User talk:Larry Hockett/Archive 17

[Untitled comments about banning]
Stop censoring my edits you sorry piece of $HiT A-Hoe!! I am going to sue you down to below Chinatown! Biased loser MFer! Get a life aNd stop pretending to be a Quack you Pathetic, Phoney Sorry Excuse for a Loser! Also revert it NOW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:4280:1ff0:a80e:72d6:a4cc:c325 (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Put a Sock puppet in it Hockett and stop your Malicious deletions of relevant info.! You might want to bend Over and "Go Greek" the rest of your life (Whatever floats your Sorry Assed boat) but that does Not give You the right to ILLEGAL Censorship! I ll Ban your Ass from the Wiki! You think Im afraid of your Threat??!! Ill see you in Court for IIED! Change it Back Now!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:4280:1ff0:a80e:72d6:a4cc:c325 (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not changing it back. There is helpful information on your user talk page about editing the encyclopedia from a neutral point of view. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

June 1st, 2021
(June 1st, 2021) Hello Larry. I'm just seeing your comments now so this is a bit of a surprise months later. I'm not sure which article you are talking about specifically as I've made edits of everything from country pages to mass shooting lists so please reference that. As for your comments, I can assure you that enough evidence was provided for the source to be known as reliable and even if it wasn't more than 2 or 3 articles/videos that could only mean that not much was provided for the evidence to be flowing over if you will, but enough to be known as a fact. Please rely this information back to me. My Page Here

Chadwick Marcus Email: Submissionmessage@outlook.com [I'll probably post this on your Wiki Page]
 * Replied on user talk page. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk page deletion
Why are you deleting people's talk page comments ? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry. I didn't intend to touch that page. I must have accidentally clicked on Rollback but I certainly didn't realize it. I appreciate you bringing it up. That's particularly a head-scratcher because I was actually actively editing at that time. Usually when this happens my mobile device is rolling around in my pocket or something. I'm glad you were able to get things restored. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. I looked at your edit history, and you're clearly doing important patrolling for vandalism, not engaging in vandalism!  I've clicked the wrong thing with such tools before, too.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Swimming pool sanitation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 220 Volt. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

BlackNikita
I blocked the sock you reported as obvious, but who is BlackNikita? Couldn't find a user with that name, and the other socks I saw gave no clue either. Just curious.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I botched that name. The LTA went by User:DeepNikita at one point. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Goodman
Hi - I found this article from 1981 where Goodman gave context to where and when he wrote "A Dying Cub Fan's Last Request". Passing along in case useful. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a great point! I'll add that context. Thanks for the heads up. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. In listening to the song (which I've never heard before this week), there might be benefit in listing some of the Chicago and baseball related terms he incorporates in the lyrics, that may not be recognized by all listeners. I heard: Lake Michigan, 1945 Chicago Cubs season, Chicago "L", "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye", Ernie Banks, Jack Brickhouse, Keith Moreland, Louisville Slugger, Bleacher Bums, and "Lonesome Loser". Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. Good call. There are a lot of very specific references to Chicago and the Cubs in that song. Let me put some thought into how to best incorporate those. Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

MMA vandals
Many thanks for your help. It's the same one or two editors who make the changes to height and weight, and their motives are unfathomable. Appreciate your helping keep the info sound.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm not too familiar with MMA and the reliable sources in that domain, but I am seeing heights that don't match the cited sources, so I thought I would help out. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Eojlzaw
FYI this is a LTA troll - Sockpuppet investigations/GeraldFord1980. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Khalid
Hi Larry, for which reason you edited my contribution on singer Khalid? Lirress (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . I left an edit summary to explain that edit (poor grammar). I also moved this comment to the bottom of my user talk page in its own section. Let me know if you have other questions. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I still don't clearly get it why you did that; I'm asking this just because I love to learn good things to the right guys, you know I've poor Wiki-experience, even poor English but I can't stop my intention for writing I'm trying always to get myself better and finding right time (when I be fully able to perform on this place) but I'm messing things up here even if I'm trying hard and hard to fight that (your action today touched me as off of my light) Larry, as I seen you are experienced performer (in many years here) you know I'm always thirists for good advice; but do you have on seeing me as a teenage boy? Lirress (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi - I admire your willingness to help Wikipedia, and I will try to explain the problem as clearly as possible. When we edit Wikipedia entries, our goal is to make the wording very clear for the reader. Some of your edits are making things less clear - for example, taking a paragraph that is not confusing and turning it into something that is confusing. Sometimes this happens when a person attempts to translate phrases from another language into English. The problem is that these phrases may not have any meaning in the English language.


 * Here are a couple of examples from the Khalid (singer) entry. In one place you wrote "His album releasing and earning acceptance career began in 2017" but this is very confusing. There is no meaning to the English phrase "earning acceptance career". I think you mean that Khalid released his first album in 2017 and that he gradually gained popularity after that. However, the reader should not have to guess what we mean. Same issue with "acting out with eclectic musical styles" (acting out is when a child displays poor behavior) and "global acceptable artist" (maybe you mean that he achieved global recognition, but I am not sure). In your message to me above, "as off of my light" has no meaning in English as far as I know.


 * Participation on Wikipedia can be a great way to improve formal writing skills, but I don't think it is a good way to learn the English language. We just aren't set up to teach that. My advice, based on years of experience here, is to find a way (outside of Wikipedia) to improve your written English. Maybe that is an English class or some language learning software. Then, once you have a much greater comfort level with English, you can edit here without the frustrations that you are facing right now. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Larry for that explaining it is really gave something and quality! But are you advising me to take a hiatus from Wikipedia until I be very good on English language? Lirress (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * - In my opinion, you should avoid adding prose (like sentences and paragraphs) to articles right now. However, there are other editing tasks that do not require a good understanding of English. For example, on baseball articles (where I edit a lot), there are some statistics that call for the use of the Frac template, and some of our less experienced editors go from one article to the next checking for the appropriate use of this template. An editor would not need strong writing skills to perform such tasks. However, if you spend a lot of time performing these minor tasks, that may take away from the time you can spend improving your written English. Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * No problem. Thank you for an interesting article. I learned a lot from reading your work! Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

R142A subway car
I'm sorry about R142A page you were right about The last R142As (7581–7590) to be sent to the Kawasaki Rail Car plant were removed from service on March 18, 2016; by the next month, they too had been sent to the plant.

I was trying to help that's all. Soap Bubbles 46 (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. I also messed up when I first looked at it. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * >Tfw sock. Mtattrain (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Information on extensively reported news by highly regarded league reporters
Hey there, I see you've been editing for a very long time and totally appreciate how much effort you must have spent over the years to achieve such high edit totals. I am a big sports fans, specifically the NBA, and I become very active on Wiki especially during the offseason to keep league info up to date while the active offseason unfolds in terms of roster changes and team updates. I have had many discussion with Wiki editors in the past of just when the right time to edit a page is after big news breaks. Without going into extensive detail, I feel as though with how fast news travels these days and with the impeccable reputations of some widely respected league reporters, namely Adrian Wojnarowski and Shams Charania, I feel as though it would truly be beneficial to NBA related pages to accept edits when news is broken this way. Frankly, it gets confusing for people who are less knowledgeable about some of Wiki's policies (in terms of when an edit should be made of "reported" news) which begins the counterproductive edit wars by two groups who both believe they are doing the right thing. Anyways, I just wanted to reach out to get your view on this subject. I'm no expert, but I do love staying on top of changes and keeping everything up to date for more casual followers of the league that rely on wiki for quick info, especially during busy off seasons. Feel free to read my proposal from two years ago that I hopefully linked correctly here. I also posted it to the NBA WikiProject page where it received a lot of attention, but mostly reiterating the same point to wait "official team announcement" which after reading my reasons, you can obviously tell I see as very counterproductive. I'm not wiki savvy enough to request an actual policy change, but I'd love to get your input after reading some of my thoughts. Thanks in advance! Hope to hear from you. RichieConant34 (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, these situations are frustrating for me and I usually don't get involved unless the team changes are clearly spurious or the editor has a history of doing the same thing in the past. I feel like Template:Current sports transaction might be underutilized here. Instead of just vaguely mentioning the fact that the subject is in the news for a recent sports transaction, I sometimes wonder if it could say "The subject of this article is currently in the news regarding a reported trade from the (Team A) to the (Team B). The team name should not be changed in the article until there is an announcement from the team itself." When I look at an article with the current version of the template, I can't tell whether the team in the lead is the old team or the reported new team.
 * I don't know if it's realistic to expect editors to distinguish between individual reporters. The custom on WP is to evaluate the source but not necessarily the writer. A certain newspaper is either notable or not, regardless of which columnist wrote a specific article. Hope this helps. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All good points. I agree that Template:Current sports transaction would definitely be more useful if specific teams were mentioned to clear up a lot of the confusion that is tied to off-season player movement. My issue with the whole system is that the pages are continuously changed during this lull of time between "unsourced" or "anonymous" sources and official team announcement which may come days later, regardless of the template note or semi protection. Whether it's excited editors who believe the top reporters of the league themselves are extremely reliable and acceptable sources, to which I somewhat agree with, or its more experienced editors who refer to a possibly outdated policy for these unique scenarios. Either way, the constant edit wars that take place allows for optimal confusion and frustration among all contributors as well as non editors just visiting player pages during this time. RichieConant34 (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

sorry
I deadly understand that I'm vexing here. I'm always decide to run out forever but it is inside mine and that would force me to stick. I just need to tell the world that I'm sorry and that include you! Lirress (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need to apologize. I don't find you to be vexing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Margaret McFarland
Absolutely excellent work on Margaret McFarland. I was very pleased to pass it to GA. Thank you so much for taking the care and effort on that article you have! If you ever decided to go for FA status, I may be able to help with getting some info about her in Australia (right now most of Australia is locked down unfortunately). - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your words. I appreciate your suggestions on the talk page. I found the Maxwell King biography of Rogers on Google Books. It has a great chapter on McFarland (how she came to work with Spock, a long childhood illness, etc), but the Google Books version doesn't have page numbers, so I'll have to see if I can get my hands on a physical copy. I will take a look at the Tittnich article. I don't know if I was take this to FAC, but I certainly appreciate the offer of assistance. Thanks again. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, can't blame you if you don't - I'm here for a good time, not a long time in terms of writing individual articles, so GA is all the time and effort I can give myself :-) Aussie Article Writer (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Aubrey Huff Good Article Reassessment
Aubrey Huff, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Robinson projection
Hello. I recently made an addition to the Robinson projection Wikipedia page stating that it's the most common projection for maps. The link below is the closest thing I have to a source. Look at any Wikipedia article with an applicable map and compare it to the one in the link. If you go down to the bottom of the linked article, there's a category called "SVG maps with Robinson projection". Regrettably the list is not complete, but as you can see, it's pretty common. I hope this will be satisfactory as a source per se.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg
 * I don't think I've been involved in editing that entry recently. It sounds like omitting this information was the correct decision though. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Terri Schavo and NPOV
We could rip out every mention of Terri, Michael and euthanasia from that article because that is not what the bulk of the text deals with. It deals with bad lawmaking. I am not being POV in calling enacting unconstitutional laws "bad". Any child can recognize that such a waste of time and money is not good. We have to call the article something like "Terri Schavo" because that is what it is best known as, but it is not really a biography at all. Just skim the text and you will see. My modest contributions are NPOV. I am providing context. I never mention a political party. I never dictate whether faith or rationality is superior. I never even state a preference about becoming a caveman or not. I let the reader choose their fate. Please let use not revert war. Please do just switch to yet another easy excuse like WP:OR and then another and another. I invite you to do some creative work and help make this article a featured article. That is our common goal, is it not?--Pages777 (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not my goal to take that entry to FAC. I was just warning you about a clear issue with non-neutral wording. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am working on a complete re-write of that lead section with all of its very unimportant detail. That unimportant detail is there because the manipulative editors with a right-to-life agenda force attention on those details long ago. They manipulated Wikipedia content for all these years and now I insist that it is time to improve the article quality with a complete rewrite of the lead. Please see User:Pages777/ts. Please feel free to contribute to that draft. I will put it in the article in two days. For the body of the article, I guess we and just drone on and on about fact after fact, but WP:LEAD is unambiguous: what matters there is IMPORTANCE. Figuring that out requires something more than just some silly notion of tone. It requires critical thought, judgement, analysis, insight, wisdom a talented human mind and what people go to law school and journalism school for beyond just making money. You know, that kind of thing that the elderly Robert McHenry still attempts to accomplish. The talent, the effort and the work, work, work is on deciding what goes into the first paragraph of the news article or legal brief or encyclopedia article in what facts you choose to focus on. What is important in this legal case is who has civic merit in the great American tradition of the founding forefathers and who does not. In terms of importance, there is no need to mention the Bush brothers or the Supreme Court or the irrational therapy in the 1990's. That is all just those vile right-to-lifers trying to suggest that they are righteous and important and the Terri would someday fully recover. The right-to-lifers Bushes were and still are under the law and therefor they are much, much less important the law. I am an editor with an agenda and I am going to manipulate the Wikipedia content in order impose my agenda on it. My agenda is rationality. The kind of crap that the founding fathers and the U.S. Constitution and really, really evil destructive crap like that it all about. You have your chance now to provide input and for us to collaborate. You do not have permission from me to revert that edit when I replace the lead of the article the with what we are now working on together. Two days.--Pages777 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I may have given you the wrong impression. I'm not looking to collaborate on this entry (at least not to any greater extent than I would with any other random article that pops up on my watchlist). The situation is just that I see edits to the article on my watchlist, and like I do for any other entry on the list, I take care of easy situations like vandalism or other unconstructive edits. I believe the caveman thing is what attracted my attention in the first place. We shouldn't even see that word in any entry not specifically discussing actual cavemen (there could be an exception for direct quotes). For an unconstructive edit like that, no permission is required to revert. It also wouldn't matter if you offered to collaborate first, if you posted the unconstructive edit to your sandbox first, or if a certain amount of time had passed; it would still get reverted and a warning would be issued on your talk page. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, I achieved a sense of accomplishment in the pursuit of quality and I jumped the gun. I just put my version of the lead in. In that earlier version, that sat there year after sickening year, Michael's name occurs only once in the lead, but now it occurs eight times. That previous situation was because of the right to lifers. It is called damnatio memoriae. If the heretic is alive, you burn him at the stake, and otherwise, you find every book, every letter and dig up their body and burn it all and take a sledge hammer to the gravestone. The goal is to annihilate every last iota of evidence that the person ever lives, breathed or ever uttered a single word. That is those Jesus-loving right to lifers for you. The Roman Catholic propagation of the faith and all that jazz.--Pages777 (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Using full name in the born section
On BLPs, Is it good to use full names in the early life section? Ethan2345678 (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Born parameter in the infobox usually doesn't have a name in it unless the subject's birth name is different from their common name. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean in the early life section Ethan2345678 (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ramsey Dardar
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ramsey Dardar 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Women in Green Editathon
Hello Larry -- With the goal of helping to progress the WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) women’s rights-themed GA nomination goal for 2021, I’m proposing that WiG hold a special editathon event in the fall (maybe October/November?). I can assist with logistics, but I need to know how much interest/support there might be from WiG participants first. Please let me know what you think in the talk page conversation! All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ramsey Dardar
The article Ramsey Dardar you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ramsey Dardar for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Raymond Riles
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Raymond Riles 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Raymond Riles
The article Raymond Riles you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Raymond Riles for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Raymond Riles
The article Raymond Riles you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Raymond Riles for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ramsey Dardar
The article Ramsey Dardar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ramsey Dardar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Margaret McFarland
The Women in Green wikiproject would like to add Margaret McFarland to the listed GA articles here. Would you be alright with this? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , that would be great. Thanks for asking me. Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No probs, thanks! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charles Lester Leonard
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles Lester Leonard 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 Dracophyllum -- Dracophyllum (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charles Lester Leonard
The article Charles Lester Leonard you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charles Lester Leonard for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dracophyllum -- Dracophyllum (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Impersonator
What I can't believe is that with that user name, you gave them a level 1 warning. Were you going to file a report? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Funny story. I lost my web connection for a bit right at that time, then got called away from my computer for a second and didn't realize that my report didn't go through. Thanks for taking care of that. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Perfect timing, that. Happy to squash that vandal if they come back. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Expanding article
Hi, do you think that you could expand this article here Miguel Arcángel Roscigna with more sources and information. I have expanded the article a bit. I have my hands full with editing and can only do so much at at time. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - Honestly, I don't think I am the best person to help to you with that subject. Here are some areas where I'm more likely to be able to help. Don't feel pressured by the thought of the work that still needs to be done. Most of us have an article or two that we're actively working on and then a few ideas in our heads for what we will do after that. It always helps me to remember that we're not working under deadlines. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have worked on articles, and then returned to them a decade later, correcting my previous errors and/or adding new material. And there are many articles for which I have ideas for improvements, and may actually get to some day before I retire from WP. - Donald Albury 22:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of C. Edmund Kells
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article C. Edmund Kells 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 AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andre Thomas
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andre Thomas 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andre Thomas
The article Andre Thomas you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Andre Thomas for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andre Thomas
The article Andre Thomas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andre Thomas for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

New message from JalenFolf
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Special:Contributions/2600:8801:A002:3700:0:0:0:0/64. Jalen Folf  (talk)  04:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I'm not sure I have a lot to add to what you wrote. My impression is that these are mostly good-faith edits, but it's hard to help a misguided editor like this when there's not a consistent user talk page to keep the communication organized. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Improving an article
Hi there. I don't suppose you would be interested in improving/expanding the Charles Brooks Jr. article would you? I think it might suit your interests and it's an article that could really do with improvement. I have been working on improving similar pages but it's a lot for me to do on my own so I figured as you work on Texas based articles and true crime you may find it appealing? Thanks. Inexpiable (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey - thanks for pointing that out. The Brooks case was historic for several reasons, so I agree that it's an article that would be good to expand. I see that the Texas Monthly article has some more information about his early life and his death row life, so I will see what I can do there. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. I know for old cases from the 1970s-1990s it can be tricky to find decent sources, reliable info and quality information on a person's background. I recently expanded the Jesse Bishop article and found little info from Google searches so I have been using Newspapers.com with a private subscription. If you need any newspapers clippings as sources for Brooks I can do them for you, there might be some good info on his background on there that isn't available on the web. Inexpiable (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Rollback of Daryl Strawberry edit (‘98 WS championship highlight)
I wonder what the “official” criteria are for this, or if you’re making a personal judgment. Strawberry did receive a WS ring for ‘98 (which he apparently auctioned off). Meanwhile, John Miller of the ‘66 Orioles has the WS championship in his highlights box even though he didn’t play in the WS. (Not sure if he was at least on the roster.) I would not want to remove recognition of that achievement for Miller—which obviously stands out more for him than ‘98 does for Strawberry—but this seems like an obvious inconsistency. Ewilen (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's more of a consensus on WikiProject Baseball than an official stance or a personal judgment. In past discussions on WT:BASEBALL, the consensus has generally been that we leave the WS off of a player's career highlights if they weren't on the WS roster. (To some, it isn't a career highlight if the player was on his couch when it happened.) I can understand the point about the WS ring, but most editors haven't found it persuasive (WS rings - unlike postseason roster spots - are often given out for more sentimental reasons or given to administrative personnel like IT employees). With that said, consensus can change and this question can always be brought up at WT:BASEBALL to see if there is support for such a change. (I don't have a strong opinion either way. I just think we should discuss before potentially editing against consensus.)
 * If you're interesting in helping with that article's coverage of the late 1990s, I do notice that the article prose doesn't give the reader enough info about the timing of the cancer diagnosis or the impact it had on that season. If you wanted to try to fill in a few of those details, I don't think anyone would give you a hard time about it. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t know that non-players could get rings; another criterion might be whether a player got a share of the winner’s money.

For Strawberry, I just think it’s confusing to leave out the 1998 WS; an asterisk or note would resolve the confusion. Same for Miller. (I still don’t know if he was on the roster for the WS.) But that’s the extent of my input—it looked like an easy, non-controversial fix, once I double checked the information, that would save others from wondering. I don’t have time for any more. Ewilen (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of C. Edmund Kells
The article C. Edmund Kells you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:C. Edmund Kells for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Women in Green - October Editathon
 Hello Larry Hockett:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2021!

Running from 1 through 31 October 2021, WikiProject Women in Green is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event focused on the topic of women's rights. Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing women's rights-related GA submissions during the event period, with resources and one-on-one support provided by experienced Women in Green GA reviewers. Participants have the opportunity to receive a barnstar.

We hope to see you there! Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of C. Edmund Kells
The article C. Edmund Kells you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:C. Edmund Kells for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Jellingfortyfour
Just in case you are not aware... this is Sockpuppet investigations/Jellington Meters (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Words
Hi. I can use the word "may be" to make it objective. Not understanding what you find wrong with "community that create...". TiniLith (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "May be" is unrelated to objectivity; not only that, but it's easy to confirm that contributors are referred to as editors. “community that create" is a grammar error (subject/verb agreement). Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Contributors" are not editors but include editors, not every contributors are editors. I use the phrase "may be known as Wikipedians" which I think make it less subjective, Wikipedian is just one way of calling them, and using the straightforward "are known as" sounds subjective and forcing.
 * I read the subject/verb agreement and still do not understand what is wrong with this, can you be more detailed? TiniLith (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Under what circumstances would individual Wikipedia contributors not be editors? While there are other uses of the word "contributor", the context makes it clear that we aren't referring to something like a financial contributor. The collective noun "community" would agree in this case with the verb "creates". The larger point is that it is very difficult to edit the grammar of an encyclopedia article without native-level writing ability. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So then, just call them editors, it simply be "Editors may be known as Wikipedians", I will remove "individual contributors" since this term is too broad. And what "context makes it clear"? No clear definition or project page of what an individual contributor is.
 * "the community" in this case can totally be used as a plural noun. Not understanding why you said by "would agree on this case...with 'creates'" why? What is special about this case? TiniLith (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove individual contributors. I was just pointing out that there is no need to further specify the type of contributor. It is still helpful for the reader to learn that contributors on Wikipedia are referred to as editors. In your proposed version, the reader may be left with the mistaken impression that "editor" is a different role than a typical contributor. (For most publications, the editorial role is quite distinct.) “The community” is a collective noun, and in the case of a collaboratibe action like creating the content of the encyclopedia, it takes a singular verb. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "contributors on Wikipedia are referred to as editors" by who? You see the problem with subjectivity in terming? There are some who don't equal editors with contributors. If you left this type of straightforward statement, that is essentially forcing a term on everyone. If there is an objective criteria for the term, can you cite it?


 * "creating the content of the encyclopedia" may or may not be collaborative action, it can be individual, and the action of creating and maintaining is very dynamic. Each participant create and maintain in a different way, so in this case you can't use a singular verb, despite the noun being collective. TiniLith (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I see the problems with subjectivity, but I don't see much subjectivity in this WP entry. Any time we include a statement on Wikipedia, we could be accused of forcing something on the reader, but that would be a silly criticism in this case. If there were some reason why a reader wanted to believe something different about editors and contributors, that reader would still be fully able to do so. (Those people who do not equate contributors and editors would simply be wrong, unless they are thinking of a really wacky usage of "contributor".) WP:WWW is one of the many places on WP where we define "editor". If we were looking for an actual reference to add to the WP article, we would probably use a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, but the concept is so basic that I can't imagine that anyone would bother. Honestly, it's time to let this rest. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If simply "are known as", it need to be described as by or on what standard or criteria; if you leave it without description, it's basically saying everyone know them or call them using that word, and, that is obviously obscure and not true, and forcing. To resolve it, I can add "also" before "known as" to acknowledge that it's just one way of calling.
 * I don't find any information article including WP:WWW that equal individual contributors with editors. "The concept is so basic" and no one bother is the very problem why no clear definition is done. Overlapping terms is not good and it can't be let rest. TiniLith (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You've edited my talk page five times in a ten-minute span just now, on top of the edits from earlier this evening, and all because of some nonexistent confusion over what an editor is. I'm not up for any lectures from you. Please do not post here again. If you have ideas for discussion, please post them on the article talk page. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Irene Garza
I think the proper response to problems with edits is not to revert the entire article, but to fix any problems that you have noticed. I realize that this is more work and I would certainly be willing to make reasonable changes. However, a full scale reversion is totally unwarranted.

I found quite a few problems myself with the current version. For example, I found it totally unnecessary for the lead sentence to be calling this young woman a "beauty queen"- that represent a sexist view of what this woman really stood for. Also, what difference did it make that White students dominated at her school? Also, what did her "striking appearance" have to do with anything. The paragraph about the Guerra rape is vague. Why doesn't it say that she accused him about rape? Many of the sentences are awkward and poorly constructed. For example "Feit had been said to have passed his polygraph; documentation was later amended to show that the results were inconclusive, but the examiner felt that Feit had failed the test." These are just a few examples of why I felt this article needed revising. Should I revert this? Rogermx (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The descriptions in Wikipedia entries are generally based on how events or people are described in reliable sources. If you were to search for "Irene Garza beauty queen", for example, you will find that there is a great deal of RS coverage describing her that way. The sentence about the polygraph results is describing a confusing situation, and I would be willing to entertain different wording as long as it doesn't inject more errors than it fixes. I just don't want to introduce changes that would threaten the article's GA status. Should you revert? No, but I appreciate the fact that you asked. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the polygraph bit. See if it looks okay now. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Randall Telfer
Why did you do this? --2601:192:8801:6970:3152:C359:81F3:656A (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't nominate Randall Telfer. I nominated the redirect and explained why I did it. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On a second look, I didn't mean to nominate Randall Telfer but it looks like the notice is showing up there because of this ridiculous redirect. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Stand-up comedy
I came across the page recently and was surprised at it's current state. On a whim I started to sandbox it to try to strip away the extraneous and impose some structure. I have also managed to find some good source material on the origins of the term which I'm in the process of adding. I would like your thoughts on the subject or (a pointer to someone who might be), I saw you were the most recent addition to the talk page. Any edit I publish will considerably alter the current look of the page, I'm concerned about fallout from previous editors or the general community. What do you advise?WakeUpBoo (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - thanks for reaching out. I don't think you have to worry about a lot of hassle or fallout from trying to clean up this article as things stand right now. In the past, editors became disinterested in the article because they would try to clean up the entry (taking out off-topic references or unusual uses of Template:Main, Template:See also, and Template:Broader) and one editor would just put these things right back in the article without any discussion. (Full disclosure: Looking back, I can see how I could have used the article talk page more effectively with this editor.) The editor responsible for that behavior hasn't edited the article in a few months and apparently decided to stop editing WP over a month ago.
 * If you are worried about resistance, you could start small (cleaning up the unnecessary templates at the top of each section or whittling down the citations so that we don't have single sentences with seven or eight nested references) ... but if you decide on a larger change in the article structure through your sandbox, I think you'll likely be fine too. If someone does object, you could always go back and start with smaller changes. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Time to WP:Be Bold then.WakeUpBoo (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Mackenzie Ziegler
Currently there is an Edit War at this article. I see that you used to edit this article a long time ago. Feel free to look in on the current back and forth and see if you have an opinion. Same with her sister's article Maddie Ziegler. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

My external links were removed
Dear Larry Hockett, Hope you are doing well. I just found that some of my external links are removed by you and you said which are inappropriate and not reliable. I am extremely sorry for my mistake. Since I am not an experienced editor, I am a bit confused here. Could you please elaborate? What made you say it is not reliable? Just want to understand and learn it from you. So that I will not repeat the mistake in future. Could you please give me an advice on this? --Anoopcb (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually it's best to stick to sources with a high level of editorial control, such as newspapers and major magazines. Also see WP:COI. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

LTA
I had totally forgotten about that one. Ignorance is bliss! Let me know if you want your talk page semi-protected. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Right now I'm fine, but I'll let you know. Thanks! Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)