User Talk: Largoplazo

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 39
|minthreadsleft = 6
|minthreadstoarchive = 10
|algo = old(15d)
|archive = User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{messagebox
|text=Hello! I find it easier to follow a conversation if it's in one place. Therefore:
{{usertalkback|you=notifications|me=watched}}
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.}}

{{archive box|<center>Archive index</center>
|auto=long
|root=User talk:Largoplazo/Archives
|search=yes
}}

Thank you for participating

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

Need help: Americans are making edits to the Michoacan Mexican state claiming that it is a place of inbreeding.

Hey @Largoplazo, I wanted to ask for your help? A couple of jackasses have made edits to the Michoacan article saying that the state and its people practice inbreeding. The supposed citation comes from a garbage article that mostly talks about cartels, with a brief sentence from the United States judicial system saying that most of the people marry with each other. I don't know if this has to do with the orange diaper man or that Stephen Miller ghoul, however I had attempted to remove the sentence. I have left a message on the talk page about it, asking how is this making the page better or if there is genetic secondary sources to make this claim, however another editor is putting it back! WWanted to ask what should I do? ~2026-30090-16 ↗ (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

:Also, the inbreeding paragraph is found in the demographics section near the bottom. Please help, or if you could tell me where I should go to make the request to remove that trash? ~2026-30090-16 ↗ (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hell, the same editors have put so much information about how Michoacan is a "failed narco state" with so many cartel citations, and literally say that the state was 100% safe when the shitty PRI government was in power. They use phrases to make the PRI look like saints and the current government under Sheinbuam evil, and when other editors remove this or point out how the PRI was already in collaboration with the cartels since the 90s, they revert their trash edits. Probably editors who are getting a foot massage by Carlos Salinas de Gortari, Pena Nieto, and CIA agents under Diaper Don. ~2026-30387-63 ↗ (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::It's fine to ask for my assistance, but you're talking to me as though you think I have previous involvement with this page. Anyway, regarding your comments here about other editors, you need to read WP:AGF ↗ and WP:CIVIL ↗. More generally, hysterical, hyperbolic, rants and name-calling aren't persuasive, and this isn't Twitter or Reddit. Largoplazo (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you @Largoplazo. I apologize for my behavior, but only to you. I left a thank you message over on the Michoacan talk page and a further explanation. The US judicial quote with the Valencias is not trivial, my students when reading it heavily interpret as it being about inbreeding and incest. I ask other teachers and student teachers, and its the same. The editor who quoted it use the words, "The US Judicial system describes Michoacan a place where 4 out of every 5 or 6 as a place with the last name Valencia" and then proceeds to use the inbreeding link. This was done on purpose, most likely a MAGA troll. The user Tbhotch failed to check this gross oversight or to fix the way the sentence was worded, despite claiming to be keeping watch of the Michoacan article, and this was over a month ago, and the reason I was angry. If it wasn't for your intervention, this wouldn't have been fixed. I wanted to ask if you could monitor the Michoacan page so that these kind of overnights don't happen again? When reading the crime section, there is a sentence quoting about how when the PRI when out of power in 2000, crime surged in the state, however when I read the citation linked to the sentence, it does not say this. The crime and cartel section uses sentences that are too negatively discharged,with some sentences using quotes that the citations don't even use, such as the sentence "the number of homicides increase substantially", which another user leaving a footnote that this sentence is too vague. It reads like far right propaganda to me. ~2026-30416-42 ↗ (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::::You don't have to ping people on their own talk pages, they get notified automatically.
::::You're still slandering people: "This was done on purpose, most likely a MAGA troll." You must stop that. Besides refraining from insults, that includes making up in your own mind what someone else's motivation for an edit might be, when you really have no idea unless either (a) they've already said so themselves or (b) you can read minds of total strangers you've psychically located via their user account names.
::::Tbhotch explained satisfactorily that his reversion was because the reason you gave for your edit turned out to be false. The lesson to learn here is not to give false reasons for your edits.
::::If there are other problems in the article and you get resistance when you try to fix them, the discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. If you can't make any progress doing that, see WP:Dispute resolution ↗ for further steps available to you.
::::I monitor many articles, as problem edits are made all over the place all the time. I have no particular reason to focus special effort on this article. How did you pick me in the first place? Not that there was anything terribly wrong with that, but you can't expect me to give that article the level of scrutiny you're asking for or to repeatedly come in to save the day for you (assuming you're even in the right on any particular point of contention). Largoplazo (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Tbhotch failed to check up and see what the bad edit about the Valencias was about. The edit was left there over a month, with many people seeing it on the internet. The sentence was linked with the consanguine marriages link. Tbhotch said that he monitors the page, but failed to fix it when it was added, which was around a month or two months ago. Because of that edit, students have made prejudice comments and created a toxic environment in my school. You said that the citation about the Valencias is not about inbreeding, however the way it was worded makes it so, especially with the consanguine link. It was not harmless. I asked you if you could monitor because you are a Wikipedia person who is just. I have no faith in Tbhotch because this was an edit that was serious. I am not demanding anything of you. ~2026-30416-42 ↗ (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Wikipedia editors aren't mindreaders. It wasn't his responsibility to put on hold whatever else he was doing to evaluate the content from scratch. He took you at your word that the reason you stated was your actual reason. For things to work smoothly in cases like this, you need to provide correct and relevant edit summaries. Largoplazo (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Here is the thing, Largoplazo. I am not a Wikipediator, or whatever it is called. I am currently a student assistant teacher for a high school in the deep south. The excuse for Tbhotch is terrible. You said it yourself on the talk page that how the text was worded as well as the link to the consanguine marriage was inappropriate. To us in the faculty and the students, it was clearly obvious that it was implying inbreeding, not a trivia piece or whatever. It is clear as day that the intentions of whoever put it was in bad–faith and trying to be prejudice. If you disagree, then please show the Wiki page with the original text to an administrator or whoever is in charge of Wikipedia. When reading the Michoacan article, especially the killing and cartel section, much of the quotes and phrasing in the text do not match the citations that are provided. For example, the sentence that says "After the election of Vincente Fox.... unexpected surge of violence in Michoacan", the citation that is next to this sentence does not even say this. The edits are very politically charged and biased, with much of the citations being of terrible quality. I apologize for my outburst to you solely, however you have to understand that these edits, especially the Valencia inbred text, has caused bullying in the school, to the point that a student was crying. We have decided (teachers of the school) to propose to the principal to just ban Wikipedia on the campus site, and use AI instead. I don't care what kind of excuse Tbhotch has, the fact that this awful text was even allowed to be on the site for almost 2 months is inexcusable, especially if he was "monitoring it". Funny how he had time to fully read it and confront me about it, YET DIDN'T THINK that it was okay to have it in the first place. I also find it funny how his priority and issue was for my reason of its deletion, rather than the text that flat out dehumanizes Mexicans. Absolutely awful. I will not apologize to him, and it is absolutely ridiculous that in the year 2026 we have to resort to banning Wikipedia in a high school to protect our students.NorthFlower09 (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::@NorthFlower09 I looked into it more deeply because you told me fairly clearly what your concerns were, which gave me context. You didn't do that for Tbhotch, and the explanation you did give was wrong. I'm done arguing with you over this. Lack of experience on your part is fine{{emdash}} we all got started learning. Refusing to take guidance is another thing. Your determination not to accept responsibility for the way this played out and your outlandish expectations of others are noted.
::::::::I gather you either haven't read WP:AGF ↗ (assume good faith) or have decided to ignore it.
::::::::End of discussion (in other words, don't pursue this here, and don't involve me further) unless you figure out ''your'' responsibility for what occurred. Largoplazo (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you for your contributions dealing with the Michoacán Mexican article. I was doing some daily cleanup edits, and noticed the talk page discussion. After a quick search, the user MyGosh789 who added those edits is a confirmed sockpuppet account of user JoeScarce, who was permanently blocked for having a history of making far–right, neo Nazi edits and troll accounts. I’m surprised that those edits weren’t automatically reverted by a bot. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::@ChicagoGirlD Thanks for the follow-up info! Largoplazo (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, I have attempted to archive the discussion (I’m worried that if it stays, MyGosh789 or some other troll is just going to remember and keep at it again), however Tbhotch reverted it. Are we suppose to leave the discussion talk page as is? I left a message over on his page as well as the Michoacán page to archive it so that it disappears, but he hasn’t answered and given a reason for keeping it. I was reading a little bit of @MyGosh789’s history, and some of the edits he has made include derogatory content about the Jewish people and stuff such as the “white replacement theory”. Examples include a talk page discussion in which MyGosh789 titles: “I certainly hope that my recent edits aren’t deemed “”antisemetic””, etc.
:::::::::::I’m going to leave a ping for you with my comment concerning the archiving since I don’t know the reasons for Tbhotch keeping it. Thank you. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don’t understand Tbhotch’s response? I’m confused of why he wants to keep the talk page discussion even though you and OneReaction5890 had already solved the issue with the demographic edits made by MyGosh789? They were deleted since it had no place for the article and most likely a troll edit, correct? I told Tbhotch that the user MyGosh789 is a confirmed sockpuppet troll with edits involving antisemitism and anti Hispanic, but he says no and gives me a confusing explanation on the talk page. I’m so sorry, usually on Wikipedia pages the discussions get archived as time passes, so I’m confused what he means. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{ping|ChicagoGirlD}} And instead of directly asking me you go with the other parent here? Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 08:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::No, I first asked you today but you didn’t answer. I did my monthly clean up edits and saw the discussion made by the IP user and saw that LargoPlazo and OneReaction5890 had already responded and deleted MyGosh789’ edits. MyGosh798 is a sockpuppet account, and many of his edits are racist and trolls. LargoPlazo said on the talk page that edits made by sockpuppet accounts are not even allowed, and that the edits were an innuendo and shouldn’t be there in the first place since it had no place for the demographics. I did some investigation by reading MyGosh798’s account, and yeah he’s a troll who makes racist edits and was banned. Since LargoPlazo and OneReaction5890 finished the discussion, I was going to archive the talk page discussion since it was already dealt with. I’m confused because usually Wikipedia talk page discussions usually automatically get archived by a bot as time passes. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes, I answered at the talk page where you also asked the same thing than on my talk page. Whether you find the answer satisfactory or not is another topic. Instead, you came to this page to ask a different person to provide you with a response you would find more satisfactory rather than asking me directly again. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 08:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::No, you told me that content is not removed simply because “I simply didn’t like it”. However @Largoplazo said that the content had problems such as being an induendo inserted by a sockpuppet account, who I can confirm was banned and has made racist edits with that account. I’m just trying to archive the talk page discussion which was already finished weeks ago. The talk page discussion. I went to ask LargoPlazo because I’m confused since I’m just trying to archive the discussion question since the IP user who asked the question put vulgar language, and because it’s finished, dormant. Usually Wikipedia talk page discussions get archived as time passes. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Mason Ewing Corporation page

Hello, i don't know if you received my replies because i was block bacause of my last user name was not good, it was ewingmason, now it's alphaeditor26 and i would like to say that i am agree with your preposition last time for the date like that we can have 2023 in the correct timeline, so pls can you make the modification and can you change the logo as well. If need something tell me i will provide you the logo but normaly i use the section where you share your website like that you can take the logo. Can you reply me and make the modification quickly pls, thanks for you help AlphaEditor26 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to :Daniel Alarcón ↗ when you modified the page, you caused {{cl|Category:Pages using age template with invalid date|an invalid date error}} to appear in one or more places. This is likely due to an error in logic around use of one of the Birth, death and age templates ↗. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview ↗ button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a '''Show preview''' button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it and reveal any errors. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history ↗ of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk ↗ for assistance.
Thank you. ''You gotta switch from {{tl|birth date and age}} to {{tl|birth year and age}}. Alternatively, thanks to Module:Person date ↗ you can remove the template entirely and just place the year there and it will auto calculate and format.'' '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 23:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{infobox writer|birth_date=12 July 1995}}
:{{infobox writer|birth_date=1980}}
:Well we Edit conflicted... I see you already fixed it! You can disregard the above message. BUT, you should look into Module:Person date ↗! You can simply do {{tlc|Infobox writer|birth_date{{=}}12 July 1995}} or {{tlc|Infobox writer|birth_date{{=}}1980}} and get the right display. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 23:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Your revert on Talk:Hebrew alphabet ↗

Is it normal to delete a question on a talk page? Vollbracht (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Vollbracht Yes, it is normal to delete content added to talk pages that is off-topic. Article talk pages are for discussing concerns about and improvements to the article, not for discussions or questions about their subjects. See WP:Talk page guidelines ↗, in particular the section WP:TALKOFFTOPIC ↗. Largoplazo (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::This question was a concern about correctness of content of the page! Vollbracht (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::The question was literally not about the correctness of the page. Largoplazo (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::Please restore within 24h! Vollbracht (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::{{tps}} I wouldn't have been able to immediately discern that this was a question about the correctness of the page, so a bit of elaboration would be helpful. Also, a key thing about interaction we have here is to assume good faith ↗ for everyone. You started off in a rather agressive tone which isn't really conducive to a collaborative environment. And: with very few exception nothing is really ever gone from Wikipedia...your question is still visible in the talk-page history. Lectonar (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::To revert a question on a talk page is extremely aggressive. Assuming good faith would be assuming that the question was meant to be relevant for the content, what it actually obviously is. Vollbracht (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::@Vollbracht If it's extremely agressive, then I guess the guideline I directed you to, and which I was following, condones and encourages extreme aggression. So there you go.
:::::Assuming good faith has nothing to do with it. I wasn't attributing bad faith to you, I was assuming you were just unaware of the talk page guidelines ↗, as thousands of editors have been before. No judgment of your motives was involved.
:::::There was no more obvious relevance in what you wrote than there would have been if someone had asked, at Talk:Arithmetic ↗, "What's 18 divided by 6?" (If the article had a typo such that it said that 18 divided by 6 is 4, a ''proper'' talk page post would have been "The article says 18 divided by 6 is 4 but it's 3, can someone fix it?" That's the difference between not obvious and obvious.) Further, I ''still'' have no idea what relevance your question has to the article, and it's a mystery to me why you think I should have one.
:::::Rather than choosing to take the deletion as the gravest of offenses, you could have just taken it as a useful tip and fixed things quickly and painlessly by posting a revised version that does clearly relate to the article, rather than keeping its relevance a secret as you've been doing. You can also do that now. If, instead, your preference is to continue complaining, then you'll be shouting into the void. I'm not engaging with you any further on this. Largoplazo (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Now I see that you've taken my advice. The problem might have been an assumption by you that anyone reviewing new posts on the talk page has the article 100% committed to memory and is able to immediately discern exactly what portion of the article a comment, however vague and lacking in explicit context it is, is meant to relate to. Indeed, there's a term for that: "vagueposting ↗". Alternatively, you could have felt it was better for others to take the trouble to scan the article to figure out for themselves whether your comment was relevant to anything, than for you to take the trouble to just state it up front. It will be much better if you say what you mean instead of assuming other people's omniscience. Largoplazo (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::@Vollbracht I'm not going to restore it. If you have a concern about the correctness of the page, wouldn't it make sense to express your concern explicitly rather than asking a tangential question that doesn't say anything about the article, that includes no claim that something in the article is incorrect? Largoplazo (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Spain - Dispute Resolution

Given the considerable deadlock in this already lengthy and stalled discussion, please feel free to read and contribute your views to the dispute resolution request opened here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Spain Léopold Favre (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

ANI notice

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:HOUND and WP:NOTBATTLE on topics regarding Proto-Sinaitic ↗. TSventon (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ '''You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war ↗, according to the reverts you've made to :Spring Board International Preschools ↗.''' This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate ↗ with others, avoid editing disruptively ↗, and try to reach a consensus ↗ – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:
# {{strong|Edit warring is disruptive behavior ↗ – regardless of how many reverts you have made;}}
# {{strong|Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.}}
You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page ↗ and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection ↗. {{strong|If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked ↗ from editing.}}  SMasonGarrison 00:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

:Redundant doesn't mean you don't have to explain what the organization does. How about you add more information to make it less redundant, instead of just reverting my changes? I've added a new topic sentence that adds more information about where the school is located. Don't revert it again. Instead try to improve what I've written. SMasonGarrison 00:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::@Smasongarrison What in the ''world'' are you talking about?
::You added language that was redundant. How do you make the redundant "less redundant"? By removing the redundancy. Which, in furtherance of the MOS, is constructive.
::{{tq|Redundant doesn't mean you don't have to explain what the organization does.}} Yeah, the sentence that was already there, "Spring Board International Preschools educate children between 1+12 years to 5 years of age", explained what the organization does.
::Your change consisted of adding redundant wording to that that didn't belong there. Your restoration of it wasn't constructive. How about after you initially invoke the MOS, you read my message pointing out that ''you'' violated the MOS, and say to yourself "Oh, I get it now" instead of acting like you're an injured party and templating me?
::So now you've added the location. That's fine. What aspect of my previous edits led you to believe I'd object to that, that you felt the need to give me a menacing warning over it?
::I really have no idea why your reaction was what it was. Largoplazo (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Honestly, I don't think we're going to be able to have a constructive converstion. I'd encourage you to be more civil, and not start by reverting. SMasonGarrison 01:11, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::::@Smasongarrison Your definition of "civil" seems to be idiosyncratic. I'd encourage you not to react defensively to a reversion, with an explanation providing a proper reason, as though it were a grave offense. I've had edits of mine reverted plenty of times for what the edit summary gave a proper reason for and thought nothing of it, and sometimes I've even sent the reverter a Thanks. I'd also encourage you to read WP:BRD ↗. Largoplazo (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

?

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#File 2 cases? ↗ '''Moxy'''🍁 07:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)