User talk:Largoplazo

From Wikipedia

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Grupo paranga, Largoplazo.

Unfortunately Jackmcbarn has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Article has a lot of issues other than the COI, so it needs further review (and quite possibly tagging for deletion)

To reply, leave a comment on Jackmcbarn's talk page.

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Evans Sylvestre, Largoplazo.

Unfortunately Josu4u has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I think someone needs to review this, whether it meets speedy deletion or not.

To reply, leave a comment on Josu4u's talk page.


brooooooooooooooooooo, I took 1-2 total hours on that page instead of doing the homework.

Thank you for participating

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

About the article of Yiddish Poets

@ Largoplazo: "Transadapter" is someone who rewrites and then makes a translated version of some poetry so that it is a different version but without changing the meaning and musicality of the work. I used the term that the author himself used to define himself and define his writing model (maybe I got the term wrong because my native language is Yiddish and that makes my English very rustic). But I appreciate the warning in the same way.

On removing information

On Punics you reverted an edit despite it having encyclopedic coverage. You misunderstand WP:NOT#DICTIONARY information that has encyclopedic information onto the subject is perfectly acceptable. As an example Mot (god) has an entire section on etymology, plenty of articles have sections of etymology if it relates to the subject. Here it does very much so, as it shows the history of the word "Punic" in fact Phoenicia the origin of Punic has an etymology section. The revert therefore is unjustified in my view ( talk) 01:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, but it's as though you've read nothing I'd written because you're repeating what I already responded to and disagreed with or explained. To the extent that you're trying to change my mind, you'd need to incorporate my arguments into your follow-ups. If you'd like to solicit input from others, the place to do that is on the article's talk page. Largoplazo ( talk) 01:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the Hyperlink is currently fine enough to provide information as to the origin of the term Punic. However I don't think you understand the origin of the word "Punic" comes from Phoneticians, the Romans would later fight multiple wars with the Carthaginians as they were known thereby the word "Punic" entered Latin as a word for "treacherous". You misunderstand how consensus works, it's not something you can just decide when something goes on the page, and hold it indefinitely, currently the article is just in the stable version until we can figure this out. I don't think this will be resolved soon, so I am just asking for a third opinion, although I do think maybe we can reach consensus just based off the Wikitonary link as I do think it's adequate if the reader wants more information. Thanks. Des Vallee ( talk) 02:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Parte Zaharra

Hello! Alde Zaharra is just a general way of naming any old town in Basque, whereas Parte Zaharra is the local name for the Donostia old town. They are both correct in euskara batua (standard Basque), but Parte Zaharra is the only traditional Basque name for the Donostia old town.

Koldo Mitxelena was very acid in his criticism and often cryptic in his writings. I guess that in that sentence he refers to those Basque nationalists that do not speak Basque but want to show Basque names as different as possible from Spanish names. Mitxelena was a Basque nationalist himself (a member of PNV first, then of Eusko Alkartasuna), but sharply critical of those Basque nationalists that do not speak Basque. -- Xabier Armendaritz (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Xabier Armendaritz:Thanks, I appreciate the elaboration! Very interesting. Largoplazo ( talk) 10:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Credit Card

"Has nothing to do with the section's topic, "‎Vintage, old, and unique credit cards as collectibles", and it's false anyway, as an invitation-only card restricted to the super-rich is the opposite of democratization. "

There are companies that produce collectible premium credit cards that are accessible to everyone. They convert plastic cards to metal. Thus they have democratized access to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Ministry ( talkcontribs) 15:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Wiki Ministry: OK. But none of that is conveyed in the text I removed, which discussed cards that aren't accessible to everyone and that aren't made with collectibility in mind.
Besides that, I don't understand what converting plastic to metal has to do with it, or how a metal credit card works, or why a company would first make a card out of plastic before turning it into metal instead of just directly making it out of metal, or what it even means to convert plastic to metal. Can you shed some light on what you meant by that? Largoplazo ( talk) 16:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

My own analysis is not allowed.

I agree with you sir. That my own analysis is not allowed. But my point is also not at all wrong, if one analyse with a little common sense. Well my point is only to let people know the mistake historians made while making the date of proto Turkic as 500bce. Sooner or later it will be considered as 100bce or later.

Infact I'll be happy to myself to first spotted the mistake in dating. The only thing is I'm not a cited or famous scholar. But yes proto Turkic language is not at all older then 100 Bce. It could be later then that.but not older then 100bce. Krishnaloveanish ( talk) 19:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

But I didn't say you were wrong. The problem is that it's your own conclusion from your premises and reasoning. Largoplazo ( talk) 22:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No it is not my own conclusion. It is mentioned analysis from reading Wikipedia and citations there on. Infact I can see the irregularities in chronological of Turkic history. The thing is often those so called historians and scholars they tend to make things complicated. Any by reading Wikipedia itself I can say clearly it is not more then 100 bce. Krishnaloveanish ( talk) 17:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Everything after your first sentence contradicts your first sentence. Your analysis consisted of pulling together pieces (including pieces from Wikipedia itself, which, as user-generated content, is not considered a reliable source) and drawing your own conclusion. This is called synthesis, a subset of original research. Largoplazo ( talk) 17:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That's upto u to play with words. What I know is a simple thing. That by reading, analysing a bit one can make out the mistake. It happened before as well. What I thought, later I've seen there was a change in Wikipedia also. In future u c Turkic will be placed as 100bce it later. I can give us many points regarding to it. By reading old and new books as well as Wikipedia and citations. Very simple Krishnaloveanish ( talk) 18:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia's guidelines consist of words. What else would they consist of? And all you're doing in your latest note to me is repeating your failure to grasp (or disagreement with, but there's no point debating with me what the guidelines should be) the point that those words convey.
There's no point in your trying to argue this further if it's just going to be more repetition. Largoplazo ( talk) 21:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


Thank You for editing the article of the Devel Sixteen. I ask you to keep contributing the article and I request you to add pictures as well. Looking for a favourable reply. For fyrther information please contact ගොඩය

page creator 
Wabbittttt (
talk) 13:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)