Largoplazo

Hello! I find it easier to follow a conversation if it's in one place. Therefore:

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Largoplazo}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Once I've left a message on your talk page, I'll generally know if you've responded there even without the "reply to" because I will have watchlisted you. However, some automated messages, like the ones for speedy deletion, don't add the addressee to the sender's watchlist. Also, if I'm away for a few days, my watchlist may not go back far enough for me to see your reply.

Thank you for participating

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

Vowel harmony

Hello! I know that those points are named "lists", but i do not use them to list anything, i use them to specify, clarify things in the text right above those. You are also deleting comparison to Finnish language even though the topic is about Uralic languages. I am very free to compare the closest living relative of Hungarian language in the topic that grants me a frame to do so. I was even technical with it unlike my predecessor. Gagyibubus (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gagyibubus: Hi there. I don't disagree with anything you wrote to me but there's also a matter of effective writing. Think of it from the point of view of the reader. Regardless of the section being about Uralic, at least 99 readers out of a 100 readers will have arrived knowing nothing about vowel harmony in Finnish, and the article itself doesn't explain Finnish vowel harmony until after it's finished explaining Hungarian vowel harmony. Repeated comparisons to Finnish make it look to the reader like the writer expected the comparisons to be helpful, but to nearly all readers they won't be helpful at all. Instead of assisting the reader's understanding, the comparisons are just interruptions sprinkled through the content that's informative to them.

On the other hand, if the Finnish section has comparisons to aspects of Hungarian that were previously discussed in the Hungarian section, that would make a lot more sense, because there's a fair chance the reader has already read through that part.

As for the bullet points, they can also interrupt the smooth reading of the text. I understand you want to clarify things, but you can do that in prose. I feel in general that you try to attract the user's attention to point after point after point—you also have a "note" in there—which is rather exhausting, and unnecessary. To some extent you have to trust the reader to put all the material together and work out how parts of it relate to the other parts. See some of what the Manual of Style has to say about favoring prose over lists where appropriate at MOS:PROSE and about wording things to be clear without telling the reader explicitly what to note at MOS:NOTETHAT. (More generally, don't ever address the reader in the content—see MOS:YOU. Largoplazo (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your kind response, and advices! Much appreciation.

I can not consider my own writing any elsehow than for a reader. I am a hard reader myself, and i read more quickly when i am not bored of unending lines. I track more accurate reading segments, and i do not lose sight of the lines because the harsh edges in the visual context helps me to keep track of what am i reading. Structures also help me to memorize what am i writing, and where to look for the exact information when something is referenced in the text.

I agree that comparisons are side information, but as i was mentioning in my first replication, i was technical with it to no adjacent extent. For example without comparisons would you expect a sentence regarding Finnish long vowels claiming that "Finnish long vowels are just very long" without any context? Such sentence would briefly note that those vowels are long, and then what? in what context are those long, and why does that matter, and how? Without giving the vowel length aspect a context, there would have been no arbitrary extent "long vowels" would have been immediately recognized by an arbitrary person reading it. In my opinion a writer does not only have to account for comfortable reading, and less jagged edges, but also the expected arbitrary intelligence, reading ability, background knowledge of a person struggling to understand what you can compose rather easy yourself line after line ever so unending (just like i am doing it right now).

I can see that there are not many people interested in writing the wiki, and the people who are interested are keeping themselves to strict style rules which in my opinion are boring. I do not mind that these people are not attempting to follow me with what am i doing on the wiki page - it is probably better this way - therefore i do indeed understand your concern about missing a comparison lets say both sides, yet i do not expect much of the other writers (no offense).

I would argue that the smooth reading experience of the text is causing loss of focus, loss of the arising meaning of the text, and the ability to recollect it. I would also argue that trusting the understanding process to an arbitrary person will take ages for that person, yet not everybody can afford the time wiki reading, yet writing takes, no wonder it is not so popular. If you show them the relation via structures of text, not only lines unending, then it will not take them ages a bunch i reckon (at least that is how am i working myself).

Yes, notes are exhausting generally, that is why those are just notes, those are the kind of information a person with a strict view i expected to be sensitive to rather to comparisons, and jagged edges.

I was unaware of prose, i will take a thorough look, although it does not seem to be number-able to the first sight - rendering it not very useful in my style.

I used to avoid to address the reader back in the day, but i have been writing, and reading wiki not only here for sometime, and i started to do it for some reason, albeit not so frequently.

I think of myself that i have to be rather assuming of stranger people not understanding me due to any reason. The phenomena, or artifact you witness in my writing is present in order to counter all the reasons for i do not understand wiki writers myself sometimes reading them. I do indeed know why am i not understanding wiki writers while am i reading, and i am very against it with my style, and effort.

If you very not like my style, or what have i wrote to any extent, then do not worry, some other person (if not you) who feels so - will come along some day, and just purge my work completely, not only the topics you have brought up. I am indeed interested to see a more competitive wiki writer, and i am eagerly waiting for such person to show up, and bring order.

Have a wonderful day! Gagyibubus (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strange talk page edit to someone else's comment

This edit replaced spaces with nbsp in someone else's comment. I suspect a tool or script gone wrong. Do you have any insight? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: There was an edit conflict; I refreshed the page, didn't see the other contributor's comments (which I later found out was because they'd reverted themselves in the interim); and hit Save. Then I went to see if I'd done any damage to the other editor's contribution (that I didn't realize until then that they'd removed) and saw that my latest contribution had been recorded before either of theirs, but that a new revision had been stored with those edits you refer to, which surprised me because I hadn't made them. Then I did an Undo on that edit—and nothing happened! Before I could investigate further, I saw your ping in my notifications. Largoplazo (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried again. Clicked "Undo" on that edit, entered a comment, hit Publish. Nothing. Did Wikipedia just enact a process that automatically converts double spaces to nbsp + space? Largoplazo (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. I was able to undo your edit with no trouble (using Undo and then Publish, with no extra editing). I would recommend waiting to see if it happens again. Maybe some strange wires got crossed temporarily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dude

That question that I asked in 2036 olympics about Germany, if it was an April fools joke or not! :| 2A02:587:6D6E:8000:1C8F:8B21:BB8D:DD99 (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. That question you asked—what about it? I explained why I removed it in my edit summary: An article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Not for other purposes, like getting people's reactions to something you read elsewhere online. Off-topic contributions may be removed. See WP:Talk page guidelines for more info about the purpose and proper use of talk pages. Largoplazo (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I’m sorry, I’m the same guy by the way, I don’t have an account. 2A02:587:6D6E:8000:1C8F:8B21:BB8D:DD99 (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wasn't scolding you, just explaining it! Largoplazo (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Etymology of Arlington County

Hello , I would like to remind you that citing a cities government website that contains history , events, and other information which i cited is not prohibited and does not invalidate a source just because its not some journal entry. Also if you felt parts were repeated (which there might be some but not most because i checked before i made it for this exact reason lol) you could have simply just removed them. Nowhere under the Arlington County wikipedia page is there an in depth analysis of name/land origin (ie etymology) which plenty can be found on other Wikipedia pages.

Also i want to know how what I wrote was PR language when most of if not all of it is backed by a source just not worded like the scholar who wrote the journal entry/(other source type)? I understand where you are coming with the Definition category name , if you can come up with a better heading please feel free to do so but that is not a justified reason for deleting an entire sub category of a article page

(A response is not required but that will likely result in me undoing your deletion , thanks for understanding !)

LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LogicalLeaf129: Hello , I would like to remind you that citing a cities government website that contains history , events, and other information which i cited is not prohibited and does not invalidate a source just because its not some journal entry. That's a strange way for you to start because I didn't say anything to the contrary.

The article currently states:

The county's name was derived from Arlington Mansion in Northampton County, Virginia. Some sources state that the name of the Northampton County property derived from Henry Bennet [4] while other sources state that it was named after Arlington, Gloucestershire, the birthplace and early home of Henry Custis, the father of John Custis Sr..[5]

The article then takes the reader through Arlington House, Arlington National Cemetery, and, finally, in the section "Separation from Alexandria", the naming of the county. It's all blended in with the history; I didn't see any need to repeat the history in a different order.

In addition, the name didn't become associated with the surrounding area beyond the extent of Arlington National Cemetery in the aftermath of the Civil War, at least not as far as I see in any sources. They turned Arlington Plantation into Arlington National Cemetery and then, 56 years later, the county was named for it.

Of the second paragraph of your etymology section, only the third sentence has anything to do with the county's name. The history in it is covered in the History section.

PR-type language (WP:PUFFERY, etc.) is PR-type language even if it comes from a source bearing what can be considered reliable information; coming from an associated source makes it easier to discern it as such. Arlington emerged as one of the most vital urban centers: "most vital" is vague and buzzwordy and the sort of rah-rah thing one would expect to find in affiliated materials.

The Definition section appears to be trying to serve the purpose—to summarize what Arlington Country is—that the lead already serves, as though it were a "Lead II". Perhaps the actual lead could be edited, swapping some of the detail in your Definition for some of what's already there, but I don't know. The second paragraph of that section is entirely the sort of fluff found in Arlington's press releases, conveying a tone of glowing self-admiration, which is suitable (despite the eye-rolling that it inspires) in that context but not in a Wikipedia article. I'm not claiming that there's no truth in that paragraph. It's that the composition of it, the juxtaposition of those facts into a string of praise points concluding with "make it a model of smart urban growth within a historic and strategically located setting", is inappropriate.

There may be details that aren't already somewhere in the article that would be worth adding, but those would best be integrated into existing material rather than bundled into new sections. Largoplazo (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]