User talk:Larry Hockett/Archive 15

Mr. Hockett
I am slowly tired of people who vandalized my biography page on Wikipedia, who hide behind anonymous nicks, who blocked the biography and wrote calomnia in its talk space, inventing "self-promotion", while the biography they had already proved the contrary: I am sick and tired of your folk playing powerfull instead of doing your job properly. Maybe you have no boss, but you took a responsibilty, and that cannot be to boycott pages on Wiki. So please get honnest, and invite those folks to do their job rather than hiding behind empty phrases. They put pannels that lead to the "self-promotion" lie, but do nothing to solve the issue. Who is in charge here? Can you be real, rather than playing psy? Thank you for being real! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PredaMi (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You and I,, have the same "job" as volunteer editors of the encyclopedia: to assist in building an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view and with good sourcing. You may be sick of whatever you wish to be sick of, but vandalism, verifiability and self-promotion are well-defined entities on Wikipedia rather than lies. If you have questions about them and you can state those questions specifically and calmly, I will help you, but it isn't because I took any sort of responsibility to help you do as you please with the WP article about you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Mr. Larry Hockett, nice that you are a volunteer. It is good that you believe that defining entities, is enough for making people be honnest. It is not. The best definition of "Verify" is useless, when the people in control in Wiki do not do their job to verify, just block This is the issue! I repeat to you the detail a last time. My biography is written by people I do not know, many people, and it converged to pretty much the same in all languages. When they talked about Mihailescu's Theorem, they added two books, essentially dedicated to my work, where this term is used dozens of times. So it is really NOT the verifyability that misses. I even do a google search, and I see in the Wiki entry for Tijedeman's Theorem, so in your very english Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tijdeman%27s_theorem. Right now I discovered that Mr. O. Removed at 23:00 the mention to my name in the Wikipedia entry to Tijdeman's Theorem, an entry I had mentioned to him 10 minutes ago in order to show him that he was wrong. How vicious can someone like this be?

Mr. Hockett, he cannot remove books, I made a screenshot of a page of the Book of Henri Cohen, where he starts a chapter on my theorem. Here is a link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z9iMojc9QUKhE3XPUUHBzbkZukNwB5m5/view?usp=sharing

I am so disgusted by this new discovery, that I have nothing left to say. I do hope you or someone else, but soon, see for it that order is brought back and this guy be removed from his privileges. You see, it is not enough to have a defined term, when you have personnel that is incorrect. Good night, hope tomorrow to see a better side of Wikipedia.
 * Sir, you erased my reply in your attempt to add more of your own comments. I can't understand how that helps us to have a logical and productive conversation. I have nothing left to say either. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Hockett, I am sorry for your comment, it was not on purpose. What happened is that we wrote at the same time, and there was a block. I also lost the text that I was writing. I think that the WIki system is simply old and is inadapted for such issues. I lost text too and had to rewrite, but do not put the blame on you. Anyhow, sorry for that.

But now please stop nagging on me, there is a serious issue here and you seem not to accept it. Do you read what I told you? Your pal, Mr. Overzwotan, is caught destroying evidence. As said, I gave him sources to books, he did not accept to verify. I have him a pointer to the theorem of Tijdemann on Wikipedia, and he erased personally the reference to my theorem from Wikipedia. Here you have his mark, yesterday at 11: 05, after I had explained him that he can find evidence there (information which he removed from his site), and before he blamed me to you, to erase the trace: curprev 23:05, 19 January 2020‎ Overzwotan talk contribs‎ 4,285 bytes +13‎ undothank.

I am sorry for your troubles Mr. Larry Hockett, I find this way of communication totally clumsy, to get accustomed to precisely when you are victim of an attack. So please make this small effort to relate to the fact, and stop nagging about forms. My biography page has been vandalized, two persons have now proved that they introduced very much on purpose the alegiation of personal promotion, knowing it is false, and removing such evidence when it was presented to them. And nobody reacts. You want me to do what? '''Is there a coordinator of biography pages here around? Or can you now verify the facts, and act properly, please?''' You are the only one with a human name, and who halfways answers.

Believe me, this is a totally abstruse communication system, that I do not understand, it takes days and days to get a feed-back, and you never know if someone reads, but when you act, they tell you, you are wrong. I have no time for learning this system, so now that you can read my supply, and see that there is vandalism, please do something, that is all I ask! Since more than a week it feels like a house has been broken in, and the thief is within the police! There is an email of Wiki, which is presented as an address for complaints about biographies. I wrote more than a week ago, nobody replies. But there are trolls like Overzsomething, who have the right to mess around unpunished on Wiki. And you want to tell me I should accept this, and you want to tell me everything is "well defined"?

'''Sir, I gave you an evidence from a book, so that you do not need to have doubts that OverzX acted otherwise than in bad faith. Please let me know if you need anything more, but please act -- I guess you know more of the system than I do! Thank you.''' Oh, and maybe you should revert also the intrusion of the Tijedman theorem page -- there is no use in my doing it, he will jump to change it back anyhow. That is why you also need to get his rights blocked. This is it!

Preda MihailescuPredaMi (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You have done the right thing by taking your concern to the article talk page. If I were you, I would not have addressed an editor there with "You troll", but what is done is done. I would follow up there after giving people a few days to respond. Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Hockett, thank you for the response. I may agree that the person may not have liked my addressing him as troll. But I am not hypocrite -- the more he insisted in the pretense that he had done nothing wrong, the more of a troll he appeared to me. Let me make it clear: this is a professional"s biography, generated by outstanding professionals, in many languages, it has been around for more than a decade. And here comes someone who has no idea of the profession, and dares destroy it and comment openly "I suspect self-promotion", without any minimal verification. And one year later, a friend of mine brings it to my attention that some incompetents seem to spread gossip about me on my own Wikipedia biography -- can you imagine how many people have thought the same, before this friend noticed me? And after this offense, they expect me to have patience with them? Sorry, this is asking too much. Bringing the page in order is not enough. They must apologize on the talk page for the harm made, they must correct the Tijdeman page too, and thing twice, if they have done more miseries to me or someone else. It is incredible that Wikipedia tolerates such behavior! ''You saw for yourself, he removes evidence for Wikipedia, believing that he can avoid taking responsibility for the fact that he did not check his claim! 'Can you accept such behavior, as part of your team? I would not!'''.

So yes, I may wait two days -- but you know what I wait for. Not only that my page is brought in the correct state in which the German or the French or the Italian ones are. But also the Tijdeman page, and also the apologies for the public offense. A lesson is a lesson! Thank you for being a witness.

Best wishes

PMPredaMi (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Don Francis
I was an intern at the meeting when Don Francis pounded his fist. I think it made a lasting memory and it seems history bears it out. It even made its way into a movie, "And The Band Played On". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.180.210.196 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A first-person account really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, especially in Wikipedia's voice. Further discussion, if necessary, should be held at the article talk page. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello
Once the a NFL team is eliminated from the Playoffs, the FA period does start but cannot be signed until March of 2020. I am a NFL insider btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.30.57 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. What is the source for that? Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

MLB All-star game
Wasn’t the AL two games ahead each turn after the two-games/year ended? Which was then “corrected” when two NL venues hosted in 2006-7? TashTish (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have any reason to doubt that, but I'm questioning whether such a distinction belongs in the encyclopedia. Has this discrepancy received significant coverage in reliable sources? That's usually a good measure of whether it belongs on WP. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just striving for factual accuracy, and as the previous example displayed similarly, a correction was eventually made (albeit almost 50 years later, so I guess I should just shut up now!). TashTish (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Babson College
I am a new editor and I understand that I have a lot to learn. To that end, I was wondering if you could explain to me why you deemed my first edit to Babson college's page as "not constructive." Going forward, what do you think are useful questions to ask myself before determining if something might be a constructive addition to a wiki page? Thank you in advance for any pointers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caratacus54AD (talk • contribs) 00:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - thanks for reaching out to clarify. I didn't think the Babson College edit was unconstructive per se (I saw that one and thought that maybe the distinction was a little trivial, but I saw that the firing had been covered by several mainstream news sources). Instead, I was actually reaching out to you about the edit to the sandbox that mentioned liking balls. I can appreciate humor, we do allow a lot of leeway on sandbox editing, and it's an individual call. I think it's just that in my previous experience, when people make edits (even to the sandbox) about certain things - mentions of genitals, name calling, a few other types of edits - those tend to be school-aged kiddos just using WP to waste time. Basically, if the editing gets out of hand in those situations, we give escalating levels of warnings and then temporarily restrict editing privileges. You wouldn't fall into that category with just a single warning about one sandbox edit. Let me know if I can clarify anything. Have a good week! Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I didn't realize the edits in the sandbox were even viewable by other users. This is incredibly embarrassing. Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caratacus54AD (talk • contribs) 02:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. No harm done! Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Coaching trees
Larry, I noticed your reaction to my edit at Kevin Sumlin. You may want to weight in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!
LARRY HOCKETT / LEPRICAVARK / ALANEY2k

Sir - Please STOP all these far too many ridiculous reverts on almost all entries which are plainly and simply wrong as you quite apparently have no appreciation for better and more proper English usage, better sentence structure, added correct facts, as they are not at all appreciated - I am 73 and have been involved in sports, military and business operations since age 5 onward to now when I initially began attending games, going to military bases, various wars, where was fortunate to begin to meet and know for decades almost all the people written about and places attended - I operate a major historical agency and cover Major and Minor League Baseball, military facts and obituaries on a daily basis, as well - Seems most of you virtually know nothing ' editors ' have no idea whatsoever at all about sports / stadiums / ballparks / facts / figures / military matters / etc. - Therefore, if you keep entering these totally unnecessary and unwarranted insults you will  be reported for doing so - You seem to be busy enough with your hundreds of others so do me this small favour and just stick to ones with real problems and leave my few small entries alone, all of which others would say are ' perfect ' - Have you ever even gone to the trouble to see the now over 8,000 better word changes / corrections / additions of  missing letters / additions of missing words / etc. which have entered over time with very few reverts ??? - Frankly, if WIKIPEDIA does not want nor appreciate this FREE assistance to your very poorly monitored pages with far too many mistakes of both omission and commission then simply just advise as am busy enough here so can do without these insults. Thank You. COLONEL77

COLONEL77 (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC) 
 * If you want fewer of your edits reverted, one option would be to learn a few grammar rules and make fewer mistakes (or just take a break from the grammar editing for a bit). What exactly are you planning to report? You are 73 years old and just left a picture of a goat on another adult's user talk page. I will not apologize for cleaning up complete tripe like this. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Alex Verdugo is now a Boston Red Sox
Alex Verdugo Is not a boston Red Sox and Is no longer a Dodger Jarmusic2. Please consider this source and the reasoning of why I changed his information. If you do not Agree, I am too tired to fight and argue with you on this and will just leave his information old and outdated. have a good day sir. Jarmusic2 (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)jarmusic2Jarmusic2 (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Have the teams announced anything? Until they have, there is nothing to argue. Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you sir
Thank you for taking the time to talk to me. I am Just frustrated that Manuel Margot gets to be on a new team the same day he is traded and Mookie Betts still listed under his old team and he was traded over a few days ago. I am sorry If I did anything Disruptive, it wasn't my intent. MY Intention is to get Mookie Betts To be listed under his current team that he has been traded to, The Los Angeles Dodgers of LA California. He was Traded on February 4th,, Yet is still listed as a Redsox. If there is anyway you could Update his information, that would be greatly appreciated and this whole matter would be over and done with, thank you kind sir and have a good night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarmusic2 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I promise that as soon as I see an official announcement from the Dodgers, I will do it (assuming I’m online and all). Deal?


 * The Rays were very quick with the Margot thing, adding him to their 40-man roster and publishing an article about it on their official website. It's not about a player "getting to" do something or "deserving" something or favoritism or any of that. It's simply about whether the change is verifiable and official. If the Dodgers are being tight-lipped at this point, why should we be in a rush?


 * Sometimes when I'm getting frustrated by things on Wikipedia, I find that I just have to get away for a day or two and not even read WP articles. If I'm really right about what's upsetting me, someone else has usually taken care of the issue by that time anyway. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I Just read what you wrote on here and I agree with what you are saying. You are a great person Larry. And I am sorry If I have caused you any trouble. Continue on doing what you are doing because you are making a difference. I can see that my sources about Mookie Betts becoming a dodger are falling on deaf ears and I am just done with the whole dea. I don't even like the guy anymore since I am a Padre Fan and Wanted him to come to SD. I hope the guy get's injured because He will be a thorn on our side. As for wikipedia in the matter If you guys still list him as a Red Sox, I hope he stays that way and never comes to the dodgers. Have a good day sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarmusic2 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

YOU APPEAR TO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SPORTS
There is absolutely nothing wrong with almost all of these small word changes which are very much better usage of words than seen at first and for you to revert entire entries is just plain and simply wrong - Why not just change a word or two but to revert entirely is not the thing to do - WRONG !!! - Then, per example, to say changes in entry for HARRY CHITI is TRIPE is beyond insulting / beyond belief as we knew him well until death where he and his son would appreciate his entry being presented in a much better manner than your not needed revert - Again, please stop editing these entries as you are WRONG and there are few grammar issues so take a course and learn something - You are plainly and simply wrong in all of this - Am only trying to make some of these biographies look / appear / read better which you and a number of you not at all with it ' editors ' do not understand as you are not athletes or have ever written anything proper on or about sports in general and most definitely do not understand how sports stories / game day write ups should be presented - Just stop it, please - YOUR TOO MANY INSULTS ARE NOT APPRECIATED !!!!!

COLONEL77 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 
 * I'm sorry I get so frustrated with you. I don't mean to turn it into insults. It sounds like we both feel quite attacked. My frustration is that I believe someone with an extensive editing background should understand rules like the use of "however" as a conjunction in place of "but". I am not seeing that understanding in your edits. The overall issue is simple though: I am perceiving most of your edits to contain objective mistakes, and I fix mistakes that I notice on WP (usually those that pop up on my watchlist).


 * We could do it this way: You point out (below is fine) any reverted edits in which the mistake is not clear to you, and I will either point out the error as I see it or I will apologize. I do a good bit of apologizing on Wikipedia because I am quite fallible, but I try to review every edit I see in good faith. My only request would be that I am dealing only with a single user. I'm fine to talk to The Colonel's wife as well, but only if she registers an account and signs her posts. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Bone Thugs N Harmony
There is a lot of back and forth regarding the Bone Thugs N Harmony alleged name change, due to their commercial for Buffalo Wild Wings.

However, two members have already stated that it is a joke. Krayzie Bone on his Instagram where he wrote and I quote "The name change was just a joke y'all calm down">

And Bizzy Bone on his Jamtv youtube where he stated there is no name change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjCVTxmHZXA&t=5s

In addition, they've also announced a series tour/shows and they are billed as Bone Thugs N Harmony.

(I attempted to add a link to ticket-master strictly for purposes of showing that they are Billed as Bone Thugs N Harmony. Did not realize about black lists on Wikipedia).

A promotional deal with Buffalo Wild Wings doesn't constitute an actual name change with the group.02:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Illogicalmethod (talk)
 * Correct. My edit should have taken out the name change. Is that not what happened? Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh geez. I see what happened now. Luckily it seems to have been fixed by a subsequent editor. I can't imagine that this promotional name should be in the lead at all, and I thought (quite incorrectly) that I was reverting to the version with no mention of Boneless in the lead. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Gary Harris
Hey I understand your sentiment but Gary "Gary Harris" Harris is a real and cited nickname of Gary Harris and should be left up on his Wikipedia page NukeBear21 (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think I provided much of a sentiment. However, looking at the WP article, it seems completely erroneous to suggest that the nickname is cited. What an I missing? Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Sir...
There’s something I’d like to ask:

I’m deeply wanting to change my username. However, I can’t seem to find where and how I can do it.

Can you help me out with that?Austin012599 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While I can't change usernames myself, I can point you to the appropriate page. It is Changing username. The process is to pretty straightforward (I've changed mine before), but take some time to read all of the information at that link so you understand what a username change will and will not do for you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.Austin012599 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

 * Thanks! Thoughtful of you to leave this. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

How do you suggest I get free images for pages (primarily for actors and singers)?
What websites or resources do you recommend? Also, can you help me perhaps improve a few articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfanatic1 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly good at finding images, but one place to start is Public domain image resources. It's important to spend a little time reading about public domain and other image policies and guidelines so that your hard work doesn't get deleted. I don't work with images of living people very much anymore, but I can help with some basics. I used to go to baseball games, sit close to the field, and take some images of my own. If you can take a photo yourself, copyright issues become less challenging, but MLB has made it harder to take photos at games.


 * For photos of living athletes, I know some people use Flickr (which is one of the resources at the link above), and I assume that there are many Flickr images of actors and singers too. You just have to make sure that the image has the appropriate Creative Commons license attached to it (like CC-BY-SA) that would make it free to reuse, because many Flickr images are still copyrighted and cannot be used for our purposes. Besides public domain images, there is also something to look into called fair use, which is making limited use of copyrighted images for specific purposes. A lot of my content creation has been with dead people, and you have more options for fair use images once a subject has died. (A dead subject will also never register an account and try to turn your entry into a gushing PR piece, and personal life details don't have to be updated as often.)


 * I am slammed with work and school stuff this weekend and only on WP in small doses, but if I can get past this crazy couple of days then I'll be glad to help. Back when I was heavily involved in improving baseball articles to GA status, sometimes two or three users would get together and propose a few possible articles. Then we'd select one from that list to work on (usually the one that looked closest to GA standards, but sometimes one that was in surprisingly bad shape compared to the notability of the subject). I don't have much experience with article improvement in entertainment, but I'm happy to help with general things like clearing maintenance tags.


 * Have a good weekend! Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * How do I filter the images on Flickr to search for images that can be used?Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been a little while since I've had to do this, but I can give you a basic idea. I'm looking at this in Microsoft Edge, by the way, and I notice that it doesn't look the same in Safari on my mobile device. I usually start by typing in a specific subject's name rather than looking at some huge list of all freely licensed photos.
 * When I type in "Kelly Clarkson", for example, I see >28,000 results. Then I can look right above the first photo and there's a little dropdown menu. I can change the menu selection from "Any license" to "Commercial use & mods allowed". That only narrows it down to 818 images, but it's pretty easy to scan through and see that many of them don't include the subject at all (like photos of two random guys at a Kelly Clarkson concert). This approach might be more effective for subjects who are not internationally known stars (but most megastars probably have current photos on WP). For example, when I enter "Craig Biggio" (a Hall of Fame baseball player but not someone known in countries where there is no baseball) and select commercial use & mods allowed, there are only 21 images to peruse.
 * When you find an image that looks good, make sure to check that the specific type of Creative Commons license is allowed on WP. WP:Image use policy has more on which free licenses to look for. For example, it points out that CC-BY-SA licenses are usually okay, but CC-BY-SA-NC licenses are not. If you click on the image in Flickr and then click on the Some rights reserved link at the lower right, it will show you the name of the Creative Commons license.
 * Good luck to you. Finding public domain or freely licensed images that meet all of the strict copyright rules can be a real exercise in patience. Maybe I can help with something specific though. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I actually found some images quite easily. I was wondering if you could check out three pages that I completely rewrote: McClain (band), China Anne McClain, and The Hours (film). Also if you could look at Naomie Harris for me that would be great. All the aforementioned articles are very easy to read and average or shorter in length so it wouldn't take long to get through.Factfanatic1 (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I just took a quick peek at McClain (band). It looks like most of the statements are sourced, but you have a lot of sources that may not meet the definition of reliable sources. For example, take a look at Citing IMDb for reasons that using that source can be problematic. Basically, you want to minimize use of references with user-generated content. A lot of the other references don't have enough information for the reader to know what they are without clicking on the link (missing reference titles and dates, for example). With little time this weekend, I haven't looked at any aspects of the article except for the referencing.
 * I am glad that you are finding new images. I did notice that the image description page for your new Elisabeth Moss photo includes a Creative Commons public domain statement, but the link you provided to the Celebzz page doesn't seem to say anything about the image being released as PD. Can you tell me more about how you determined that the copyright holder (listed as unknown) had released the photo into the public domain? The same issue might complicate any other images you uploaded, but I haven't checked them. If we say that an image is PD and can't demonstrate it, that usually results in the deletion of the image. Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I searched on Bing.com under the "Public Domain" option.Factfanatic1 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Rolland Garros French Open" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rolland Garros French Open. Since you had some involvement with the Rolland Garros French Open redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Agathoclea (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Bobby Richardson
Changes addressed, but let me know if you would like anything more done! Thanks for reviewing! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your work on that entry! Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Elsa Pataky
Hello, I have no idea how to talk to you in an other way that I'm doing now. You said that my sources about what I said about Elsa Pataky was not true or not reliable because of my sources. Here are 4 french articles about this story, you really should google translate them to check. Everything I said was told by Michael Youn in an interview, and these articles tell the story : https://fr.metrotime.be/2019/12/18/actualite/quand-michael-youn-fait-8-000-km-pour-surprendre-sa-compagne-et-la-trouve-avec-un-autre/ + https://www.purepeople.com/article/michael-youn-le-jour-ou-il-a-surpris-son-ex-embrassant-un-autre-homme_a365876/1 + https://www.7sur7.be/people/michael-youn-raconte-la-triste-fin-de-cette-histoire-d-amour~a1bf7bb6/ + http://www.non-stop-people.com/actu/tv/michael-youn-pourquoi-sa-relation-avec-elsa-pataky-na-pas-fonctionne-168320. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.159.3 (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't edited Elsa Pataky since May 10. With that edit, I removed a potentially contentious assertion about a living person that did not have any sort of source. At the time you had not provided anything that could have been translated. See here. I haven't edited the article since that time.
 * Rather than trying to individually reach out to specific editors, you may find it easier to have these discussions on the article talk page (Talk:Elsa Pataky). That way you will likely get the attention of any editor who is following the edits of that page. I hope this helps. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Chicano
Hi Larry -- I see you have understandably taken exception to my recent edit of "chicano" topic. The reliability of my source for the addition is as follows: My father, R.H. Phillips, graduated high school in the late '20s and was awarded the school's Latin medal. He also spent a good deal of time speaking with migrant farmworkers in Washington state, and after graduation drove to la Paz with his brother in a model T. He kept up a lifelong correspondence with a friend from school, who had emigrated permanently to Mexico City. Although not benefiting from frequent practice, his linguistic chops were occasionally confirmed by others: our neighbor in the '60s, Mr. Fred Mendoza, could hardly believe he had not lived in Mexico. (Hard to say what impressed him more -- that, or his appetite for hot peppers!) The translation provided by him to me was elicited by the rise of the Chicano movement when I was in school, c. 1969.108.202.119.242 (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. First-hand experiences like this just don't mesh with our objectives on Wikipedia. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn
Hello, Larry Hockett! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by nearly 100 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767  talk!  21:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Creativity
Dear Larry Hockett, greetings. Thank you for your message. Please, I´m learning how to insert a reference in Wikipedia, and considering your advise, I´m doing something wrong. Sorry for that. At first, reading your recommended guidelines, I thought that was due article 6, since the reference point to an article of a scientific journal that isn´t open access (Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content are not allowed). For this reason, I understand and commit to the policy, since the purpose of the Wikipedia is to share open knowledge. I didn´t realize that when I linked. It makes no sense to point to a page where you need pay to get access, and the only info available is the abstract. However, I saw other topics at Wikipedia where there is scientific citations pointing to articles where I cannot´t access. Therefore, is this the issue I´m facing, or the problem were another? Please, if you can be more specific about what happened, I´d like to correct and follow the community guidelines in order to contribute in the most appropriate way for the topic. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F5:280:1C12:6076:2441:70DB:3D9C (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence that was added to both of those articles seemed to have little to do with the topics at hand. To me, those edits seemed to be a specific effort to include that journal article on Wikipedia, almost suggesting conflict of interest editing. I am surprised that this article was accepted for publication, as the grammar is quite rough in some places and there are even a few misspellings and typos. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit Removed by Bot
Hi Larry, I made an addition to the Wikipedia page concerning Nimrod, the biblical figure, but unfortunately, it was removed by a bot for being 'less than neutral'. I don't know quite what this means but I can assure that my edit was entirely informative and unbiased. My addition was a section underneath 'Music' called 'Video Games', where it describes how Nimrod is the character controlled by the player in the 2018 survival horror game Agony. If you could please review and re-add my edit, that would be great. I additionally find it worth noting that I have very limited experience regarding informative/educational contributions to Wikipedia's pages. Thanks, BigButteryBiscuit — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigButteryBiscuit (talk • contribs) 01:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello - it seems that the issue is that Fandom.com is a wiki, just like Wikipedia, so it should not be used as a reference. See WP:SPS for more information, but in a nutshell, we don't want someone adding information to a wiki like Fandom and then citing it as a source on Wikipedia. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I forgot to add that the warning about non-neutral tone was added in March 2019 and it concerned an edit on a separate Wikipedia entry. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Marina Squericati
The NY Post, Daily Mail, and Radar cite court documents listing her birth as August 1981. Who are you to suggest any of those sources isn’t reliable? Provide counter evidence or shut up Wikiman2888 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Source: The New York Post

https://nypost.com/2018/07/28/i-was-a-wall-street-moguls-secret-love-child/

"But Marie Squerciati never spoke of Jakobson or the year-long relationship that resulted in their daughter’s August 1981 birth."

Source: The Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516769/Wall-Street-mogul-promised-Chicago-PD-star-Marina-Squerciati-surprise-left-nothing.html

"The affair allegedly lasted for a year and led to Marina's birth in August 1981. "

Source: People Magazine

https://people.com/tv/chicago-pd-marina-squerciati-late-millionaire-daughter/

"Squerciati, 37, had no further comment when reached by PEOPLE." This article, from August of 2018, said she was 37 at the time of publication. You do the math and tell me if a April 1984 birthday holds weight?
 * If we're going to debate this, you're going to have to bring it down a notch. RadarOnline holds itself out as celebrity gossip, and you can read the concerns about each of these other sources at WP:RSP. Larry Hockett (Talk) 20:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So what if it’s celebrity gossip? What kinds of publications do you think regularly write about celebrities? Can

you provide any evidence that Radar writes things that aren’t true? And what about the three other sources cited? Wikiman2888 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It works the other way around. We demonstrate that sources are reliable sources before using them to support potentially contentious or private info, especially on biographies of living persons (BLPs). If you are going to add almost anything to a BLP - especially dates of birth, relationships, children, or legal matters - assume that a given source is unreliable until you can understand how it meets the reliable sources criteria. One way is to look at WP:RSP, the link I sent you in my first reply; it addresses the sources you mention with the exception of RadarOnline. Did you click on it?
 * The goals of a gossip website and an encyclopedia are just different. These two other blue links above (to pages on reliable sources and biographies of living persons) are also really helpful for understanding two key WP concepts surrounding edits made to these types of entries. If you keep editing without understanding those policies, I worry that you are just going to become frustrated for no good reason. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am frustrated because I’ve provided several reliable resources which you’ve unilaterally and arbitrarily decided aren’t reliable.  Have you taken a look at the other sources cited on this page? They’re awfully similar to the ones you decided aren’t trustworthy. If you examined the sources for the articles - petitions from the NY surrogates court - you would see why I’m so insistent. But it’s fine. Correcting your “corrections” requires very little time and effort. Cheers!  Wikiman2888 (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oooo and it looks like People and The New York Post are generally held as reliable by your incel chaps in The WP community!  Wikiman2888 (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Listen, my man. If you slow down and reread the info on those sources at WP:RSP, I think you'll find that they aren’t agreed upon as reliable for contentious BLP material. None of my edits on this entry were arbitrary. If I have done something to make you feel insecure enough to resort to personal attacks, then I apologize To you. That was not my intent. We generally don't use primary sources like court documents in BLPs, and sometimes we leave certain questionable sources in an article, either because we don't notice it or because it isn't being used to support potentially contentious or private material. If you see something that doesn't mesh with BLP standards, you can certainly fix it rather than bringing it to another editor's attention. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I’ve been following this. The other guy was a jerk and should have handled this more constructively. That said, I’m a pretty die-hard Chicago PD fan and most of what I’ve seen in the press (especially in the last two years covering some legal matters) suggests Marina was born in August 1981. For a DOB what kind of sourcing is acceptable? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.94.41 (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There are some good links above on reliable sources and BLP guidelines, but one that may not have been mentioned is WP:BLPRS. If we end up with reliable sourcing on the DOB, I think it might come from a mainstream newspaper or a magazine that doesn't have accuracy concerns mentioned at WP:RSP. If I knew of strong existing sourcing, I would just add the information and the source to the subject's article rather than going through all of this. As it stands, I don't know of any. WP guidelines suggest that it's better to omit something like this (especially potentially private info on a BLP) than to include it with poor sourcing. (We should even think twice before including such info on talk pages, to be honest.) In the meantime, the article will be just fine. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau and 3RR
Not going to template a regular, but just a friendly reminder that you're one revert away from violating the three-revert rule. These three reverts already exclude ones that fall under exception #4 of obvious vandalism. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh, template or no template is fine with me if I deserve it. I didn't realize it at the time, but maybe I got a little carried away. I'll stay away from the entry. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Judy garland
I noticed Judy Garland’s location of birth does not reference what is stated in her records. Lhang22 (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which records we are discussing, but the place of birth is in the external link to Encyclopedia Britannica and in quite a lot of sources available on a Google search, if you'd like to add it inline. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Handles
Larry, looking for advice. You removed my section on handles operated by parts of the body other than the hand; reason was lack of supporting verification. My problem is that the only verification I can find in this very new field is direct links to commercial companies' sites and I don't want to be advertising. How do I get round this? Universal Kakistocrat (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universal Kakistocrat (talk • contribs) 14:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, originally sent unsigned. I'm new to this Universal Kakistocrat (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any way to get around it - or a reason why we would want to do so. Once there is information in reliable sources to back up the claims of such companies, we can evaluate this again though. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you talk me through this a bit more? This is a page on handles and without question arm and foot handles are a new type of handle not yet represented on the page. The handles exist. The companies aren't claiming anything except that they make the handles.  Even if they didn't actually make them - an unlikely event - they are still reliable evidence of the handles' existence.  Because of the present pandemic there are probably twenty companies out there making handles of this type.  It seems a strange set of affairs if an encyclopedia cannot accept multiple primary sources? Thank you Universal Kakistocrat (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * A couple of thoughts come to mind. One is that we never endeavor to cover every existing entity in an encyclopedia. WP:NOT has some good info on some common ways that people misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia like this one. If all we have to report is that something exists, we're unlikely to help our readers get something that they couldn't find with a Google search, and we're very likely to attract conflict of interest editing from companies who are looking to advertise a product. With about 20 companies making the product, I would imagine that it will be covered in independent sources soon enough. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I've undone your delete but added sources, having had a better hunt around. I'm learning my way at the moment, as you'll have gathered. May I come back on this further if I have more questions? I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universal Kakistocrat (talk • contribs) 10:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:MEDRS for the guideline governing medical information, specifically the guidance on primary sources. Also note that, whether it is for biomedical content or not, the point of adding sources is to directly support a given statement. I couldn't find your statement beginning with "The primary route of infection transmission..." (or really anything close to it) in the cited source. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to look for a source for routes of infection that it more to your taste. Or leave out "The primary" and replace it with "A" if that it sufficient. But I'm not sure why you removed the referencees to foot and arm handles which seemed entirely properly sourched?Universal Kakistocrat (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Further to the above, is this: https://apic.org/monthly_alerts/dont-touch-your-face/ an acceptable supporting source for the statment "Touching the mucous membranes on your face with infected hands allows germs that cause respiratory infections to enter the body."?Universal Kakistocrat (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * We really shouldn't think of sourcing as subject to an editor's taste. If it's biomedical content, like the ability of a product to reduce infection risk, the sourcing needs to comply with WP:MEDRS. This guideline discusses how the popular press (like the Statnews source) isn't so reliable for medical information. The other sources are also problematic (one is a primary journal article, and the other is a university press release touting the work of the school). The APIC source is probably okay but I question whether you need to discuss getting sick from touching the face in an encyclopedia entry about door handles.
 * If you just say that some door handles are designed to be operated by the arm or foot and leave it at that, the sourcing is much simpler because that isn't a medical claim. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I've put wording in line with your suggestion and changed the sources. WRT the inclusion of references to infection: these amendments were posted in a section called "infection control". Given this is the largest area of development in door handles at the moment I'd suggest that the section should stay. With this in mind, shall I reinstate the reference to infection and the APIC source?

I'll be grateful for more clarity on sources quality because I'm about to make a much bigger change to this page. Your original and subsequent delete with respect to the handles (not the medical claim) was on the basis that these were not independent sources. From my reading of WP:USESPS this is not the right criterion in these cases. 4.2.3 states that a self-published source is acceptable where 'The very existence of the source supports the statement. For example, for the statement, "Members of his own party criticized his actions," self-published blogs by party members which contained such critical posts would be acceptable as a source. Similarly, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published.'

In the current case with the arm handle, the statement was that arm handles existed. The source supports the statement, in accordance with 4.2.3 so I'm not clear why you see it as problematic.

Likewise with the statement about the foot handle: the statement was that foot handles existed. WP:USEPRIMARY addresses the use of primary sources. In section 4 is states:

'Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does. '

In the present case, the source directly supports the statement that foot handles exist. Again, I'm not clear why you see it as problematic.

The reason I am taking so much care is that I am about to try to correct a mis-statement on the page which is egregiously wrong and defies commmon-sense experience - but which is widely propagated by secondary sources. The statement in question is that Osbourn Doursey invented the doorknob in 1878. The claim seems to be based on the fact that he happened to include a drawing of a doorknob in a patent (US 210764). But the patent has nothing to do with the knob; it is just an item included in the drawing, along with a picture of a door.

Anyone who had visited a late 18th Century house - Monticello for example - will realise immediately that the statement is wrong. Doorknobs became popular no later than the mid 1700s:

https://ewh.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EWH-Ironmongery-Guide.pdf

https://www.oldhouseonline.com/interiors-and-decor/knobs-latches-and-levers

Doursey's was not even the earliest US patent showing a doorknob:

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/98/65/67/6b9bcaee432e40/US2904.pdf https://patents.google.com/patent/US65A/en?q=(knob)&before=priority:18500101&after=priority:18300101&oq=(knob)+before:priority:18500101+after:priority:18300101

show two examples of patents directly related to doorknobs from before 1845, showing they were by then an established technology

From my interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines all of the above are high-quality verifiable sources. But I'd be grateful if you confirm this before I make changes. I'd rather be sure of the acceptability of sources before correcting such a widely propagated error.Universal Kakistocrat (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

On the back of this I'd like to expand the history of handles section more widely. Most of the search sites, including Google, don't distinguish between doorknobs and doorhandles. So if interrogated "When was the door handles invented" they come back with 1878.

Is this https://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/doors/door_furniture.htm an acceptable source for handles 1500-1750? I'll push back further in due course. The Bernward Doors date from 500 years earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universal Kakistocrat (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 July 2020 Universal Kakistocrat (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry - getting a bit too unwieldy to follow closely, but it sounds like you'll have a much easier time sourcing the statement about 18th-century door handles, so I can't see a problem there. The statement about arm/foot handles is included in an infection control section. If it were just listed under the section about types of handles without mention of its ability to reduce infection risk, that seems like it would be fine. Larry Hockett (Talk) 20:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden Honors Page
Hi Larry, regarding the page I created on Joe Biden's Honors I attempted a name change because I don't think it is a list of awards (State Honors are different from awards). I understand that I messed up a little bit. Is there a way you could change the Title back to the original of 'Honors of Joe Biden' ? I Tried to change it back to Honors of Joe Biden but was for some reason wikipedia could not make the change. currently 'Honors of Joe Biden' is a redirect to the current page and i am unaware of how to change a redirected title to being the main title of the page. let me know if you can help.

I meant no malice by my actions

Thank you Michael Drew (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Michael. Since no distinction included on the page falls outside of the realm of an award or an honor, the original title (List of awards and honors...) seems fine. (Many articles are titled this way on WP; see List of awards and honors received by Hillary Clinton for an example.) I don't think we can move it back to either option now without the assistance of an administrator because those page titles already exist (as redirects). I started a talk page discussion because that's usually the appropriate action for a page move that may be controversial. It will be interesting to see the discussion.
 * When people ask you to use edit summaries, it's not that they think you might be editing with malice. It just helps us to understand each other's thought processes. When editors are looking at a watchlist or Recent Changes, it can also help editors decide whether or not to review an edit. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Larry,

I Changed the Joe Biden Honors Article to List of honors received by Joe Biden. So It works with the American English and the 'List of' description. What do you think of that ? Let me know.

Thank you Michael Drew (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was a little surprised that this was moved again without waiting a couple of days to see what kind of talk page responses we got, but at this point I would leave it there unless there are objections on the talk page. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Willis J. Potts
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Willis J. Potts you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay! Busy in real life. Man plans god laughs, and all that. You're at the top of my list for when I get a moment. I hope all is well with you! Ajpolino (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries! Take your time! Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Article
Hello Larry,it's Humphrey. And i would like to get help with starting an article.. Humphrey seithati (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for reaching out to me. I will be honest with you; writing an article is really something best attempted after you have lots of experience completing other editing tasks. I had several hundred edits before I attempted my first article, but I still found the new article process very confusing.
 * Since you have made only a few dozen edits and have had previous failed attempts to create articles, I think you should spend some time making minor edits to existing articles (fixing spelling errors, for example). You can use that time to learn more about the workings and rules of Wikipedia. Make sure you read Help:Your first article very thoroughly before even considering article creation. If you are still wanting to write about yourself, Wikipedia is not a good option for that. You can create your own free website outside of Wikipedia (see wix.com, for example) without having to deal with all the rules and regulations of this place. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)