User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Fine, so you stay off my page too. Oh, and by the way, as I and others have already pointed out to you, and observed about you in discussions apart from you, despite your snotty rhetorical flip, you are the one with the screamingly obvious agenda. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Restoring (and then closing) a deleted RFC".The discussion is about the topic Talk:LGBT rights under international law. Thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Largoplazo. In case you hadn't noticed, your report at WP:ANI#User:AfricaTanz has been merged with a subsequent report by User:Kmzayeem, and editors are now voicing support or opposition to a specific remedy which has been proposed. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Psychonaut! I'll check it out. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

For better or for worse, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people states that a reliable or unreliable source may be used for the purposes of these "sticky prods". This is re: [1]. Killiondude (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph of WP:BLPPROD states, "... the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article" (emphasis mine). The template itself also calls for a reliable source. I restored the template on the grounds that the two references weren't independent of the person the article's about. Then I reread the template and looked at WP:BLPPROD and decided someone could argue that even those sources might be reliable for purposes of at least some of the basic identification assertions in the article. (The word "independent" doesn't appear in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.) I could have argued the point right back but I wasn't in the mood. Also, it occurred to me that if the main purpose of BLPPROD is what I think it is, the point is not to say anything about the subject that is negative and possibly untrue, to prevent accusations of defamation. The article's subject can't claim defamation for content reflecting material he has posted himself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I could have looked further on in WP:BLPPROD for more details. Second paragraph: "Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added." So now I see my mistake was in having put the template there to begin with. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction on that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, Largoplazo. I just submitted a page for "Over-the-counter data (OTCD)" and you noted you were removing the standards and an image. I can imagine removing the standards (though they are free license for anyone to use), as they take up a lot of room, but the image is one I created, with no copyright violation, to help illustrate the concept. Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny Rankin (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I removed any images, did I? I see two on the page, and I see that both were contributed by you as the creator, which is fine. One thing I don't know is whether someone will voice concerns over the notability WP:N of the topic. If this is your research, even if your own work on it is peer-reviewed and based on reliable sources WP:RS that you've supplied, will folks find evidence that the topic itself is mentioned and covered by others? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Largo, Thanks for the clarification regarding the images, as well as the other information. To help with the notability element, I added citations for Learning Forward's / the National Staff Development Council's coverage of OTCD (they explained OTCD, shared specific OTCD findings from my study, and also showed samples of others' use of OTCD in their own data system). I hope this helps! Thanks for all your help; this is the 1st complete page I've ever added to Wikipedia and I really appreciate your time, assistance, explanations, etc. Yours truly, Jenny :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny Rankin (talk • contribs) 23:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

To help with the notability I’m also adding (right after this) reference to when Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools talked about OTCD and shared OTCD findings, examples, etc. at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Summer Forum at STATS-DC 2013 Data Conference in Washington, DC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny Rankin (talk • contribs) 23:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Jenny, you're welcome for the information. One thing, though: I went to take a glance at the conference schedule that the NCES link points to, and the word "counter" doesn't appear in it, nor does "OTCD", so it isn't serving the purpose you claim for it based on how you have it listed in the article. I mean, it may have been discussed in the conference, but the document shows no evidence of that. I'm not pursuing it because I'm not inclined to put that level of scrutiny into such a detailed article, but someone else might. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Largo, Thanks tons. The NCES "Data-informed decision making: It Takes a City" presentation included mention and slides on OTCD (OTCD affects educators' data-informed decision making, the presentation's topic, and the presenters chose to profile it, along with sharing findings from my research study, as they are also applying OTCD standards to their own school district's data system), but the only thing published where people can now view it online is the conference program, which doesn't mention OTCD in the session description. Should I remove it, or should I change the way it's listed so that instead of saying "mentioned in presentation described on page 49" it says "mentioned when presentation described on page 49 was presented"? Thanks so much for all the hand-holding while I try to get this right. Also, I have a brochure where a company that follows OTCD Standards for its data systems mentions adhering to OTCD, which I could add, but since that is in the commercial sector I'm thinking that would not be appropriate. Is that right? Thanks again! Yours truly, Jenny :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny Rankin (talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC) ...and I just located another company's formal proposal (referencing OTCD) in response to an RFP, but I'm guessing that should stay out, too? Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny Rankin (talk • contribs) 14:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Largo, Now that the "Over-the-counter data" page is all cleaned up with all recommendations, how do I remove the warning at the top of the page reading:

"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (October 2013)"?

Thank you for your help! Yours truly, Jenny :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny Rankin (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I figured it out; please let me know if there are any problems, and thanks again for walking me through this process. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny Rankin (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You have proposed an article called Religious information by country for deletion. This article was cut and pasted from the Religions by country article.[2] All the arguments you have made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious information by country also apply to the rump of Religions by country.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

If I had seen the table in religions by country I would have made the same argument there for deleting that section. Others may have a different opinion from mine, anyway, and the outcome of the deletion discussion may be that the content remains. That discussion is where you ought to bring up any pertinent comments so they may be considered by the others who engage in it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear could you please help me.. i have spam now , how can i delteted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandit Sudarshan Das (Tablalahara) (talk • contribs) 06:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, spam deleted, spammer blocked. JohnCD (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

http://rapgenius.com/Boogie-down-productions-south-bronx-lyrics#note-89109

you have your reference - next time do not delete the entry article alone but look on this topic . Abour Africa Islam also know as MR.X is not so many articules on net but its very much of his music on Youtube ... BoguszeQ (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Every article on Wikipedia should have references to reliable sources, independent of the subject, to which readers can refer to verify what the article says. This is mandatory for articles about living people, for the protection of the people the articles are about. That's what the deletion request is for: it gives interested people ten days to come up with at least one reliable source, which is generous enough. After that, Wikipedia will no longer take the chance on having an article about a living person that has no documentation to support it. This is in no way a judgment on whether there should be an article on that person, which has to do mostly with whether the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability for people and, more specifically in this case, for musicians. I got the impression that Africa Islam may meet the criteria, but someone (you?) should add the references that will demonstrate that.

However:

• The reference has to be in the article.
• The reference you provided is just a rap lyric that has the name "Africa Islam" in it. It isn't a reliable source that verifies the existence of a real person named Africa Islam or that provides any useful information about him. (For example, there's a song called "Ruby Tuesday" but there is no person by that name.) I know there are pages online that do discuss him, but I haven't looked closely enough to see if I think they establish notability or whether they confirm what the article says about him. You need to find some that support the information given in the article and add those to the article.
• The number of videos a person has posted to YouTube and the number of YouTube hits a person has is of no help in establishing whether a person meets the notability requirements.

Let me know if you have any questions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

first point - anserv you write on person with wich you talk - not on yourself , i can not read your anserv second point - " The reference you provided is just a rap lyric that has the name "Africa Islam" in it. It isn't a reliable source that verifies the existence of a real person named Africa Islam " you understand sense of this what you write ? link is to something about leaving person but this is not prove that this person really exist - ??? if you are so prodcutive make that this articule about this same person , articule not written by me wiilbe deletr , is too without references and wait for opinion of other users . i end ours conv. on this point . https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika_Islam BoguszeQ (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, best practice is to keep a conversation in one place so it can be read as a single conversation. If you contact me here, I'll respond here. Polish Wikipedia has its own rules. I know nothing about them, and I'm not involved in what goes on over there. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

--

Hi, I have add back some of analysis previously deleted Mgt88drcr (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Im Jeffrd10 I noticed that this edit that you reverted looks like an usefull edit. If there is somthing that im overlooking let me know. thanks for your consideration. Happy editing! --Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP user was on a vandalism spree. You'll see that numerous changes made by him during the time period were reverted, leading to his being blocked. While I acknowledge that the one contribution from that IP address to the Afd page could have been a thoughtful, well-considered act, it looked like he was just mimicking the contribution just above it, so I came down on the side of treating it as another mischievous edit to be reverted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You should keep in mind that IP addresses like those can be used by multiple people, even at the same time; for shared IPs like that, the edit history doesn't count for much. Since it wasn't obvious vandalism, I've restored it. Please do be just a little bit more cautious when it comes to reverting seemingly-okay IP edits like that. Thanks, though! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

True enough, point taken, thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anusree Nair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diamond Necklace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please have some respect for people that are wishing to contribute to the wiki instead of jumping on a page for speedy deletion perhaps you should attempt contacting the person and asking if they need guidance with creation of a page. I think you will find that there will be less animosity towards you and wiki can continue to be a bastion of knowledge. You may not think that my page or the page of my alumni are of importance to you but it may be to others. At least I am contributing and the information is not biased nor is it in anyway fictional. I worked hard on those productions and I am proud of my work as well as those of my colleagues so please contact me in the future and be of help rather than crapping all over entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaimeB64 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I really am sorry that you're upset. Of course, I don't create the rules regarding speedy deletion.

As I attempted to convey to you, it isn't a question of whether this or that person is important to me. Precisely because that sort of criterion is subjective, Wikipedia has devised, through long, ongoing group discussion, guidelines for determining which topics are sufficiently notable to be included in this particular encyclopedia. For people, these criteria may, depending on their career, include having held such-and-such position at a university, or having receive an award of such-and-such level of prominence, or having had a record on some major top-100 list. Beyond that, the main question is whether notability has been established by substantive coverage in independent reliable sources. I didn't make this criterion up, but I believe it's a reasonable one. Of course, it isn't cut-and-dried either, since it leaves us judging whether such-and-such source is a reliable one and what sort of coverage is sufficient. But it's a step up from having Wikipedia editors judge notability based on their own evaluations of the information presented about a person. Instead, they look to see if others have judged the person to be sufficiently noteworthy to have merited material coverage.

Your comment about asking a contributor if he needs guidance is valid in context, and I have been known to offer such help, or else to improve articles on my own, or even to rescue articles that someone else has flagged for deletion, in the right contexts. In the case of the articles you wrote, if I had found sources validating the notability of the subjects, I would likely have added a footnote or two, along with information gleaned from those sources. If you look at the article Anusree and its history, you will see that I did that just today when I saw someone else had proposed deletion for the article, ran a search, and found substantial coverage in a variety of reliable sources. I have done this sort of thing often. So that you know, for your articles I looked to see if I could similarly find material that would convey notability, but I didn't find any. Under such circumstances*, it is really no longer a question of how the article is written. There is no way you can write it that will alter a lack of qualifying material elsewhere.

You wrote, "the information is not biased nor is it in anyway fictional." I didn't say otherwise (though you've now acknowledged that you have a conflict of interest). The impetus for deletion had nothing to do with doubt over the factuality of the articles you posted.

I hope that you really don't see failing to qualify for an article in Wikipedia as being "crapped all over". I work for a program that is quite well known in the United States and that is the subject of a Wikipedia article. I make use of my talents and education in leading important projects under that program and manage personnel engaged in those projects. I have written material for this program that is seen by the public. I am confident in my level of accomplishment. Nevertheless, I will be the first person to tell you that I don't qualify for a Wikipedia article, because no newspaper or journal or TV program has ever seen what I'm doing and said, "Hey, let's do a story on him". And I will tell you that that is in no way an insult or an offense.

Finally, I want to say that I do appreciate the work writers put into the articles they post and the significance of the material to them. I wish there was a surer way to convey up front that Wikipedia does, in fact, have guidelines for inclusion, because I do regret the result when someone puts effort into writing an article with insufficient support.

*There is one small bit of guidance that I could provide in such circumstances: if you can find the right type of sources and recreate the article with citations to those sources added.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Largoplazo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Aircharter LLC, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The awards mentioned in the contested deletion are enough for A7, though not necessarily the GNG. . Thank you. GedUK  13:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)