User talk:Larry Hockett

User

Talk

Contribs

Promoted

Gallery

Sandbox

Larry why do you insist in vandalizing valid content and reverting to content that violates multiple Wikipedia rules? If I am editing text that I inserted I will not use the sandbox - why did you not use the sandbox? If you want to be constructive why do you not find some photos for the article and insert them?Informed analysis (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

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