interesting history and resources. Could you explain this, please? WPAS (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)WPASWPAS (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the information I provided for you above on contributing to Wikipedia? (The word "spammer" is overkill but that's the name they gave to the link. I have no control over that.) You wrote the article, not in the form of an objective encyclopedia article, but with the tone of a promotional piece, liberally filled with expressions of praise and admiration for the work done by the organization and for the benefits it has provided to the community. I'm the one who pointed out to the deleter that WPAS is notable, so I am certainly not arguing with that. But an article should be written dispassionately and factually, leaving it to readers to judge whether the information given establishes the noteworthiness of the subject. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on my user page

Thanks for taking care of it! Ros0709 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Green hand

I turned it into a disambig page instead. It just killed me that when I searched for this common whaling term, I was directed to hobbit lore (not that I don't like hobbit lore!) Cbaer (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Richmond (referee)

Didn't take you long to request speedy deletion of Charlie Richmond (referee): perhaps you could have taken a minute to check one of the three categories he has - Category:Scottish football referees - to see there are already a dozen or so of his notability. Anyway, somebody else beat me to rejecting your proposal. •Oranje•·Talk 21:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  • It isn't my impression that either being a referee or being in a category makes one notable, and no more so if one is listed in a referee category. I could also churn out a list of all airline pilots, post it in an article, and then claim notability for all the pilots on the list, and do likewise for beauty shop owners, Boy Scout troop leaders, and clergy. Also, in trying to convey the notability of somebody, likening him to a dozen other people whose notability is no more established to the person you're talking with than his is not an effective way to do it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Inamuragasaki

Hi. I read your comments and, I repeat, I find them baseless. The title and the article reflect uncertainties in the historical records, not my opinion. There are no solid facts, only ideas and hypotheses. The Taiheiki says he prayed the sea-god and the god opened the the sea for him. Saying that Nitta Yoshisada did wait for a low tide is taking liberties with facts. We THINK he must have waited. That's what MUST have happened, not what happened. I think I was just doing the right thing. I changed anyway the title.

May I ask where are my copyright violations and where is the original research? What I say is either documented or trivial (like that he must have gone to Shichirigahama). Before accusing me of anything, shouldn't you read the original book? And what exactly do you propose? Are you satisfied with my last changes? Now everything is in my sources more or less as I exposed it. Can you remove the tags or modify the article to fit your standards? urashimataro (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You say you find my comments baseless, yet you obviously understood the point because you did a fine job of rewriting the section. You replaced the "must have" sentences that were arguments based on facts into sentences of the form "X reasons/writes/states that ... must have ...", which are facts. So the section is no longer presenting arguments as its own, it's reporting explicitly that so-and-so made such-and-such an argument. I made one additional change to finish the job, inserting "Michinori Kamiya concludes that" at the beginning of the first sentence, and then I removed the tags.

Regarding what I said about copyright violation: I said that because I thought you were telling me that the text was factual because you had copied it from the sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Buhoodle or Buuhoodle

I think the article needs to be moved back to Buuhoodle. Take a look at Buhoodle and click on the what links here. All the links are redirects from Buuhoodle, which would indicate that it's the correct name. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads-up. Done, with the note "Move reversion. Although I'd seen that it was spelled in the Somaliland article, it isn't linked there (yet), and it turns out there are links elsewhere to Buuhoodle, while there are none to Buhoodle." —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Lowson copyright

Hi, you caught the article halfway through its creation. I'm removing some of the material from Carnoustie's page. Lowson is notable enough to warrant his own page and is taking up too much of the town's page. I've taken the liberty of removing the template. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD nomination left on my talk page

Hello, Largoplazo. You have new messages at SchfiftyThree's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've left a response to your CSD message on my talk page. As a fact, I didn't manually create the page for any purpose.

Figis

Thank you we got it worked out thank you.--Vanhalenjump (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Poetry slaming in teams

You placed a warning in the user talk page of the author of Poetry slaming in teams, indicating you had placed a speedy deletion tag on the article, but I find no evidence of that in the article's history. I placed a "dated prod" tag on the article instead.WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Must have been a bug. I was using Twinkle to speedy-delete it for little or no context. (It didn't explain anywhere what team poetry slamming is, or even what ordinary poetry slamming is. (I know what it is, but the article didn't explain it.) Mind if I go back in and speedy-tag it again? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that's the correct solution. It DOES seem a bit context-free!WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Parker Building

Actually the building was a former home of Metropolitan Life and it is not an insignificant former building at all. I believe that the history of 4th Avenue, currently Park Avenue, is very important to the history of New York City. I will be adding more to the article and also listing additional sources. --Robert (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. As a matter of good practice, you ought, in the very first incarnation of an article, to include at least enough information to make it clear why the article belongs in Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blake J Presents Word Up

Hey, no worries thanks for asking about it. The relevant explanation is at WP:CSD#G4. The article was substantially similar to recently previously deleted versions - ah but my mistake, I had not noticed the prior delete was due to WP:PROD, so I'll undelete. Cirt (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

C.S.T. van GINK

Thanks for pointing that out. I intended to use db-copyvio but accidentally used copyvio instead. I fixed it now. --Cbdorsett (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Cibus Hilleli

Calling your attention to WP:Articles for deletion/Cibus Hilleli, as you had participated in the talk page debate on this. Thanks! TheMolecularMan (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, I was in the middle of adding my two cents when you left this message! —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vaslav Nijinsky

I added Njinsky to the Rite of Spring article, and did not find the Vaslav Nijinsky article, because of spelling differences, so started to write an article. When I linked to Diaghilev, I found the Vaslav Nijinsky article, so redirected alternative spellings to it. Did I do it correctly? (I noticed you did a redirect, so I was wondering if i made an error.) Thnx EricDiesel (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You left a space between the pound sign (#) and the word "Redirect". Except in the very special case of #REDIRECT (or #Redirect), a pound sign at the beginning of a line signals a numbered list item. Therefore, when you coded

# Redirect [[Vaslav Nijinsky]]

your page looked like

  1. Redirect Vaslav Nijinsky

instead of redirecting. I went to all the pages you'd done this on and removed the space after the pound sign, so now all the redirects work. In case this isn't clear, see WP:REDIRECT. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I may have done that in a couple of other places too, I will check. I am writing an article on Tamano Koichi ("The bowl legged Njinski" - Mishima, repeated in English by Alan Ginsburg) and contributing to Butoh. Are you a Njinski Scholar? EricDiesel (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
No, not in the slightest. I came across your redirection articles while reviewing new articles coming up at Special:NewPages. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
How do I disambiguate Tamano to give an option of going to Butoh instead of the city? EricDiesel (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It'll call for a little effort, but create a disambiguation page (Tamano (disambiguation)), and then put an {{otheruses}} template or one of its related templates (see Template:otheruses) on the existing Tamano, Okayama page to create a "hatnote" saying something to the effect "This article is about a city in Okayama. For other uses of Tamano, see Tamano (disambiguation)". Or something like that—I'm writing this mostly off the top of my head.
Since Tamano is a redirection, another approach you can take would be to make it the disambiguation page, instead of creating one from scratch. But if you take that approach, then you would need to go to all the articles that current links to Tamano and change those links to point to Tamano, Okayama directly, so that those links don't suddenly start dumping people on the disambiguation page instead of the page they were supposed to go to.
See the Wikipedia guide to disambiguation for more info. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thnx EricDiesel (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyond Protocol

Care to tell me the specifics of why this page was deleted, and possibly what I could do to fix it? I put a lot of time and effort into that page, and it wasn't promoting anything, just describing a game, there are plenty of pages already like that on this site... If it was the amount of links they can certainly be changed, I only put so many on there because I thought that would increase credibility... MMORTSLover (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It looked like advertising to me, like an announcement of a product about to be released. If I was wrong, I apologize. You can replace the article, or ask Cobaltbluetony, who deleted it (and presumably agreed with my assessment, right or wrong) to restore it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I want to go about this the correct way. I have left a comment on Cobaltbluetony's page, who seems to be offline. In any case, it is a game still in beta testing/not yet released, and if that alone disqualifies it from being on wikipedia, then please tell me the difference between what I wrote and Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3. Obviously one is backed by a much larger and influential studio, but that should not matter. Of course, I don't want to re-post it until I have some support/understanding of why it was deleted in the first place. So, other than "about to be released" is there anything else you can say about what looked like advertising and not objective description? Thanks MMORTSLover (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact that it is unreleased is only part of the reason: the publisher, Dark Sky Entertainment, seems to only have this unreleased game as its claim to fame. EA Los Angeles, developers of Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3, on the other hand, is already notable and has a looong history of game development, so anything unreleased by them, but still actively discussed by them, is notable simply for that. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that people making edits and requesting and carrying out deletions on Wikipedia are a large number of people. I have no idea what the story is with Command & Conquer, whether it was looked at by anyone with a different set of eyes than mine, or whether anyone has happened to look at it critically at all. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to have had its day in court (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3) twice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 (second)), and third time's the charm (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 (3rd nomination)); its reemergence is likely to do with better sourcing and more explicitness from the developer. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so I can see your point CobaltBlueTony, to a point, and Largo Plazo I certainly understand your point, however, does this mean that it was simply your opinion that, because this is Dark Sky's one and only game, that no one cares? Or is that a policy of Wikipedia/the community as a whole? In essence I'm asking if Beyond Protocol will need to wait to be released to have a Wikipedia entry. Rest assured, it will one day have an entry (I realize that IS an opinion, but if you read the article you'd know why I think that).
Once again, thanks - MMORTSLover (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It will both need to be released and prove to be notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, I'll just tell my fellow hundreds of beta testers that they're not notable, and keep this article on my hard drive for use later... MMORTSLover (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Most people aren't notable by Wikipedia's standards, including you and me. Get used to it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't saying I was individually, I just think a growing community is. I suppose it will just take time for those jaded by what has been to take notice of what will be... Sorry Largo Plazo for having such a long drawn out conversation on your page... MMORTSLover (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Battery conductance

I'm keeping an eye on it too, maybe the IP just doesn't get the policy yet? -- Logical Premise Ergo? 15:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Québecguitare.com

Why didn't you let me put a "hangon" on the page you just deleted? You say that O can explain my cause and then you break the rules. How notable! Ydmn (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Ydmn

I don't have the ability to delete pages. I posted a template for deletion. As for the rules, the deletion notice itself explains that even if you add a hangon template, it isn't a guarantee against getting deleted. No rules were broken. In any event, the best approach is to prepare an article in proper Wikipedia style first (WP:STYLE, WP:Your First Article, perhaps in a subpage of your own usage page, and then loading it into an article when it's ready. There isn't any need to hold onto a page with material that isn't at least a reasonable stub article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Color bundle afd.

You might want to post a notice of your AFD to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Color. Thanks. PaleAqua (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Stoptrein

You recently prodded the article Stoptrein, and I agree with your reasoning. But how would you feel about turning Stoptrein into a redirect to Trains in the Netherlands or Nederlandse Spoorwegen? Aecis·(away) talk 14:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. How about Nederlandse Spoorwegen#Commercial transport types? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You're beating me!

Haha I think maybe it's a sign that it's time for me to go to bed... But you're beating me on the csd front! I keep finding articles already tagged for deletion! :P Pip (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's morning here. We'll take over. You go get some rest. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Zaki and WP Palestine

Actually yes, especially since he is a part of the prominent Nusseibeh clan. However, I do admit that I was guilty of not even reading the content before I added the tag (I assumed he was a Palestinian politician). I'm going to add the UAE tag as well. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Share Links

FYI, the Share Links article had been deleted once before via WP:PROD. Accordingly, it cannot go through prod again. I've nominated it for deletion, since I also feel the article should be deleted; discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Share Links. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion declined

The article Wikipedia:Let the Reader Decide has been kept. the name Wikipedia was misspelt. It is now a project page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Madrasatul Islah ‎Context added

Thanks. I have added some context. --Vikramsingh (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vaporized hydrogen peroxide

Greetings! I have expanded the above article significantly. Please have a look and see if you think the AfD should proceed or can be withdrawn. Thanks! ArakunemTalk 18:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Spectacular! I'll post a note to the effect that my motion to delete is withdrawn. Thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Largoplazo,

You have brought up an important point for which I have argued for a long time--namely, that good writing demands giving the reader a lead sentence that maximizes the information provided to the reader, helping him to ascertain a) if this is the article that he is looking for, and b) if he wants to read any further.

You would be amazed at the editors out there who believe that placing what I (and, I think you) would regard as the most "important" information up front is actually a violation of NPOV. They would have every article on every president begin with the same sentence:

and so forth, because to say that he was the president of the United States indicates a bias. How's that, you ask? Who are you, they say, to assert that that one piece of information about him (that he was president) is more important than all the other facts of his life (like where he was born, where he went to college, what other offices he held, who he married,etc). And then try including in the opening sentence that Lincoln was the President during the Civil War, or that Nixon was the only President ever to resign. Now you're really off the tracks, they think.

I have been quietly arguing against this kind of sterile writing because it does not promote interest, and because its simply bad writing! I was talking to one editor who was writing articles with identical openings, and I made that point that if that was all we should do, that we didn't need human editors, we could just use machines. His reply: "I envy the machine." Whatever.

My apologies for changing your section title. You are correct that mine was not the best title; unfortunately, neither is yours. Your section title does not tell the reader what you are talking about: Giving example of what not to do. Example of what not to do about what? If you want people to read your comments and then follow you, I think a better heading would help. Just a suggestion. Unschool (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and point well taken about my choice of section title! —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of St. Paul Street (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on St. Paul Street (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Largo Plazo (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo of some album cover

i just emailed the owner asking for permission/inviting to add the photo themselves. what do i do when he sends it to me-- paste it in?

--Ericaparrott (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not experienced with use of images. See what you can find from WP:Images and WP:Copyrights. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:G808

In all fairness, all the kid's activities occurred within the space of four minutes, and it's entirely possible he didn't have any idea he was racking up warnings or doing anything wrong. I request a lot of blocks on people myself so I'm no bleeding heart, but in this case an indefinite block might be too harsh. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I've shortened the block to 48 hours. Owen× ☎ 19:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Template

Hi. It wasn't really me writing in Greek, because I don't know the language. I simply used the relevant template from WP:PNT/T. I'll edit them so that contain an English version in addition to the other language. Cheers, BalkanFever 13:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. I didn't know those existed. Thanks for pointing it out. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive_3&oldid=1143128488"