User talk:Larrykoen

khalid

-- I posted the following paragraph originally on Misconceptions2's page:

In reading your article Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Banu Jadhimah), I see that you refer to sources who are later than Ibn Ishaq who also discusses this expedition. In fact, you edited out my contribution to the Khalid ibn al-Walid article where I cited Ibn Ishaq on this battle, replacing it with a modern European source. I wonder, why did you eliminate Ibn Ishaq in favor, on the one hand, of a modern European, and on the other, in favor of later Islamic sources? Neither of these seem to me improvements or even legitimate edits. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Misconceptions2 replied as follows on my own talk page, before eventually deleting my contributions and his or her responses from their own talk page:

i did not eliminate ibn ishaq, i kept it. muslims dont consider ibn ishaq reliable (but i know thats not the point), so instead of 1 source i added 4 (both muslim and non muslim sources). i consider that an improvement.i also kept the ibn ishaq source

another reasons is, i dont know what ibn ishaq had to say about this expedition, i didnt read his book, i cant find previews of it on google book, i prefer to use sources which people can verify easily, i.e direct links--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--I responded to the above with the following on Misconceptions2's talk page, also now deleted.

Regarding sources, please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. This does not support your preference for direct links; rather, they support "published" sources, "most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online (emphasis added)." I note that I have also learned something from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, specifically, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." This generally leaves out Ibn Ishaq, whom Wikipedia reports as criticized for unreliability, as you noted; though their assertion is sourced via printed sources unavailable through links, I might add. Nonetheless I added an Ibn Ishaq paragraph to the primary sources section of Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Banu Jadhimah). I think this is appropriate, given his historical primacy. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--I note that Misconceptions2 has not deleted this contribution to the Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Banu Jadhimah) article.

Your article submission Time (book)

Hello Larrykoen. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Time (book).

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Time (book)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for interview

Hello there!

My name is AVardhana (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC), and I recently joined The Wikipedia Library team to help with design work. I noticed you've been very generous with your input to our team so I thought I would reach out! I'm writing to invite you to participate in an interview study that I'm currently conducting.[reply]

This would involve us meeting via Google meets where I will ask you a few questions and then have you test a prototype with me. For the interview, I'd be recording your screen as well as audio. The purpose of the study is to get a better understanding of who is using The Wikipedia Library for the purposes of making the right improvements!

If you're interested, please email me at [email protected], and I'll send a copy of the privacy statement to you. If you have any questions, I am happy to answer them.

Thank you, Aishwarya

Shul

"Shul" is not a foreign word that needs explanation. It's an English word, found in every English dictionary. If someone doesn't know what it is, it's wikilinked.

More importantly, it is absolutely not an example of the fact that most NYC Jewish institutions at the time were Yiddish-speaking. Most such institutions now are English-speaking, and "shul" is still in common use. The early Young Israels were English-speaking, and yet were called shuls. At the time Yiddish was the common language used at such places, which is why the young American generation didn't feel comfortable there and wanted their own places.

-- 24.90.77.69 (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is polite and good practice to define unfamiliar words, of which shul is certainly one for most anglophones worldwide. Best wishes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For adding the reference idea at Talk:List of African-American newspapers and media outlets#An under-utilized resource BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memos to self

1) .pdf URL at a specific page

After .pdf,

    #page=[page number]

e.g., https://dbc.wroc.pl/Content/110174/music_the_cultural_bridge.pdf#page=114

Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2) Reference in a Talk section:

References

3) Help:Using the Wayback Machine for formatting references to archive.org.

Weequahic Park Lake

Hi Larry, some ip address removed the Weequahic Park being the largest lake in the county of Essex and said in the summary that there are many larger ones in Essex county. Can you please revert that edit that this person made. It is the largest lake in Essex County. Thank you, Doriden (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doriden -- That user commented on my "Unimpeachable" edit: "Impeached ;-) Park page is incorrect. It is not close to largest lake in Essex County. A couple, if not more, are larger, eg: https://www.lake-link.com/new-jersey-lakes/essex/canoe-brook-reservoir-number-one/325521" OK, that's an anthropogenic lake and it is named a reservoir, unlike Weequahic Lake. But Weequahic Lake is also anthropogenic, so the editor has it accurately in my view. Perhaps Weequahic Lake is the largest "Lake" not the largest lake, but that does not seem notable enough to make the distinction. Regretfully as a former Park neighbor, I must thank the editor for their correction. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weequahic Park Lake

Can you please revert the edit to Weequahic Park lake being the largest in Essex County NJ. I reverted this ip address edit that removed it a few days ago and last night he removed it again. It is the largest lake in Essex County. Please help me out with this. Thank You, Doriden (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... Someone unknown to me submitted my incomplete draft on H. L. Mitchell for approval before it was ready. I want to withdraw the approval request.

I have been intermittently working on the article for a long time. My problem is threefold: a plethora of information about Mitchell, the constant temptation to shift focus to other articles needing minor correction, and the press of other business. Nevertheless, I continue to work on the article, with much encouragement and some provision of additional source material from Mitchell's admirers and/or acquaintances.

The editor who submitted the article has a practice of submitting articles for creation on which they have done no other work at all, besides the submission. This is true for Draft:H. L. Mitchell as well.

How can I withdraw the submission, besides perhaps writing at the top of the article: "Do not accept this article for approval at this time"? Thank you for your consideration. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit at Wow's talk page

I place this here because I want to preserve this discussion, which User:Wow will doubtless delete from their Talk page, per their practice.

List of African American newspapers and media outlets

I've been following your edits of List of African American newspapers and media outlets with interest and curiosity. I note that the Wikipedia style article Wikipedia:African American, which inconsistently uses both hyphenated and unhyphenated versions of the phrase throughout, includes a summary at the beginning:

This page in a nutshell: Use the term "black" as a color descriptive and not "African-American"

However, they precede this summary with another box:

This is a failed proposal.

Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at the village pump.

So my research indicates that both hyphenated and unhyphenated versions are stylistically valid.

Anyway, to my questions.

1. Why did you remove the hyphen in the title? Your explanation specifies "redirect consistency." But that explanation cuts in both directions. For myself, I haven't seen a reference to this article where its wikilinked title lacked a hyphen. Nor have I ever seen it unhyphenated in any other medium.

Unhyphenated, it looks like the reference is to African immigrants to the USA; not to the general population of Black people in the USA whose forebears have been out of Africa for generations.

As examples, consider Barack Obama, his father, and his wife. Had his father, a citizen of Kenya, become a naturalized USA citizen, he might be considered an African American (no hyphen). When describing Michelle Obama, the attribute is always hyphenated. Barack Obama? I think in his case it is always hyphenated as well.

2. What does "ce" mean as your explanation for your later edits to the article?

3. Why do you freqently erase the contents of your Talk page? It is valuable for other editors to understand what people have thought about your efforts. This information is of course still available by looking at earlier versions at the page's User talk:Wow#history, but it does require an effort that no Wikipedian should force on others. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow responded:

1. I removed the hyphen to be consistent with African American newspapers, whose hyphen was removed by another editor a month ago.

2. It means copyediting.

3. I erase them for decluttering purposes. Wow (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now put a similar question to FloridaArmy, who removed the hyphen from African American newspapers on June 11, 2023. Previously, on February 22, 2013 (i.e., over a decade earlier), User:Schierbecker had added the hyphen. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your "gentle reminder" on my edit summaries

You wrote your "speculation" on my talk page not too long ago:

"It's a puzzle, wondering why you refuse to write edit summary|edit summaries.
So I speculate: are you in a manic editing state, and nothing — nothing — is allowed to slow you down? Do you fancy yourself a Nietzchean Übermensch, superior to the convention of slave morality that calls for including an edit summary with every edit? Are you one of those who cannot take a gentle reminder to include an edit summary? Do you have a wager over how many edits you can make without an edit summary before you forget and accidentally include an edit summary, or regarding how many times some other editor or their bot will remind you to write an edit summary?
Inquiring minds want to know! – but more, we would like to start seeing edit summaries in your edits. Meanwhile please excuse this admmittedly excessive addition to your Talk page, where I am not the first to write about your omission, deliberate or (incredible if true) accidental, of edit summaries."

And my response was "Okay... which article are you talking about?". Espngeek (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list. I appreciated your reminder; I don't consider myself a Nietzchean Ubermensch and don't have any wager whatsoever. I just like expanding and rearranging on my edits with as many reliable sources (as noted on a few obscure documentaries I recently saw online like Playback and What Do Those Old Films Mean?) as possible alongside related content. Espngeek (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "Rm additions without an article = No inclusion"

Hi Larrykoen, I acknowledge receipt of your e-mail, referring to my edit summary at List of Holocaust diarists.
I am surprised that someone with over 2,300 edits asks what the meaning of Rm is in the phrase "Rm additions without an article = No inclusion" - it stands for Remove, as is explained at Wikipedia:Edit summary legend#Removal of text - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay

I just didn't get "rm." Thanks! Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your email

Just wanted to acknowledge your note proposing bios for Marilyn Robert, Satoko Motouji and Steven Oshatz. I'll be doing some research in the next week to find reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. I had researched Satoko a few years ago, but at that time the available source were mostly announcements of her showings. I'll be checking ProQuet and JSTOR to find more sources. Again, thanks for your note! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted Draft:Marilyn Robert, and welcome your suggestions/comments. Also, would you be willing to post an image on Wikimedia for the infobox, and perhaps a few images of her works? Since copyright belongs to the photographer, it would be ideal for you to post them. Just let me know, and I'll be pleased to add them to her article. See Susan Mohl Powers for some ideas to incorporate images in a gallery at the bottom of the page. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand'mere EugeneThank you for the article and for letting me know about it. I am in process reviewing it. I will not edit it, e.g. incorporating images, because I think that this would implicate COI. Rather, I will put images on Wikimedia and then let you know about them. I anticipate that this may take several days to a week. I will also add possibly useful references that you haven't listed at Draft talk:Marilyn Robert, as I think that this is outside COI rules. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree completely. I'll continue to add material using the list of potential sources on the talk page. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the draft to article space, and then archived the talk page discussion. You may want to view our last exchanges: oldid=1255218309 — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using archived versions of references

Hello! In a recent edit to Uberto Pasolini, you added an archived version of a referenced webpage by replacing the list-defined reference (using {{cite web}}) with a {{webarchive}} link. Firstly: thank you for helping fight link rot! An archived version of a page is always better than a dead link. But please note that when {{cite web}} is used, you can use the |archive-url= and |archive-date= parameters to add the archived copy without needing to rewrite the entire reference (see the documentation). Thanks! – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 23:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]