User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

algeria

Hello, i removed the french name cause french is not an official language in algeria. It could be intersting to mention, but not before kabyle (which is official). I'm a regular contributor the the kabyle and french wikipedia versions, but more rarely to the english version (my english is limited). Anyway, thanks for the message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.66.128.123 (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, thanks for the explanation. It's a good idea to use the Edit Summary to explain things like that when you delete material or substantially change what's already there to avoid misunderstandings like mine. Regards, —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of generations

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of generations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of generations (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you still have tone issues with the SWGIT page?

I didn't want to delete your tags without touching base with you, but it seems that most of the issues have been addressed, to me.

Thanks!

billo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billollib (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm afraid it looks to me like it was written by someone from the organization as though it were meant to serve as the organization's own website. A FAQ? Please. Absolutely not encyclopedic in tone. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I think I'm beginning to understand. I see your point. You are right -- the original article is written by a member of the organization. However, it was not meant to be promotional, but informational. I am also a member, but have not contributed to the page. Since the organization has a significant effect on national policymaking, we get tons of questions from around the world about policy decisions, who makes up the membership, etc. The SWGs are just one set of groups in a large international group of professional and quasi-governmental organizations attempting to put the "science" in forensic science. A couple of us figured that there was enough interest to make a Wikipedia page worthwhile. But now that you mention it, it *does* sound like a brochure. Thanks for the criticism; I'll talk to folk to see about reducing the POV. Billollib (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Honestly, a Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a means through which an organization presents itself to the public. If you haven't already, you might want to look at WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand. The purpose of this is not really to "present" ourselves to the public in a promotional sense -- we're frankly not particularly interested in generating public interest. We do what we do. The problem we were running into was that as our guidelines became incorporated into public policy, folk keep asking who we are. The bottom line is that our guidelines have become the de-facto standard for court admissibility, which means that there's all these folk involved with forensic science, litigation, investigation, etc. who are going around trying to find out information about us. Since we all have full time jobs -- I'm a Professor at a medical school, the Chair is a Division Chief at a major crime lab, etc. -- we are finding ourselves overwhelmed with requests for information. So, we are running into the opposite problem -- we are generating interest that we aren't interested in, and don't have the resources to handle. But at the same time, since we are quasi-public, we are kinda obligated to let the public know who we are and what we do.Folk in the biz know how to get in touch with us and figure out how to get to the IAI who hosts our documents, but we just weren't sure what to do with all these folk who were just curious. We didn't want to be opaque and hard to find, but we didn't want to advertise.

So we sat around and said, what can we do so that we are not "secret" and provide information to the public that we are sorta obligated to do, but at the same time not generate more interest? We figured an informational article in Wikipedia would do the job -- there were already articles for the SWGs in general and I think the SWGstain group had an article up. I understand the issue of conflict of interest, but on the other hand, somebody needs to write it and it's not going to be the folk who are looking for information. I suspect that it would be an equal conflict of interest for someone with a chip on his shoulder about the SWGs (and there are a few) who decided to write an article that was critical. On the other hand, most of the agencies that are hypercritical of our positions are folk who make a point of not publishing in public places. I'm not sure what the answer is. In any case, I'll raise this at our next meeting in a few months and see what we can do to make this more acceptable. I'm hesitant to go hacking it myself since I am clearly not a disinterested party. I think I'm the only person on the committee who has ever really been active in Wikipedia (and haven't been for awhile), and thus most of us don't have a clue about it, other than that it's a general source of information. Your criticisms are very valid, though, and I think that the folk who originally wrote the article can get a clue. We can make it more purely informational, less promotional, and remove the POV. It will take a couple of months, though. Thanks for the serious criticism.Billollib (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Accidental vandalism warning

Hey dude, i'm afraid that you accidentally sent me a false vandalism warning. A look at the page history reveals that i never edited the page. As such, i request you to simply write off the warning that you sent me. Thanks. 122.167.18.125 (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at the history and it shows quite clearly that a change was made on 19 June 2008 by someone connected to the Internet from IP address 122.167.18.125. As your signature shows, that is the IP address you are connecting from today, which is why that is the User Talk page you are seeing. Presumably this is a dynamically assigned IP address, and the person who was connected that day via that address wasn't you, but that person did make the change about which I left the warning. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Table Hiragana

Please discuss with us at Hiragana#Table_and_wording and ask people who could be interested as well. Thanks whatever your view is 79.192.239.79 (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

It's been a while since you've heard from me, I was wondering if you know how to create images beacuse I seem to be having trouble Thanks!! (please respond on MY talk page)--Bismarck43 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ice cream

Hi there why do u have to delete the page of Ice cream 41 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasr41 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For the reason that I gave you on your Talk page. Wikipedia isn't for advertising. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sir I am not violating the G11 rule, i am putting up an artical like Starbucks page ... Please advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasr41 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Starbucks article wasn't written by the owner of Starbucks, and it doesn't talk about how wonderful Starbucks is or why people should buy coffee there. Starbucks is also quite notable, where "notable" is a word that needs to be understood as it is used on Wikipedia. See WP:Notability. Articles must be about notable topics, and the must be objective and must reference reliable third-party sources. For more information about contributing to Wikipedia, take a look at WP:Welcome and WP:First article. Finally, please sign your comments on Talk pages. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

G blade

Apparently, {{prod2}} is not to be subst'd. WP:PRODSUM falls over it (since its raw text includes {{dated prod}}, which the bot looks for). I've "un-subst'd" it in this case. Thanks, 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! Thanks for doing that and for letting me know. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Hebrew calendar

The Hebrew calendar begins some 3760 years ahead of the common calendar (the Hebrew dating was proposed 1,849 years ago, the common calendar's dating was proposed 1,424 years ago, and thus the difference between the two calendars is more than a millennium old). But the confusion is understandable. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But, what would be the significant difference between history as reported for the latter half of the first century on the Hebrew calendar and history as reported for the latter part of the 38th century BCE and the former part of the 37th century BCE on the Gregorian calendar? Conversely, what would be the significant difference between history as reported for the 20th century CE on the Gregorian calendar and history as reported for the latter part of the 57th century and the former part of the 58th century on the Hebrew calendar? As I said, history is history. I don't think slicing it up in a different manner is a reasonable basis for creating a whole new slew of duplicative articles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

De-prodded, will AFD Hebrew exonyms

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Hebrew exonyms, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! If you would like to comment on the AFD, do it on the AFD page.Gosox5555 (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Re. that "deep sleep" thing:

The user in question is a hard-banned user named "Bambifan101." He has of late taken to creating a female alter ego in the hope of evading blocks. You can find more info on this looney toon at WP:LTA/BF101. Hope this helps; thanks for warning him. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Haws

Hi, about your recent change to the hawthorn page, there's a problem with introducing the material from "Haw" to the general Crataegus page. Small, dark red, one seed are characteristics of only a couple of species, the common European ones (C. monogyna and C. rhipidophylla). Something else needs to be done...Nadiatalent (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the original information seems to have been poor, haws can have two stones (C. laevigata and C. x media) ... Nadiatalent (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the information. By all means, feel free to edit the article to make the information more correct and precise. I had no knowledge on the subject one way or the other, and while I there was no need to have a few pieces of information about the fruit set off in a separate article, I felt a responsibility not to summarily delete the material in that separate article that wasn't already covered in the main article, leaving it for others with knowledge about the topic to judge its fitness. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. It is a good point that the general Crataegus page needed a better explanation of the fruit, so I've added some more info and an image that should help. See what you think. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Boole's rule

Hello Largoplazo, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Boole's rule - a page you tagged - because: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Regarding this, you may want to check out the reference desks and ask the question there. ceranthor 12:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(a) Out of curiosity, how did you come across this new user space article the instant I created it? (b) Thanks, but it isn't my own question, it's just a copy of an article that will likely be deleted right away, but which I wanted to save for purposes of reference for a question I just posted at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty quick as you can see. :) Lol, sorry 'bout that then. ceranthor 12:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, just read them after 1 and a half years :)

I never knew these things existed in Wikipedia... Thanks for the tips —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashpotter (talk • contribs) 06:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew)

Since you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew), you might be interested in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cheers, Cunard (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Judy Garland

I'm just wondering why you felt it necessary to remove the material I added to note that there had been a book written with Garland as the heroine. Aside from being quite extraordinary in publishing history, I thought it rather well illustrated the trouble she had had in breaking out of her "girl next door" image. Your comments would be appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You have me mistaken for someone else. The only change I've made to that article was the replacement of the word "portable" with the word "removable" to describe the caps on Garland's teeth. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, you're absolutely right. It was the next revision that removed the paragraph. Sorry to have troubled you with this. (BTW, you're right, I think; all caps are portable in and of themselves.) Accounting4Taste:talk 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomcon

Hi, I was wondering why you nominated an article for afd that still has a speedy deletion tag on it? The issue might be solved much faster than per an afd discussion. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidently the speedy deletion template was added between the time I loaded the page and the time I executed the automated Afd nomination. It may be just as well, since an event isn't a club or a group and therefore the admin might not agree that CSD A7 applies. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, alright then. Now we're on the safe side anyway. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Questionable deletion

Hi, I work for a major retailer and a lot of people are always asking us about Buttgrabber Jeans.

Sorry, that isn't exactly a referenceable footnote! See WP:Notability for how notability is established on Wikipedia.

Please look at these links as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai_Jeans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_for_All_Mankind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_Republic

And many more posted on wiki.

My deletion request wasn't based on any prejudice against articles on brands of jeans. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: either these articles do meet Wikipedia's criteria, or they don't but no one has flagged them for deletion yet. Deletion requests are all made by ordinary registered Wikipedia users interested in reviewing articles, who come across articles that appear not to meet Wikipedia's policies and standards. This isn't a uniform process.

Also, I Googled the jeans and didn't come up with any objective third-party reliable sources in which they are a subject of discussion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

hey

Can you remove this entry completely? It still shows up on a google search. It was for Constantine Avdalas. Thanks.

It is removed "completely". Wikipedia has no control over Google, which is evidently programmed to index new Wikipedia articles immediately, but doesn't notice right away when they're deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

reaganomics

I don't know bout this "trillion" stuff. What about writing 1,086,000 million? Or even better, 1.086 thousand billion. Mattnad (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In U.S. terminology (and, from what I've read, increasingly in U.K. financial reporting terminology), 1 trillion = 1,000 billion, just as 1 billion = 1,000 million and 1 million = 1,000 thousand. Does that help? —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

All true, but when it comes to Reagan's legacy, a trillion is less than a billion. The guy invented capitalism you know.Mattnad (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Social evil article

If social evil article is criteria for speedy deletion, why not Social issues? The article is 100% similar. Short introduction. See also links.

Two answers:

1. Maybe it should be deleted too. I don't know, I don't read every article on Wikipedia! See WP:Other Stuff Exists.
2. Surely you see that "evil" is a loaded term, while "issue" is a neutral one.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Souhegan

How should " Souhegan" be posted. We have noticed you have deleted it several times. Please advise how to make the entry satisfy your requirements - Thank you - Denise Murphy - dmurphy@IBXarts.org

It doesn't look like you can make the entry satisfy the requirements because as far as several of us have been able to ascertain, there is no such community. The article that had been posted was about a farm—which was judged not to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. We were able to find no evidence of anything called Souhegan in North Carolina outside of that farm.—Largo Plazo (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sara Page deletion

Dear Largo Plazo, I followed with interest the discussion of my first article 'Sara Page', and agreed with almost all comments. However,I still think that the person deserves her place in Wikipedia because of her presence in the French and British artistic world of the period; her presence in the museum collection; her relation to the Academie Julian the article on which is now 'work in progress' in Wikipedia. I re-wrote my article, trying to establish 'notability' and to include logical external links. I very much hope that readers/researchers from other European and American museums will be able to add information. Could you, please, consider this second attempt?

Yours sincerely, Olga Baird Olgabaird (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Baird: You may have come to understand that there really isn't a matter of "deserving a place" here. Articles in Wikipedia aren't lifetime achievement awards. I'd say that an encyclopedia is meant, roughly, to contain information that people are likely to look up, which brings us to Wikipedia's criteria for judging notability. In addition, an encyclopedia isn't supposed to be a primary source. The information in it should be verifiable by consultation of third party reliable sources.

I've just looked at your rewrite. Seven out of eleven references are all to a single letter by Page. They may serve as verification of assertions made in the article but they aren't third-party sources and they don't establish notability. Nor does the census or the inventory lists from exhibits in which her works were included. As for the final item, I don't know in what context it mentions Page, so I can't determine whether she's actually a focus of discussion; in any event, it's only a single work.

The sort of publication that would carry the article you've written is the sort that carries primary source materials—a magazine, a journal, a newspaper. Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't one of them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

National Spanish Teacher Appreciation Day

It IS A REAL DAY! GET IT STRAIGHT!

The evidence shows otherwise. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pension governance

What a mess this was, thanks for catching it! Instead of deleting it, I redirected to ERISA, because (a) it is a real term used in pesion law, and (b) it hinders the spammer who created it. I'll watch it just in case. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure why it was a mess, when it was a pure copyright infringement, as well as being obviously intended for the purpose of leading the user to the one company's website. Anyway, there isn't anything wrong with a redirect, but not to ERISA, which (a) is about government, not governance (which, in its business sense is stewardship, careful management, oversight, and (b) is U.S.-specific. I'll change it to redirect to Pension. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Lady Lashes

The article has been salted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Richard Romancito

Hello Largoplazo, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Richard Romancito) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! decltype (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Luis Masson

Please restore the article Luis Masson. Luis Masson and Lily Masson are two different people!

Thank you. Patchen (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's funny you would say that, because even though they are two different people, the entire article that had the title "Luis Masson" was all about Lily Masson. That's why I asked to have it deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Guided Chaos

An article that you have been involved in editing, Guided Chaos, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guided Chaos. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

360training.com

Hi there this is the company I am working with right now and I just wanted to make it available on Wikipedia to let everyone know about us —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faddy kewlguy (talk • contribs) 01:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a medium for advertising. Besides that, do you have permission to use your employer's copyrighted material in the manner required by Wikipedia? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheesesteak

I didn't add it. I restored it. It looks like a variation of a Philadelphia style steak sandwich (the primary subject of this article) so it loks like agood fit in the "Variations" section. If you want to make it clear that is cheeseless go ahead. Alternativley, it could be added as to the Steak sandwich article.Cptnono (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Lady Lashes

I note that you were involved in a sockpuppet investigation of a group of articles referencing the above-captioned group (which I gather doesn't really exist). I just deleted a bunch of articles which seem to be starting the whole process up again. I'm completely unfamiliar with sockpuppet investigations, but I thought you might have a look at User:Ddaniel2009, who seems to be the new prime mover. If you are too busy to see to it yourself but would care to direct me as to the process, I'll see what I can do. Thanks in advance for any efforts you may care to contribute. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

PRADO framework

Hello I opened a discussion on the deletion of this page. There is significant information there. Copyrights were not violated. All sentences were rewritten again.

Thank you for this notification. In the initial process of creating the page there were a few sentences on it that matched the official website. Which is not so much of a problem if we talk about an Open Source technical solution. It is similar license and everything. Then all sentences were rewritten! So only the listings remain the same. But these are features that are not in dispute and people that are proven to be working on this.

Please do not delete. Thanks, and all the best to you. --John802 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but as far as I could tell the whole article was substantially what was on the official website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what you mean. The first version I commited was far too close. Thats why the bot (its so fast) found it.

In this case I enhanced it quite a few times with the following edits. The information is now pretty close because it is factsbased, but it doesn't infridge the copyrights. Plus this article is linked from Comparison of web application frameworks, there is no similar article covering this. The entry there is a few years old and suffers from informations.. The information on coding environement, current version and links are an imporant addon. Also the information about and GPL framework is not copyrighted itself. Regards, --John802 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Big yakki

Cheers. Thanks for taking the time to verify the recreation of another web page. I cannot be bothered myself with the specifics as it is obviously not wikipedia material, whatever, and it is definitely not simply a language issue as it includes 'hahahah' and two email addresses so in my view nonsense whether it comes from another webpage or not. Polargeo (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Angolan passport

I stated clearly my objection to your prod of this article. Please read WP:PROD and send it to AfD. Declan Clam (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I do understand the general procedure regarding removed PRODs!

But it is false that "lack of information is reason for expansion, not deletion" because otherwise we wouldn't have WP:CSD A3.

To me, if an article on X is created, and 100% of it is WP:COATRACK material that can be deleted, leaving no content, then it's as though the article had no content to begin with and I would WP:CSD A3 it, with an explanation on the talk page. If someone creates an article titled Brown dog and writes nothing more than "A brown dog is a dog that is brown," I would PROD it.

For these reasons, in conjunction with the move to an article under another name, I decided to try treating your removal of the PROD as a misunderstanding and reinstated it. In retrospect I guess I might as well have just gone ahead with AFD, and I've just replaced my PROD with an AFD.

The mention of the incorrect demonym was meant as an aside—it wasn't really part of my rationale for the PROD nomination. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No bother, just thought this was one for a consensus decision. Incidentally, I'd be wary of throwing "tauologous" around - generally statements in English with objective truth values will be either tautologous or false - "That dog is brown", for example, either expands upon information inherent in "that dog" or it is a lie. Declan Clam (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Double redirects

Re this edit: yes, I was fully aware that I was moving a redirect. It is slightly less effort than creating a new redirect. I am also aware, and perhaps you are not, that DarknessBot and Xqbot feel really frustrated when they find that someone else has beaten them to fixing a double redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Um ... OK, I'm not sure I fully understand, but I'll except the general principle. Except—in this case, you weren't creating a new redirect. Both redirects already existed! So I'm a little fuzzy on the situation, but so be it. As for the bots—I truly didn't mean to undermine their confidence. I'm sure they take pride in their work; I just meant to give them a hand. Do they have a mailing address so I can send them chocolates? —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Father Of Mediterranean Music existed, but I am sure Father of Mediterranean Music did not exist until I did the move. At least the Xqbot got a chance to do this edit. If Information Advisor persists, I shall protect the redirects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Food Stress Syndrome

Hello,

I try to give a definition to a phenomenon that I have been studying in the past few years: "Food Stress Syndrome". This is not only a concern for health professional (MD, dietitian, pharmacist...) but also to the food industry that create what most people eat in industrialised countries. I thought FSS could have been a real subject for your web site since many 100's of people consult our web site to learn more about it every months and 1/4 of them are coming from the US. I could give some of my time to help Wikipedia talk about FSS or will I be loosing my time??? Please, give me your advice on this! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankhood (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Have you read any of the explanations for the deletion given at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Food_Stress_Syndrome? We could find no evidence that this is a topic whose notability has been established under Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Beyond that, I don't understand what is supposed to be phenomenal about people avoiding food or, for that matter, anything else that they've been told is bad for them—or what stress has to do with it. If I wear seat belts because it's safer to wear seat belts, stress has nothing to do with it and I don't get stressed from wearing my seat belt. If I avoid poison ivy because I'm allergic to it, stress has nothing to do with it—I just avoid touching poison ivy. And what can possibly be said in an encyclopedia about the fact that I wear seat belts and that I don't touch poison ivy?

Basically, the article kept insisting on the importance of the topic without explaining why it was important and without explaining what stress had to do with any of it. I'm afraid I really don't know what you could do to change the situation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

El Seminario Bíblico Houston, Texas‎‎

this a historical religious activity......it is a yearly activity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan Fernando Corrales (talk • contribs) 21:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

this activity has historical importance....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan Fernando Corrales (talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Two things about this:

• Historical importance to whom? Articles must be on topics that meet Wikipedia's notability standards.
• Even articles about notable topics are supposed to be neutrally written reference articles based on existing third-party reliable sources. Advertising and promotion aren't allowed. Your article is a biased advertisement for this event.

Finally, please sign your comments on talk pages.

Regards, —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

about this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustaf_Nordenski%C3%B3ld_Travels_in_America

I made an error in the name of this page; I can't find the move button. The last "o" in Nordenskiold should have an "ō". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvdiamond (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Leuven/Louvain

Thanks for your help editing Charles Mertens de Wilmars. I was a little unsure, when wikifying, which Leuven/Louvain it was. Do you think we have it right, now? If it is Leuven in Belgium, should we add its French name or change Louvain to Leuven? Is the university link right, then?

I was just making my best guess when wikifying in the hope that another editor would be able to pick up the faults. Which they seem to have done. Great! I just need advice about whether to keep the French name at all. Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed Louvain to Leuven. Louvain indicates a split in 1968, so presumably, I hope, this is now correct. But I would be pleased if you could cast your eye over it. At least if it is wrong, it is all wrong in the same way! Si Trew (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you're welcome. From your question, it's clear you think it's a question of Leuven or Louvain in Belgium versus Leuven or Louvain in another country. Both cities in question are in Belgium! Wilmars could not have been born in Louvain-la-neuve, because the city by that name didn't exist until he was in his 40s. So he would have been born in the original Leuven, a city in Flanders, therefore known locally by its Dutch name. Having lived in Belgium myself for a few years when I was a teenager, I didn't always learn the names of Belgian places from English speakers or writers, and therefore I'm not always the best judge of which name English speakers normally use to identify any but the largest cities there, but I'm pretty sure you can't go wrong with "Leuven", particularly given the linguistic sensitivities that especially surround that particular university town. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking along exactly the same lines. But wanted a second opinion in case I had cocked it up. Thanks for your help. Si Trew (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW I have never seen Louvain before, but Leuven is on the back of every Stella bottle (brewed in the UK of course). I have been to belgium many a time and have a passing knowledge, not good, of Flemish and of course French, so this was genuinely confusing to me. If to me, probably to other readers. I am glad we sorted it out. Si Trew (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Shep Smith

Hey Largoplazo why the fuck did you change the Shepard Smith thing from private life to sexual orientation asshole.

Are you incapable of reading the edit summaries from those of us who have reverted your change or the message I already left on you on your Talk page? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Searching stuff while wikEditing

You said: "I can always open up an arbitrary link in a new tab and work from there.". CTRL-t gives you a blank page in a new tab[1]. I also noticed that you can CTRL-click on the magnifying glass icon in Firefox' search box to open the results in a new tab, so that's probably the simplest solution for you. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was talking about Wikipedia's search feature! Regards, —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean like this? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, heck—I already have that! I mean, I Wikipedia is one of the add-ins I already have in my Firefox search. And it has the auto-complete feature any everything. I'm all set—thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

thanx

thank you for cleaning up after me at Pranavs page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieNisser (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

thanx

thank you for cleaning up after me at Pranavs page! -—Charlie

My pleasure! Coincidentally I just watched his TED video this morning when someone posted it on Facebook (though then I realized I'd seen it before). —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he first appear with Patty Mae, I saw it live at the webstream from ted india. really nice. —Charlie —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC).

Basil whosit

Ta for the translation (just a couple of bits left...). Question is, is he notable after your hard work? Not sure (especially after having just found a little bottle of white port in the wine cupboard after a hard day...). I wasn't sure before I tagged it for translation (I can't translate Portuguese but can read it to an extent). Peridon (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My Portuguese is pretty low level. I suspect this person isn't notable, just an internal party operative, but maybe stuff has been written about him in reliable sources, I just don't know. Anyway, the article clearly goes out of its way to show how important he is, so it couldn't be speedily deleted on that bases. I translated the parts that I thought were relevant to consideration of his notability, and his school record wasn't part of that, so I left it alone. Now I'm just waiting to see if the original author turns the article back into Portuguese one more time. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

sub-phenomenology

Dear Largoplazo I am currently completing a Doctor of Visual Arts at Griffith University Australia. I am directly using the work of Vallack in my thesis as a means of reflexive critique. Far from being a work of self promotion it is a self-contained methodology that has been published in several peer reviewed journals. As a new methodology, it is subject to contestation and improvement. I certainly won't be using it in its original context of my research. That section of my thesis mehodology is as follows:

6.3 Action Research Action research is often used as a super-ordinate term with a variety of classifications/typologies having been identified (Grundy 1982, McCutcheon & Jurg 1990, McKernan 1991, Holter & Schwartz-Barcott 1993). Rather than having a discrete series of comparative methodologies, however, action research should be seen as a continuum with approaches varying according to ‘the inclusion and interplay between the dual dimensions of action and research’ (Wortley 2000). While there is an extensive literature on action research applications in areas such as education (Carr & Kemmis 1986, Baumfield et al. 2008), health (Wang 1999, Cormack 2000) and change management (Zuber-Skerritt 1991, Ottosson 2001) there have been a variety of critiques about the lack of consensus about the actual epistemological and philosophical pedigree of the methodology (Zubber-Skerritt 1991, Masters 1995) and the concomitant problem of multiple definitions and applications of what actually constitutes action research with the term being used so broadly as to encompass any research that involves collaboration or feedback (Hart & Bond 1995, Tripp 1996, Dick & Swepson 1997).

In this study I will be using action research in two ways. First, I want to ensure that my studio practice has an adequate degree of reflexivity in order to incorporate all that I am learning as I undertake my journey through the world of documentary. This will be done through the use of an action research cycle (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988) that involves four steps - reflection, planning, action and observation. As I complete each stage of my studio work, I will reflect on what I have achieved, plan what the next step is to be, action the work required and then observe the finished product or learning outcome. Then I will complete the cycle again. In so doing I hope that as each stage progresses, it will be informed and improved by the previous stage/s so that the eventual end product. A second aspect of my project that will use action research is my blogging which I will be using to progress my studio work while simultaneously challenging the assumptions implicit and explicit in my studio work. Using a methodology, adapted from Vallack (2005, 2009, in press) called sub-phenomenology, that has been specifically design to analyse weblog data, I will provide a commentary, in the form of an ‘anti-blog’, that discusses and challenges the content and decisions I make in executing my studio work, exegesis and public blog. In so doing, I hope to expose my on practice and make it more transparent and accountable to both myself and the end-users of my work.

I also know that Vallack's work is being cited in the Business school of Southern Cross University so it is hardly irrelevant rather emergent. As philosophy is about ideas and in particular new ideas I find it disconcerting that you are challenging such an article. I would be happy to provide further information in support of the pages retention and vehemently challenge the basis for its deletion.

Brian Mackness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.40.18 (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Writing to me here will have no effect on the outcome. If you were to read the deletion notice, you would see that anyone can come along and remove the notice, and then the deletion won't happen. However, in that case someone may nominate it for a deletion discussion, which would then generally proceed for a week before an administrator assesses the consensus.

You need to address the issues that are the bases for the deletion nomination. Deletion of an article isn't about rejecting emerging ideas, disagreeing with them or judging them to have no value. It's about maintaining Wikipedia as a reference work for topics for which notability hasn't been established. Based on its content plus my own attempt to find resources, the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and it seems to be original research and a pitch promoting its value based on the author's own work rather than being a neutral reference article based on third-party reliable sources as Wikipedia articles must be. If such sources exist—if the sources you mentioned, for example, qualify as reliable sources—then you should be adding them to the article and citing them within the text of the article to support the information being provided. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)