User talk:LarryQ

/Archive 1

Missing American Representatives
I have recently been working on completing the lists of missing representatives. I've noticed in the history that you've been active in this section of the project. I was wondering if there was any specific state you would like to see a complete list on (I'm just going in alphabetical order right now)? I was also looking for suggestions on how to estimate a start value once I get the whole list finished. I hope you can help, and great job on all the articles you've created! -- Psych less Type  words! 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! I hope you enjoy this.  I have no starting suggestions.  I have been all over although I am in Kentucky right now.  Just be careful with all the variants on the reps names.  They are often listed in different ways including with or without their middle initils, with or without their midle names, etc.  Check out the variants, make sure an article does not exist already, and then go back and change other versions of the name to the one you created.  Good luck! LarryQ 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Third try's a charm! What I actually meant was I need help on approximating a initial value of representatives that need articles. This value would go in the table here. Many have been completed so it's going to be very confusing. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -- Psych less Type  words! 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Polbot is tearing through the missing rather fast right now in missing reps. Any estimate I give you will be way off.  There probably will be very few left soon. LarryQ 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
 WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive! WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award. There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards,  Psych less Type  words! .

In regard to my previous comment, I'm not sure your reply helped me. I still need help on approximating a starting value. That project is, however, at the bottom of my to-do list, at least for right now. Hope you'll help on the assessment drive! -- Psych less Type  words! 02:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I misunderstood your question. I have not assessed a lot of articles but in my experience most new Congressional bios are based directly on public domain federal government sources.  They are not well developed and most are stubs. LarryQ 14:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

More on missing reps
Hello, I'm polbot's creator. Thanks for all the articles on missing reps you've created. It's my opinion that handmade articles will always be superior to botmade ones, but the backlog was out of hand. :-) I wanted to point you to WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/American politicians/Representatives, to see if you're interested. There will probably be more added to this list when I find more that are problems. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists of United States politicians
Please see my request at Category talk:Lists of United States politicians. I think we can use some of the data from User talk:Valadius's work at List of former United States Representatives.—Markles 20:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Social Work Edit
I noticed your recent edit to Social Work. If you have the interest and motivation, I would like to invite you to join the Social Work WikiProject. Ursasapien (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Using a bot to change Bioguide to CongBio
Greetings. I would like to use User:Polbot (my bot) to change Bioguide to CongBio. This use hasn't yet been approved, and it seems to have hit a snag in the approval process. If you could comment at Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 4 about the usefulness or non-usefulness of such a bot, I'd really appreciate it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reuben Davis (representative)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Reuben Davis (representative), and it appears to be a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 00:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is based entirely on public domain text from http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000127. I did not need permission to copy a public domain source and it is not a copyright infringment. Why was this article flagged by the bot? LarryQ 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarke Lewis
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Clarke Lewis, and it appears to be a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet another false hit by CorenSearchBot...LarryQ 03:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

John Bancker Aycrigg
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of John Bancker Aycrigg, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 14:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet another false hit by the inept CorenSearchBot. LarryQ 15:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Larry, if you take info from a public-domain source, you should label it as having come from a public-domain source. DS 16:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will try to be more positive with this bot. However, even labelling an article as PD will not stop it. The PD Congressional Guide has been copied all over the Web and the bot is going to have false hits when I use it.  I will just deal with it.  No big deal. No more inept comments... LarryQ 03:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Granted, the bot gets false positives. But even so - even if the bot had never been written - you should still label such articles as having been based on information taken from PD sources. (Plus, I'm sure the bot can be adjusted to take PD statements into account.) DS 15:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I just noticed your article on John Law (representative) pop up on the Newpages list, and you have indeed specified that the information is taken from a public-domain source. Good job; keep at it. DS 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii
Aloha, LarryQ -- saw your note bowing out of the Legal Status of Hawaii article a couple of weeks ago, and given the contentious atmosphere, who could blame you? But I was glad to see that you made some new edits and hope you weren't completely scared off. I've tried to play a more mediating role there since I don't really have a dog in that particular fight (that's become a bad metaphor these days, unfortunately), and so your continued help is welcome and appreciated. Btw, for what it's worth, the atmosphere seems to have become noticably less tense on the article lately. Cheers, Arjuna 09:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I am not going to try to get between the two antagonists (they each have POV axes to grind) but I hope I can pop in and add some useful contributions from time-to-time.  I just wrote a Legal status of Texas article which is based on the layout of the Legal status of Hawaii article.  If you have any feedback on that article, please let me know. LarryQ 20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ouch! L, I'm sorry if you were offended, but I hope you will re-read what LarryQ wrote and see if you might have mis-interpreted what he said. I do find myself betwixt and between here. On the one hand, I could not agree more that what took place in 1893 was completely illegal, sleazy, and wrong in just about every way I can think of. On the other hand, the system of international law that now exists (well, kinda, in theory -- an ineffective U.N./ICJ system that allows itself to be run roughshod over by G.W. Bush notwithstanding) wasn't around then, so for lack of a better way to put it, it was legal to steal stuff back then. In other words, 1. the recognition of the Provisional Government by other international actors and 2. the annexation of Hawaii by the U.S. made the de facto into de jure, for all intents and purposes. There simply was not a context in which to call that into question, other than a direct military challenge to the U.S. Do I approve of that? No. What I am saying is that I recognize that like it or not it's a reality, and that the lack of past or current national or international legal contexts for addressing the very legitimate historical injustice that was done is a real problem for asserting that the United States Government's sovereignty over Hawaii lacks any legal basis. It does have a legal basis, like it or not. International recognition of U.S. sovereignty is approval that carries legal weight. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. This is what I meant in referring to "is" versus "ought". One can make a very persuasive moral case for why this should be questioned, but a moral case is not a legal one until and unless there is a venue for doing so. Look, I'm on your side (I'm speaking to L) in terms of setting the historical record straight in the other articles, and also in presenting the case why the lack of said legal context to address those wrongs is a legitimate POV and that should be one of the main points of this "Legal Status" article. I'm trying to help, honestly. But at the same time, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or venue for espousing a political viewpoint, however justified it may be. (Note that my objection to JK's POV edits is based on that same thing, that he's trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox.) I've also always been upfront with you and everyone else that despite the fact that I see the overthrow as having been the very definition of illegal, the passage of time and all the other factors have resulted in its being a "settled issue" (for now at least). In short, it's a fait accompli. If you're still offended by this, then I'm sorry about that but I have to call it as I see it. To Larry Q, sorry that you're feeling bitten: it's obviously something that a lot of people feel very passionate about, but I understand what you are saying and I think your perspective is well-taken but obviously misinterpreted. Your contributions are valuable and I hope you don't give up in frustration. (I didn't really want to get drawn into this whole issue either, and prefer to stick to the historical articles, but I'm trying to mediate between two radically opposing views (L v. JK) because well, someone's got to.) L, what we are saying (I think -- not trying to speak for LQ) is simply that the perspective you represent should absolutely be presented, but in accordance with Wikipedia policies, i.e. within the context of the international and domestic majority view. I promise you that I will advocate that your view is represented fairly. But all of this is also why the other articles are so important in presenting the facts of what happened fairly so people can draw their own conclusions, and perhaps, create a new context into which those grievances can be heard and addressed. I hope this makes sense, and that you don't see me as an enemy (that goes for both of you but mainly L. If you think I'm being unreasonable, just wait until JK pipes in [no offense JK]). Finally, pardon the ramble, but it's been a long week and I'm tired. I'm going to crosspost this on both your talk pages. Aloha, Arjuna 05:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for note Arjuna808. I appreciate your efforts. I agree with, "what we are saying (I think -- not trying to speak for LQ) is simply that the perspective you represent should absolutely be presented, but in accordance with Wikipedia policies, i.e. within the context of the international and domestic majority view. I promise you that I will advocate that your view is represented fairly." I think the question actually is whether Wikipedia's rules should be altered to reflect views which have been disenfranchised by history and a biased international legal system. As the rules are now, I think I am correct.  However, maybe it is time to move towards a reconsideration of these rules?  LarryQ 16:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The RFC Question
Aloha Larry -- Yeah, the RFC thing is kind of a mess...(I told you not to go there!) I don't want to fight about it at all, but if equality in representation is not acceptable to you, even with good solid contextualization, I guess I will have to. By the way, I was not even thinking of you when I was talking about having to "kick butt" if necessary, but if you stand in the way of fair representation, I may not have much of a choice. Sorry. I do not mean to hurt you in any way, but out of necessity, I am a pitt bull when it comes to ensuring good information and balanced representation. Although I am a peace person by nature, training and profession, when I'm forced to fight, I do fight really really hard. I have to.

Now as for the posted question: One major problem with the original question was that it framed the question in terms of "ownership", which is not the subject of the page and is misleading, as well as inappropriately black-and-white. The page is not entitled "The Ownership of Hawai'i" which would be a completely different topic. It also did not clue people in that this is a native issue, which people should know before commenting, even if you do not feel this is relevant (they may not feel that it is relevant either, but that should be their informed choice). As far as the "fringe" thing, even if you didn't bring it up you opened the way for poorly informed commentary that says just that, which other editors have pushed strongly in the past. And you were certainly trying to limit the equal representation of viewpoints by even raising the "undue weight" question after I had just made a clear proposal for good context (including fair population estimates) and balanced representation. You could have proposed the wording of the question on the talk page first, but you did not, and therefore I had to make changes, as it was misleading. Make sense?

Bottom line is that I do not want to fight, but I will not under any circumstances let go if it means inequality. If you want to communicate and try to work that out, I am very open to that. Aloha, -- Laualoha 19:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. I have no doubt you are good and peaceful person as am I. I have learned a lot from the RfC and do not regret it.  There are mistakes that I have made which will not be repeated.  You can close the comments on this when no futher productive commentary is progressing on the RfC.


 * The UNDUE issue is not settled. However, for the near future, I will not reopen it.  I have no doubt others will.  Please show some humility and do not threaten to "kick butt" when people raise this issue.  There are valid reasons why people are raising this issue and they will continue to do so.


 * I think you and I agree on a lot such as the US misbehaved in 1893. And that your view is not fringe. Hawaii is not the focus of my editing at Wikipedia (Congress is!) but I feel obligated now to monitor this page. I am also going to work on some more articles dealing with American separatist views. Their views are not well represented here and some of them (like Alaska) are not fringe.


 * I am not Hawaiian and have never been to Hawaii but Aloha (hello and good bye) to you as well. LarryQ 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

George Cookman Sturgiss
I created George C. Sturgiss and George Sturgiss as redirects to George Cookman Sturgiss.—Markles 10:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. LarryQ 17:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Canary Islands in WikiProject Africa
I find you have added a selection of locations around the Canary Islands to Project Africa and I was wondering why. The Canary Islands are Spanish sovereign territory, have been for the last six Centuries, and are part of Europe. Please advise if there is any reason why I should not remove the Project Africa tags from Canary Island articles. Yours, Dennywuh 13:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Canary Islands are indeed Spanish Soveriegn territory. However, they are geographically a part of Africa.  This is similar to how Hawaii is sovereign American territory but Hawaii is not part of North America. If political structure trumps physical geography, then by all means remove the tags.  I am not that invested in this issue. Thanks, LarryQ 02:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Biography newsletter
A new newsletter has been released; WikiProject Biography/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue 006 Note: You have been delivered this notice because you are listed on the WikiProject Biography Spamlist. If you do not wish to receive this notice, remove your name. From the automated, Anibot 16:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

proposal
Do you have any opinion about my proposal?--Appraiser (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi Larry! I'll definitely look at the articles, though I don't have much knowledge in those areas. Message me if you're ever coming this way again! Aloha!-- Laualoha 03:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Conklin doctorate

 * Thanks. No fan of Conklin am I, but fair and accurate is fair and accurate. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ancient people
Just so you know, Category:Ancient people is really only for categories, not articles. Ford MF (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry for the mistake. LarryQ (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Project Congress
As a participant of WikiProject U.S. Congress, please consider placing Project Congress to do to the top of your User_talk page. Thank you. —Markles 16:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Americancompetiveness.jpg
Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image was either individually tagged or was in a category tagged with the Copy to Wikimedia Commons template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Bush at the American Competitiveness Initiative 2006.jpg. During the move I changed the name of the image to better reflect Naming Conventions policy, duplicate file name and/or Commons naming restrictions. Any links to the image has been updated to reflect the new name as it exists now on Commons. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Irving Chernev.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both  and one or more   referring to it. Someone then removed the  but left the , which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining  with a copy of the  ; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add  to your talk page.

Irving Chernev
Hi! In case you were wondering who recently touched up the article and book list for this page, that would be me! Saw your latest edit comment, and thought that I'd better touch base. Wasn't trying to be unhelpful, but rather quite the opposite. As a Chernev fan, I thought the page looked quite pathetic before, and was simply trying to do my best to honor the man in a way that he deserves to be honored. If I have errored in anyway, it was simply out of ignorance and not out of lack of caring. But to be honest, I'm getting a little frustrated myself, as I'm not really understanding who you are, and how you fit into the Wikipedia picture compared to the average user? Also, why is a reference in hard copy form not considered valid? Or maybe I should be asking specifically, why is an electronically generated book not considered valid? (Webster's Timeline History) Is that one of Wikipedia's rules, and if so where do I find that information? And finally, how do you know that the site OnlyChess.com copied Wikipedia, and not the other way around? (I am asking sincerely!) Again, please understand that I'm not a regular Wikipedia user, and only want the Chernev page to look it's best! Thanks for being patient with me!

Brian

a.k.a. HardDazeKnight64 (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A reference is not valid (print or electronic) if it is just copying Wikipedia. This is known as a Circular reference. See for information on Icon Group International.

"And finally, how do you know that the site OnlyChess.com copied Wikipedia, and not the other way around?" If you have proof of this, please make a report at. The admins there can determine who copied who and delete any material which was stolen from OnlyChess.com. Copyright violations should not cite the copied source, they should have the offending text deleted. LarryQ (talk)

Thanks for taking the time to get back to me, and especially for the help! I DO appreciate it!

Brian

a.k.a. HardDazeKnight64 (talk)

Thanks for showing me the Multilicensing policy, LarryQ
which I see in a User page for the first time because I clicked on yours from the Oral History discussion page, though I see you are mainly interested in US congressional history. I shall copy your code for the Multilicensing policy and put it on my user page.

Many thanks, Pandelver (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Legal status of Texas and Republic of Texas (group)
An article that you have been involved in editing, "Legal status of Texas" and another, "Republic of Texas (group) has been proposed for a merge with Texas Secession Movement. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Legal status of Alaska for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Legal status of Alaska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Legal status of Alaska (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Jamesbell23.jpg


The file File:Jamesbell23.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You have been pruned from a list
Hi LarryQ! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Joel Abbott for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joel Abbott is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Joel Abbott until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. BD2412 T 13:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)