User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Talkback

Hello, Largoplazo. You have new messages at Nancy's talk page.
Message added 16:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nancy ^talk 16:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Farsi vs. Arabic

Thanks for the feedback - that's what I get for guessing! --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. A fair number of languages are written in Arabic script, Farsi being the one I come across most often on Wikipedia, but Urdu being another widely spoken one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresenting my position

Do you really believe that what I was suggesting at CSD was about articles that have been deleted? It was in fact about articles that don't exist and ought to exist. The fact that the particular example I cited involved something deleted for copyright violation was accidental; if that wasn't clear you weren't reading very closely. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Since that is the situation with which your request was concerned, and since that is virtually the only situation that results in the breakage of existing redirects, leading to their deletion under current policy, yes, that is what I believed. Someone named Carl made a comment indicating he thought the same thing. Otherwise, it means you were concerned as well with broken redirects that aren't the result of a page's deletion, which means that tremendous concern is about a situation that barely exists. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I was concerned MAINLY with redirects to pages that have never existed but ought to.

Why do you insist on this bizarre defense about "barely exists" after I've pointed out that the reason it barely exists is that it's NOT ALLOWED TO EXIST because of the policy? I created hundreds of pre-emptive redirects during 2002–2005; I am entitled to Wikipedia's gratitude for those, and you say it "barely exists" because YOU DESTROYED IT. "We shouldn't repeal the rule excluding Negroes from this club, because they never apply anyway" said Largoplazo. You're being sarcastic. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a bizarre defense because it isn't a defense. It's a fact based on the real-world circumstance that people don't normally create redirects to non-existent articles. The fact that you create broken redirects is an anomaly. And, now that I know that you have been creating redirects like these, in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines, you want me to appreciate your notion that Wikipedia should be grateful to you after I and a bunch of other people have already explained that the disagreed with your assessment of the relative benefits of these? Now I'm not sure I understand why you haven't been blocked for intentional, grossly repeated creations of inappropriate articles.

And: I "destroyed" it? I made that ridiculous comment about a club? You're acting hysterical. And what year is it in your town anyway, that you're still using the word "Negroes"?

Kindly stay off my talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they don't create those results only from the fact that they're not allowed to.

I did not violate policies in creating those pages. The present purported policy wasn't there until the spring of 2005. And you are indeed a supporter of the policies that destroyed that work.

And if you use your talk page to make accusations against me, you have no business asking me not to respond.

The word "Negroes" was indeed commonly used at the time when those arguments were being put forth. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Internet didn't exist back when the word "Negroes" was commonly used.

If you don't want me to answer your questions here, don't ask them here. If you choose to treat my answers as accusations, that's your problem.

This discussion needs to be in only one place, and all you have been doing here is repeating things you are already saying where the discussion began. I have no intention of continuing to answer you in two different places. Anything you write here will be summarily erased and ignored. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Quincey Technology

Hello Largoplazo, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Quincey Technology - a page you tagged - because: Notability asserted in talk page as well as article. PROD or take to AfD if required. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  16:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible." WP:CSD A7. I didn't feel the claim was credible. It smacked of unfounded puffery. If you feel it was credible, that's fine, but I wanted to be sure that you're aware of that A7 detail. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I just replied to this and it disappeared! Anyway, yes, i know the criteria, and it's often a judgement call. We disagree with each other, clearly, so AfD is the place for it now. Thanks. GedUK  16:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Or a PROD of course. GedUK  16:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pass Me The Mic

Hello Largoplazo, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Pass Me The Mic - a page you tagged - because: context can be found out easily. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 09:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ok sorry and thank you. Ill keep that in mind for the future have a great day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superuvitamusic (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate incident

You said: Incidentally: if you do have sole rights and are willing to publish the material here subject to Wikipedia's terms, are you aware that other editors have the same right to edit it beyond recognition that they have throughout Wikipedia?

Lets be explicit: 1) I insert a book citation - anyone can change this. Correct? 2)I insert a link to another article - anyone can emove or change. Correct? 3) I quote myself from a publshed work where I did not relinquish copyright - anyone can change this. Correct? Thank you Irv Irvdiamond (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors aren't allowed to write content that isn't true. If an article says, truthfully,

"Four score and seven years ago" (Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address)

, then an editor can't change the quotation to "Three score and nine years ago", because it isn't true that Abraham Lincoln said that in the Gettysburg Address.

Regarding a link to another article: Despite your exhortation of frankness, you aren't being very explicit. Do you mean, a link to a "Wikipedia" article? Are you talking about linked words and phrases within the article's text, or are you talking about "See also" or other links in lists at the bottom? Are you asking whether another editor can unlink the linked text or remove it? It isn't clear what you're asking. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Specific example of external link to an 1893 book http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000029476458. or internal link, say Mesa Verde? Can anyone change or delete these? Irvdiamond (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Regards, Irv

If warranted, yes. I can't be more more specific because you aren't being very specific. If you are asking, "Is there a rule that says that if I add a link to the text of an 1893 book at such-and-such location anywhere on any page, no one can delete it?" the answer is "No, there is no such rule." —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Egyptian Crabbet arabian

I note that you changed Egyptain Crabbet arabian to a redirect. The creator undid your revision, and now that I've renamed it Egyptian Crabbet arabian (ie spelled "Egyptian" correctly), I've nominated it for deletion. I though you might be interested. Shem (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Largoplazo, I know anyone can remove a PROD tag, but I was re-inserting both tags at the same time after the creator deleted both without leaving anything on the talk page. I did it because I saw it as a simple attempt to avoid the discussion rather than following the procedure. I'll not add it on again, though, after your removal. Thanks - yours, Shem (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your query about the copyvio

Hi,

funny enough, when I looked this morning, I couldn't find the page anymore, not even as a mirror somewhere. As you said. it must have been deleted....

Cheers and happy editing.

Lectonar (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This may interest you

Bntleeman (talk · contribs) -- guess who? Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, his insertion of this into the article on the Chinese Zhou Dynasty was of the several gratuitous references to him I removed earlier today. I was intrigued that he added his book as a reference without adding any content to the article for which it could have served him as a reference. Never mind that ancient China is a long way away from anywhere the Queen of Sheba ever went. Also, I saw that you removed some content inserted on his behalf into Kunlun Mountains that you removed a couple of weeks ago, but you'd left the book reference at the bottom, so I took care of that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

From his talk page and his contribution history, it looks like he disliked Wikipedia and left after finding out he couldn't just enter content based on his own personal knowledge—or did he? :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Integral Proof

Hey, I am not sure if a deletion proposal constitutes a message to you, and I just wanted to make sure you get this. Originally, my plan regarding those exponential integral proofs was to make a separate article for each proof, although, i soon realized that this was virtually impossible to do very effectively. Then I considered the notion of trying to make a single page, with all of the proofs put together in a compact and easy-to-read manner. Would this be more acceptable? It seems to me like it would be useful, so that those who use the List of integrals of exponential functions are being fed more than just formulas to memorize. It would allow for wikipedians to gaina more comprehensive understanding of the integral formulas. thanks Going3killu (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As it says at WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." I'm not all that sure that posting proofs is appropriate. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, could you take a look at the original article, then? the one i linked, above, i mean. i made a change that seems like it might work. Please let me know what you think of it.Going3killu (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are the proofs okay if they are done in the manner shown in the list of integral s of exponential functions? The second integral has a hidden proof in it. Please get back to me. Thanks. Going3killu (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am going to proceed under the impression that what I am doing is acceptable. Going3killu (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert McMurrer

I am not Robert McMurrer but, I am a fan that is why of my user name. My real name is Peter Smith. Only one or two of those pages is made by Robert McMurrer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcmurrer (talk • contribs) 22:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What one or two pages? And why are you using his name, and thereby making it look like you are him, if you aren't him? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Largo, sorry to cut your AfD short, but this was definitely A7 speedy material which had already been speedied twice today, and I had explained to the author on his talk page about autobiography and why in any case it was nowhere near acceptable from the point of view of notability. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD of User:MaynardClark

I posted an alternative !vote at the MfD as well as commenting at his talk page: talk

Would the proposal alleviate your concerns? My reading of the Wikipedia:Subpages guideline seems to allow more leeway in a subpage - IOW, a user page ought to be reasonably closely related to WP activities, but a subpage could be more general. Do you see it the same way?--SPhilbrickT 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything on that page that would give that impression. I'm looking for something along the lines of "It's more acceptable to use user subpages for your own non-Wikipedia-related purposes than it is to use your main user page for those purposes" but I don't see it. The guidelines state very specifically and intentionally that, with a little leeway to present oneself to give people a feel for who they're talking to and collaborating with, a Wikipedia user page is not to be used as one's own home page, and this user has miles and miles of self-indulgence. I feel further that the way he reacted to having had this pointed out to him, his aversion to complying with the ways and practices the community has established in the interest of the project, and his handwaving and fingerpointing in his effort to avoid having to delete most of the material on his user page, cause me to feel less sympathetic, not more. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

CSDH Messages

Hey there. I only just saw the message that you posted at User_talk:Ale_jrb/Scripts - sorry about that. I have replied on that page. Hope it clears a few things up for you. Merry Christmas! Ale_Jrb^talk 21:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kiguchi aya

Hello Largoplazo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kiguchi aya, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not patent nonsense. Thank you. SoWhy 12:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

??? Perhaps you can tell me what "It becomes a platinum production belonging through the permanent part-timer though it belonged to idol reserve "ANGEL EYES (It is Harajuku [roncha-zu] in the back)" of the stardust promotion belonging" means. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's quite clearly a autobiography (check the creating user's name), probably translated from Japanese to English using babelfish or similar. The first sentence for example is bad English, true, but "Kiguchi Aya [...] is a bikini models who pose for cheesecake photo collections [...]" establishes the biographical nature of the attempted article. It's a mess of course but those parts that are intelligible both establish what it's about and that the subject in question, while probably not notable, claims a number of television appearances and DVD releases which makes it fail A7, which is why I tagged it for PROD. Regards SoWhy 13:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

2011 in music

I don't see how we can establish a new standard for these music pages if everytime I try to reformat them better by regionalizing them someone always reverts or deletes. Look at 2009 in music or 2008 in music friend and tell me that nothing is wrong with them. They are overcrowded, US-biased, and some of the longest pages I've ever seen. I'm reserving 2011 in music so that the standard can be kept and followed by as 2011 approaches. Look at 2010 in television and tell me that its standard is not better. (Tigerghost (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but given that I've already explained that, at least as I see it, the guidelines against creating pages with no information on them and disambiguation pages with nothing but redlinks on them override the reasons you had given, you can expect that repeating the reasons again is going to lead to the same response again. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ospina Coffee

Hi Largo Plazo, Happy New Year! Thank you very much for your help, contributions and advise. I am brand new to the Wikipedia insider world, although I have been a user for years. I saw your edits, changes and contributions, thanks. But, I still need your help to bring back the article that was deleted (twice). Did you know that Ospina Coffee Company is the oldest coffee company in the world? Established in 1835 in Colombia by Don Mariano Ospina Rodriguez. For the last few weeks I have been trying to post this (Ospina Coffee and Ospina Coffee Company) article in Wikipedia, but every time I do so, it is deleted. Some very nice people (like Doc Quintana, Ikip and Juan Carlos) have tried to help me, but I am not making much progress. I am wondering if you could please help me with this project or might know of someone that would. Thank you very much for considering this request. Feliz, prospero y venturoso Año Nuevo! Best regards, --Grancafé 16:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and Happy New Year to you too. I was going to see what I could offer in the way of advice, but I went to look at the deletion history of Ospina Coffee Company said and found out that it has no deletion history, and an article has been there since you created it six days ago. I see that a deletion discussion was launched a couple of days after you created the article and was dropped when someone else rewrote the article to address the problems that had been cited over your original version. So, given that the article exists, what kind of help are you looking for? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, thank you for your reply. Someone fixed a citing problem that I encountered earlier (or perhaps it fixed by itself, I don't know. The first thing I would ask you to go to the page you created User:Grancafe/Ospina Coffee Company and see my draft Mariano Ospina Rodriguez and let me know if the citation or reference is correct. If so, could I transfer that paragraph to the main page Ospina Coffee Company? The second thing I would like you to see is the Original Article, also posted in the above page, which was the one targeted for delition. Doc Quintana took it down and rewrote what you now see in the main page. The Original Article was targeted for delition because it did not have propper references, but I thought it did. I would like to have the Original Article back into the main page, thus I need your advise on how to prpoerly link to the references. I would very much appreciate if you could help me with this. Best,--Grancafé 03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your original article is that it reads like a promotional brochure for the company. The tone is, "This is a wonderful company, its success has been magical, and it is worthy of everyone's admiration." Encyclopedia articles are supposed to inform, not impress. See WP:Puff phrases. That doesn't mean that significant accomplishments or features can't be mentioned, but a neutral tone needs to be used, and then you need WP:Reliable sources to back these up.

Articles need to stick to objective, verifiable facts, and not draw conclusions about people's state of mind. It isn't of interest to someone wanting to know the history of the company that Ospina had "entrepreneurial spirit and tenacity", because (a) this isn't about the company anyway, it's about Ospina, and (b) there's no way to know this objectively.

You need to avoid drawing your own conclusions and let, and using vague terms that indicate a subjective evaluation. Give facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. See WP:Original research, in particular the section on WP:Synthesis. What does it mean to say that Ospina was "one of Colombia's ... most profoundly influential coffee pioneers"? If the article contains facts that demonstrate the man's influence, then it's up to the reader to conclude that he was an influential man. This is also a puffery problem.

Other problem phrases in your original article:

• "some of the best coffees in the world"
• "with passion and a scientific interest"
• "the nation profited richly from Don Mariano's efforts"
• "laid the foundation for the successful organization"
• "successfully consolidated"
• "to great effect"
• "the world's oldest family owned coffee company" (because you already said this at the beginning of the article, and now you're repeating it for the sake of impression)
• "the culmination of five generations of passionate coffee lovers"
• "produces five unique Elite coffees"
• "prestigious luxury living"

Besides these, there are a number of facts that are fine except that there are no citations to support them.

Finally, there is a lot of material in here that isn't about the company. See WP:COATRACK. The entire paragraph that begins, "With his vast experience and knowledge," tells us nothing about the company. The same is true of the paragraph that begins "In 1920" and the three paragraphs that follow it. If you were to write an article on the Ospina family, these might be appropriate, but this article is about the company, not about the family.

I hope this helps! —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, I did see and read your comments, observations and suggestions. Thank you very much for have taking the time to review both, the original and current articles. I truly appreciate your advise and recommendations. I am trying my best to learn the ways of Wikipedia. Once again, thanks for your tutorial. Best, --Grancafé 16:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grancafe (talk • contribs)

Rodrigo Bolinha

Hello Largoplazo

Article proposed for deleted in user page ?

Best regards Adailton (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

hi deletion

hi,

i am iceveela, i do not know why you want to delete this and nor do i care. what i do want to know is why you want to delete something that is made specifically for the educating process of people who would like to know more on this subject. this subject is very seldom seen, if at all in any resource on the entire interwebs. i am sorry it does not meet your criteria. all of this was made by me with no citations because all the information was found by a teacher and years of experience. this is all i have to say.

have fun with your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceveela (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, I understand how you feel. As I tried to make clear, I think a Civil War knitting drive can be an interesting subject, and it was worth a try, but when someone looks something up in an encyclopedia, they need to be able to tell that what they're reading is supported somewhere else. A lot of people do try to post opinions and assumptions here instead of facts, and that's why we need to be sure articles are specific and the information in them can be supported by references. Regards, —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Preacher Boy page for Billie Holiday

Sorry to bother you, but you were so helpful regarding the page I created for the song "Please Don't Do It In Here" that I am hoping you will help again. Someone put a "speedy deletion" on another page, the one for the song "Preacher Boy", saying I have included words from a book. This is not true at all. The interview I quoted from was a TV one from 1956. And I also made it clear with a cite for that interview. Furthermore, the video for this interview no longer exists, and the audio is in public domain. That being the case, perhaps you can explain why this page got hit AGAIN when no copyright materials are a part of it?

I HAD put up the lyrics but took them down when I realized they were against the rules. I did provide links to the sites where one can find them, and clearly this does not seem to be against the rules.

I thank you in advance for any help you may be willing to give.--Tal1962 (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I can't speak for someone else. The best person to ask is the person whose action your questioning. But can you tell me what the basis is for your remark that the audio is in the public domain? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I contacted you because I have not gotten a response. However, yes I can tell you my basis. There are several reasons.

1) Initially, the basis was several CD sets and numerous LPs I own which list the status of copyrights, and in all cases, they state that the interview (along with quite a lot of other audio material drawn from 1950s TV programs, is in public domain. I was told by Mike Wallace himself that the reason these all fell into PD is that back in the 1950s and 1960s, programs that were variety or talk show in nature were not considered to be candidates to have their contents included on records or CDs. Steve Allen’s wife, Jayne Meadows Allen, also confirmed this as the reason so many of Steve’s Tonight Show audios are available on so many records (Billie Holiday’s appearances alone appear on no less than fifty such LPs and countless CDs).

2) Further evidence of this fact is included in a book which accompanied a 10-record set in 1980s called The Complete Billie Holiday on Verve, issued by Polydor. Polydor was a well-known corporation and very careful about such things.

3) Three years ago when I was producing a CD, I wanted to include the extant interviews. I had checked with the US Copyright office I was told which ones were in PD and which were under license. As it happens, the only ones NOT in PD are those recorded during rehearsals at Verve Records Studios and Columbia from 1958. Even the outtakes and studio chatter from Holiday’s Columbia years is in PD.

4) Moreover, I worked for a time on a project called "Billie Holiday: The Ultimate Collection" (Verve ASIN: B000AZ78RI, 2005). We were able to include the entire Mike Wallace interview without any agreements for that same reason.

You can easily check with the copyright office (http://www.copyright.gov/). It will take a few days, but if you ask them exactly what you are looking for, they will provide the information to you.

Thank you so much for your response. I simply wish to find out what it is this person THINKS may be an infringement. I am a writer and do know that quoting one or two sentences does not constitute an infringement. A whole chuck? That is a different story. But, as I am not quoting from a book but from her own words, this makes no sense at all. The person who said so claimed I had copied a website, but I have not done so.--Tal1962 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add that The Paley Center for Media holds in its archives episodes of the series Night Beat on audio. They too have confirmed this information.--Tal1962 (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

knitting/crochet during the civil war

hi,

i added a few citations that i have found and added alot more to the page. there was not very much on the subject, but i have found alot of facts about the knitting industry. and i am sorry for not adding any beforehand, but i had to look through over 10 different search engines to find any facts at all about knitting and crocheting during the civil war era, and even then found only 3 citations. furthermore, thankyou, if you did not consider this thread for deletion i might not have ever found out about these sites at all and would never have been able to prove my facts anywhere else. its experience like this that makes people learn and grow. and i appreciate and respect you for that.

        sincerely
    iceveela.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceveela (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 

It's my pleasure to try to help, and I'm glad you found the experience worthwhile. I can't undo the deletion nomination, and you should explain what you've done in the deletion discussion.

I also need to say that it may not make much difference for a reason that has nothing to do with how useful or interesting what you wrote is. Pulling together scattered information and drawing conclusions, or even forming hypothesis, based on that information is an extremely useful and valuable skill, and many writers (historians, political scientists, scientists, and so on) produce important works in which they do this. This is how understanding advances. However, Wikipedia is a summary of facts that appear elsewhere, and isn't intended to contain its authors' own conclusions based on fuzzy information they've found elsewhere that is short on details. This topic is covered at Wikipedia:Original research. Again, if your article is deleted, it won't be a general judgment. It'll just mean that it's a different sort of article than the kind Wikipedia carries.

Best regards, —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Grancafe/Ospina Coffee Company

Hi LargoPlazo, I noticed that you deleted twice the article on The King of Coffee by Jeff Elder of the Charlotte Observer. And I do undertsand that there might be a copyright issue. Not that I realy understand, because I did cite and credit the author; I thought that is all that is required. But this is not why I am righting to you today.

On December 29, 2009, my Original Article was nominated for delition. See An editor has nominated Ospina Coffee Company, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ospina Coffee Company and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (Grancafé 01:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)).You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.--Opus 113 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Later that day, after I posted a HELP ad, Ikip came to the rescue. I saw your plea on WP:ARS which I moved to the WP:Article Rescue Squadron talk page.You need to provide links to those articles mentioned in the AFD. I am having a tough time finding any of them. I ask the nominator to please close the AFD, giving me a chance to work on this article with you. I moved the text on the main page to the talk page, and collapsed it. No links to these articles = article gets deleted. I need those links, add them to the AFD please. Ikip 21:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 30, 2009, Ikip saved the story or the History. It is now a stub. The deletion has been stopped. I think I have shown you how to write sourced articles. If you wish to add large amounts of material, create a alternate page Ospina Coffee Company/draft and let me read it first, before it is added to the article. Every word of your article needs to be sourced from INDEPENDENT sources. I would suggest taking all of those links you added in the Article for Deletion (AFD) and copying them to the talk page, then creating links to those articles so other editors such as myself, and even you, could eventually add them to the article. Ikip 02:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC) And he created a draft page, Ospina Coffee Company/draft.

On December 31, 2009, you moved the draft page to another page that you created, User:Grancafe/Ospina Coffee Company. I'm writing to let you know that I moved the draft to your user space, which is the appropriate place to compose articles not ready to be posted in the main article namespace. It's at User:Grancafe/Ospina Coffee Company. Regards, —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My question to you is, if User:Grancafe/Ospina Coffee Company is supposed to be a draft page, why did you remove or delete the Jeff Elder's article? Is User:Grancafe/Ospina Coffee Company not a draft page to work on? This was my understanding when you moved Ikip's draft to User:Grancafe/Ospina Coffee Company. Kindly please explain. If it is not a draft page, how can I create a draft page to work on or in? Thank you very much. Best regards, --Grancafé 01:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Did you also change my motto from bold to plain text? Just curiosity. Thanks, --Grancafé 01:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grancafe (talk • contribs)

PS.2 What is this spam notice ??? Is my signature not there? --Grancafé 01:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC) O here? --Grancafé 01:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks again, --Grancafé 01:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Best regards,--Grancafé 01:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your understanding of copyright law is incorrect. You cannot do what you want with someone else's copyrighted material just because you've acknowledged its source. You have no right to copy such a work without the copyright holder's authorization. This includes any place on the World Wide Web. The law doesn't make an exception for Wikipedia draft pages. There are exceptions for what's known as "fair use", which covers citation of short passages in footnotes or for the purpose of discussing the work itself. I am not a lawyer but I know that reproducing an entire article on the Web is not a case of fair use.

Further, Wikipedia permits anything that is placed anywhere on Wikipedia to be reproduced elsewhere as explained at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Therefore, you may not place any copyrighted content on Wikipedia, not only without the copyright holder's permission, but without his agreement to let it be copied from Wikipedia under those provisions.

I haven't done anything to your motto.

What spam notice are you talking about? If you're referring to the bot's signature, it's because you saved your comments without signing them. The bot tries to sign unsigned messages as a convenience so people don't have to go looking at a talk page's history to figure out who left the message. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Anthony rios

Oh sorry. I am still kinda figuring stuff out. What's worse? A copyright violation or a blatantly spammy article? Politoman (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! A copyvio is definitely worse, since it's a legal problem. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ospina Coffee Mutilated

Hello LargoPlazo, I just noticed that on This page was last modified on 22 January 2010 at 11:16, the article on Ospina Coffee Company was completely mutilated. Would you be able to tell who did it and why? I have been unable to determine these. Can I restore it to its last version of 01.18.10? I appreciate your help and advice. Thanks. Best,--Grancafé 14:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grancafe (talk • contribs)

What do you mean by "mutilated"? If you mean that it was changed a lot, there isn't anything wrong with that, as long as the changes were justified. Click the History tab next to the Edit tab to see who made changes, along with their edit summaries. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I just reviewed both articles (01.18.10 and 01.22.10) line by line. The article is not completely mutilated, but very mutilated. Whoever made this edits, changes and censorship, I am sure it was done in good faith. Nevertheless, the section on the Colombian Coffee Federation was cut down fron 7 paragraphs to 5, omiting the history of 1930 and 1954. This deletion is unfounded, in my opinion. Both paragraphs are substantiated and the reference comes directly from Mr. Diego Pizano's book, who is currently one of the top Executives of the Federation. Kindly please advise. Thanks, --Grancafé 15:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of the deletions properly deal with problems with your original article that I covered thoroughly with you before. I'm wondering whether you read my previous explanation.

• "Only the finest and largest ...": WP:PEACOCK, WP:PROMOTION. Also, you don't need five references to support the one sentence following this.
• Motto: WP:PROMOTION.
• A bunch of material that is not about the Ospina Coffee Company: WP:COATRACK. This includes, for example, two entire paragraphs about Mariano Ospina Pérez and his association with the coffee growers' congress and federation, which tell us nothing about the Ospina Coffee Company. An article is supposed to be about its topic, not about everything that everybody connected with the article's topic has ever done.

Regarding the list of plantations: whoever deleted this probably felt that this was too low a level of detail. This can be a judgment call, but, for example, if someone were to add to the IBM article a list of the locations of all IBM offices worldwide, it would clearly be too much detail. If you want to know the editor's specific reason for the deletion, you'll have to talk with him. I'm not a mind reader, and I'm not his boss! —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"In December of 1930, the Fourth National Congress of Coffee Growers convened in Bogotá. Due to the vast knowledge and experience acquired by Mariano Ospina Pérez in the coffee industry, as a result of running his own coffee business, he was summoned by the Minister of Industry Francisco J. Chaux and by President Rafael Olaya Herrera to preside over this Congress. Ospina Pérez was elected President of this Fourth Congress. At the adjournment of this Congress, Ospina Pérez was elected, by the unanimous vote of the delegates, as “Gerente de la Federación” (General Director). He served in this position for four years, until 1934.[40][41]

"In 1954, during the election of members of the Board of Directors (of the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia), Mariano Ospina Pérez, who served as President of the Republic from 1946 to 1950, was elected and installed as President of the Board of Directors. His return to the Federation marked the reappearance of one of Colombia's greatest coffee names, in an active role, in the History of Colombia's coffee industry.[23][42] " 42. ^ El Café en la Ecrucijada, Evolución y Perspectivas, Diego Pizano, Editorial Alfaomega, Bogotá, August 2001, Page 31, ISBN 958-682-192-7"

Why would these two paragraphs be removed? Specially if they are substantiated by the Federation itself? Maybe that is the reason?? To whom do I appeal this situation? It seems to me that there is an ulterior motive behind this action. I might be wrong, but I see no other justification. Please advise. Thanks, --Grancafé 15:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grancafe (talk • contribs)

Because those two paragraphs have nothing to do with the Ospina Coffee Company. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, comments and recommendations. Best regards, --Grancafé 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)--Grancafé 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I meant to mention that some the (properly sourced) information you have might make a valuable addition to the articles on Mariano Ospina Rodríguez, Pedro Nel Ospina, and Mariano Ospina Pérez, where it would be relevant. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil legacy

Good morning! Could you be kind and tell me where there is copyrighgt infringement in the article Pedro II of Brazil legacy? Thank you very much. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The copyright notice indicated where the source was. But if you look you'll also see that I reversed myself when I realized the article I had found was just a Wikipedia mirror. Sorry for the inconvenience! —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ok! Thank you! --Lecen (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Zip!

		"Speedy" Barnstars
		In grateful acknowledgment of your excellent work with speedy deletions. (Feel free to archive this when it gets annoying!) - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fietscafe

Thanks for the help with the Fietscafe article. I was wondering if you could give me some pointers on Citations, I have added a few links to other web blogs that have articles about the Pedal Pub. The articles on citations talk about peer reviewed publications, which I am not thinking I am going to find any of. What else can you suggest that would satisfy the references requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levitymn (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Peer reviewed publications really apply to more academic topics; for this, you might look for independent reports by newspapers, magazines, TV stations. I'm finding nothing on Google News, though, and very little in the Google News Archive. It may be tough to establish notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added a link to an article on the Star Tribune, which I think is going to be the most notable publication. The other major news articles in the city have been archived and you have to pay for access to them. There must be some dutch articles about the original creaters, I will see what I can find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levitymn (talk • contribs) 03:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Helios Productions

This is not spam please leave this page alone. thank you. This is a reputable film and television production company. Produced Slightly Single in L.A. which is already on Wikipedia. Please tell me what i need to provide so the page stays. Producercollective4 (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in no way questioning the reputation of the company! The word "spam" is used loosely in the boilerplate language to refer to advertising and promotional tone. As I read it, your article has a promotional tone, right down to the very use of the first person point of view.

Are you associated with the company? If so, then it will be harder to avoid the impression that the article is promotional, and Wikipedia very strongly discouraging creation or editing of articles by people with a conflict of interest.

Even if I hadn't felt it was promotional, I would have tagged it as an article meeting the deletion criteria of WP:CSD A7. If you alter it to give some indication of its significance, for purposes of A7, it will still need to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability for corporations and businesses. Also, see WP:First article for more general information on writing Wikipedia articles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No i am not associated with the company, just very familiar with their operations. I am not trying to promote, instead just trying to place information on the company. Producercollective4 (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it that at least one of the sentences was written in the first person? —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, I didn't mean to, i am definitely no english major ha ha. Ill go through the guide and try and follow proper procedures. Producercollective4 (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, it doesn't take an English major not to use the word "we" when one is writing about a group of which one isn't a member. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was tired last night and had forgot what I had originally done to the page...I copy and pasted their "about me" from the helios website. I was going to edit, however the page was deleted before I could. I just saw how it was written and understand what you are saying. I am making appropriate changes to the page. Thank you for all the help. Producercollective4 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)