User talk:LarryGrim

Welcome!
Hello, LarryGrim, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- WikHead (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Re: Title of Page
Hi Larry! Thank you for your message. I can't remember if any specific rules apply to geographic place names as such, but in this case, the shorter name was available so I would be inclined to simply use what's currently in place. If there's anything out of the ordinary with the page title, I'm sure it won't take long for someone else to move it. Many of our users are very sharp and look for things just like this. If, after a few days, the page has not been renamed, you can always create a redirect named Cheatham Annex, Virginia that points to your existing article. Waiting a few days to do this is important, because if both name-spaces exist, moving the page becomes more difficult to do. I hope this helps answer your questions... at least in part. -- WikHead (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheatham Annex
What we still need Larry, is a proper text-label for reference number 38. It's a WP:BURL link to an .xls file, which I have no software to open and retrieve a page title myself. If you can give this one last stubborn link a proper name, the issue would then be addressed. -- WikHead (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're most certainly welcome Larry. I didn't really want to get sticky over a single link, but it was one that was still bare and I was unable to resolve it myself without the proper software to open it. I'm not sure what an .xls file is, but assume it may be one of those Microsoft Office things. The main thing is that it's finally been looked after, and your article looks great! Thanks for being so co-operative. -- WikHead (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We all need to learn somewhere . I must say however, that for this being your first article, it looks fantastic! I can tell that a lot of hard work and detail has gone into it, and the things that still needed some adjustment were very minor in comparison. I hope you enjoyed the experience, and that it encourages you to keep up with further wiki-work in the future. Contributors like you are very valuable to the project. -- WikHead (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The citation is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, on the web, included as part of the report. I can create a graphic of it, would that help? (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Single source and geo stubs
Hey there. Geo stubs, and single sourcing are pretty much how you start a stub, it will have a single source. Especially places that are remote and small, like coal towns. As there are thousands of locations trhat are geo stubs, and that have one reference, I find it difficult to believe that every one would be a single source citation since the definition of a stub pretty much encompasses a single reference.........So, please be careful NOT to mark geo stubs as a single source. ThanksCoal town guy (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I looked up articles and single sourcing. Single sourcing applioes to self promotion. Ex: My company is really swell and here is my web site to prove it.....A geo stub, and its references from USGS are hardly, self promoting....if you have any questions, I will gladly help outCoal town guy (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't rush when tagging
. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

Jonathan and Sarah, Teahouse hosts 02:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the rare mustard at Cheatham Annex
I first want to say that I appreciate the high quality of your first page. It pained to remove such a well written and well sourced section, although I stand by my decision. The species known as Physaria globosa (formerly known as Lesquerella globosa), which goes by the common names "Lesquereuxs Mustard" and "Globe Bladderpod" is not known to the scientific community as being from Virginia. This is evidenced by: Even the DoD survey you linked to reports its range as "Endemic to the Interior Low Plateaus Province, from middle Tennessee through northcentral Kentucky and into southern Indiana" in column "AB".
 * http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2013/r4/Q139_P01.pdf US Fish and Wildlife report from 2012
 * http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=250095135 Flora of North America treatment of Physaria globosa
 * http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Lesquerella+globosa+ NatureServe listing

The leading experts in the field do not recognize the locality, and the only source we have that does recognize it contradicts itself. As much as I wish that this globally rare species was found in Virginia, I think we do not have sufficient evidence for inclusion. I hope your will reconsider the validity of my deletions in this light. Masebrock (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to the edit
While I appreciate the citations you have mentioned, the rigor that such a report undergoes only highlights this unusual reporting of the plant in the Annex. There was probably quite a background discussion about the inclusion of this plant in the report. If you want to consider a citation that would note the unusual site for such an endangered species, that would help. But, the report by the US Department of Defense about Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations, January 2004, in association with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, seems to be a rigorous study (see http://www.denix.osd.mil/nr/upload/03-154-Species-at-Risk-on-Department-of-Defense-Installations-Revised-Report-and-Documentation.pdf). Citation of actual field studies would suggest that while not widespread, the endangered Lesquerella globosa was reported as being at Cheatham Annex in 2004. It seems strange to me that the DoD and their scientific review in conjunction with the US Fish and Wildlife Service would have listed an endangered plant species on a backwater Navy site unless the proof was there. If you would consider a followup addition that subsequent reporting does not find the Lesquerella globosa to be on that site, that would be accurate. However, in 2004, a published report noted the species at Cheatham Annex, Virginia. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." [Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 1, Scene V]
 * Physaria globosa's range and populations are well documented. There is wealth of publications from the nine years that have passed since 2004 that do not mention the locality, including the Flora of North America project, which is considered one of the most authoritative publications in the field. While the DoD's study may have been rigorous, it is far from the most authoritative source. To favor this one study while ignoring the leading experts in the field would give undue (WP:UNDUE) weight to this position. Masebrock (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The US Fish and Wildlife Service seems to have changed their mind, in the 2012 report I linked. Masebrock (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you consider adding the statement above, especially with the concept of the "most authoritative publication"?  This would allow the report to retain the original citation, and note the current view that the plant does not exist at the facility.   There is something tragic in having the hope that it was surviving so far afield, then crushed by the lack of being noted later. LarryGrim (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is sufficient evidence that it ever did exist in the facility. Physaria globosa is on the verge of extinction, and even former populations are meticulously mapped. I think the most reasonable thing to do, for the sake of not cluttering the Cheatham Annex article with non-notable information, would be to simply no longer include the section. I suppose we could say, "Physaria globosa was once mistakenly identified out of Cheatham Annex, but it is no longer recognized to have been native there", although I question the notability of it, it seems like a good compromise.Masebrock (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * After all this, I will now concede and leave it up to you. If you want to remove it, again, or note that it was mistakenly identified in 2002, but subsequent studies have not reported it being extant, it is up to you.  It would be nice to note that at one time, in one report, a soon-to-be extinct plant might have been far afield from the normal area.   I think you are right, thank you.

LarryGrim (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. Best wishes for your future articles! Masebrock (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

March 2020
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Phantasmagoria (video game), please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
 * If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
 * If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Elizium23 (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand. While Sierra Games began to fade in 1996 with less and less presence, it is likely that subsequent owners still hold the copyright to the game. While a capture of key elements of the game might be allowed, it might be considered to be a violation to post the entire game walkthrough.  I will reverse or undo the post of the YouTube video as an external link.  Pardon, please, my ignorance and consider my quick response as mitigation. LarryGrim (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

U-858 and U-505
I've noticed that you've placed information in at least two articles that U-858 was the first enemy ship to surrender to US forces since the War of 1812, citing a primarily photographic book by Gary Wray. I'm curious as to the source's exact wording, as at least one incident earlier in WWII appears to constitute a warship surrendering to US forces, namely the German submarine U-505 on 4 July 1944. I suppose U-505 could be considered "captured following abandonment", similar to the capture following a scuttling attempt of the commerce raider Odenwald by USS Omaha (CL-4) on 6 November 1941. Maybe Wray is only considering "voluntary" surrenders. I have seen that Uboat.net includes this information without elaboration, and maybe a better wording is "first U-boat to surrender to US forces following the defeat of Germany in World War II". A quick look at World War I U-boat losses at https://www.uboat.net/wwi/fates/listing.html shows at least U-111, U-117, and UC-97 surrendered to the US in November 1918. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * RobDuch Thank you for the gracious note. I might have just expected you to update the entry rather than drop the note to me. However, I hope that the changes made to both the Fort Miles and U-858 pages incorporate correctly your suggestion. LarryGrim (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply and action. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 21:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Average Monthly Temperatures.png


A tag has been placed on File:Average Monthly Temperatures.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CptViraj (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Average Monthly Precipitation.png


A tag has been placed on File:Average Monthly Precipitation.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CptViraj (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)