Jump to content

User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Largoplazo/Archives,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Largoplazo/Archives.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Largoplazo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Hi, the page I created on Windwhistle Warren was deleted because it's not deemed significant? It's the only rescue centre in Gloucestershire, a big county, and has been going for 15 years. Why is that information not useful for the public but random biographies are? Baloo123 (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. While the information is useful, and the Warren is a worthy cause, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia rather than a directory of services, has a policy that article topics must be what is termed "notable", as discussed at the page Wikipedia:Notability. The article didn't make what I saw as a credible claim of significance, which is necessary to avoid, at least, speedy deletion, but even if it did, based on an online search I ran, I don't think the organization meets the general notability guidelines that call for substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. For that reason, the article would be subject anyway to a discussion that could lead to its deletion depending on the consensus.
I don't know which biographies you're referring to, but their topics also must meet the notability guidelines. Any that don't are subject to deletion as well. Largoplazo (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen many biographies, created by colleagues, of researchers who people have never heard of, or had any newspaper coverage. Can this be referred to a second opinion? I fail to see how one person's opinion on what is notable should deem whether this page can be created. It holds a unique position within the county and deserves recognition as such. Saving hundreds of lives is surely noteworthy? Baloo123 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

There should be no biographies of anybody "who people have never heard of". If that is true, then those articles are subject to deletion. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Since you are giving me no examples, I cannot comment on specifics.
I'm not saying by any means that the organization isn't noteworthy. However, we don't judge that it is noteworthy by our evaluation of it, but by evidence that others have found it so, through coverage as I've already described, or through alternative avenues such as you may find described on the page about alternative notability guidelines available for organizations.
As for one person's opinion sufficing: (a) I requested speedy deletion, which involves two people (the person who requested deletion and the administrator who decides whether to delete the article or deny the request). Indeed, this avenue is limited to cases where the content of the article doesn't give an impression of significance. It falls far short of being an affirmative finding that the topic isn't notable (a decision which isn't based on the content of the article). (b) As long as the article gives a credible impression that the topic is significant (which, the way I interpret it, means that one can imagine it being notable), deleting it for a lack of notability does require a discussion that leads to a consensus for deletion.
Even we two people (the deleting administrator and I) aren't the last word. You can ask to have the deletion reviewed. See WP:Deletion review for guidance. Largoplazo (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Largoplazo/Archives,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 804 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

NPR

Hi. Thank you for reviewing new pages. Simply removing promotional content does not automatically mean that an article is no longer promotional. Any stub that is similar in kind to an entry on a company listing site is still using Wikipedia for promotional purposes and should be tagged both for A7 and G11. For more information please see the tutorial. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Hi there, Kudpung. I have to say that I am mystified by this. I see what the NPP tutorial now says. It contradicts the terms of WP:G11 as I've been applying it.
First, to say that an article is promotional, regardless of its content, because it was written by someone with an interest in the topic would be to say that we don't allow COI editing. But we do, and we say so at WP:COI. We strongly discourage it, and paid COI editing has to be disclosed, but it isn't prohibited.
Second, WP:G11 strictly, explicitly discusses content, not intent. It applies "to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform". You didn't indicate which article you're referring to, and it may be one that was deleted, so I can't see it, but based on my recollection of the last 12 hours there was an article from which I removed one sentence of the two sentences that were in it, and what was left was a neutrally worded stub. G11 then says "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." After my edit, that was the case. G11 basically does say that removing promotional content automatically means that an article is no longer promotional, and that being in that condition "is preferable to deletion". Of course, A7 may still apply or, if not, the article may still be otherwise deleted for a lack of notability.
G11 references WP:NOTPROMOTION. There, too, in the details, the focus is on the content. It mentions nothing about intent.
So, I'm confused by the two conflicting points of view of how promotion works. As far as I've always been able to tell, if an article would have been acceptable if it had been written by a disinterested author, then it's acceptable even if written by the CEO of the company it's about. I haven't liked this because I've felt that Wikipedia could take a stronger stand against allowing itself to be used with promotional intent, but it's made clear repeatedly that it doesn't. What I'm reading in the NPP tutorial seems like it's a contradiction of existing guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_28#Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE

I invite you to an ongoing RfD discussion about those redirect to WP:AADD#Just a vote. --George Ho (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply on the pages

Hi ‪Largoplazo, thank you for you kindness. I am going to work on the Charlie Chaplin page these days and have saved it in my sandbox, please do not remove it. Another translated page "伊卡博得·克兰" is also an assignment that i am improving, please also keep it... I also replied you in my talk but i am not sure it was linked to you or not... So i also come here. If there are further problems or suggestions, please feel free to contact me. It is interesting work with Wikipedia hhaha~ Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cococui (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, User:Cococui. User:RHaworth deleted the draft, for a reason that puzzles me and that I've asked him about. But then I realized that the article would be deleted even after you translate it because English Wikipedia already has an article on Charlie Chaplin. If you want to translate an article from Chinese Wikipedia into English for publication to English Wikipedia, it has to be about a topic for which English Wikipedia doesn't already have an article. (The same applies to "伊卡博得·克兰": we already have Ichabod Crane, so we don't need another article on that fictional character.) Largoplazo (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I am translating from English into Chinese. You mentioned "deleted the draft", I am not quite clear the draft refers to which one.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cococui (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The Chinese version of Ichabod Craneis link is: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BC%8A%E5%8D%A1%E5%8D%9A%E5%BE%B7%C2%B7%E5%85%8B%E5%85%B0. This is my first translation for English into Chinese, and I am still working to improve this one. Another is "Charlie Chaplin filmography", also a translation from English into Chinese, but the translation has not been finished, please do not remove it. Thank you very much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cococui (talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Largoplazo (talk) I appreciate your help, I'm learning to collaborate here. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja.espino (talk • contribs) 15:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, his film name is Editor venkat but the actual name is venkatesh avula. We can change if you want — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilsoft (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Kash Hovey Article

Hello,

I am requesting that my article on Kash Hovey not be deleted. I entered some new references and credits and hope that you will consider and accept. If there is anything you need further, please let me know.

Thank you,

Kashmoney17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmoney17 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Once a deletion discussion has begun, all discussion in favor of either keeping or deleting it needs to take place there, to be considered by the administrator who brings the discussion to a close and announces whatever the consensus is. Join the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Kash Hovey. Largoplazo (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Talk:Peter Kozodoy

Just an FYI you forgot to sign your comment on Talk:Peter Kozodoy, just wanted to give you a heads up since I'm guessing the editor might not know how to figure out who left it (and thus won't understand who relayed the initial message that it doesn't meat notability criteria either.) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 21:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not delete Multiple Sclerosis Association of America

Hi Largoplazo,

I just wanted to further contest the proposed speedy deletion of the page, Multiple Sclerosis Association of America. This page was simply created to state the factual resources that the organization provides to the MS community and was not intended to be promotional. The purpose of this page was to provide information to those looking for it. There are many other multiple sclerosis nonprofits with very similar Wikipedia pages.

Thank you. Kaitlynmsaa (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

vvffs

Trust me i know i vandalized, i don't need trash on my talk page from some no-life moron slaving over a stupid website pretending he has an actual purpose in life. I'm going to put this nicely, you're in bloody shambles and a disgrace, good day to you. Usa60527 (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Save it for someone who cares about whatever angst it is you're acting out over and who places any value on your opinion. Largoplazo (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Largoplazo/Archives,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Our common "friend" from Ipswich

Regarding your comment here, I would not find it surprising if he sometimes visits Istanbul. However, his usual lair in Turkey is Mersin, from where one of his socks this summer highlighted the connection in this edit summary. Given the persistence of his socking, we may find him back there next summer. Regards! --T*U (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Is Tommie Grabiec notable?

Xx236 (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

He isn't notable, as was determined during the previous deletion discussion. I just checked and found nothing new about him. Largoplazo (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Andorra

Hello, @Largoplazo:. My name is Irina Rybalchenko. I'm the director of All Andorra newspaper. This external link I suggested goes to one of the newspapers in Andorra (registered in the Department of Commerce of Andorra) and it's more than appropriate for an encyclopedia, from my point of view. It's more than strange we were not in this list of newspapers before.

We are the only newspaper in Andorra available in English what can be very useful for people who don't speak Catalan. We are also the most visited newspaper in Andorra now (about 4k unique clicks per day comparing with 1k-2k clicks to other newspapers in Andorra published in Catalan).

Please do not hesitate to contact me: +376 332 674. Regards, Irina

@Ирина Рыбальченко: Hello. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia articles aren't for the purpose of drawing readers' attention to your products and services, regardless of how they might benefit from them. Writing on any topic over which you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged; external links aren't allowed in article bodies; and there is no justification for singling out your one paper for identification in that paragraph. Largoplazo (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Additional note: A website (not a print journal) with only 18 articles listed in the first 20 days of December, and none in the last few days, is not likely to be considered a "national newspaper" of note. Further, even the website itself makes clear that it isn't so much a newspaper a "media resource" that "is promoting Andorra and everything to do with business, living and traveling in this country." Largoplazo (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing article

Hi,

I’m an internship student with Functional Food Center. The reason I am contacting you is because I was wondering if it were possible for the recently deleted “ffc functional food definition” to be restored or temporarily viewed. The content on that page had some information that was copyrighted by FFC and I would like to retrieve it. Since there are some citations that were used in the wikipage, I would have to review the article because we are planning on moving the article away from wikipedia and publishing it on FFC’s website. According to this wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Viewing_and_restoring_deleted_pages#Viewing_a_list_of_recent_page_deletions), this is a valid reason for temporarily restoring the page. The only other reason as to why the content must be temporarily viewed is because I had made a few edits to the wikipage while it was still running and made the mistake of not saving the content on an external document. Alternatively, maybe you could provide a copy of the article with all of its exact content to avoid having the wikipage be restored and open to the public.

Regards, Bryansingharaj (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Bryansingharaj

Hi, I'm not an admin and can't retrieve it for you, but you can request it at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Largoplazo (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Cagney & LAcey

Goodnight. Sorry, I've have a mistake. I'm Basque Wikipedia user and I thought that I was creating the article in the Basque Wikipedia. Delete my worng contribution, please. Bye. Euskaldunaa (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Pointy

One could easily view disrupting the AfD discussion with repeated complaining about the PROD being removed as WP:POINTy. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It could be construed that way, I suppose. Do you believe that absolves you? Largoplazo (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've done nothing to need absolved. Just because you personally disagree, doesn't make my actions POINTy. Again, if you feel there was a violation, I'm sure you know where ANI is. I do, however, hope that you're done disrupting the AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, removing legitimately posted PRODs because you don't like PROD rather than because you disagreed with the reason given for deleting the article is improper, and pointy, and that should be pretty obvious to anyone who considers that the process exists because it's considered beneficial, and your attitude at this point shows a lack of consideration for others. Which is something I'm not expecting you to care about, but there you are. Largoplazo (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Technically, I didn't remove it. The removal was done automatically by Twinkle, which is odd because it allows a CSD and PROD to exist at the same time, but not a AfD. Once again, you know where ANI is, so if it was really improper, I invite you to take it there. For you to keep complaining about POINT while disrupting the AfD to salve your hurt feelings is almost comical, not that I'd expect you to care about that. Apparently, you're a believer in two wrongs making a right. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Niteshift36. You've been invited to post your concerns at WP:ANI. Now it's time for you to take action, or admit you were wrong and apologize. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would I "admit" that I'm wrong when I already showed you that I'm right? Which you obviously can't do on your behalf, or you would have shown me your justification. So I'm supposing that you know you're wrong, and you're just being a schoolyard bully about it. Largoplazo (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Your ignorance is still humorous, thanks! Your attempt at ANI was also very entertaining! Please more more more!! You'll get it right with enough practice, I'm sure. Don't let anyone stop you! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess we found out that my "removal" of the PROD wasn't contrary to any rules and you got a good example of why I think the PROD process is flawed. You're welcome for the education. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The only education I've received from you is a reminder that there are people who will needlessly make things difficult either just because they can or, at the least, because they don't care, and they will consider that to be adequate justification for their purposes. Largoplazo (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, guess what: 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR got himself an indefinite block. In case you were thinking of treating that user as a role model. Largoplazo (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Random Encounters

You may believe that AJ Pinkerton is not a notable celebrity, but may I ask if he isn't important then how come he has over 500k subscribers on YouTube and has a page on famous birthdays dot com? Nerdy narwhal (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia's notability guidelines, including the general ones and alternative ones applicable to people. Notability isn't judged on Wikipedia by YouTube subscriber counts or listings on birthday websites. I did look for the sort of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that the general guidelines call for, but didn't find them. Largoplazo (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

My mistake good sir, thank you for pointing that out to me. I only got my account today so haven't had a chance to adjust to wikipedia yet. :D Nerdy narwhal (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

doubling up

yup dont need two of that - cheers JarrahTree 01:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Why'd you delete my page entittled dyckman Donnie?

It's about me I'm a real person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyckmandonnie (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page? Entitled dyckman Donnie

Dyckman is a area in Manhattan it's not vulgar word also everything in the article is correct so why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyckmandonnie (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I know what Dyckman is. That had nothing to do with it! It was because the page was a lot of trash, starting with the person being born in 1908 and supposedly doing all the stuff that the article says you are doing these days, which just isn't credible for someone who's 108 years old. Besides that, if this were real information, I don't think there was anything in the article amounting to a WP:credible claim of significance, and, given a complete lack of any useful reference to a "dyckman donnie" on the Web, at least as far as Google can find, it seems clear that you don't meet the WP:notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Articles have to be about topics that have already achieved note in some verifiable way.
Also, you should know that Wikipedia strongly discourages people from writing about themselves, per WP:AUTOBIO. Largoplazo (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Gontães_fr

Hi Largoplazo,

I have made a mistake and created a page in French in the English wikipedia. I am struggling with how to do things as I am still new and I was tired last night so I left to solve it this morning as I read a message saying: You have 2 weeks to change it or it will be deleted. This morning it had been deleted, less than 24 hours after the message, unlike the message I had received, so I haven't saved the coded text (a copy of the whole text would allow me to just create the page in the correct french wikipedia today).

Is there a way of recovering the text so I won't have to do it all over again?

Thanks.

Elisabete

PS: I would like to leave a suggetsion, that pages aren't deleted before the period mentioned in the warning page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElisabeteMachado (talk • contribs) 10:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I see how the order of events is a bit unclear, so let me explain. After the article was tagged for translation, and after it was posted to WP:PNT, I saw the article had already been in English previously, so I restored that version of it, even though it was a much shorter article as a result. (This is what we typically do when an article that has been in English is overwritten with another language. Since the article isn't being deleted, it means the other language is still available for someone to translate from if someone wants to do that. But at least, in that case, there's no two-week deadline.)
Then, because there was no reason to have "fr" in the title of an article about Gontães, I moved the article to that title, Gontães. I had the original title deleted, but the article is at Gontães. And today I see that, since I moved the article, another person, Lucianajruas, went back to your original French text and translated that. So your French article has, in fact, now been translated to English.
You can see the entire revision history of the article, including your final version in French. It's all still there.
Sorry for the confusion! Largoplazo (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


Bertman

On Bertman Foods company and Notability: I'm not sure why you would single them out. There is source material, including the historic source material that I already provided, that proves that the company is of regional historic significance, albeit because it makes an iconic mustard used at ballparks by millions of people who live in the region. I don't have boundless time to keep digging, but I assume that sourcing will provide one or two additionals, and we have WAY more stuff in here that is of significance where the digital linkages are questionable that don't have that kind of tagging. I understand that every company wants to be included for their historic significance to the biz world, but in the case of this one, it actually DID make an impression on generations of people and the media in their marketplace and that is already documented.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theclevertwit (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I initiated a discussion of this on the article's talk page so I don't want to pursue it here, and I don't know that you've read my comments since I explained there my reasoning. If you post there, I'll be happy to respond. Largoplazo (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your work at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

changing username

please send instructions on changing username. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Crespo (talk • contribs) 20:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Max Crespo:You can follow the links to the information you need in my earlier response to you. Largoplazo (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Panarmenian Media Group

Per your request, I've salted it. {{Salt}} says that it's been created under other titles, too. Can you provide it or them? Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not "too", "or", no? "... has been created repeatedly under this or other names ...". The reason for that being, I infer, to allow one to request the salting of an article even if it hasn't been deleted before under that title if essentially the same article has been created (and deleted) repeatedly under other names. Anyway, that was my interpretation in this case. Largoplazo (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. Thanks for the cor rection. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I just took a look at the template's history and see that pointing out another title that has already been rife with deletions to justify protecting a new title quickly was the point! See the text that was in the box in this version. But that seems so weird, since "salt" means only "create-protect this article" regardless of whether the same article has ever been under another title. Poor choice of name. And it seems strange to supply a template meant only for the restricted case when you can just as well want to post an advance request for salting in the general case. OK, I'm going to stop overthinking it now. Largoplazo (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

deletion for article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jojo_%C3%A0_Gogo

Hi you sent me a notification about an article I wrote today Here it is : "I don't believe the award claimed meets either criterion 8 or 9 in the list of criteria at WP:BAND. There is nothing else to suggest meeting WP:BAND either, and Google finds only 46 matches for "jojo a gogo", none of them in the form of substantial coverage in a reliable source, so WP:GNG isn't met. Not notable. Largoplazo (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)"

Well, you're perfectly right, technically it doesn't fit points 8 or 9 of the list. But it fits 4, 10 and 11. This band participated in an important festival in eastern europe, kind of a eurovision alternative and Georges Brassens, the guy who wrote the songs, is considered as one of the most important french poet of the XXth century so I was thinking writing an article was appropriate. By the way I apparently wrote that at the wrong place. It was supposed to be located in the french section and i received a notification about a translation (which i did) so i think the best thing to do is actually delete it, i will do it again in the proper section with references and all. Sorry for the trouble Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guytwice (talk • contribs) 18:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. If you want to make arguments against deletion and have them taken into consideration, you need to do that at the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jojo à Gogo. Largoplazo (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I see no evidence of their having met criteria 4, 10, or 11, so it would be best if you or someone else can supply evidence that they do. Largoplazo (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Largoplazo/Archives,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

questions

why you nominate Himani Sahni for speedily deletion. (ItsMyClub (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC))

For the reason given in the notice. "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Article are neutral. They don't go on about how amazing and famous and wonderful and beautiful their subjects are.This doesn't mean there can't be an article about her, but it needs to be written in a neutral way, like an article you would expect to see in an encyclopedia. See WP:NPOV. Largoplazo (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

¡Una barnstar para ti!

El Barnstar original
Good Job! Thank you! Ja.espino (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you very much for your kindly teaching how to write Wikipedia entry properly. Kljtech (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic banned

See this. He's a topic banned sock.. --92slim (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@92slim: OK, that's fine. Then your edit summary should have referenced that legitimate reason for removing his contribution rather than one that, on the face of it, wasn't legitimate at all (because, to repeat myself, of course a talk page is a forum for discussing the contents of the article). If you'd written "Topic-banned user", I'd have had no objection. Largoplazo (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Largoplazo/Archives,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive_21&oldid=771362160"