User talk:Largoplazo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thank you for participating[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks. Azeriking55 (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#How_we_deal_with_entries_that_plausibly_fit_in_multiple_sections[edit]

Just replying here so as not to make the main discussion longer and more off topic than it already is: the link wasn't circular when I put it on Widefox's talk page, it just became so when he copied that entire comment to the project-space thread. Cheers. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 21:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Firoz Merchant page.[edit]

I read your comment on the edit made by me. I understand your perspective, but since he's been granted the UAE citizenship, doesn't that make him an Indian-Emirati? This would be more accurate and would update the content of this page.

Appreciate your guidance and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavenderpeople (talkcontribs) 08:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavenderpeople: But why do you think he's been granted citizenship? He was granted permanent residency. As I said in my edit summary: "citizens don't need a special award to live permanently in their own country." Permanent residency is a status granted specifically to non-citizens. Largoplazo (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you can see above that a bot signed your comment for you, but that doesn't always happen. Please always sign your contributions to talk pages, whether they're article talk pages, user talk pages like this one, or otherwise. Largoplazo (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guattari[edit]

https://es.forvo.com/search/guattari/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlnodovic (talkcontribs) 14:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hlnodovic: There are two audio clips there, one with [w], the other without. The clip in the article has it, so, in the absence of evidence more authoritative than clips by anonymous people, having unknown knowledge of what's actually correct, on the Internet, I think we should either be consistent with what we present or acknowledge that we have no reliable source and remove all of it, the phonetic representation and the clip. Does that seem reasonable? Largoplazo (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two of clips in Forvo say /gataˈʁi/ and two /gwataˈʁi/ (as well as the clip attached to the article). The lastname is Italian in origin /gwatˈtaɾi/, maybe that why the French pronunciation is still unstable (and uses /w/ instead of /ɥ/). However the author is certainly a Frenchman and we should add a French pronunciation (we don't say Nicholas Sarkozy in Hungarian). Since two of them seems excessive, it would rather preserve /gwataˈʁi/ Hlnodovic (talk)
The problem is that you're speculating that an unknown French person actually knows how Guattari pronounced his name. Largoplazo (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone gets a Street named after themselves is that something of importance or (trivia) ?[edit]

just something which just came to my mind after reading an article. StephenWilliams021 (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@StephenWilliams021: That itself might be considered important—and it impressed me—but you should include that question with the comments you've already contributed to the deletion discussion. Considerations others might raise include
  • Verifiability: Is the Opera News source a reliable source? The byline reads "LemonMagazine (self media writer)", which gives the impression that this is an unreviewed blog post.
  • Whether the naming has actually happened or will happen. Though the headline implies it's going to happen, the article says only "So they wanted to show him that his appreciated by having the street he grew up on called "Cornflower Str" legally changed to "B Major Str", having all youth members and home owners in the community to sign a petition to have people agree to the street name change." So all that's been established is that he's a creditable person whose immediate community wants to honor him and that they've collected signatures for a petition. That, by itself, doesn't carry much weight, in my opinion. There's no word on whether the city has looked at the petition, let alone that they've approved it, which is what I would want to see to consider it as a contribution to notability. Without that, all I can do is admired his civic-mindedness.
Of course, the reason Google didn't come up with that article before is that it was, apparently, just published. Google shows it now. Strangely, when I first look at it, it had a posting time of "10 minutes ago", which meant it was published a couple of hours after you'd already noted its existence; but now, only about 15 minutes later, it says "10 hours ago". Largoplazo (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Largoplazo i don't understand why the timing of the article is that way, i also noticed that when i found it, it was saying "published 1 hour ago" and from my understanding the news on opera news are all manually reviewed headlines by the Opera News Team, the meaning of (self media writer) in my opinion is that the writers has to present their article idea and hope it don't get rejected, either through mail or their own login portal on the website where they submit their articles for review while the Opera Team does reliable research on it for any copies of the submitted article on the web, Checking for originality and exclusivity as you will see some (articles) have the originality tag on Opera News because the journalist was the first person to get hold of the story approved by Opera News. All media writers on Opera News app (Excluding readers) has the 'verified creator' tag next to their name/username but only for Journalist who were obviously approved as real writers/journalist and is given the reliable resources by the news/magazine company about topics (Basically Head-starts) to write about or what they want on the Opera News site and its also considered a payed journalist gig, Having monthly monetize articles, Which to most writers are considered a (Full Time Job) with more than 2 million readers online everyday. i personally think that article is of importance i will include this question in deletion discussion though. StephenWilliams021 (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should I be worried?[edit]

Hi, I’ve been using my IP address to edit now for a couple years but have recently come across my old account that I’d like to edit on from now on. I am however scared I will be accused of sock puppetry as I was once temporarily blocked for using both an account to edit and my IP address. This was mainly because I kept logging out and forgetting the password. What I’m asking is, is there anything I have to do to register that IP address as my previous source of editing or will I be fine if I continue to edit on here from here on out. Much appreciated. Zvig47 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zvig47: The account you wrote this from has never been blocked. Or were you talking about another account? If so, and if that account was blocked for cause, then you need to follow the procedures at WP:Unblock, or else editing under another account or without logging in is block evasion subject to the sockpuppetry rules.
However, if the only block you've ever had was temporary and it has now expired, then you have no problem. Sockpuppetry is the misuse of multiple accounts (such as for block evasion). Largoplazo (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verde[edit]

Thanks for the backcheck. Apparently I wasn't really awake when I did that. Too late of a night having too much fun didn't help. But now I am really confused about the article as the infobox uses "recognised" while the text uses "recognized". I am still not awake enough to deal with this. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: Aw, I thought I checked for any other uses of "recognise"! I would have made that one consistent too. But, yeah, I scanned for "centre" and found a lot of them, so there should probably be a "Use British English" tag on the article. I'm glad you enjoyed your evening. 🙂 Largoplazo (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian verbs[edit]

Hi, this is Nisashadu. Firstly, I am a new user, and I appreciate your understanding and support. I hope you are notified about this message considering all the instruction on your page. Secondly, thank you for letting me know that the links have been removed. I do have a question, however. Both articles discuss the conjugation of Georgian verbs and why adding an external link of Georgian verb conjugator was inappropriate? Conjugation is the biggest obstacle for Georgian language learners, and I think this link is beneficial to anyone interested in this language. Nisashadu (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nisashadu: Hello, thanks for writing. There's a lot to consider when adding an external link to an article. See WP:External links, in particular the sections that can be reached directly through the shortcuts WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE. See also the section on WP:LINKSTOAVOID, particularly item 13. What a lot of this boils down to is that links should be to external resources that supplement the article's topic at the right level of generality. There's interest in keeping external link lists manageable and to prevent them from going off in too many directions, either scope-wise or topic-wise. See WP:NOTLINKFARM and related information on that same page that may give some additional guidance on appropriate linking.
Since the conjugation site to which you've linked doesn't provide any explanation of the screeve, it isn't applicable, even though it's related through the general topic of verbs". Since the site is specific to Georgian verbs, its scope is too narrow to be useful for the article on the Kartvelian language family. I was on the fence about the Georgian language article, since the link fits most squarely into the Georgian grammar article, and I was feeling iffy about the redundancy.
On a tangential subject, in the screeve article, you'd placed the link into the "see also" section. "See also" sections are only for internal links, "wikilinks", to articles on related topics. When an external link is suitable for an article that doesn't already have an "external links" section, create one, following the examples (with "==" on either side of the heading) of other headings you see on the page. That section should go after the references section (see WP:ORDER). Also, add a heading when you start a new discussion on a talk page, as I did for you above. 😀
Let me know if you have any further questions! Largoplazo (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, forgive the "inappropriate for an encyclopedia" phrase in the message I left you. I started with a boilerplate message that's designed more for links that are unsuitable (spam, for example). I edited the standard message some but not enough before leaving it on your talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the website has an entire grammar section, at https://lingua.ge/grammar/. It would make more sense to link to that from Georgian grammar than to the conjugation page. Largoplazo (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion guide for {{other uses of}}[edit]

Dear Largoplazo, if you are unhappy with {{other uses of}}, I recommend you to read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and propose its deletion. Otherwise, please, restrain from WP:EW its users.--Geysirhead (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geysirhead: I'm not carrying on one discussion in two places, and I have no idea how your brought deletion into this. Your failure to understand the proper use of a tag doesn't imply that I think it should be deleted. Largoplazo (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: These are two different discussions. The discussion on my talk page is about my reportedly improper usage of {{other uses of}}, although it is stated there: It is used when a term that refers to the subject should be disambiguated, but is not the title (...) or a redirect (...). The discussion here is about your resistance to read the rules of {{other uses of}} and enforced application of other rules from {{otheruses}} e.g. on that template.--Geysirhead (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Russian Wikipedia[edit]

Hello. Can you write this article in English on the English Wikipedia? Or write in Wikipedia queries to those who translate from Russian into English. Please answer yes or no. I want this article to be available in other sections of Wikipedia in other languages. The article can be translated into any language using Google or Yandex translator. The "structure" section does not have to be added. I translated this text through Google translator, sorry if there are errors in the text. https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8 Luntik 92 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Have you seen WP:TRANSLATETOHERE? It's possible you have and you're following the suggestion to contact a translator on their talk page, and that's why you've written to me. But I have generally translated only articles that somebody had already published here in another language, and only if they're in a language I know. I only know a few words of Russian. So I'm afraid that, even if you've already been there, I'm going to send you back to WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. Largoplazo (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Luntik 92: I meant to ping you. Largoplazo (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorgoplazo. For example, I don't know English, but I translated articles from English into Russian through Google translator and so wrote articles. Luntik 92 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Luntik 92: Please do not use translation machines to produce articles here. See WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. Largoplazo (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo. I understand Google doesn't translate well, but I translate the article, but then I correct the errors. Luntik 92 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand the original language, then you don't know what the translation errors are. You can correct the grammar, but you won't know if the translation is correct, and the translation may imply things that are false. Largoplazo (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo fyi: that's crosswiki spam & lock evasion. I requested a global lock on meta. Johannnes89 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johannnes89: Ah, interesting. I did detect a sort of evangelistic vibe to the appeal for assistance. Largoplazo (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:French blogs[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:French blogs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pact of Cartagena[edit]

I believe you may have misunderstood the texts at Pact of Cartagena. The first column is a note from Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon, UK Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to Wenceslao Ramírez de Villa-Urrutia, 1st Marquis of Villa-Urrutia. The second column is a note from Villa-Urutia to Grey. The third column is a note from Fernando León y Castillo, Spanish ambassador to France, to Stephen Pichon, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs. The fourth column is a note from Pichon to León y Castillo. Each of these notes is a communication by one government to another -- UK to Spain, Spain to UK, Spain to France, France to Spain -- expressing their own government's policy. They are not all the same document in four languages; in fact, the middle two documents are both in Spanish but addressed to different respondents. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: Hello. I can read all four messages perfectly. They're identical except for the phrases identifying the sender and recipient of each. So while they aren't fully identical, it seems overkill to translate all three of the non-English letters in full, only to achieve almost the same result each time. It would be easier for the reader if we were to comment on them to the effect that you and I just did, that the latter three are the same as the English one except for the swap of senders and recipients. What do you think? Largoplazo (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that now. We need to change the article, though, since what we have there now is about as uninformative and tedious as it could possibly be for people who can't read Spanish or French. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the copyvio revision deletion?[edit]

You reverted (and erased from history) edits I made on Center_for_Autism_and_Related_Disorders. I made a well-intentioned edit to add references to published sources including the LA Times, which I believe is a reliable reference source. So I'm unsure why the history erasure. I don't believe my changes included any copyright violations. I'd appreciate feedback so that I don't make this same mistake in the future. Thanks. MarsTrombone (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarsTrombone: Hello, did you check the link I provided you, Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources? As it explains, even with a citation, you can't simply copy and paste (outside of whatever constitutes "fair use") copyrighted material into Wikipedia articles (or anywhere). The text you added was copied almost verbatim from https://thestaracademy.co.za/centre-autism-related-disorders-card/.
I assume it wasn't your intention to infringe on the rules, and no ongoing harm has been done. Please do continue to participate in Wikipedia-building activities! Largoplazo (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo you appear to have the facts backwards. I did not infringe the rules. I helped create the original Wikipedia text and helped write that Intro text back in 2011. Please check the Wikipedia history for evidence.
The web site thestaracademy.co.za appears to have copied the Wikipedia text verbatim. You are claiming I copied the text from thestaracademy, but it is actually the reverse because the staracademy appears to have copied the text from Wikipedia.
You seem to be a neutral party here. Can you investigate? I'm being threatened with being banned from Wikipedia for this. MarsTrombone (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo I'm looking over the 'TheStarAcademy.co.za' text in more detail. The site you linked is 100% verbatim, copy of the CARD Wikipedia's article text sometime in 2021. You can tell it is a Wikipedia copy by noting that the html hyperlinks actually reference back into Wikipedia!! This is a sad outcome, because it appears the entire article now is just a shadow of what it used to be. MarsTrombone (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarsTrombone: If that's the case, then I will have to apologize. Especially in the context of the other editor deleting the content and calling it vandalism, I assumed without looking that it had been placed there recently. I may have been too hasty. In that case, let me look into it further and see what's going on and what to do about it. Largoplazo (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo thank you MarsTrombone (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any status update? I'm blocked on this before I can make further edits to that page. MarsTrombone (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free speech[edit]

Hello. I'm sorry if this is a bit late, but I wanted to explain why I made my edit on the free speech essay. I simply think that "your only legal rights" sounds a bit too harsh, like some guy said "I'll only give you this much of the chocolate bar, that's all you get.". I think we need to make it sound a bit friendlier. We, as Wikipedians, can do such a thing. We want to make this place more welcoming, I was attempting to do that. If I may, I would like to redo the edit, but change it up a bit. You may review my edit and let me know if it's good. Thanks for your consideration, Cheers!BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BubbaDaAmogus: I appreciate your point and the intentions behind your edit, but I suspect the text is meant to come across as bluntly as it does. The essay is largely directed at people who will arrive there after somebody has supplied them with a link to it in the course of a dispute. The circumstances for this are likely to be that somebody, upset that someone has contested their changes, begins invoking their rights to do whatever they want (particularly First Amendment rights, invoked by people who have no idea what the scope of the First Amendment is). So, yes, the text is frank. Which doesn't mean it can't be adjusted to make it equally frank but, maybe, less rude, if you feel that can be done. I don't think it's particularly rude, actually, just blunt. Largoplazo (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can do that. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to discourage you from trying, but I thought about it further and realized that the rude way of saying it would have been "If you don't like it, you can leave." And I note the language that immediately follows about how "we're not trying to be jerks". Perhaps that's mitigation enough? Largoplazo (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queer tango updates[edit]

Hi, I'm writing to clear up why I changed female to "femme" and male to "masculine" in the Queer Tango entry. I think the focus on "male" and "female" is overly binary and really the point of queer tango is the fluidity of gender identities. I understand that a very basic level, queer tango used to be about "male followers" and "female leads" but I don't think this description is inclusive of trans and other gender non-binary identities. I would like to revert back to my edits, but I wanted to alert you first. LornaRichardo (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)LornaRichardo[reply]