This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

The Cowboys Anti-Vandalism Barnstar - for tireless reversions of sports smack talk. No joy for Texans, but good luck to your team. Maybe next year. Kuru (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

That's awesome! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 01:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Why don’t you leave my talk page alone and never shitpost another warning template to it again? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Don McArnold ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may have the wrong guy. You've received only one talk page message; it was a welcome (not a warning) and a completely different user who left it. What am I missing? Links are helpful here. Thanks man. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok sorry BoronOxygenRAdium ( talk) 10:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Dude, that school really did win a Guinness world record go check it on the school's website  !!!!! BoronOxygenRAdium ( talk) 10:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to. Does your reply have anything to do with the original post in this section by Ronald Don McArnold? Larry Hockett ( Talk) 10:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

larry, I'm so sorry I was not meaning to vandalize Wikipedia. my friends told me the info and I believed it was enough. forgive me, I am so so sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7B8D:8300:9423:1B5C:8E1F:7EF ( talk) 08:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert my reversion of an unsourced, questionable claim that had been added to this BLP? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 05:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Misread the diff. Tried to revert myself but you beat me to it. You're quick. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, no worries :) The Drover's Wife ( talk) 06:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought I was going crazy, but I didn't mess it up as badly as I thought. What had gotten my attention was not the unsourced assertion from a couple of edits before, but your edit that appeared to add GFSE5YRM 76I978 GUKG IR TF 97GHTI to the entry. You took that out (along with the unsourced assertion) two seconds before I saved mine, so when I reverted the GFSE5YRM edit, it put back what you had taken out two seconds earlier. Apparently just two eager editors working at a fast pace. :) Larry Hockett ( Talk) 06:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

God bless you. The world needs more heroes like you. I'll sleep well knowing that you are obsessively policing Wikipedia, smugly correcting people who edit D-list celebrities' pages. By preserving the sanctity of that information, you're sewing the fabric of our society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1313:98:1DA7:FEFC:BCE0:79CB ( talk) 22:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

D-list? Generous, I think. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 00:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Was just looking over the Jamie Farr page (you were listed as the last person to edit), & there is a recent role (for Other Roles) on the Thanksgiving episode of The Cool Kids...I don't really know how to edit pages, so I thought I'd bring it up to you...

I'm just moving this to its own section. I'm glad to see this was addressed. I might have to check out the show. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 06:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

for your high-speed rollbacking, for which I am grateful. DannyS712 ( talk) 08:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for cleaning up after the LTA at my talk - I think I annoyed someone. RhinosF1 (chat) (status) (contribs) 20:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

you need to back off or else.

-- 217.42.247.82 ( talk) 09:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

you need to back off or else.

-- 217.42.247.82 ( talk) 09:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about all those new message alerts you must have had! Here's something to cool down the page  :) —— SerialNumber 54129 13:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I should be the one providing the beer - haha. Thanks for the cleanup. I appreciate your diligence. I slept through the whole thing. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 13:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you know them? Did you go to their wedding? Did you know them I’m high school? Cause I’m pretty sure I did.

Knowing someone isn’t really a good reason to add unsourced personal/relationship info to an entry. See WP:REFB, WP:BLP and WP:COI for more. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That warning was meant for the vandal, not for you. Accidentally placed it on the wrong page. Sorry about that. Tillerh11 ( talk) 03:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Gets confusing when there are high-speed combinations of talk page insults and reverts. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 03:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Quit writing me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.168.42 ( talk) 05:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

^^ Madlydenzel01 ( talk) 14:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Living Legends of the American Academy of Nursing, which you created, has been nominated for conversion into a list. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Larry !

I fixed the broken link which does not exist anymore and added a link to my site which has this same article. So, why did you revert those changes?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavrickme ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please don't add links to your own sites. I left more information on your user talk page ( User talk:Mavrickme) right after I made the revert. There's a blue link to the external links guidelines in that message. As a separate issue, are you saying that you have the same article content (the copyright of which presumably belongs to someone else) reproduced in its entirety on your own website? Larry Hockett ( Talk) 07:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

As a UK Doctor of Optometry I’m enquiring if you can you change the wikipedia Optometry definition from stating that Optometrists in the UK are known as Ophthalmic Opticians. They are not, nor have they ever been known as such in the past 15 years that I have been in practice. They are known as Optometrists, and those with the advanced qualification - Doctor of Optometry.

As a regular Wiki paying contributor, can you please change this outdated information on the wiki definition.

I for one, find it factually incorrect and borderline offensive to be honest.

Dr Michael Hope Mjhope77 ( talk) 11:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

But according to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/optician and https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ophthalmic-optician they are. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 11:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the message, Dr. Hope. I can understand your concern. I don’t think anyone would enjoy seeing their profession described inaccurately. While I made the most recent edit to Optometry, I haven’t done much work on it overall. (My next-to-last edit on that article was in June.) As User:JackintheBox suggests, we try to base our edits on reliable sources rather than on original research. It’s possible that we could find other reliable sources that help us resolve this apparent contradiction, but since I don’t live in the UK and don’t work in an eye care profession, I’m unlikely to be very helpful there.

If you try leaving a message at Talk:Optometry, other editors watching this article may give you more helpful replies. Have a good weekend! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 18:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 09:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Have a good weekend. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 09:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings: I noticed your comment regarding whether making a third-level subheading is a good approach for ballplayers. I'm currently in the process of fleshing out multiple pages for different Cubs players, so that the last few seasons will have more substantive information. This is a long-term project, so it may appear piecemeal for now.

If this approach of creating season subheadings contrasts with norms, please advise. Thanks!

Though we have a lot of guidelines on WP, I'm not sure there's one that really addresses this. It just seems intuitive to me that the article will flow a bit better if we lay out a few sentences before we change sections. Some people insert a new section heading every time the player changes teams, but even that doesn't work well if the player is on his first team or if he's been signed to minor league contracts by four different organizations this year for a month each. I don't think it looks great on an entry like Bartolo Colón either, where the player has been on something like 11 teams in 22 years.

A lot of times I look to Good Articles and Featured Articles for examples on style matters, but I don't think it's an easy comparison here; no one is writing FAs or GAs about guys who have been in MLB for two calendar years like Happ. One of the closest comparisons might be Addie Joss, who died after his ninth season. In that case, one of the seasons was notable enough for a standalone section, but several seasons were grouped together. I think some of this has to be handled on a case-by-case basis, but if we just have a couple of sentences, I don't think it's time to change sections yet. Just food for thought. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

“On May 18, 2019, Mae Jemison delivered the commencement speech to Bryn Mawr College’s graduating class of 2019. In her speech, she used the word “unborn” to refer to an undeveloped fetus in a woman’s womb, which is a term often used by far right christian conservatives and those who are anti-choice.”

Better? VicWOODHULL ( talk) 22:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely written more professionally, but it sounds like other editors have reverted your edit on other grounds. It's best to address the rest of this at Talk:Mae Jemison, where other editors can clarify the feedback they’ve already given. I’m killing time at an airport but won’t be around consistently this evening. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 22:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

.....is set a bit too long on article Petr Čech by an admin. There occured an edit warring on the page of Petr in which the admins were found to be at fault at the very end. It all started when an IP address added a previously supported statement in the article but the other editors couldn't find the citations and this misunderstanding led to a mild edit war. But an admin i think, set the protection expiry date a bit too long i think. It will expire on 23rd August. I will like to advise you to please reset the expiry date to 23rd June. I know this is exclusive to your interests but it is an administrative work. Regards 117.234.145.88 ( talk) 04:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• @ 117.234.145.88: Not sure when Larry will be online today, so I'll just point out that you should contact the admin who set the page protection, rather than shopping around for another admin. - Donald Albury 14:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Donald Albury He won't listen because he is trying to take his revenge using administrative powers (misusing, in fact). A long time ago, he edit warred with me which led to me filing a dispute resolution on ANI. He got thrashed there after loads of warning due to his mischief and from that time he does not want me to do even good edits. So he protected the page for a too long time so that i can not improve that page. He also hates Čech so he is doing all these things. 117.234.229.81 ( talk) 16:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried to contact that admin? If you think you have a valid complaint against him, take it WP:ANI, not here. Also, be careful with your language, I see your comment above as a personal attack on the admin, which does not help your case. - Donald Albury 16:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m sorry that I can’t help (not an admin). Donald has some good advice here I think. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 21:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Donald Albury It wasn't my intention to attack anybody brother. But there is no way that admins would listen me at ANI when they will see that its me vs Admin. I have done many quality edits. Many people know that like Gerda Arendt, Ritchie333, Gareth Griffith Jones, Martinevans123, Walk like an egyptian. But what matters more here is that who hold which power and who has more number of edits. If petr cech article remains protected until august 23rd, then it will be the hinderance of its development. 117.234.229.81 ( talk) 03:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you been to coors field? 73.181.33.84 ( talk) 15:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes I have. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Larry,

You were correct to note that I had chopped off the end of a quote (although unintentionally). However when I read the quote, it didn't makje sense as the two uses of "critics" were conflicted. I went to the original quote, which was incorrectly cited and added an explanation.

I will now revise my correction, including the ending. Sscoulsdon ( talk) 06:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It just seems like it would be better to express the thought neutrally, not using Wikipedia's voice to say that something is confusing. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 06:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Larry,

The original questionable quote, from the Publisher's book description, so not a great source, was: "his defenders have sometimes, but by no means always, been correct, and that his critics have often jumped to hasty conclusions. In their haste, however, these critics have missed crucial evidence that is not easily reconciled with Burt's total innocence, leaving the perception that both cases are seriously flawed." Read literally, if "his critics" in the first sentence were the same as "these critics" in the second, it looks as though there is an incorrect negative, and if "his critics" and "these critics" are not the same it is surely confusing.

The two options are add an explanation to the quotation, or paraphrase it without quotes to something like: his defenders have sometimes, but not always, been correct, and that his critics have often jumped to hasty conclusions. However, Burt's defenders have missed crucial evidence that cannot easily be reconciled with Burt's total innocence: this leads to the perception that both the defence and prosecution cases are seriously flawed. If you think this better, let me know. Sscoulsdon ( talk) 14:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ~ did not see it ~mitch~ ( talk) 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for your edit, which certainly did improve the page! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 03:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Larry,

You just removed birdwatching as a sport because it's a leisure activity, I could completely aree with you if you're talking about walking around, enjoying the birds in the forest. But like many activities, there are many ways to do birdwatching.

A big day for example is a competitive way of birdwatching. It's a competition between teams where you try to see as many birds in 24 hours, quite often walking or cycling.

The definition of a sport is "Sport includes all forms of competitive physical activity or games which,[1] through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants, and in some cases, entertainment for spectators."

It fits this definition well I think so. Dralion13 ( talk) 01:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Meh, Wikipedia isn't really about us trying to convince each other of our points. It's really almost entirely about whether reliable sources generally describe it as a sport or not. Upon looking into it further, there are more sources than I would have expected describing it that way, so I can deal with it. :) Larry Hockett ( Talk) 04:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm trying to find out more information about David Martin Long and where you got the information to produce the wikipedia page. I am a family member of one of his victims and I'm trying to research the case a bit further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackenzie A ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mackenzie -

I put the relevant references after each sentence (or group of sentences). Just click on the little blue number and it should take you to the reference for the corresponding information. The exception is the information found in the lead section; most info in the lead doesn’t require a separate citation because the lead is just a summary of the info already cited in the body of the article. I don’t remember consulting any other sources besides those listed. If I can assist with specifics, just let me know. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 20:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Whats wrong Larry ~ you don't like the flamingo ~~ I might have to terminate our friendship ~ Thanks ~ Nice to meet you ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 18:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Ha! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 18:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I passive-aggressively added a a passive-aggressive welcome.  Dlohcierekim ( talk) 21:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I’m sorry. I left a warning from a mobile device and the. Got then got called away. Apparently it didn’t save until I came back. Sorry to confuse the situation. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 21:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

2019.07.23 - Hi Larry, in trying to improve my draft page of the hospital, could you suggest what sort of other information I should add? I know that it is a short entry. I would like to improve it. Appreciate your edits. Wnkwdy ( talk) 08:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Wnkwdy

Actually, I think the advice you've already received on your user talk page is terrific. Add material that is supported by reliable and independent sources (like newspaper articles that have been written about the hospital). On the other hand, chamber of commerce memberships, advertisements, and other things written by the hospital -- those don't help you to establish notability at all. I suspect that this hospital does not have enough independent coverage for an encyclopedia article yet, but I hope it will at some point. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 08:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't hit me ouch ~ nice to see you again ~mitch~ ( talk) 04:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Larry. My apologies for trying to edit the page for the 2020 MLB All-Star Game. However, the logo for the game is out, so I was wondering if we could change the picture of Dodger Stadium to the logo. Thanks! Ajschuster10 ( talk) 21:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries. We can do that if we can find an image that doesn't violate copyright. The image would have to be uploaded as a file; as you’ve seen, no image appears when you just place a URL directly in the image parameter. See WP:COPYVIO and WP:UPIMAGE before proceeding. An annoying percentage of web images are copyrighted, but if you want to locate one that falls in line with the requirements, there’s certainly no problem with that. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 21:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sir, in Dr. Shamsheer's article there is a mistake in early life paragraph. Dr. Shamsheer has obtained his MD Degree "at" Sri. Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute. But any user has removed the preposition "at" and instead of that the user added "from" which is absolutely wrong. He has also changed the info box profile picture with a profile picture which is of small size as compared to earlier one. Please! restore all the data mentioned above. Thank you. ( 223.230.173.206 ( talk) 12:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC))

I would ask the editor who made the change. I’m not convinced that it's absolutely incorrect, but I don't even have the title of the article. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is clearly attempting to conceal the fact that women lie about Sexual Assault and Rape - there was evidence posting on wikipedia, but wikipedia clearly does not want any evidence or proof of these False Allegations...

This seems unrelated to the topic of this section (an article about a Dr. Shamsheer, but from what I gather, you're upset that I removed the URL of a website from the very top of a WP entry. Do I understand correctly? If so, this is easy: We generally avoid posting external links in the lead section or body of a WP article - and we generally don’t post personal websites on WP at all. I think you may just be misunderstanding the purpose of WP; we have no role in exposing things as conspiracies or coverups. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 19:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank u that what he said is not true Gun23man ( ☎️) 13:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 04:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I am curious on why you reverted the edit to the discussion page for Chad. The heading of "History of the term" is the paragraph we were talking about. I'm not sure how there could be any objections to this revised heading. I am wondering why you altered it? Anonywiki ( talk) 15:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

As I understood the issue, I was restoring the section title to the one created by the person who wrote it. Am I incorrect there? Larry Hockett ( Talk) 15:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No, that's correct. However the general method is to title it the same as the title of the header in the Wikipedia article isn't it? Doesn't it make things more clear, what downside could there be to this? Anonywiki ( talk) 15:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I can understand editing for clarity, but I don't think the original talk page section suffered from a lack of clarity. It seems like a lot of stress is being produced here (on an entry about the use of the nickname "Chad", for crying out loud) -- and I just wonder if an edit like that one could be seen as an attempt to one-up the other editor. That sort of thing couldn't be good for the ongoing dispute, no matter the clarity achieved. Right? Larry Hockett ( Talk) 15:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I believe it was helpful for all concerned, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. Frankly I suggest you mind your own business in future. Anonywiki ( talk) 16:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Come on. We can be nicer than that. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 16:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright I take that back. I didn't realize you were were interested in the discussion and seemed to patronize the subject a little bit at one point in your comment. I do see how there are etiquette issues with altering a heading, but as it was just making things more clear I thought it was helpful and wouldn't be objected to. Anonywiki ( talk) 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

What was the issue with this edit? It appears to be sourced [1]. I see that the IP was previously blocked for making unsourced edits, but I don't understand what the current issue is. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Basically the editor refuses to use summary style and tends to edit war to preserve the overly detailed info. When we add prose to the season sections of baseball biographies, paragraphs generally describe whole seasons, significant chunks of seasons, or clearly notable events (such as when the pitcher throws a no-hitter or sustains a major injury). Individual regular-season games don’t normally even get full sentences, much less paragraphs. Lately, if Bumgarner pitches a game (notable or not) and this editor is not blocked, he/she inserts a paragraph about the game and often edit wars (without providing any rationale) to keep the content in the article. With a guy like Bumgarner who has thrown ~300 games, we can’t ignore summary style and keep the article to a manageable size.

It looks like the issue goes back to 2018, but it has intensified since about June. I think the pattern would be more obvious if the editor reinserted the exact same content each time. The content is changing slightly, but the type of problematic edit has not changed. The editor was last blocked for edit warring on detailed descriptions of games that occurred in early August 2019, and upon release from the block, now we’re getting detailed descriptions of games played in late August.

While I do think the editor should understand the issue by now, I notice that the user talk page does not describe the summary style problem very specifically. (I think we have largely tried to communicate by edit summary - admittedly not the best approach.) If you think it's best to make some attempts to engage the editor on his/her user talk page, I would be fine with that approach. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 21:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I understand the frustration of dealing with these sorts of subtle ongoing disruption; not technically vandalism, but disruptive and tedious nonetheless. I agree with your idea to take the issues directly to the user's talk page. If they continue to bloat the article with per-game blurbs despite being being asked not to, we can revisit with a block. The fact that they're taking the time to find sources suggests that they might be amenable to further suggestions and feedback. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I added information about "attending college" because I have seen the words "attended and graduated" many times in the past. It's true that you have to attend college in order to graduate. It's also true that many people attended college but never graduated. Did you know that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg attended Harvard but never graduated? Tiger Woods, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, and John Lennon also dropped out of college. There is no harm in using the words "attended and graduated" in a description of the college experience. Also, some silly people think that you can't earn a decent living without a college degree. Personally, I went through a number of colleges many years ago. I looked back on it and regretted ever having set foot into a college. That's quite unusual. Anthony22 ( talk) 18:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anthony - Thanks for reaching out about this, and I’m sorry that I overlooked this message. The bottom line is that prose becomes easier to read if we construct sentences that get to the point. The situation in this entry was unlike that of the celebrities you name, as we already had the information that Kennedy had graduated. If we said that he merely attended, and in fact he graduated, that would be an important distinction to make. Not the case here though. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 20:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You beat me to reverting him and warning him. (insert grumpy face). Tknifton ( talk) 16:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m not wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B100:EEB7:E511:C611:8E6E:E6B9 ( talk) 02:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Just moving this to the bottom of the page where new comments usually go. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Larry, just to let you know I think I've spotted an error. The boys and girls schools joined in Sept 1978, when it became comprehensive. Mrhague2u ( talk) 18:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mrhague2u - I don’t recognize this topic, so if I was editing an article about it, it was probably just to clean up vandalism or to fix something like grammar. Could you tell me what the actual article title is? Larry Hockett ( Talk) 21:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Is there a Wikipedia standard requiring that an external link description on a Wikipedia article mirror word-for-word the title or name of the site to which it links? I included the "Family Authorized" term to the external links I added because this was requested of me by James Garner's daughter, Gigi Garner (her identity is easily verifiable by visiting the pages & website linked).

On hindsight, I tend to agree it isn't needed for the Twitter or James Garner charity. However, there are a number of Facebook fan groups dedicated to James Garner which are not "official" or "authorized" by the Garner family. As Gigi Garner and her mother (James Garner's widow) are the sole legal representatives of James Garner's name and certain related content public & private, Gigi (who controls the legal rights) wished to establish clarity; to allow the public the knowledge that while certain fan websites and social media pages & groups dedicated to James Garner are recognized as such, they are in no way related to, or controlled by, the family of James Garner.

I hope I haven't convoluted things here! Thanks for your time. Jameszerukjr ( talk) 16:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I don’t have a strong opinion on this issue, but usually we avoid adding descriptors to these page titles. The other thing to consider — and this is a hard one to think about — is that Wikipedia and other encyclopedias don't typically consult with article subjects or their family members about article content. With that said, when subjects (or anyone else) reach out to us, we strive to correct inaccuracies in a manner consistent with reliable sources. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 18:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Jameszerukjr ( talk) 00:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 12:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Very nice note. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 18:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I realize that you have good intentions for deleting my additions to Lloyd's page. However, I'm absolutely certain that he's a comedian. In much of his work, he incorporates unexpecting wit and humor into his roles, even if what he's working in isn't a comedic role or project. Taxi and Back to the Future are definitely among them, because he incorporates remarkable humor and sense of improvisation throughout.

So, if you don't mind, I'd like to add in the term 'comedian' back onto Lloyd's page. The same with Paul Giamatti, as it's pretty much the same with him.

A person doesn't need to be in stand-up to be a comedian, really. Austin012599 ( talk) 14:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I know that you also have good intentions. I would just ask you to understand that our own certainty is nearly irrelevant on Wikipedia, since we base our assertions on reliable sources. If reliable sources usually characterized Lloyd as “actor and comedian Christopher Lloyd”, then I think you would be on the right track. As is, most RSs don’t use the definition of comedian that you are using, so they don’t call this type of actor a comedian. Accordingly, we should not do so either. I appreciate your understanding. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 15:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If I am editing text that I inserted I will not use the sandbox - why did you not use the sandbox? If you want to be constructive why do you not find some photos for the article and insert them? Informed analysis ( talk) 12:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I use the Sandbox a good bit (see User:Larry Hockett/sandbox for some ideas that have started there in recent months), but on the Peck article I'm interested in whether the encyclopedia actually reflects the assertions made in reliable sources, so there is no role for the Sandbox in that case.

I could try to find some photos if you're requesting help with it; it's something I've done before (see my File contribs) but not particularly a strength for me. There is also a template that you can place on an article talk page to request images from others, though I can't remember the exact syntax of it right now. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 12:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting - once I finish doing all the movies from 1951 to 60 with sources names and full quotes, the second next film to do would be To Kill a Mockingbird, which I have not seen for 20 years - and it is on TCM tonight. Sort of ironic (or serendipitous).

Just a heads up: Like most formal writing, we usually use quotes only sparingly. As you do more and more work on this, I don't want you to feel picked on if other editors begin to notice that your editing doesn't really conform to WP convention. We all want to work smarter, not harder, no? Larry Hockett ( Talk) 17:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This is most puzzling. The editor Informed Analysis has been doing all kinds of research for a month now on Gregory Peck, and I look it over every couple of days and add some things and make some corrections. If you want to assist him or her in doing this article why do not find more sources and insert more data instead of just complaining and adding these strange citations. Why can you not be constructive? 2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:F846:DADB:3B47:CCB0 ( talk) 03:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

No - sorry. User:Informed analysis knows about WP:SYNTH and has chosen to thumb his nose at it. The very first sentence of that guideline lays it out clearly. If one source said a movie was bad and another source said a movie was good, we should not combine those references to say that the reviews were contradictory (neither Source A or B says anything about contradictions in reviews - they're just two individual opinions).

He just needs to find a source that describes the overall critical reception of these films. If there is no such coverage in reliable sources, why in the heck do we think that such info belongs on Wikipedia? This is so simple that I'm having a hard time believing that two separate people fail to comprehend it. (You are two separate people, right?) As I've tried to explain this stuff to User:Informed analysis, it has felt like I am talking to a wall. I really have no interest in talking to two walls. Just read the guideline. We try not to overzealously enforce things, but this one is very clear. It applies to all of us equally. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 04:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see 2607 has already been here and given you some thoughts and you have said he or she may be the same person as me. You are misinterpreting Wikipedia's policies and not looking at the overall picture, such as what other policies say. Please stop doing this. I am not sure why you are so focused on harping about one specific policy. Read below policy:

The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.

The inclusion of a view that is held by only a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.[9]

The policy clearly says its intent is to limit editors presenting their own points of view (see bold). I am not inserted my point of view anywhere in this article.

Third line clearly says there may be multiple points of view and that in such cases, NO SINGLE POSITION, NO MATTER HOW WELL RESEARCHED, IS AUTHORITATIVE. IT IS IMPORTANT THE THE EDITORS PROVIDE CONTEXT FOR THE POINT OF VIEW BY INDICATING HOW PREVALENT THE POSITION IS. This is exactly what I am doing. I am indicating how prevalent the opinion is that a certain movie is good or bad and how prevalent the opinion is that it is good because of a specific feature of it i.e. good cinematography. Presenting only one or two quotes that are not the popular opinion is what is wrong, and is what I have made clear I will not do. In my introducing one or two quotes or summarizing quotes that may be in the letter references I am merely describing the wide points of view on the topic and how prevalent there are which is exactly what the above policy says is to be done.

As well, other policies clearly state that paraphrasing what a source has said is fine. That is what I am essentially doing if I say "some sources said the cinematography is strong" if indeed 3 sources have used words about the cinematography that suggests they believe it is strong. Clearly, if a reviewer says "the cinematography captures the action very realistically", he is saying the cinematography is strong Virtually no one would say that is not the true meaning of the comment.

So, please stop inserting your comments which clearly misinterpret the overall thrust of Wikipedia's policies. Your actions are misguided and I believe they are reaching the point of harassment. Of the community on this page, no one else has the concerns you keep stating - 5 or 6 different people have come to the page in the last 2 weeks and only you are voicing this concern. I do not know why you have this narrow-minded, dogmatic adherence to one policy when it must be interpreted with all wikipedia policies. Two weeks ago one editor said I should be using the almost full quotes of the reviewers, and I have now spent the last 2 weeks doing that. She then denies she said that which is crazy as the spot where she said it is clearly document.

If you continue your actions I will be asking Wikipedia staff to give their opinion on your actions. Informed analysis ( talk) 16:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I should add, you are the one who said I should give the name of the critic, reviewer, source, etc. so I have also spent the last two weeks giving that for all the quotes and giving the entire quote so people can read it themselves. Do you do any creative work yourself or you just criticize other peoples'? Informed analysis ( talk) 16:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Can a person honestly deny that this message (which was very quickly deleted without explanation) looks incredibly suspicious and familiar? I try to assume good faith, but assuming good faith is very different from editing with blinders on after bad faith has been displayed. I'm sorry if I should have assumed good faith to a greater extent, but is there any reason why this 2607 IP would be a) apparently finishing your sentences, and b) talking to me about extreme frustration on entries where they aren't doing as much work as they seem to describe? You are correct though - if you feel like you’re the aggrieved one in this situation, you do have the right to seek some redress through WP administrators.

If subject matter experts write things that are not necessarily authoritative, imagine how difficult it is for a non-expert WP editor to write an authoritative summary of a film's critical reception based on two (or a small handful of) reviews. If we are going to write “one critic said...” (not necessarily a great idea) then yes, it makes obvious sense to include the name so that the reader doesn't have to go to the library and look for a 1985 book to find out who wrote that. But if we are going to say “The reviews were contradictory...” then surely we should not just combine review A (which does not mention contradictory reviews) and review B (which also does not mention contradictory reviews). For statements like that, we should at least provide a reliable source that discusses the contradictory overall response - or if we can't find such a source, especially for a movie that few people remember, we should consider leaving out the overall critical response.

As to creative work, I have a lot of content creation experience on WP (~200 entries created - there is a brief summary on my user page), but I don't know if any of it is particularly creative. To me, WP's purpose is about getting the verifiable facts right - not about being creative. To that end, when I see a situation where the source doesn't really support what we are saying it does, my pointing that out is actually more important than most of the content creation work I have done. I would like to be able to point out these discrepancies without being harassed here or elsewhere. It is interesting that we're both feeling like this though. I am here to talk it out as long as you stay logged in and don't resort to dogs about my experience level. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 22:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The truth is we only have 1 good laptop at home so if I forget to log in, like I did for that comment you are referring to, it appears to be my partner making the edit. They generally look over some of my inserted text but only add a few edits here and there (usually if I am out) and perhaps you see that sometimes we don't fully agree on the wording when I look over it later. Informed analysis ( talk) 05:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

And yes, we discuss how you seem to be so focused on only one wikipedia rule not all of them and that your comments have changed from 3 weeks ago to now. My friend at work (204) who also sometimes reads stuff I enter out of interest, and I chat about it too. I am not coming back to your talk page again. Informed analysis ( talk) 05:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

But I think on some level you probably realize that you're leaving out essential facts that would otherwise make the conversation fair. For example, when editing while logged out, you have the opportunity to not make such edits because there's this big message across the screen: "You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits.” The text of the first sentence is red. And my editing history has generally been much more concerned with other policies and guidelines ( WP:NPOV) and grammar/spelling edits, but on the Peck article SYNTH is the one that we just can't quite get a handle on. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 07:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

On the Katherine Hepburn and James Stewart webpages that I have edited a lot they have no space between the words and the "..." In Christopher Tookey's book there are no spaces. On the Cary Grant page they have four dots sometimes. On the back of the McGilligan Hitchock book they have 4 dots and no spaces. For all my text adding I was using 4 but then I switched to I using 3 dots to indicate when the next words were from the same sentence (but I had cut out a bunch of unnecessary words) and 5 dots if it was a totally different sentence later on in the review. Frankly proper English is two spaces after a period but they do not do that here at Wikipedia. In my senior policy advisor job with a government we do use 2 spaces after a period and 3 dots with no spaces. The word enthused is used at Turner Classic Movies website a few times and in my local metropolitan newspaper the odd time. Informed analysis ( talk) 20:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You're back. (And you're welcome to be back, as long as you stay logged in. I'm just a little surprised.) You don't have to come here and explain your rationale when your work gets edited though. Just make an attempt to understand the Manual of Style when you see unexpected edits. For example, MOS:ELLIPSIS provides guidance on ellipses. No one has a photographic command of the MOS (for example, I should have used non-breaking space before the ellipses, not regular spaces), so getting corrected occasionally is a part of WP editing. Keep in mind that when we make corrections to a page to bring it more into compliance with the MOS, we aren't certifying that every other page (or even every page on a related topic) is compliant with the MOS. If you become aware of a straightforward MOS issue on another page, feel free to correct it without even bringing it to the attention of other editors. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 21:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't restrain myself any longer from telling you this: I've run across you all the time I've been on WP and every time I see your name in an edit history I mumble "Lady Kenmores" and my mood improves by a factor of at least .300. Just don't go punching any drunks in bar fights with your pitching arm. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hahaha! Glad I can lighten the mood. I'm always impressed when people even get the reference. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 23:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The world is made for those who are not cursed with self-awareness. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Larry Hockett: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Everedux ^(talk) 18:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{ subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you! All the best to you as well! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 18:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hello Larry Hockett:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 ( talk) 23:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I appreciate it! I hope you have a good one as well. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Could we discuss more on this copy-pasting and runon sentence pls

Gaurarjun ( talk) 23:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. What is your concern? Larry Hockett ( Talk) 23:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's possible to see your view point really, maybe we could discuss on WhatsApp.

Gaurarjun ( talk) 00:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

On these two problems, my views are very straightforward: 1) Do not copy-paste (there is more info in these blue links when you click on them). 2) Do not create run-on sentences, where two independent clauses are connected without any appropriate punctuation between them. The sentence calls for a semicolon (or period) but not a comma. Please do not remove it.

If you ask me specific questions about what you do not understand, I am glad to help you on this talk page. For Wikipedia-related matters, I don't use WhatsApp, the telephone, email, Skype or any other applications or technologies. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 00:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

LARRY I WANT Lady I want to talk to you can you Prete put can you please put Kelly Oubre’s personal life please and thank you

Hi - I moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page, which is where new comments usually go on WP talk pages. From your message, I can't tell exactly what you're asking. Could you comment here and tell me more? Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Larry Hockett, the reason for my revisions in the Datone Jones article was because I witnessed a couple sentences in the article that may be a copyright violation of his celebvogue page. The article is a WP:GAN and criteria #2 says that there shouldn’t be original research (criteria 2d says there should be no copyright infringements). UCLAgirl623 ^{( Whats up!)} 01:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I think I have been mostly just cleaning up grammar and making pretty minor WP:MOS-related edits, but let me know if anything doesn't make sense to you. On the one where I reverted the NFL draft sentence, the new sentence was not grammatical. If that original sentence was a copyright issue, let's talk about how to rewrite it. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I applaud you for fixing grammar issues and doing WP:MOS-related edits. That’s a great thing to do. The sentence you reverted was in the College recruiting section of both the Wikipedia article and celebvogue.com page. The original sentence was a copyright violation of celebvogue.com. As for rewriting the sentence, I just modified the sentence to Jones was a high recruit coming out of high school and was considered a four-star prospect by Rivals.com and Scout.com. I also saw this page, which detects evidence of copyright violations in articles (in this case: Datone Jones). — UCLAgirl623 ^{( Whats up!)} 03:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the CelebVogue article (published in December 2019) copied us, not the other way around. Check out this version of the WP article from November 2019, which would have been just before the publication date of the CelebVogue article on 12/2. It looks like the CelebVogue author took our entry, added one heading to the TOC, and then just changed up a few words here and there. The copyright violation was committed by that site, not by WP. Some websites are set up to function as "Wikipedia mirrors". Sometimes you'll see a statement on those websites indicating that the source was Wikipedia. In this case, it looks like the source was definitely Wikipedia, but I don't see any statement crediting WP. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 04:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t know that until now. Thank you for the reminder! — UCLAgirl623 ^{( Whats up!)} 04:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Just one heads-up: I noticed that you are thanking me for each edit I make (or for most edits). I know that people on social media frequently click "Like" on a whole row of posts, but to me, only an occasional "thank" is fine on Wikipedia. When an editor receives a bunch of thanks while editing from a mobile device or on a slow web connection, it just makes it harder to clear the notifications. I appreciate your acknowledgement though. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 04:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have a problem with slow screen updates sometimes causing a disconnect between what I see on my screen and what the interface thinks should be there. Meters ( talk) 05:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I suspected it was something like that. My fat fingers betray me with a rollback on my mobile device about once a week. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)