This is an archive of past discussions with User:Larryv, for the period May 2011 – November 2015. 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.
Can you please specify which parts of the last deleted page has promotional elements in it? I have tried to put it neutrally but it has been deleted twice on the same reason as G11. Please help identifying the issue. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha Pardeshi (talk • contribs) 06:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
A listing of all the amenities of this office park (?) is inherently promotional and has no place in a Wikipedia article. An acceptable article states what the subject is and why it is important. As I see it, your biggest task will be to show why this place is more notable than any other random office park anywhere else; I suggest you review Wikipedia's notability guidelines before trying again. I strongly suggest reading over the already-existing speedy deletion notices on your user talk page, as they link to useful information about both avoiding promotional articles and notability.
Thanks Larry. I only intend to inform the reader about what facility the park has. It is but natural that a reader wants to know what the park contains- i.e its features etc. It is not meant to promote, but to inform/ educate about the park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha Pardeshi (talk • contribs) 08:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me again stress the importance of notability. You have made no indication that this park satisfies the general notability guideline, i.e. receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Wikipedia is not a directory. That the park exists and may be of interest to some people is not reason enough to include it in Wikipedia. You must demonstrate that third parties have already found this park notable. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 16:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Fermanagh Orangeism
I asked for the topic "Fermanagh Orangeism" to be approved as it is a significant group, I want to put it back up again with more information and references, how is this done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermanagh orangeism (talk • contribs) 07:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If you think you can create a better article, you can simply create a new one with the same title as before. It may be wise to first create it as a subpage of your user page to avoid premature deletion; you can move it to its proper title once you believe it is ready. I can provide the deleted content to you if you want to improve it.
Thanks very much; I have put in 3 references that I hope will satisfy your demands, and I hope over time that this page will be developed further - I was quite shocked to discover wikipedia did not have an entry for Fermanagh Orangeism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermanagh orangeism (talk • contribs) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No formal permission is required to recreate the article; you may do so whenever you'd like. However, this doesn't guarantee that someone won't take issue with it again. Even now, I do not believe you've sufficiently explained why this particular organization (which, as I understand it, is a branch of the Orange Order) is especially notable. This is not the same as verified—I think what you've done is verified its existence, which is good. But you still have to explain why it's deserves its own Wikipedia article. It's mere existence is not a good enough reason. Here's my suggestion: I'll move the page, and place a notification on it regarding notability. Other editors may be able to help you bring the article up to par; please watch the page to stay abreast of any discussion others may contribute. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The table immediately preceding the “References” section was not closed, so it ended up inside the table. I've fixed it. Larry V (talk | email) 03:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
In relation to this article, I got allot of the information for the history section from a historian who works in the Enniskillen Castle Museum, Fermanagh - this information also appeared in a newspaper booklet that in not available online; how can this be referenced? Ni fact finder (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, hopefully I have input this correctly. This page also seems to be flagged due to several issues, surely these can now be removed as the page has proved its worth as much as pages like [[1]] have? Ni fact finder (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Larry,
This page is still written like an autobiography and is still unsourced. I don't really wanna slap another speedy tag on there - could you take a look and do what you think should be done? Cheers Nikthestoned20:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
As I see it, there are two problems here:
Conflict of interest. If Littlemissbooknerd is actually the fiancée (which I think she is, as it would be a very strange lie to tell), there is very clear conflict of interest involved. This doesn't have to mean anything, strictly speaking, but I think you can see that this is affecting her edits and her interactions with other editors (i.e., us).
Lack of notability. This is the primary problem. Even if this article were the most neutral one in the whole encyclopedia, I really don't see how anyone can show that this guy is notable. He's written a book or two, sure, but that doesn't get you in the door automatically.
Sounds good to me. I did chuck "Martin Treanor" "The Silver Mist" into Google before first approaching this article... 78 results suggests to me that, unless mainly in print, this author does indeed not meet the notability requirements. Thanks for your assistance, Nikthestoned13:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
But the first revert happened a couple of days ago, so they've got just the last 3 in the last 24 hours. Not quite a WP:3RR vio. Don't worry, though, I'm keeping a close eye on it. They seem to have ceased editing for the moment. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
He won't revert again within 24 hours. He frequently dances at the edge of 3RR, but I've never seen him cross the line. Thanks for your vigilance and your help! Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Tofaan
Judging from his latest post on my talk page[2], it appears this individual is not fluent in English. I removed the post since it made no sense. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious from all his talk page edits that he's not too good with English. It makes me wonder whether he really understands everything we've been saying to him…. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain why did you delete the "Anti-Hungarian sentiment" article despite the fact that the overwhelming majority has voted to keep it? Sure, the article needs/needed a LOT of improvement, but this alone doesn't (and shouldn't) warrant its removal, because creating an article from scratch is ALWAYS harder than improving an existing one (but you with your over 8000 edits should already know that). You've also seemed to disregard the fact that quite a few clear arguments were given by the keepers (myself amongst them), who constituted the majority, but instead you went ahead and deleted the article. So, could you also restore it please? -- CoolKoon (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
AfD discussions aren't about votes or majorities; they're about making convincing arguments regarding Wikipedia policy. The closing administrator should evaluate these policy arguments to determine whether the article in question should be deleted or kept. (See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators.) Most of the arguments for keeping Anti-Hungarian sentiment focused on whether the topic itself deserved an article at all. These were generally convincing, but they didn't address the assertions against the article itself. Had the article been in better shape, I would have considered cleanup to be the best approach. However, Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research, and I generally don't find "it'll be good some day" to be a compelling argument for keeping a policy-violating article, especially one that had a negligible chance of being brought up to par, based on its current state and recent edit history. Only a couple of editors made the original research argument, but I found it to be a very strong argument.
This all being said, Hobartimus (talk·contribs) emailed me shortly after I closed the AfD and made a good case that it would be worth preserving the edit history, which is rather tumultuous. I undeleted the article and made it a redirect instead; if you wish to access the former contents, it's all there in the edit history. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 13:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh! I was aware of the redirect, but didn't know that you've restored its history in the process as well. I guess the full "restoration" of the article is unnecessary as well, since it was quite short and POVish anyway. What I actually wanted is keeping the old version as a reference when creating the new version, just for the sake of having "something" I have to improve upon. So anyway sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for the info. ;) -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Larry V, I have a new-user question relating to an article I created that you deleted after it was AfD's (List of Democratic Countries). One of the suggestions was to re-name the article 'list of electoral democracies'. Would you be opposed to that? If not, is there a way to see the old source of the article so I can just copy-paste? Thanks, --e Robert-Houdin 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober-houdin (talk • contribs)
That looks like a lot of nonsense to me. And they're certainly not contributing to the article. Looks like someone's already blocked him for bit, although possibly for messing with Tofaan's userspace. A request to WP:OVERSIGHT might still be in order, as per WP:OUTING. I'll do that tomorrow, I think. Larry V (talk | email) 06:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I know I should just not worry about this, but... what did you mean by this: [5]? I wasn't trying to zing you; possibly you mistook my snide comment about myself as one about you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, did you really forget to say something about undoing the autoblock? I thought you were just jabbing me in the ribs a little. Larry V (talk | email) 23:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, that explains it. Yes, I lifted the autoblock, then someone IRL asked me a question, and that was enough to make me forget about WP for 15 minutes; I wasn't poking you in the ribs. Actually, forgetting to search for and lift autoblocks is a common foible of mine, so I wouldn't be inclined to make fun of someone else about it. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Larry,
I understand that the article I'm writing on has been nominated by you to be deleted. I am in no way promoting a company or a product, but writing an article about a movie. I do not understand why it has been considered as advertising. All I wish to write are the stages of its production. Thank you for your time. Djnair (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Djnair
Hello. Just so you are aware, I've told Tjprochazka that he can ask you about ANI archives if he has any further queries or wants additional clarification (see my talk for more info). Cheers :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a question - what's the policy on a (blocked) user blanking their talkpage? I know that a user is permitted to blank their page, but does that include removing a blocked template? This is the page that prompted the question. a_man_alone (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
This editor has apparently decided that there has "been enough discussion" and has taken it upon his/herself to remove information he/she finds unpalatable.[6] I have added a reference to the Cultral influence section.[7] I expect another revert from User:Tofaan at any moment. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I posted a 3rr warning and he did not seem to get the point. What are our options(or Wikipedia's for that matter) regarding an editor that clearly does not understand English? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
My page "Dace & Dace, Inc." was deleted today. I don't understand how it differs from the other "Businesses based in Richardson, TX" pages. I would like a copy and an explanation as to how I can improve it so it doesn't get deleted. mail to : fickencheet_08@yahoo.com Rachy1887 (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
MSU Interview
Dear Larry V,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
I'm still on vacation, but I had to revert your edit to Smithtown (LIRR station) because unless the MTA made some changes to the way trains enter the station that I didn't read about, the Port Jefferson-bound platforms are still on the north side. Those sentences were primarily about where the platforms are located. ----DanTD (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with which platform is which, but according to the latest schedule, nearly all weekday trains in both directions stop at Platform B, as do westbound trains on the weekend. Platform A is pretty much only used by weekend eastbound trains. Given this usage pattern, it really accurate to say that one is "westbound" and one is "eastbound"? Larry V (talk | email) 14:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it is, because of the unorthodox formation there. Perhaps we can use the primary use of Platform B in both directions in the sentence as well. ----DanTD (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Larryv. 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.
