User talk:LarryLACa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Since 1/06 I'm no longer regularly online, or check my talk. I still checkin occasionally and will come back later. If I don't respond, pls post email.

Standard welcome[edit]


Hello, LarryLACa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Sincerely, Ryan 00:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Turing Machine Image Deletion 7/30/05[edit]

I have reintroduced the image into Turing machine. -- Rmrfstar 21:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Style-Usage Tips[edit]

Format Demo[edit]


  • the form is


How to reference other WikiMedia, e.g. WikiBooks, from encylopedia categories.

Can the Category tag be used to include an explict url to a page other than itself? Neither the Help:Categorization or Cat-FAQ discuss this issue

I added a 'Related WikiMedia' topic to the Rubik's Cube category for it's How To Solve book.

Link Examples[edit]

Location Jump Link Examples[edit]

Here: My Link Examples
Back to Categories
cat min. short http link doesn't work
<a href="#Categories">min. href anchor</a> becomes & lt ;
<<a href="#Categories">>min. href anchor</a> double << - fail
\<<a href="#Categories">>min. href anchor\</a> back slash left - fail
<a href="#Categories">nowiki min. href anchor</a><br>nowiki - fail
Some Junk Page s.b. red link to non-existent page.

Index Listing[edit]

creates a type of dir listing?

Stub Examples[edit]

disabled with {{tl}}: to keep stub lists from pointing here

Math Stubs[edit]

Math-stub: {{Math-stub}}

Mathlogic-stub: {{Mathlogic-stub}}

Trivial Tests[edit]

NewPageTest link


Avoid using meta-templates - Scope creep[edit]

Thread with comments from User:BlankVerse re scope creep and related clearness issues in WP:AUM moved to Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates.

Bottom of Page - Please Insert Comments Above![edit]

Edit this section to add your talk comments above by inserting a --new topic-- above this one. Having a section at the bottom, saves having to edit the whole page, just to add new. Ditto the top entry: only minimal lead paragraph (which can remain constant). Editable intro text goes into Sect#1.

Garbage 2[edit]

make the article longer

so that jumps are apparent

line 3

line 4

line 5

Garbage l2.B[edit]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, LarryLACa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Abraham Lincoln[edit]

I removed your strange thread. If you want to ask your question again, without linking it to a Political blog asking about Clinton this time, then go ahead. Meters (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Lincoln[edit]


I reverted your edit, because you made a change without referring to sources to correct the information. In addition, if there is a discrepancy, it is best to state the discrepancy and how it is resolved.

Otherwise, some could read the info in the source. Assume a typo. And, change it back. I am happy to help with this if you can provide the source(s).--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved to this talk page, per request, from User talk:CaroleHenson
I was updating my correction, as you rolled your's in. My 3rd edit went in after your's. I left the age as 6 and added a note for the discrepancy. Is this better?
BTW: how do we get this chatter thread on my talk page instead of yours? How do I reply to you on my talk page?
It's been a while since I made any revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryLACa (talkcontribs) 20:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Great! Annoying for the editor making a series of changes when these things happen at the same time, though! Sorry about that.
As an aside, If you ever want to make a few edits and prefer not to be disturbed, you can add {{in use}} at the top of the article page, and then remove it when you're done. That means for others - don't make any edits right now. That's for short updates. If you want to make more significant changes over a period of hours or days, you can add {{under construction}}, knowing that other editors may make edits while you do your work.
You can respond, here, on your talk page, and if you want me to see it right a way you can type {{u|CaroleHenson}} and I'll respond to your page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks CaroleHenson See also the Lincoln [early life section] and the Lincoln Early Life [ancestry section] for similar.

In the main article I reverted to 6 and added a note about the discrepancy.

In the early life article I left the revision as 8. LarryLACa (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort this out. In Donald's book, it says he was eight. What books does it say he was six? Do you have a source for him being born in 1778, I'm sure that's right, but it would be good to have it in the note, too. Especially since there are some sources that say he was born in 1776, per the note - unfortunately without sources.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I made the changes. It looks like the full quote with the age was from Donald, and he said "eight", so eight is right there. I update the first two notes on the page with citations. How does that look to you now?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again CaroleHenson I found an e-copy of Donald's Lincoln, confirmed his quote of eight-year-old as correct. The Thomas page looks good now. Made a minor wording tweak to your comment.

I looked at the Thomas page history. There's a history gap from 10/6 to 11/24 (my first 'revert' edit). On 10/6 it read 8, on 11/24 I claimed to have reverted it to 8, which makes no sense. I added an item on the Thomas talk page on 11/23 (the day before). I looked at my browser history and can't sort it out. Looks like a bogus 'revert' statement by me. Probably added after working on the Pres. Lincoln pages.

There are/were 'six-year-old Thomas' usage on both the Pres. Lincoln main page, and his early life page. Those still need work. Tomorrow..or..soon, I'm already booked tomorrow..

BTW: The 10/6 version of the Thomas page had 3 refs for the quoted text: Donald, Weyland, Hutchinson. It now only refs Donald. Since there has been no content change to the quote, it's probably better to restore the Weyland and Hutchinson refs. LarryLACa (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Thomas Ancestry refs: I see where CaroleHenson relocated the Wayland ref: from the Donald quote to the end of the next paragraph on ancestry. The Lea/Hutchinson ref has been lost. Reading the text, look for the best place to relocate it. CaroleHenson: whats the easiest way to drag the Lea/Hutchinson cite from the Thomas 10/16/16 history backup back to the current Thomas article. LarryLACa (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I only found that the Donald source had the quote.
This citation has multiple page: <ref>{{cite book | title=The Ancestry of Abraham Lincoln. (Google book full text) | publisher=Houghton Mifflin |author1=Lea, J. Henry |author2=Hutchinson, John R. | year=1909 | location=Boston | pages=63–64, 68–72, 76–77, 82–83}}</ref>
I'm not sure where it belongs. Was I missing something. Is the quote that your wishing to cite on one of these pages? If so, then we just need the page that it's on.
If the quote isn't on the page, then it shouldn't be used as a source there, right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I reanchored the Lea/Hutchinson ref at the end of the early life section. The breaks in the page range were only to exclude the illustrations. pp 63-77 includes English and colonial ancestors. 78-86 covers Capt.Abraham and Thomas, including how Mordecai saved Thomas and Thomas being excluded from the inheritance. Dates and ages vary considerably from today's accepted info, but it's a much older source (1909 cmp Donald 1996) and reads like a genealogy treasure hunt of the time. The attack is cited as early summer 1785, Mordecai, Josiah, Thomas ages as 21, 15, 5.

I think it's worthwhile keeping as a historical source. You? CaroleHenson

To Do: fix the Thomas six-year-old refs on the Pres. Lincoln pages LarryLACa (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. No changes needed on Pres.Lincoln Early Life Page. Did that a couple of days ago.

Changes six to eight on the Pres.Lincoln main page, update refs, add Herndon's Informants as older source for age six. I see WilsonDavis has a deprecated flag. Should I add deprecated to the Lea/Hutchinson ref on the Thomas page? How? Thanks again..CaroleHenson? LarryLACa (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, hi there. I saw your comment earlier, but I was working on an article. I just finished.
The placement of the citation that you mentioned earlier makes sense in that it's the right place for it. There are a ton of citations there, though, and I don't know what goes with what sentence. I wanted to look at that.
Regarding use of an older source... it's actually better to use modern sources by historians who have sorted out the facts. There were so many theories and misstatements about Lincoln's life and using older sources can be taking a couple of steps back. That's not to say, though, that there's an issue with this source. I don't remember. I need to look at it.
I don't know what you mean about the deprecated flag. I've got to check that out to. I'll do that first.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I've got it. I think you meant the Abraham Lincoln article. I see "Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors"... that is because the coauthors parameter is no longer used. I'll make the fix.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
For the last paragraph in Thomas Lincoln § Early life, I made some changes to put the inline with the text being cited. I'm having a hard time with the sentence about Lincoln between 1795 and 1802. It may be in Wayland's book - I cannot see it, it's only in snippet view.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson - Thanks for helping this along. This is the first time I've worked with personal historical text. Much different from tracking the history of a technical / hard science concept. As there are a number of refs before 1950, I'm hesitant to sanitize them, though clearly inaccurate. It's been revealing to deal with the 1909, 1925 articles and I even looked at the NIU Herndon Informants source archives from the late 1800's. I think it's worthwhile for anyone doing a little digging, looking through the refs, to see the breadth of opinion in the past. LarryLACa (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Which article has a lot of refs before 1950?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I am doing some clean-up on the citations in the Thomas Lincoln article. So, hopefully that addresses the concern there. Is there another article that have you have the same concerns about? Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional changes[edit]

I created a subjection because this is getting long.... and I'm picking up a new, related topic:

  • It was really hard to read the article in edit mode because of the number of citations, so I made them {{Sfn}}s - which also makes it easier to identify that old books. Except for at least one that is a later edition of an old book. Will work on that.
  • I worked on this article three years ago, before I knew not to glump the citations at an edit of a paragraph. So, 1) I am working on putting in inline citations and 2) removing unnecessary citations. One is only ever needed, unless there a point that might be contentious (which I would put in a note anyway). And, it is best if the source is one of the noted historians. For instance, Goodwin could be used more.
  • I found the original version of the photograph of Lincoln, but it's a bit dark. There's an earlier version that is not as dark, but for some reason kind of scares me - the way it's cropped. He's facial expression is a little strange. There are three versions here. What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Great work! It's a much better article now. To think this all started over the eight vs six-year-old discrepancy is amazing.
Looks like you cleaned out all the old refs. Clarity is good, but I think there should be more coverage of how we got to where we are. I'm an engineer by trade, QA is second nature. Knowing why an answer is correct is just as important as knowing the answer. I wish there was a mechanism for making (the article) history more understandable. Yet another article about an article..
Re: Thomas photographs: all three visually derive from the same source. As a publisher I'd go for the zoomed in cropped edit 13:09 29 Nov 2016. I think readers would like it better. The original is historic but too dark.
BTW - fixed the source tag on the commons image. chg 'subjection' to 'subsection' or is that standard jargon? LarryLACa (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Molai forest[edit]

What was the rationale behind the "ended in 2014" statement you added here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

In the Jadav Payeng it states he continued after the 5 year forestry project started in 1979, +5 should be 1984. Oops typo. Corrected with cite: abandoned after 3 years from 1980: 1983. Thanks ThumperWard LarryLACa (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah! Thanks for the fix. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)