User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

List of national capitals

Hello. Per your suggestion, I have taken my disagreement with your decision to undo the edits that I made to List of national capitals to it's talk page. I would appreciate if you could contribute to the discussion here. Thank you. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: i try to fix it a little bit

Saylani welfare trust

Largoplazo here is the link to the news where they conducted the investigation https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/637723-no-evidence-supports-indian-news-agency-s-baseless-story-claiming-hindus-denied-rations-in-karachi

The alleged incident (according to the sources cited in the edit on that page) took place in 'Rehrri Ghoth' (correct spelling Rehri Ghot). Here The New Indian Express source (it was also used on that page) is also talking about the same place https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2020/apr/01/discrimination-amid-pandemic-pakistan-deny-food-supplies-to-hindus-christians-as-coronavirus-rages-2124304.html

The News International conducted an investigation and found that no such discrimination took place in any of the areas mentioned by the Indian newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArifAliMuhammad (talk • contribs) 19:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@ArifAliMuhammad: Thanks, I appreciate the pointer. I've re-removed the section.

By the way, please sign your contributions to user talk pages like this one, as you should for article talk page. See WP:Signatures. Largoplazo (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Largoplazo Thank you so much for your help. Also thank you for letting me know how to sign the posts. ArifAliMuhammad (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

thank you again

Goodarz Irani (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

I don't think you deserve better than this

Goodarz Irani (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Goodarz Irani: You keep using Wikipedia incorrectly, you ignore every single thing anybody tells you about what you're doing wrong, and you complain about them when they properly edit your contributions, but I'm the one who deserves to be insulted? See WP:Competence is required. Largoplazo (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You're not the only one who got the honor of being insulted by Mr. English himself [1]. I'll report him later when I have time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of my Bolly Flex links

Hi,

I think I understand the reason why you removed the external links that I added - I guess they could be taken as commercial rather than providing a source of information, but this one in particular needs to remain as the flexproductions.com domain no longer exists, and actually has what looks like a Chinese cybersquatter which tries to download an unknown file to your computer.

This page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipasha_Basu

Reference: 71 "Bollywood Showstoppers Concert – Atif Aslam, Shaan, Bipasha Basu, Malaika Arora & Bolly Flex Live in UK". Flexfxproductions.com. Retrieved 21 November 2014.

It has a link to http://www.flexfxproductions.com/portfolio_bollywoodshowstoppers.php and that content was moved to https://bollyflex.uk/services/bollywood-star-bookings/

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by YazahWiki (talk • contribs) 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@YazahWiki: The plain external links had to go because we simply don't put plain external links in article bodies. See WP:ELPOINTS.

This source is no good as a reference either. It's coming from a commercial service that says nothing about her other than that she's a client of theirs. And who are they? Do we know? That website doesn't qualify as a reliable source. But it doesn't even matter whether we can rely on that page as a source because it doesn't even say anything in support of any assertions made in the text at the end of which you footnoted it. It was serving no purpose there as a reference.

If the existing source no longer exists, that's a separate matter. That can be handled either by finding it in an archive and directing the reference there, or by tagging it for replacement with a reference to a reliable source that does exist and that does actually support the footnoted information. Largoplazo (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Its about Hyder Kazmi article

I am new to wikipedia and i dont know what is going on please help. I dont want that page to be deleted. I was just trying to update that page as im new i did know the rules so i think whatever happend was just my lack of knowledge. But i dont want that person to suffer because of me. So please guide me how can i stop the deletion of the page and how to update that page. Its ok if i am blocked from editing on wikipedia but i just do not want anybody else's loss because of me please help. I DONT KNOW THE RIGHT PERSON TO CONTACT FOR ALL THE MESS. But he is an award winning actor in India and i can provide you links which i am not able to attach there. Can i share my email address for further help??? Please reply i am really stressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priti Rao Krishna (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Priti Rao Krishna: Hi. I understand that you're new, and that you're concerned about the article. It is true that on Wikipedia article subjects have to meet certain standards. These include verifiability, explained at WP:V, and "notability", which doesn't mean exactly what it means in normal English, but it's explained at WP:N. The person who nominated it for deletion gave reasons based on that person's perception that Hyder Kazmi doesn't meet the notability guidelines.

The fact that you're new—to be blunt—doesn't mean that you are unable to follow explicit instructions. The tag that you removed says, for one thing, "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed", yet you removed it. For another thing, it says "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." Then I told you as well that if you want to argue to keep the page, you must do as at the deletion discussion. Now you've come to ask me a question to which you've already been given the answer twice: Make your case at the deletion discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok,now I get it. I didn't come to ask you question. I came to ask for help if you can help me in anyway because i don't know the right person through which I can get this problem fixed. If possible plz mail me on pritikrao@gmail.com I seriously need a professional help to fix this. I found your message helpful and that's why I messaged you for help. I'm sorry if I couldn't explain myself properly and made you feel that I'm questioning you. Trust me I'm just seeking help from you as you are experienced and genuine person here. Priti Rao Krishna (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Priti Rao Krishna: I'm not going to email you.

Let me give you clarification regarding your earlier comment, "i just do not want anybody else's loss because of me". Wikipedia articles never exist for the benefit of their subject, so there's never a question of the subject's loss if an article is deleted. I'm trying to figure out why you "need" professional help. Do you have a vested interest in the article's subject? If so, see the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. In particular, if you have a paid connection, you are obligated to disclose it as explained in those guidelines.

You don't have to worry that the article will be deleted because of anything you've done.

To argue effectively against the deletion of the article, you'd have to successfully contradict the claim that Kazmi lacks notability. So you need to read the notability guidelines, particularly the ones at WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:NACTOR, and come up with reliable sources that are independent of Kazmi and his projects that demonstrate that he meets any or all of these. (You only have to raise them in the discussion. You don't need to add them as references to the article to satisfy the requirement that they exist.)

To be clear, presenting them to me won't help. You must voice your arguments at the deletion discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No I'm not paid for this. The only thing is I know this person personally so that's why I didn't want to cause him any problem as he is an actor and that's his article which got messed up because of me. Anyway thank you for the guidance I'll follow what you said. Thank you so much for your time and help. Priti Rao Krishna (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Girl on a Ball

Hi,

I was just not sure how that is a relevant addition to an article about the painting. I still don't. I'd rather see a discussion about what art movement it belongs to, and snippets of any analysis that exists for it. Maybe the fact about the skating program could be an "influence" section. Even that could be beefed up though, I believe Picasso's grand-daughter spoke about the program. Editor120918756 (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

ANN

Your recent editing on Artificial neural network is performed without understanding and without bothering to try to understand. As an example, in the most recent one you comment that there is no reference supporting that Moore's law is about increasing transistor count. But no reference is needed. This just what the first sentence in the referenced article says. Take more care in the future.--Ettrig (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

non stop vandalism from a wikipedia old user

Hello, just i want to inform you about the user called M.Bitton , he is reverting all edits by users on Moroccan cultures topics, removing anything that is Moroccan and putting instead Algeria (His own country) this is a vandalism from his side, if you check what he removes you will find all documented with real sources from historical books and trusted worldwide personalities, changing all this with his own reference from open encyclopedia, or open museums or articles from unknown websites with no visitors, topics where he usually most active are : kaftan, Djellaba, beghrir, tagine.We will appreciate to review this case, thanks in advance @Largoplazo:

@Miko2020: See WP:Dispute resolution. Also, WP:Signatures. Largoplazo (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Miko2020: Were you trying to deceive me intentionally? Now that I've taken the time to refresh my memory, I see that M.Bitton has not been removing Morocco. It's you who keeps removing anything that isn't Morocco, even when sources acknowledging the inclusion of Algeria and Tunisia exist. Largoplazo (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks Largoplazo Nisaldx (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I *had* followed the instructions... :-)

...so I improved them, because you were right. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

confusion

I'm confused why mine cite get rejected. I'm not trying to promote it. I'm trying to put information about it. please help me in this situation or provide me the guideline how the cite get accepted

@Doctor Hamro: It's a link to a commercial website selling courses in the articles' subject. You mentioned the business outright in the ACCA article. Calling out a single business that provides a particular service in the middle of an article related to that service provides no information to the reader about the service and is basically advertising. In Chartered accountant, you created a reference linked to a page on that website that says nothing that supports anything in the sentence to which you added it. Largoplazo (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)kk

Hello, I will put information of chest pain and follow all the rules related to it. I will cite the information. can you provide me the tips, that i did is correct or not, i don't want to promote the link. just i want to provide right information to reader. please help me in this. Thankyou for your response of previous message

Baklava

Hallo, I reverted your reversion :-) of Baklava, since the origin (first mention) of the dish is Istanbul (Topkapi). The two references (one is also in the text) mention "ancestors" of the dish. The argument has been discussed ad nauseam on the talk page. Alex2006 (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Largoplazo/Archives,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

I appreciate towards your efforts in Wikipedia, I am Sorry for what I have done.
Sincerely:
Pakelectrical talk 21 May 2016 (UTC)

अगले जनम मोहे बिटिया हीं दीजो Mrs. Prerana Ranjay Jaiswal (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem with my article (English and Bulgarian)

Hello, I submitted the English translated version of the article "Zlatko Zhivkov". Then I proceeded to create a Bulgarian version on Bulgarian Wikipedia, where for some reason I wasn't able to publish it. Wikipedia is making it too difficult to post a simple page and I don't understand why. I created an English and a Bulgarian page at the designated places, I provided enough references and information and edited what was suggested. Please explain why I'm still facing problems. Another thing that I don't understand is that based on the long and thorough process that is required to make a Wikipedia page (which is accepted), how is Wikipedia not a credible source of information. That makes no sense to me. I am required to post many sources that state my article is credible and I have done so. The English translated version is on the talk page, the Bulgarian one isn't getting published. What am I supposed to do to get my articles on Wikipedia? If another editor needs to modify it or submit it on my behalf, they can do so. Please help, I'm trying to contribute! Orlianrow (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Orlianrow: Every language's Wikipedia operates independently, so I can't tell you why you're having a problem at Bulgarian Wikipedia. You'll have to inquire there. Since I know no Bulgarian, I can't help you with that. Also, as the Wikipedias are independent, each one has its own rules and procedures. I know nothing about how things work there.

That doesn't change the fact that this is English Wikipedia, where articles are only in English. And you did contribute English text, which I used to create the article in English. So it's there, almost as it would be if you'd published it in English directly. The only difficulty you encountered here was when you tried to publish your Bulgarian article here.

About your other question: See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. My own comments: Wikipedia should not be used as a credible source of information because its content is contributed by large numbers of anonymous writers whose expertise can't be judged. If their contributions are reviewed by anyone else, it isn't by a major newspaper's editorial board or a team of respected peers at a university, but by even more anonymous editors whose expertise can't be judged. The material here is supposed to be available in reliable sources, but not all of it is. Even when it is, it is subject to the interpretation of editors who may be misinterpreting it or drawing erroneous conclusions from it. Editors may also cite sources that are unreliable: blogs, other wikis, social media pages belonging to people who don't know what they're talking about. That's why, if a reader finds information that's useful here and wants to rely on it, the user should follow the footnotes to the sources (if they're reliable) and rely on the information that they provide. If no reliable source confirming the information here has been provided, the reader should do their own research outside of the article.

I haven't reviewed your sources, but it looks like you did a good and thorough job of providing them. That is often not what happens! Largoplazo (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo:

Thank you for the information. I have a better understanding now. I contacted the Bulgarian Wikipedia, so as far as the other article goes, I will sort out the problem with them. I appreciate your help.

Thanks Comment

As I only speak English, I was not sure what language it was in. Thank you for correcting it! Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{My Contibutions} 17:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Murray (actor)

The article John Murray (actor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability in question, sources are not independent of the subject

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris: Once an article (or another article under the same title) has been PRODded, it can never be PRODded again. As I noted in my comments on the talk page, an article under that title had already once been deleted through PROD. Largoplazo (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Largoplazo, Shit, I messed up, didn’t notice that Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No harm done, just letting you know! Largoplazo (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of John Murray (actor) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Murray (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Murray (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semantic vs. semantical

This is very interesting. English is not my native tongue. When should one use each? Thanks! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@ExperiencedArticleFixer: My advice is always to use "semantic" because I've never encountered "semantical" before! Evidently it exists as an alternative form, but it doesn't mean anything different from "semantic": The dictionaries that mention it route the user to "semantic".

The variation between -ic and ical adjectives in English is actually very arbitrary.

• "Comic" and "comical" both exist and their meanings are related but not quite the same. they're related but they don't mean quite the same thing.
• "Tragic" exists but "tragical" doesn't (or at least I've never, ever encountered it).
• I'm familiar with both "historic" and "historical" and I think they're synonyms.
• "Biblical" exists but "Biblic" doesn't.
• I think "fantastic" used to mean the same thing that "fantastical" means, but "fantastic" is now much more commonly used to as an expression of enthusiastic approval, like "wonderful" or "terrific" (which used to mean "terror-producing").
• Sometimes an -ic form that corresponds to an -ical word is a noun instead of an adjective: medical/medic, topical/topic.

If there are any guidelines, I'm not familiar with them. I think some of the confusion might have to do with the fact that, for adjectives with both endings, the adverbial form usually ends in -ically. (Exception: "publicly", not "publically".) So if someone sees an adverb ending in -ically, it won't be obvious whether the corresponding adjective ends in -ic or -ical.

Isn't English fun? Of course, every language I've studied has plenty of complications. Largoplazo (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, very informative! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yogi Bear

You reverted as undue text by animation historian Christopher P. Lehman, one of the few cited sources in the article.

The text was removed in June, by a new user who apparently equates Critical theory with citing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a source. Do you think we should ignore published works which analyze animation? Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

His book "American Animated Cartoons of the Vietnam Era: A Study of Social Commentary in Films and Television Programs, 1961-1973" was published by McFarland & Company, which I consider a reputable publisher. Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevant or irrelevant info?

Thank you for reviewing my contribution about the Signal Foundation:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Signal_Foundation&diff=966473097&oldid=966433869

I put in the sentence that you deleted, because it tells people where their personal information from the Signal app is actually stored (the "cloud" is not made of water vapor, it uses physical servers owned by actual companies who control them). If I improve the sentence to describe why the info is relevant, will you be OK with including the sentence in the article? Or do you have a rewrite to suggest? Gnuish (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gnuish: I know what cloud computing is (I have even written code that accesses cloud REST APIs) and I'm wondering why my deletion or my comment led you to explain it to me.

My initial point was that companies store data in the same way that their employees sit in office chairs. They may also use communication systems, supply chain management tools, payment systems, fulfillment systems, CRM systems. All of these fall into a black box from the point of view of the outside world. I don't believe an average Wikipedia reader would find it of any more reference-worthy interest to know what servers Signal Foundation's data sits on than what brand of office chairs their employees sit on, or whether they use Avaya phones or Capital One banking services or Zendesk for CRM.

Now, your response above indicates that you weren't thinking in terms of just any disinterested Wikipedia reader with no personal stake in the subject of the article. You had in mind a (potential) user of the product, with the intent of conveying information that would give the user confidence in the security of the service. That's promotion. It's up to Signal Foundation to use PR vehicles to position its product to make it attractive, to supply potential users with information to support a decision to use it. It's improper to use Wikipedia as a tool for instilling customer confidence. Largoplazo (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: clearly, my edit needed work, since you got the wrong impression from it. I was not trying to promote either Signal nor Amazon Web Services. (And I have no association with either one.) I wasn't trying to give users confidence; if anything, I was trying to dissipate false confidence. One of the big reasons that people use Signal is for data privacy. I don't think that every cloud service has the same characteristics, has the same business model, or takes the same degree of care of its customers' data (or its customers' customers' data). It's not in the same category as what Signal's employees had for lunch or who built the chairs they sit in; this is the Signal users' private and personal information that is stored on these servers. If a government went to Amazon with a subpoena, they're going to get that information. If on the other hand, a government went to Alibaba with a subpoena, or an under-the-table request, there's no information to get. I was trying to make it clear to users whose actual physical control their data would be under. If Signal was using Google servers, one set of users might be concerned, who have problems with how Google handles data. If they were using Microsoft servers, ditto. Or Alibaba's servers, or Cloudfront's. If Signal ran their own servers in their own data center, that would cause different concerns (e.g. about reliability, scalability, or network reachability). The point was to inform, so people can make their own personal decisions. As far as I know, Signal has never explicitly mentioned that they use Amazon's servers; I happened to find the info in their tax return because they had to disclose their most expensive contractors, which included AWS. Part of what Signal touts in its PR is how private their service is, how your data is "under your own control". They encourage people to think that's true, when actually it isn't; it's under the control of Signal itself and of Amazon, their contractor. Correcting that misleading impression is at the root of what I was trying to convey.

Given what you know know about my intentions, do you think that where Signal users' data is stored is relevant material for a Wikipedia article? Suppose the sentence said, "As of 2018, Signal apps store and retrieve private information about their users' communications on servers owned by Amazon Web Services.<ref name=990_2018 />"? Actually, that would be problematic because the source doesn't say that, it just says they paid a large amount of money to AWS. That's why I originally tried to write a simpler sentence.

I don't want to make an edit war, I am trying to collaborate with you to come up with something that works for both of us. Thank you for explaining what you found objectionable. Where can we go from here? Gnuish (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It's no more Wikipedia's role to dissuade or "dissipate false confidence" than it is to persuade. I still believe it isn't appropriate, and especially now that, given your source and your observation about the lack of any other source, it appears to be prohibited original research. Aside from that, I'm mystified that anyone would claim that the privacy of data stored on servers owned by any Chinese company is assured. Largoplazo (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Matatana_ drawing and references

Hello ,

why did you deleted the image of Matatana? 

Also I dont understand the issue on the references. All the books are from authors of the 16th and 17th century: Diogo do Couto, Duarte Barbosa , Gaspar Correia. What do you need?

Thank s ,Hugo--Hugo Refachinho (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hugo Refachinho: I'm very sorry about that! After I had done most of my editing, the visual editor started giving me a lot of trouble. I don't know why, but I copied my version of the content while still in edit mode. Then I canceled the edit, started a new editing session, and pasted what I had copied. I guess the image and the references all disappeared when I did that, but I didn't notice, and didn't know that had happened until you told me.

I've just tried restoring them all. Can you please check? Largoplazo (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Madagascar_

Now its all ok again. Thank you!--Hugo Refachinho (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Technology and society

I wonder if perhaps you were too WP:BITEy with User:Joebleze on their talk page. This is a brand new editor, who could decide to become an ongoing contributor if their class experience doesn't scare them off too much. They made a couple of understandable and easily fixable mistakes with a page move and userpage naming. I don't think your tone was outrageous, but you could show more patience and less alarm. A lot of us have been guilty of this, certainly me. Just something to think about for future. Cheers, —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. I feel that nearly everything was fine after the first full sentence, but I'm looking at that sentence now and I'm cringing. I'm also looking at "You can't just move published articles out of article space into your sandbox" and realizing that, although I meant it neutrally, I could have softened it. Ick. Largoplazo (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing content from Jim Shockey

Hi there, yeah, I removed the reference to Jim Shockey being an active member of the armed forces. This is no longer the case.

In the future, I will explain my edits, although I don't foresee any.

Can you ensure the information I removed is indeed removed?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forsblot (talk • contribs) 23:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Forsblot: Thanks for letting me know. But, on the contrary, I've replaced "an active" with "a retired" and added a source to verify his retired status! Largoplazo (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Plural vs. singular

I would like to point out that Sue Fishkoff's book only mentions one kosher style restaurant serving Reuben sandwich. This source is insufficient for the statement that this sandwich is "frequently served at kosher style restaurants". Please provide a different source. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deinocheirus: A fair point. I would venture that, in the U.S., almost any restaurant that might be considered "kosher-style" would serve a reuben, but, you're right, we should have a source. I found one book that comes so close, discussing non-kosher restaurants as well as reubens within the same few pages, but it would take some sloppy reading to reach the necessary conclusion. Largoplazo (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

HTV3 dates

What do you want done for date formatting on HTV3? I can probably do it with a script, but it would be nice to have some cues. Raymie (t • c) 17:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Raymie: It wasn't me! After I rolled the article back to the latest good version before a wave of vandalism/block evasion, I noticed that my rollback had included one legitimate edit. I reinstated the changes that had been made with that edit, including the cleanup tag. You'll need to consult with User:Jonesey95, the user who added that tag. Largoplazo (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Raymie: Dates like "2/13/2015" are not valid per MOS:DATES. After looking at this article again, I have removed the long, unsourced list of shows and movies that have been broadcast on this channel. It was pure trivia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Solid move. As you've probably seen, articles on children's television channels tend to be major cruft accumulators. Raymie (t • c) 18:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Dear Largoplazo, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially bringing in your real-life experience to the Urdu article, which will help ensure that it continues to reflect an academic perspective. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 15:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision of Luis Munoz Marin International Airport article

Hi, just wanted to explain that the reason why I changed the description from 'of the United States or it's territories' to just 'of the United States' is because I never said that it was 'in the US,' all I said was that it was of it (meaning it is under the jurisdiction of the US). This is why it doesn't matter whether you include 'and its territories' or not because, either way, it's still under US jurisdiction, as long as you don't say it's 'in' the US, and rather use the term 'of the US.'

Best regards:-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

autoharp page addition/removal

hello. I made the addition to the autoharp page that you removed. I thought the addition was appropriate, because there is an entire section on the page for Electric Autoharps. Since other sections include performing artists, I thought my link to my page, showing examples of Electric Autoharp playing, would be ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.214.40 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. These aren't comparable things. Mentioning the names of players of note and linking internally to articles Wikipedia has about them is one thing. Wikipedia editors adding external links leading to their own websites is another.

In general, there shouldn't be links to external resources within the body of an article at all. Even links included in an "external links" section at the end of an article should meet the criteria described at the guidelines for external links. Adding a link to the website of a single musician gives that musician undue weight and is beyond the scope of a general article on the instrument that performer plays. See items 11 and 13, in addition to 4 and 5, at WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Largoplazo (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Kadaif

Hi. Kadaif is not Kanafeh. please remove this. Garagarage1979 (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Garagarage1979: It doesn't say that they're the same thing. You're misunderstanding what redirects are for. Though a redirect can lead to a synonym, redirects are also used when a topic doesn't have its own article but there's information about it under a related topic. See WP:Redirects for details. Largoplazo (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Kanafeh is a Cake. Kadaif is a Noodles. Garagarage1979 (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Garagarage1979: I'm fully aware of that, and the fact that that's your response indicates you didn't read what I wrote, since you're just repeating what I already responded to, only with a little more detail. Please read what I wrote again. Largoplazo (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Garagarage1979: And now I see you created the article Kadaif noodles. That is fine—except that you should have created it under the existing topic Kadaif. The fact that there is now an article on it is better than a redirect. What you did before—removing the redirection and leaving Kadaif blank—is what was wrong.

I'm now going to move your content from Kadaif noodles to Kadaif, and then redirect Kadaif noodles to Kadaif. Largoplazo (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Garagarage1979 (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

child support

Hello I am writing a report on the child support law, if you would kindly explain to me some paragraphs about the history of the child support law who approved it, what are its conditions, who should pay the support, when it begins and when it ends, how it is calculated, and the penalties imposed on violators and evaders of support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samialshehri89 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Samialshehri89: Hello. Why are you asking me this? Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a research service or homework help site. You're certainly welcome to browse Wikipedia to find information on your own. But also remember that Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source for the information it carries, as we're mostly anonymous and rarely do we know who really contributed any of the information here. Once you locate information that's useful, you should always check whether footnotes are cited leading to reliable sources that confirm that information, and use those as your sources. Largoplazo (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Zakaria1978: Thanks! Largoplazo (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Qatayef

Hi. i think you maybe wrong. Qatayef is an Arabic Word. it nothing have with Turkish language. it is a arab dish and not a Turkish one. And there is probably a mistake here. Thank you. Garagarage1979 (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Garagarage1979: "I think", "maybe", "probably" don't make a convincing case!

Languages borrow words from each other all the time and, not having the same sound systems, the corresponding words often sound somewhat different, and are, of course, spelled differently. For example, Arabic has two letters ق (qaaf) and ك (kaaf) that, to both English or Turkish speakers, both sound like /k/. In fact, /k/ in English "keep" sounds more like kaaf and /k/ in "coop" sounds a little closer to qaaf because it's articulated farther back in the mouth, but English speakers don't actually recognize those as different sounds. But the distinction is significant in Arabic.

When we borrow Arabic words into English, we pronounce both of those Arabic letters the same. That is, we use the same pronunciation for the name of the holy book whether we spell it "Koran" or "Qur'an"; we pronounce "Iraq" and "Qatar" the same way we would if we spelled them with ⟨k⟩. In writing, though, we often maintain the distinction in writing, using ⟨q⟩ as we do in "Qur'an" and "Iraq" and "Qatar".

The Turkish alphabet, on contrast, doesn't even have a ⟨q⟩, so it can't make that distinction in writing. Therefore, it uses ⟨k⟩ for both qaaf and kaaf. That's why, in Turkish, the words corresponding to my examples above are spelled "Kur'an", "Irak", and "Katar".

Finally, the Turkish Wikipedia article on Kadayıf has the footnote " "Kadayıf Kelime Kökeni". etimolojiturkce.com. 18 Haziran 2016 tarihinde kaynağından arşivlendi. Erişim tarihi: 17 Haziran 2016." The page that points to says "~ Ar ḳaṭāˀif قطائف [çoğ.] çok ince hamurdan yapılmış tatlı, baklava < Ar ḳaṭīfa ͭ قطيفة [#ḳṭf] hav, kırpıntı, sütün yüzeyinden alınan kaymak → kadife kadife." Yes, it says right there that "kadayıf" comes from Arabic قطيفة, the very word that also refers to those pancakes (see what the Arabic Wikipedia article ar:قطايف for that word says), whether written "qaṭayif" or "qatayef" or "katayef" or "kadayif".

Regardless of variations in what the word is used to mean, the Turkish and Arabic words are lingustically related. Largoplazo (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Kanafeh

Turkish Kanafeh is made with Semolina. the Arabic Kanafeh is made with "Kadaif Noodles". i don't know if it was another version of this dish, but i know this have tow main version. Thank you Garagarage1979 (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Garagarage1979: I don't know why you came here to tell me this or what you thought the outcome would be. Largoplazo (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to correct mistakes. that's all. Garagarage1979 (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Garagarage1979: To correct mistakes I didn't make? Largoplazo (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikitongues

Hi Largoplazo! I think you should bring the linkspamm issue to community attention in WikiProject Languages. –Austronesier (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)