User talk:Largoplazo

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

Well...
I agree with just calling it "incident" though; I don't want to wade into the controversy of whether this is a controversy :) Aaron Liu (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello there,

I'm drawing your attention towards a concern regarding the Controversy section of The British College wiki page. Particularly, I have concerns regarding the use of Vanity Stardom as a source in the contractual dispute section. Vanity Stardom has a shared ownership with the consultancy involved in the dispute mentioned in this article. The shared ownership is indicated in the experience section of the official LinkedIn page of the founder=. This raises questions about independence under WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT, particularly given that the coverage relates directly to that dispute, and could potentially fall under WP:PAID if the coverage is promotional.

If the source is not independent, it may not be suitable for supporting content in this section of the article.Evidencehunter096 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Evidencehunter096 You should raise this on the article's talk page. It isn't specifically my concern; my recent involvement in the page was only over the accusation of illegal conduct that I thought was proper to report. If you get no response within a reasonable amount of time (days, not hours) there, you can try just editing the page yourself, but then you LexyNight might change it back again (in which case you should back off instead of edit warring). However things end up, if you want to pursue things further, you can file a report at the reliable sources noticeboard and see what happens. Largoplazo (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your detailed explanation, Largoplazo, of the various problems using Google counts.  I should have known to put a two-word phrase in quotes.  Maybe I knew and forgot.  When I do that "Jewish Bible" gets a lower count than "Hebrew Bible," only 37% of the total,   Plus you point out the other problems.  I did  not realize there were so many reasons, I see your points and I will bear them in mind from now on.

I finally figured out that the ball was in my court to undo the reversion, so I just did that. As I'm sure you could tell, I'm not trying to tell anyone what phrase they should or should not use, only listing alternatives. Accuracy33 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Accuracy33 I appreciate your feed back, thanks! I realized the situation wasn't the same as if you were asking to move the article to the title "Jewish Bible". That would have been hard to sell. But "Jewish Bible" is clearly a commonly used term. Largoplazo (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You dropped an odd link in this edit. CMD (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Oo, thanks for the alert. Largoplazo (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey- I am a new editor so I am not really sure how to best go about this.

I know this was ages ago, but any chance we could get a third opinion on this edit request.

I don't want to be a pain, it's just that since no-one else has chimed in to reach a consensus, I think it could be useful.

Do tell me if this is overkill, honestly it's a really minor issue so I don't mind if not!

Thanks.

Saiga Antelope (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Saiga Antelope I can't provide a "third opinion", I'm already a participant in that discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I just meant are you ok with me requesting a 3O? Saiga Antelope (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Saiga Antelope Oh, sure. Feel free. Largoplazo (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Despite a humble and neutral approach, where we genuinely asked the editor who deleted the JIMS page without notice..

You have put extortion allegation on me without mentioning any valid reason or logic. May I know what's going on?

Most unfortunate part is that we are being targeted by Wikipedia editors with high experience, Who are taking down our notable institution articles, just to approach on LinkedIn and other platforms to monetize the publishing of articles.

We really are unaware that how editors can delete pages with no good reason, that too a very notable organization according to Wikipedia guidelines. Also very painful and unethical to get extortion allegation when we tried to identify our mistake in previous works for improvements.

I hope atleast I'll get a valid reason from your end. ~2026-58802-5 (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-58802-5 I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Largoplazo (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Just a head's up that I've referred to you by name in my evidence filing here: . Sorry for not saying anything earlier. It just occurred to me that you wouldn't have received a notification, because the post isn't signed. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

if u watched or even read the source i gave for hutt rivers wiki page abt hutt river being in hetalia u wouldve seen U cant js read one line and deem it as not reliable Ive talked to another editor who said that hetarchive which is where u can read all of the hetalia manga is a reliable source and if u still dont believe me Get a subscription to crunchyroll and watch the episode "its a pandora box of countries Pt.2" (S6 E10) and you will obviously see hutt river being mentioned ~2026-24967-33 (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-24967-33 I didn't say it wasn't mentioned in the place where it's mentioned. I said it didn't meet the criteria given by MOS:POPCULT. To the extent that an article has an "in popular culture" section at all, it isn't supposed to be a list of every place in media where a Wikipedia editor happens to have seen the article's subject mentioned. Imagine if an "in popular culture" section at Pizza were to list every film, every TV show, every web comic, every manga in history, thousands and thousands of entries, that has ever mentioned or depicted a pizza. Largoplazo (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)