User talk:GeorgeLouis

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

Contents

New Statesman[edit]

You may be interested in learning something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Statesman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.166.8 (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Girichaitanya[edit]

Hello. Kindly look into the revisions in the article Chaitanya Giri. I have cited a couple of references in the article´s text that include the name Chaitanya Giri. I hope the article now meets your suggested norms. (talk) Chaitanya Giri 13:44, 19 December 2012 (CET)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Deprod[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Dan Whitehurst, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I always like a second opinion on things like this. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

La Fiesta[edit]

Hi! Kindly take a look at Foodarama#La Fiesta The Foodarama article does mention La Fiesta. What's more, the La Fiesta coverage allows the article to meet the WP:GNG WhisperToMe (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I missed it! Mea maxima culpa! Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article La Crescenta-Montrose, California, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please note that you can't use the Patch website as a reference for itself. You must use independent, third-party sourcing that indicates the notability of this specific website (not the patch sites in general). TNXMan 21:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. Do you have a source for it? It is pretty obvious that the Patch is covering La Crescenta if you go to its site. Much like the New York Times covering New York. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for the "welcome," after all these years. Where are my cookies? Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not have a source. It is true that the New York Times covers New York, but it is a notable publication (as shown by its extensive article). The La Crescentia Patch website, however, is not notable. Adding a link to their website is the same as adding a link to a La Crescentia auto-parts store or local La Crescentia restaurant. It doesn't add anything to the article and is basically advertising. TNXMan 21:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
How about Patch_Media? GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
But Patch Media is based in NYC, not La Crescentia. They are notable, but their affiliates generally are not. TNXMan 21:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The various Patch sites are pretty notable in the areas they serve and at least are worthy of being used as External Links, since they provide info about the communities in question. I don't believe the External Links have to be notable. Anyway, this dispute might be better handled on a different plain than this one. Take out the Patch here if you want—it doesn't make that much difference to me (somebody else added it in the first place)—but please correct the grammar of the remaining sentence. Thanks for your attention. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Marcus T Grant[edit]

Hello GeorgeLouis. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Marcus T Grant, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Bmusician 07:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications[edit]

Hey George. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling@wikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding a page of guidelines[edit]

I have no idea how you do this, but I posted here hoping someone would see your help desk question.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edward Moore[edit]

I added content for Edward E. Moore related to Indiana using the source you suggested. I was doing research at the Indiana Historical Society and they had a copy in their research library. Rosalina523 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your contribution adds very, very much to the article. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

Hi, just wanted to reach out to someone that is WAY more savvy than I am in this Wikipedia editing process. While I openly admit to be very new to the formal editing process/language used (this HTLM, php, code stuff gives me headaches when I try to add/edit information accurately), I do know how to do research and cross reference information and historical facts.

This is basically the purpose for me reaching out to you. For some time now, while reading about L.A.'s/local communities history, I have regularly come across articles historically tied to the Northeast L.A. communities of El Sereno, Lincoln Heights, and Montecito Heights and noticed that most of them have or have had misinformation added, mainly involving this "Rose Hills" community.

To get to the point, I live in El Sereno, have studies and researched the history of the local communities within N.E.L.A., and have come across many instances where unverified and historically inaccurate information concerning the community of "Rose Hills" has been added to many articles pertaining to this area. When I checked and crossed checked the edited history on a few of this articles, hopelessly trying to edit them to keep them historically and factually accurate, I have noticed that you have edited and corrected a few of them which had "Rose Hills" misinformation.

Let me say that I have nothing personal against this person/people, but facts are facts and when I see BS, I think it needs to be called, checked and corrected. Without making seem like if I'm on a witch hunt, I am asking you to please consider taking a look at the Wiki-site for "Rose Hills, Los Angeles" and if you are willing, tell me what you think about the facts presented. I don't want tell you what I found incorrect just yet, I would like to see what you think first.

I understand if you don't care to do this favor me, but from what I seen and read of your editing work, you too have a high standard for accurate and true history. Maybe you can consider it a favor to the greater good of Wikipedia, because the fact is if no one else edits the information, I will and I suck at using the editing codes.

Well, whatever you decide to do, I have to thank you for keeping the high standards in regards to the history and facts presented on Wikipedia. Hope to hear from you soon.

Where the hell do you find the tildes key? Finally.

PedroCazuela (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Responses are at Talk:Rose_Hills,_California#Copied_from_User_talk:GeorgeLouis. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Rose Hills, California[edit]

Sorry, it's "Rose Hills, California" not "Rose Hills, Los Angeles". My mistake.

PedroCazuela (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on deletions[edit]

As you may have noticed, I have been trying to help 'fix' the deletion system-- not just for my article but for the next person in my place-- somebody who makes good faith contribution that's verifiable, cites reliable sources, but may be "not sufficiently notable".

I posted on VPP, got lots and lots of feedback, virtually all of it helpful, and have compiled all the ideas into an essay, Wikipedia:Deletions and Openness.

I would really value your input. Some of the recommendations are more compelling than others. My personal favorite is the idea of a shared drafting space-- draft-quality like userspace with the collaborative nature of like mainspace.

How can we fix this, so that future new users who make good-faith contributions don't get rejected entirely? --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks really good. I did some editing and hope you will continue to improve it. I like your suggestions and will comment on the Talk page over there. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mashadi Jewish Community[edit]

I understood and shared your concerns about this article, but the subject matter is clearly notable (there are multiple books about the Mashhadi Jews, as well as piles of other material and even an extensive medical literature), and is already discussed in another better-written article, Allahdad incident. So I deprodded this one and redirected it to the other one. I hope you approve of my solution; if you have a better idea, by all means let me know. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You know a lot more about this subject than I do. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: St. Thomas College, Palai[edit]

Hello GeorgeLouis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of St. Thomas College, Palai, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a copyvio. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Vandalism"[edit]

Please be careful not to revert inappropriate but well-meaning edits as vandalism, as you did here. Such edits do not fall under Wikipedia's definition of the term, and calling them vandalism can discourage new users from contributing. GreenReaper (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, GreenReaper, but your definition of vandalism is a lot different from mine, and I resent your attitude. Thank you very much, my friend; I think you meant well by your message, but it seems very peremptory to me, and I certainly don't enjoy receiving such "advice" after all my years and all my work for Wikipedia. Any message that begins with "Please be careful" is paternalistic and insulting, and I hope you will not use it again in your admonitions to other editors. Thanks again. Sincerely, still your pal, and a friend to Wikipedians everywhere, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Max Rafferty[edit]

Hello, and thanks for your work on the Max Rafferty article; it was sorely in need of help. But I am puzzled why you keep removing the dates of birth and death from the lead; they are clearly supposed to be there right after the name per MOS:DOB - and in the infobox too per the same source. I guess they could be removed from the text, since as you say they don't need to be there three times, but they clearly are supposed to be in the lead and the infobox. Likewise, the person's nationality and profession are almost always Wikilinked in the lead; see the examples at WP:OPENPARAGRAPH or pretty much any biographical article. Can we come to some agreement here so we don't get in an edit war? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your query, for which I greatly appreciated the gentle tone. I hope I am responding in the same way: Actually, the exact dates of births and deaths are very much optional in the lead, not obligatory. The exact admonition is When full dates are provided in the text or in an infobox, year-pairs can be sufficient for the lede in some cases; in such cases no spaces are used, e.g., "(1943–1971)". You can't very well take out the exact dates from the text or from the infobox (for that would leave either one incomplete). Personally, I believe also that the exact dates clutter the lede by making it too long and burdened with minor information, but that's just my opinion, and I actually rely upon the text of MOS:DOB to support my change. When the article was begun, there was neither a proper lede nor an infobox, so the matter was moot (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Rafferty&diff=next&oldid=54950096). Somebody later added the thrice-told information, which I think should have been squelched much earlier on the basis of repetitiveness. Anyway, that is my reasoning. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, well, it seems much more common to put the full dates in parentheses after the name, but if you prefer it this way the rules seem to allow it. I have added the death date to the text since it's supposed to be one place or the other. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Terrific. I also like to follow the recommendations of Style guidelines for biographies of California public officials in dealing with this kind of article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I note that you are the author and only contributor to those "guidelines," so your reasoning seems rather circular. In my experience the year-only format is NOT the most common usage, for California or anyplace else, and the preferred usage at the MOS page you link to is (May 1, 1920 - July 10, 2006) rather than (1920-2006); the latter is merely a permitted variation "in some cases". --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. You don't have to use the full dates in the ledes even though many articles DO use them and many editors find the full dates not to be obtrusive. Others, however, think that repeating material is to be avoided and that ledes should be as kept as free of clutter as possible. I suppose it depends what one is used to. After a long period of habituation (reading dictionaries and other encyclopedias for example) I find that having to read the exact birthdate and death date slows down my comprehension, and that's why I don't use them in the lede for the articles I write and why I try to edit them out of other articles when I run across them. Of course, if anybody objects to my changes, well, I just back off because there really is no RULE about use or non-use. It's a lot like the infobox-vs.-misinfobox disagreement: There is no right or wrong, just whoever got there first, I suppose. Also it is similar to British vs. American spelling: No right, no wrong, just usage. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk page stalker here (big fan of both of your work): I think the dates thing may just come down to what we're used to. Those of us who spend a lot of time on bios get used to one format or the other; in my case, after having been gently "guided" on my first several bio attempts some years back, I've gotten used to seeing the full dates in the lede sentence, and to not seeing the places of birth and death there, but there's probably no overwhelming reason why any of that is better or worse than some different custom. For the occasional user, it may not matter so much, as long as the info can all be found quickly and in logical places. (And I suppose that one could also argue that this is why the infobox is there.)
Anyway, what I really want to do here is to compliment the two of you on your rapid and impressive collaborative improvement of the article and its sourcing. Nice work! --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice compliment, Axiloxos! I just stumbled across the article (it linked from another one I was working on) and realized the article didn't give any sense of who Rafferty was. So I started expanding it, and then GeorgeLouis turned up and started fixing it too, and I think it is much improved.
I am like you, in preferring the full dates of birth and death, but NOT the places, in the lead sentence. It may be partly a matter of taste and what we are used to, but it is also the prime example given at the Wikipedia style page. So I would really like to ask GeorgeLouis not to change existing articles to his preferred style - and not to list his preference as the "rule" at Style guidelines for biographies of California public officials. George, would you be OK with that? MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. You say above "Of course, if anybody objects to my changes, well, I just back off". But in this case you didn't back off; you made the change twice, which is why I started this thread. MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup[edit]

Edit-clear.svg
Hello, GeorgeLouis.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP notification[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for a note regarding List of California public officials charged with crimes. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of California public officials charged with crimes for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of California public officials charged with crimes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California public officials charged with crimes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest a quick title change to List of California Officials Convicted of Crimes? Richrakh (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion, but there is nothing inherently wrong with a list of people charged with crimes and some of them later being cleared, or at least not convicted. The fact of their being charged will always be findable to the inveterate Web surfer, but the rest of the story demands to be told as well. Those who want to bowdlerize history should be ashamed of themselves, and I am just happy they are not working for the New York Times or Le Monde. There is a moral in this list to be stressed to every politician—that crime does not pay and that their sins, if such they be, will out. Likewise to every prosecuting attorney, the moral is to prepare your case well and to be prepared to lose as well as to win. For grand jurors: Don't be so sure that you are right, and always be wary of the political motives of your local district attorney.I am sure that is why this list has had more than a hundred hits almost every day it has run, thousands now—not because it is salacious, but because it is instructive. I can see individual attorneys, editors and students all over the state consulting this list with eyes open and mouth agape, as it to ponder that, "I didn't know there were so many shady characters—or damaged souls—in local politics." If this article is deleted, or its focus changed, it will be a sad, sad time: Wikipedia shut down its site a few weeks ago and urged us to "Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge." Right here, right now, today, some are demanding not a world, perhaps, but at least a state of 37 million people without free knowledge of those public officials who have either served them—or raped them. I certainly will have no part of that. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOX, WP:GREATWRONGS. EEng (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

California Club and discrimination[edit]

GeorgeLouis, for your entries on incrimination at private clubs in California please read my 1985 LATimes piece on the Music Center fund-raising victory party, which came after my coverage prompted changes there which made the Music Center more inclusive, though not its victory party venue.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-07-10/entertainment/ca-7817_1_fund-raising — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcay (talkcontribs) 10:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Another California Club clip[edit]

And this may be of interest -- lots of details on California and Jonathan Clubs

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-06-05/local/me-9433_1_california-club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcay (talkcontribs) 10:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Lady Gaga coming?[edit]

There is a story I read today which to me should have some place in this article. Some residents wrote to Lady Gaga asking her if she would give a concert in the nation. It would be unique as it would be the first time an entire country has been to one of her concerts. If she accepts, of course it would probably get into the article but even if not it seems to me that it should be included someplace. But I wasn't sure where to put it. Here's the link that I found: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10797048 BashBrannigan (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of wiki hosting services[edit]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Comparison of wiki hosting services, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Comparison of wiki farms. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Wiknic logo.svg Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park LA Wiknic 2011 Group Photo.jpg
You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 23, 2012! Last year's was a blast (see the LA Weekly blog post on it) and we hope we can do better this year. We would love to have you there! howcheng {chat} 03:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

Common law[edit]

GeorgeLouis --

In your revisions to "Common Law," you undid two things --

1. The four meanings of the word "common law" had specific labels, "Connotation 1," "Connotation 2," "Connotation 3," and "Connotation 4." By removing the labels, the body of the article doesn't make sense.

2. The jurisdictions at the bottom were in historical order, you undid that organization (that's why the dates were there!)

I've "undone" all your edits. You're welcome to restore them, gently, to preserve the two organizational principles above.

Word to the wise -- no man is an island. When you see an article that has as long an edit history as "common law," and that already has a very high "quality" rating, assume that there's accumulated wisdom of years there, and tread lightly. I see your observation of "hostility" -- yeah, I can imagine. Hopefully there's a lesson learned in there.

Boundlessly (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't need any lessons. It is OK to make editorial changes, but not to slam others. Thank you for your attention, and I hope you have a nice day. Sincerely, from somebody who knows more than you think he knows, your friend, 17:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:1936.01.14 Carr Layout.tiff[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:1936.01.14 Carr Layout.tiff. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

File:1936.01.14 Carr Layout.tiff listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1936.01.14 Carr Layout.tiff, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Amendment to Dyke White page[edit]

Thankyou for moving the photograph for me. I was aware that it was in the wrong place, but didn't know how to move it. PamN (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)[edit]

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Crenshaw mural[edit]

Hi there. I ran across File:Mural-Crenshaw-District-Los-Angeles.jpg while categorizing images on commons. I've cropped the commons version (see File:Crenshaw la mural.jpg) and I think it came out less pixelated. Your thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't take the photo. I only improved its contrast via iPhoto. The new image you referred to above seems really, really dark to me — just as it was before I worked on it. If you can hold off on sending it to WikiCommons, I will take another photo when the sun is shining directly on the wall — in the a.m. hours — and upload it. Let me know. Thanks, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan to me. Mackensen (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It will be a while, a week maybe, before I can do this. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Editorial[edit]

Hi GeorgeLouis - I was responsible for the most recent edit of the editorial prior to your amendment. I have been looking into the various definitions of 'editorial' recently. It got me thinking about the lack of transparency regarding authorship, and how this potentially allows senior journalists to reinforce their own work elsewhere in the paper. I have been looking for grounds to critique the practice and was thinking of starting here: http://www.apme.com/?page=EthicsStatement "ACCURACY The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation." On the grounds that: Unattributed Editorials allow an incorrect public perception regarding authorship to persist (Oxford Vs urban dictionary/ wiki definitions) They create distortion though emphasis by the implied authority of 'the editor' or 'the paper' - both artificial constructs. The omission of the Editors name, and the names of those who write in his/ her stead, and lack of transparency regarding who makes the decision on what to print is irreconcilable with the openness and disclosure which newspapers demand of others. I started a petition calling for change but am not getting as much traction as I would like - due I think to some of my background wording. http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/An_end_to_unattributed_anonymous_Editorials_in_New_Zealands_Newspapers/ I am really interested in the history of the newspaper editorial and the implications of the evolving definition and was hoping that you could point me in the direction of some further learning so that together we may improve the wiki definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campbell Larsen (talkcontribs) 09:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting page, that. I will digest the whole idea and respond fully within a day or two. Thanks for thinking of me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Libraries[edit]

Palms Library pic added. Thank you!! jengod (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GeorgeLouis. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation.
Message added 07:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vadim Gluzman[edit]

I removed the copy-editing tag you placed on this article, since there are no apparent grammatical or spelling issues to be dealt with. On the other hand, perhaps you saw different issues which need to be dealt with (certainly the article needs more information, such as Gluzman's repertoire, where he has performed etc.), so I thought I would let you know as a courtesy in case you wanted to identify these on the talk page. Alfietucker (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think I got confused by the new Page Curation tool: I don't know why I marked this article. Anyway, there were only two edits, which I made myself. Again, thank you for following up on this. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Newmark family of Southern California[edit]

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Newmark family of Southern California, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_14792.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Newmark family of Southern California[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Newmark family of Southern California, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_14792.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Newmark family of Southern California saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

While not a verbatim copyright violation, some of the text on the page remains a close paraphrase of the source. I've given some further explanation of the problem at the article's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
A copyright clerk took a look at it and left a message which you should read at Talk:Newmark family of Southern California. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Expo Line edits[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you so much for your recent contributions to the Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro) and related station pages. A small favor? Rather than wholesale deleting information you feel requires a source, especially things that are easily verifiable like dates, please use the "{ { Citation needed } }" or "{ { fact } }" tag. This gives the contributing editor time to use existing cites to rectify your request. And, if you are going to update information on station pages, please do it on ALL the related pages that use the information rather than on only a few here and there. Your help and contribution is very much appreciated. Lexlex (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess I got this notice by mistake, since I did not edit that page. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved![edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

VanderSloot at WP:BLP/N[edit]

Neutral notification abot an article which you have edited. Collect (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GeorgeLouis. You have new messages at Crazycomputers's talk page.
Message added 13:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Chris (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update[edit]

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

James Ozias Wheeler[edit]

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of James Ozias Wheeler, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: John Ozias Wheeler. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Hi, just a friendly reminder to only use rollback in the situations listed at WP:ROLLBACK. Cheers a13ean (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I think I had better give up the Rollback right. Can you advise me? GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Frank Vandersloot[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I just saw this message, four days late. Can you advise me of exactly what content you are talking about? Normally I fill in the edit summary, but perhaps I missed one. Just send me the diff so I can advise you. Thank you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
In regard to the above, I looked back on my edits on the page you cited and could find no place on that date where I did not fill out the Edit summary. Please assist me. Thanks again. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.

Your recent edits[1] on the article have been reverted. Please do not edit disruptively/tendentiously. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and the links. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

January 1913[edit]

  • Thank you for alerting me to the nomination of the article, and for the additions and your suggestions for improvement. Mandsford 13:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, thank you. Now that the nomination has become a moot point, I'll answer to the question of a standard for the placement of events on a page. The main criterion, as you've noted is whether it is accompanied by a reliable and verifiable source. My preference is a work that's on Google Books and is from a major publisher or a university press, books found on Google Books, and (more for detail rather than notability) contemporary newspaper articles. Regarding potential vandalism, the only problem we've ever really had with junk being put on these is what we call "birthday greetings"-- usually its for a more recent year (say, 1981) where an IP address writing in something like "Joe Johnson born this day in Cleveland". There are quite a few people who patrol the pages, look over the history of recent additions, and take the stuff back down. Other than that, the pages aren't vandalized that often-- every now and then, we get someone trying to be funny, and it doesn't stay up. Although newspaper references are indispensable in confirming when something happened (and settling conflicting accounts in various books), the real test of whether an event from the time would meet WP:N rather than violating WP:NOTNEWS is whether it received "significant coverage" decades later. Mandsford 02:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Is there a centralized place to talk about standardizing the layout for and content of all these articles? GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Bob-Benoit-Horse-Racing-Executive-And-Publicist.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Bob-Benoit-Horse-Racing-Executive-And-Publicist.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring in Defense of Video That Violates WP:BLP on Frank Vandersloot[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting message. Did you get the one I left on your page? What do you think? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Michael C. Seto[edit]

Thanks for your note. My general concern is that the article was written by an SPA here to promote himself and his ideas, including creating and padding articles about himself and his colleagues. As one of many examples, Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers was stubbed and tagged COI by an uninvolved editor for the same reasons as the Seto bio.

  • Generally, I think the bio contains every en passant mention of him in hopes of asserting Seto's notability.
  • I laid out my specific concerns on the talk page and sought other views when the editor would not address what are crystal-clear examples of COI puffery. Since that time, the most egregious specific instances I mentioned have been addressed by uninvolved editors, but I feel there's more to do:
    • The long bulleted quotations from book reviews in non-notable journals are not necessary, per UNDUE and MoS.
    • There's a whole section sourced entirely to Seto's own work rather than to secondary sources (SYNTH/OR). Someone has tagged part of it as OR.
    • The justice.gov source doesn't even mention Seto.
    • The same ussc.gov source is listed 4 times to make it seem like more than it was.
    • In all, about half the sources were written or are controlled by Seto.

I don't believe Seto is notable, but consensus seems to be that he is. The accomplishment that's supposed to confer notability (his book) has not had much impact outside its highly specialized field. The only reason Seto has an article here is because his friend with a COI has a long history of this behavior on Wikipedia. No one else would have written it any time soon. Jokestress (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

DR/N[edit]

Not enough information. Please clarify the dispute or this may be deleted as malformed. There is simply not enough information to identify the current dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I gave you more.GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! FemTech Edit-a-Thon at Claremont Graduate University[edit]

October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited!
Womanpower logo.svg
Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us!

Sign up here - see you there! 01:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James Edwards (Los Angeles politician)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article James Edwards (Los Angeles politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not Notable. See Wikipedia:Notability_(film)#General_principles I checked the files of the Los AngelesTimes and searched the Internet, but there is no reference to this man being Notable except for one term on the Common Council.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up![edit]

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Mascarel[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure what you intended by this edit, which redirected the article to a non-existent page, so that it soon got speedy-deleted. I have dug it up, restored the version before your edit, and updated the first reference from the French version of the article so that it works. "Joseph" is the name given in that source, so I guess that should be the title of the article. If you have information that he was also known as José, perhaps there should be a redirect from that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I've got it! You meant Jose Mascarel. Fixed. JohnCD (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
He was probably known as Joseph when he was born in France, but he was José once he got to California. I used his name without the accent because that's the way all the Sources had it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
An interesting character. There are images here which I'm sure you have seen; I wonder if permission could be got for the one in LA town hall. JohnCD (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The photo is so old it is out of copyright, so it can be used by anyone. If you want to upload it, that would be fine. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

NORN Strauss Howe[edit]

Hi, I am contacting you because you already commented on the dispute over Strauss-Howe at the No Original Research noticeboard.

I wonder if you could give your thoughts again so that we can wrap up the discussion one way or the other. I know there's a lot of extra stuff over at the board, but basically all it boils down to is this: Is the below statement supported by the two sources below. I think that the "webinar" link isn't even a reliable source, and the LSAY report says nothing directly about Strauss and Howe other than that their "definition" of Generation X was widely accepted. None of the statements below are directly supported. I'd be grateful if you could weigh in, as the other editor and I are at a stalemate.

"Twenty years later, Jon D. Miller, at the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (funded by the National Science Foundation[67] ) presented evidence that the negative stereotypes and predictions about Generation X written in books like 13th Gen were an exaggerated description of youth in the 1970s and 80s. Today, it’s quite the opposite writes Dr. Miller: “if we could use only three words to describe them (Gen X), the most applicable words would be active, balanced, and happy. These words apply to a large majority”.[68] Although Strauss and Howe pointed out some important trends of that era, and the book was well-researched, many of the negative predictions and stereotypes are no longer relevant and the generation has moved on.[69]"


http://lsay.org/GenX_Rept_Iss1.pdf [69]
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=122044 [68]

Peregrine981 (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Just stick to what the Sources say, and leave out the interpretation. Sorry I can't be more helpful. If the other editor doesn't accept, you might have to try another tack in Dispute Resolution. Is there an Interest Group on Wikipedia to which you can turn for additional knowledgeable editors? GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thanks. That is already helpful since it confirms (at least to myself) that I am not completely crazy. I'll see what we can do going forward. If problems persists we'll have to go to dispute resolution, as I don't think there is a reliable group of people knowledgable on the topic who are active. Best, Peregrine981 (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You may be in for a long war: It takes time if the other person is stubborn. You may have to wp:rfc at a couple of other notice boards, but be sure you notify everybody you are doing so lest you be accused of forum shopping. I am in the same soup at Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot, and it seems to be taking forever, as the pot keeps on boiling. Best to be patient. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

William Whipple Robinson[edit]

Just letting you know that when you added the prod to the above article you didn't leave an edit summary indicating this. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 21:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ooops ! Thank you ! GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter[edit]

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:1988 Kitty Dukakis.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:1988 Kitty Dukakis.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GeorgeLouis. You have new messages at Ryan Vesey's talk page.
Message added 00:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ryan Vesey 00:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

prior RFC/U[edit]

You might also notify those who were active at all in the prior RFC/U as they might well have insights pro or con on RIR. Be sure the notice is absolutely neutral in form and content, and is sent to all involved. Collect (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't need another charge of WP:Canvass from u-know-who. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not change major Signpost titles[edit]

Just ask first; why not discuss it? Tony (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. Well, whoever wrote that headline really botched it up, and I fixed it. What is the big problem? If anybody is intent on having an incomprehensible headline, he or she can just change it back, and I will consider that I did my best to improve the encyclopedia. See WP:BRD. I don't need to be chided by you or anyone else. Not today. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

RIR RfC[edit]

Hi George I'll comment there when I have time. Meanwhile I would suggest that you remove the quote from Nomo. I agree its not [a bit] out of bounds but its also not relevant on an RfC about RIR. Anyway, that's my suggestion. Best, -- KeithbobTalk 16:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice it until you brought it to my attention. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Yea, I thought it was probably an oversight. Best,-- KeithbobTalk 03:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Parley P. Christensen[edit]

Hi there, I added the precise date of birth and death because they were available and added for biographical completeness. Hope that answers your question. Lawrence142002 (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)User:Lawrence142002

Uh. The article was complete. Days and dates in the lede are not required, and most encyclopedias don't bother with them there. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, LOL![edit]

Thank you for the best ever Wikipedia reason for changing a page

  • (diff | hist) . . Humboldt Bay‎; 03:15 . . (-1)‎ . . ‎GeorgeLouis (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎History: Fame is fleeting; notability isn't.)

Priceless!! Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Doria-Apartments-Los-Angeles-Built-in-1905.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Doria-Apartments-Los-Angeles-Built-in-1905.png, which you've sourced to http://www.flickr.com/photos/cityprojectca/4360275505/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Puffin Let's talk! 22:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

I replied with specific guidelines on my talk page, where you posted your question. If you want an answer on the article talk page, then post your question on the article talk page. In any case, please stop edit warring. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Nedd Willard. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You know, I really resent those two messages; the tone is very belligerent. I haven't seen your reply on the other page yet, and I remind you to WP:Assume good faith. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page, where you posted. If you didn't watchlist it, you won't see it. I'm not going to reply in two places. And I resent your multiple reverts, when I am simply trying to apply well-established policies and guidelines with which I am very familiar and you apparently are not. So chill. Yworo (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
My reversions did not carry with them any aspersions on you or your editing abilities. The expression "So chill." is really rude: Would you say that to any of your office colleagues? I am sorry I have to point this fact of courtesy out to you. I will look at your remarks on the other page pretty soon. Meanwhile, I am writing another article for this fine encyclopedia of ours. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't cast any aspersions on either you or your editing abilities, and I am sorry if you took anything that way. I have a problem with your behavior, which is apparently to revert without waiting for an answer. That's a problem, as there is no deadline here. Please give things more time and you won't give the impression that you intend to edit war. Yworo (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GeorgeLouis. You have new messages at Puffin's talk page.
Message added 16:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Puffin Let's talk! 16:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

George, Thanks for your interest in List of journalists killed in the United States. I'm hoping your interest will be an incentive for you to add information to the page that will will add value to it.Crtew (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, since you're not yet making any contributions but you've started a larger discussion, would you please then at least at a minimum articulate your objection(s). I honestly don't see what kind of point(s) you're trying to make. While a wikilink to a policy seems common (bad) practice throughout Wikipedia Talk, I will be expecting you to make your thoughts and arguments complete. There is not yet at this time a complete thought or argument that you have put forward. All I have to go on is a link to a policy and a statement that you don't think crimes are important. That's simply not good enough. Also since you've started this discussion, you may also invite the lists that I have mentioned on that talk page. That would be the decent thing for you to do as this is pulling me away from making useful contributions and you're the one who wants to discuss "something". Please don't take this as a indication that I think you're acting in bad faith, but I'm trying to set some standards here that I expect you to meet. I think you mean well. I just don't see at this point if you understand the issues because I've got nothing to go on. By all means, you are still invited to make positive contributions to the article if you are so interested and inclined. It would be nice to work with you rather than against you! (And I really do mean that in a nice way.) Crtew (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Nobody owns Wikipedia articles, neither thee nor me. As I mentioned somewhere else, I don't want to see you wasting your time on something that might very well be deleted after months of your work. That happened to me with a project that was very interesting to me and had thousands of followers, so I know it is possible. It is better to get some feedback now rather than later. I think the list is very iffy, being based upon victimhood, but I would not like to propose it for deletion because the wider community might feel different, and, really, it is just not that important to me. If nobody chimes in from the RFC, then you have ipso facto evidence that the community thinks it is a fine idea, or just doesn't care. Either way, you are ahead. I think these RFCs expire automatically after a while but, if not, I think you could delete them after—say—six weeks, with no harm done. If you do get feedback, you might take what ever it is to heart. In the meantime, just go ahead with the project and improve it as much as possible. Again, simply my opinion: I have no direct line to Anybody in Authority. Buena fortuna. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

REPLY TO ARE THESE SOURCES RELIABLE[edit]

Hello thanks for the reply on the page - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard .User:Jmh649 has recommended I read the article on secondary sources, which is what I intend to do. Thanks again for your help --CR.ROWAN (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The deletion discussion[edit]

George, Would you please put down some relevant reasons for the deletion of the List of journalists killed in the United States. Are there policies that you know about that might make this a real issue. Right now it seems a personal opinion about victims. Crtew (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I will do so on the Discussion page for this article. I am sorry it is not clear. This is not personal, but I just am totally uncomfortable with this article. You will see more solid reasons at the Discussion page, maybe even before the day is out. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

The WikiLove was much appreciated today, thank you. Best of the season to you and yours. Andrew (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

etaoin shrdlu[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give ETAOIN SHRDLU a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Etaoin shrdlu. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. –Quiddity (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Templated explanation above. Hope that makes sense! Just info for "next time"; you don't need to do anything.

Also, I've added a {{lowercase title}} template to the final destination, which will fix the capitalized E. :) –Quiddity (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Objective opinion[edit]

GeorgeLouis, Thanks for your comments at the Chiropractic talk page. I am wondering if you can offer me an objective opinion and any further advice? I enjoy editing collaboratively, but am faced with what appears (to me) to be an unwillingness; I am not sure how to proceed? When edits are made that I feel are inconsistent with policy or reliable sources, I usually revert per WP:BRD and try to initiate discussion. I did this most recently with JzG (an admin) here [2]. From my perspective it seems that when I revert edits that I think are against policyt I am accused of edit warring and the changes are re-instated without consensus; when I try to discuss at the talk page, all that is said to refute my policy and source-based challenges is that I have a Conflict of Interest.

At the discussion of the Consumer Reports source [3] [4], any reasonable discussion is marred by simple COI accusations against me. Then you posted a request to stop the accusations of tendentious editing, so I struck my accusation [5], but in return I get more accusations against me [6]

To me it seems that the edits being made are against policy like WP:NPOV and WP:RS, but they are being made anyways. I don't want to push the issue if my COI is indeed getting in the way, but I don't feel that is the case. For example:

  1. The WHO definition of chiropractic was removed from the first sentence of the lead and replaced with a “historical” perspective with no source [7]
  2. The consumer reports source deleted [8]
  3. Two secondary sources deleted without discussion [9]

Would you be willing to tell me if you think my perspective is accurate, or if I am mistaken? If I am mistaken then I am going to take a wiki-break :) If my perspective is accurate, how do I proceed when the talk page is not working and edits like these are getting pushed-through? Is there an appropriate noticeboard? Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I read your message on New Year's Eve, which I'm sure you will agree is not the best time to reply. Will do so soonest. Good luck to you, and you seem to be editing in the proper spirit. More later. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks GeorgeLouis! Any feedback is always helpful and welcome! Puhlaa (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I have indirectly mentioned you here, in case you care to comment. It was not to criticize you, but to defend myself. It was in this specific edit that I mention coming to your talk page for an objective opinion. Thanks, Puhlaa (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Marseille".

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --TransporterMan (TALK) 22:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

MOS/BIO[edit]

When I reverted my post, your second post got deleted. I'm not sure why that happened, but just letting you know it wasn't intentional. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Chiro page[edit]

Regards this edit, you actually do have access to the source (it's available on pubmed central [10]). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeLouis, along the same topic, I made a comment regarding your edit at the chiropractic talk page, it is at the bottom of this long section. Thanks. Puhlaa (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings GeorgeLouis, I was just curious if you had a chance to read the source discussed here yet? Did you find my comment way at the bottom of this really long thread? I was still hoping to discuss whether the ideas expressed in the text you edited indeed need to be attributed and qualified, as was done in your edit here. There is no rush, sorry for nagging if you are just taking your time on the issue. Regards, Puhlaa (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Burrito[edit]

Should the content been struck, rather than removed? Additionally I noticed that civil response to ask for cessation of incivility, as well as third opinion regarding the initial civility, was removed; may I ask why?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, RCLC. The Talk Page is intended for ways to improve the article. The personal remarks, even though they may have been a LOT more civil than many are in WP, just interfered with the flow of the conversation. It would be better to engage the other editor on HIS talk page, because the dispute was just between you two. Well, that's my opinion anyway. I have found [ [rpa] ] to be a very useful tool in keeping remarks on track. Good luck with this article! It made me hungry just to edit it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
If ever there is a meet up (as we are both in the Southern California Task Force), and we happen to meet, lets go out for burritos.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Harassment Warning/Improper use of Warning Template[edit]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read these two paragraphs that you posted here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomo, I am not quite sure why you opened this discussion. Surely you cannot be defending Rhode Island Red's personal gibes about me on a page that is intended to improve the article? I am regretful that I had to revert you so quickly (and more than once, too), but I certainly could not stand by idly and see such a personal affront to me remain on the page. Maybe I have a thinner skin than other people, but it is my skin. I don't believe WP:3RR is valid in this situation, which involves my honor and reputation. I hope you understand that there is nothing personal against you, or against anybody. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RIR warned[edit]

He managed to hit 5RR in under 24 hours this time - I posted the underlying issue at BLP/N and asked him to self-revert the fifth revert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Pawn (chess)[edit]

Hi George, please see my message at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation# Request. Graham87 12:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know which posting to look at there. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Obligatory Warning Prior to Report[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Frank Vandersloot, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. (Re: repeated removal of multi-level marketing from the article)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  • GeorgeLouis, please be wary of your behavior on the article Frank L. VanderSloot. Your behavior in constantly reverting others without talk page discussion is teetering on edit warring/disruptive editing. Your input in the discussion above is requested as well as heeding the concerns brought there. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I would like your advice on the ability of an editor (me) to excise defamation from an article without waiting for discussion. I believe this is WP policy, per

Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

In your opinion, how should this be done without being accused of a 3RR violation? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess I'm just a bit confused. How is calling the company "multi-level" violate BLP? If it does, then obviously that's an exception to 3RR. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Multilevel marketing has a pejorative connotation, as shown by these excerpts from the Wikipedia article:

MLM companies have been a frequent subject of criticism as well as the target of lawsuits. Criticism has focused on their similarity to illegal pyramid schemes, price fixing of products, high initial start-up costs, emphasis on recruitment of lower-tiered salespeople over actual sales, encouraging if not requiring salespeople to purchase and use the company's products, potential exploitation of personal relationships which are used as new sales and recruiting targets, complex and sometimes exaggerated compensation schemes, and cult-like techniques which some groups use to enhance their members' enthusiasm and devotion.[10][12]

Walter J. Carl stated in a 2004 Western Journal of Communication article that "MLM organizations have been described by some as cults (Butterfield, 1985), pyramid schemes (Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997),[41] or organizations rife with misleading, deceptive, and unethical behavior (Carter, 1999), such as the questionable use of evangelical discourse to promote the business (Hopfl & Maddrell, 1996), and the exploitation of personal relationships for financial gain (Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997)".[41][42] In China, volunteers working to rescue people from the schemes have been physically attacked.[43]

VanderSloot has taken great pains to distance his firm from the MLM label. His quotation was in the article, as follows, before Rhode Island Red deleted it.

The company is described as a multi-level marketing company by several sources,[1][13][28][29] but Melaleuca says that the company “is not a multi-level marketer because its business model does not meet any state or federal criteria” and “unlike multi-level marketers, its model is not ‘predatory’ and is based on sales directly to consumers—-never other distributors.”[30][36][2]

What's more, Rhode Island Red continually refers to the removal of the phrase as "white-washing," which implies that there was something black about "multilevel marketing."
But the most important point is that the phrase is contentious, as witnessed by the controversy on the talk page, so, according to the policy, it doesn't matter if "the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable," it is supposed to b removed.
So how can an editor do this without facing blowback by another involved editor? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, okay, all that makes sense. You should simply not engage in any revert battles with Rhode Island Red. If the contentious material is added again without further talk page discussion, leave a note on my talk. I'm now much more certain that this falls under the BLP exception. Thanks for expanding on that. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLP refers to "contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced". That is not the case here. "Contentious", as far as I can tell, is not defined as the objection of one or two editors against consensus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't mess with other editors' comments if you can't get it right[edit]

This edit resulted in a list with only 5 entries even though 6 editors had commented by that stage; you neglected to put a number on RIR's primary comment in the section. I have fixed it, here. Let's assume that you didn't actually intend to convey the impression that there was one fewer voice favoring inclusion of MLM in the lead -- even then, you should not play with other editors' posts if you can't be sure of ending up with a result that is above suspicion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, RIR did not preface his first remark with a hashtag, but he simply answered somebody else's comment. Thus, I did not use a cardinal number for his comment as I did for the others. By the way, I am rather hurt by your brusque remark. I was only trying to make things easier to read. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. The hashtags had been replaced with bullets to correct the numbering mishap. Like all of the other commenters, I had a bullet tag next to my statement. George removed it, burying my comment as Nomo pointed out. So, yes, if you can't do it right, then don't refactor other people's Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, Arthur Rubin and I were making the same or similar changes within four seconds of each other. Some of the editors had used hashtags. Thus the mixup. It would be nice if one would not jump to conclusions but instead were to WP:Assume good faith. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, Arthur managed to make his edit without removing the hash tag next to my comment[11], so that has nothing to do with your goof up. It would be refreshing if you simply accepted responsibility instead of trying to deflect this onto Arthur. Whatever. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. Whatever you say. I have already apologized elsewhere. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed of Historical Right[edit]

Thanks for your help, I am not very expert how to do a citations, so I would like you do it for me. Thanl you again Nick.mon

Just put the citations right into body of the article in any way you like, and I will take care of it. Where you got the info, name of book and author, whatever, page number, etc. If you got it from a website, copy and paste the URL. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much!

Intention to resume edit-warring?[edit]

Re this -- I think it would be a real mistake. You have been advised at 3RRN to engage in discussion and to refrain from further edit-warring. Your sandbox work indicates you intend to choose the latter, against the advice that you received. Perhaps I am reading your intentions incorrectly; I'd be pleased to hear that I am. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A very interesting post. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Strawberry! :D[edit]

Thanks for that strawberry. Few people only appreciate others work, so a simple reward like this would help me contribute more to the Wiki community! :D Thank you so much. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Did you know there is a way of disabling rollback on your watchlist?[12]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
05:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I never go backstage. Don't even know where the props are stored or where the costumers keep their needles and threads. Thanks for the info, though. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi GL[edit]

Before you undo everything I did, please be informed that another editor, emerson7, advised me that the succession boxes should be removed because they were redundant with the drop-down mayoral listsWQUlrich (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

PS:I admit that I'm a bit sloppy when it comes to putting reasons on my edits. The lead section on Bernard Cohn seemed a bit gossipy to me...almost like the writer had something against Mr.Cohn. (Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to possible Anti-Semitism). Anyway, I guess it stays. I don't want to get in an editing war with you!WQUlrich (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. The lede reports only what is in the article. Cohn was quite a guy! Anyway, Jewish people were very much in evidence in the beginning years of American Los Angeles, serving on the city council, taking an active role in civic affairs, etc. There have actually been quite a few studies made on this. Many of the Jews came from Alsace, which at the time was being switched back and forth between Germany and France with wild abandon. So they spoke French, English and (I suppose) Yiddish and German. Some writers have indeed painted Cohn in the usual way as a greedy loan shark, and Pico may not have known how to read English, but the judge's decision really indicated that Pio Pico knew exactly what he was getting into when he made the agreement with Cohn. I could have pointed this out in the article, but perhaps it more properly belongs in the article about Pico. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kenneth-Hahn-Los-Angeles.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Kenneth-Hahn-Los-Angeles.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Frank L. VanderSloot shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have a difference of opinion on whether reverting is allowed in this case, which, as you know, involves a claim (by me and others) that there is a violation of WP:BLP in this article. I really resent the accusation of Edit Warring, something I don't believe I have ever accused you of doing, although you've done a whole lot of reverts to my changes. So please be a little nicer over what is, as I mentioned above, not a war, but just a different way of looking at things. To avoid a 3RR, which causes trouble for everybody, I would do a voluntary revert of the removal of the tag at the top of the page, but someone has already put it back and now the page is blocked again, so I can't take any steps in that direction. What's more, your boilerplate warning indicates that I have not been working toward consensus. Consensus is not necessary when damaging material is inserted into BLP's, as you very well know. The difference between you and me is that you honestly believe that it is not damaging to a businessman when he is accused of running a MLM, and I honestly believe otherwise. It would be nice if you could just assume good faith in this matter. Sincerely, yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think you have demonstrated some bad faith in this episode. In your first contribution to the RfC, you indicated it would be "better to leave the description out of the lede and mention it briefly in the text below". In discussion after the RfC had concluded, when someone else raised the question of removing it from the body, you showed some understanding of the fact that the RfC wasn't intended to address that issue and said that if it was to be removed it should be discussed under a different rubric. But then when others (Jeremy and Andrew) started taking it out of the lead, you jumped right up on that bandwagon. So in fact I think you've been, shall we say, a bit opportunistic here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the comment. Opportunistic? Aren't we all? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pedro Cardoso[edit]

Hello. Yes. I have left my thoughts on the talk page for the Portugal actor, Pedro Cardoso (Portuguese actor). I apologize for this comment being posted short, but I highly recommend you check out the talk page and see what you think. Yes, I am fully aware that this page is for a voice actor from Portugal, but be on the lookout that there is another actor from Brazil who shares the exact same name, but they have no relation from each other. --BlueMario1016 (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson High School (Los Angeles)[edit]

On the Jefferson High School (Los Angeles) page there is a "discuss" link. I notice you had a response on the link, I wanted to explain why the Grid was remove. The Grid was the reason why I updated the page. Can you give me your opinion on the paragraph below:

The Grid was remove because a reviewer name "Tedder" explain to me that you could not say "The first African American ...". I tried to explained to him that you can say John F. Kennedy was the the first Irish Catholic president. He says that it was not allowed and he removed the Grid. That logic never made since to me....I would like to put the grid back on the page, but I respect the review process findings even if I do not agree with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svgperson (talkcontribs) 23:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ruth Traill for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ruth Traill is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Traill until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. You commented on the talk page and I believe your concerns were justified. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Something struck me about an edit you made a couple of days ago: [13] -- "the new arrangement, which is still in effect." How do you know it is still in effect? ta, —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. It was in the article that way. Some other editor stuck it there, and I just copied it since nobody had challenged it. I prefer that it be omitted unless we can find a source for it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't reconcile that answer with the article history. In this version that immediately precedes the series of edits in which you added that phrase, the phrase does not exist. If you prefer it would be omitted, then it is puzzling that you would add it. Someone who adds it (without a source, even) would seem to believe that it's true, and I'm wondering on what basis you thought it was true. thanks, —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, it took me a while, but I found the answer to your question. You can find it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=538727753&oldid=538725766.
The unedited text said: "Instead, contractors now receive commissions from each purchase that their referred customers make from Melaleuca, but the customers buy the products directly from Melaleuca, which handles the delivery directly." (Emphasis added.)
I changed it to read: "In the new arrangement, which is still in effect, contractors receive commissions from Melaleuca for each purchase their customers make, but the customers buy directly from Melaleuca, which ships them directly to the consumer." (Emphasis added.)
I don't know what editor originally used the word now.
Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

It appears that you have been selectively notifying certain editors regarding a content dispute that you are engaged in at Frank Vandersloot.[14][15][16][17] As you are already aware WP policy {WP:CANVASS precludes selective canvassing in content dipsutes. You've been warned about canvassing this in the past. Is there some mitigation reason in this case that would not qualify what you did as canvassing, just drop a note here and let me know. I will be checking back. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I asked three editors for assistance at WP:Peer review, per the instructions at that page, viz.:

These peer review volunteers have signed up to give feedback. Ask 2–3 of them in a nice and persuasive way to increase your chances. Taking a moment to appreciate and compliment their work here might not hurt, if you're sincere about it. If you haven't heard back from them (watch their talk pages) in a reasonable time, then ask more than 2–3 for help. Try editors in the article's subject area and be patient. If you sign up for the list, place yourself in the category you think you're most likely to do peer reviews for.[1] Posting at an associated Wikiproject (also listed below) could help. Copy editors are listed at the bottom.

The requests specifically referred to formatting, and not to content. I refer you also to Wikipedia:Harassment. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

AN notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Tingley[edit]

Since you had my page deleted I was wondering if you could tell me where I can write a biography then? Thank you... (Dnl.briseno (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC))

The times, they aren't a-changing[edit]

There has got to be someplace the L.A. Times is available that isn't behind some kind of paywall. Even a paywall site would be better, because at least that allows people willing to pay, but who aren't in L.A., to gain access. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, any Californian can get an LAPL library card. Second, there is no other link to the older stories in the L.A. Times; if there is, I would like to know of it. Third, Wikipedia does not require that sources be available on line. Fourth, "idiotic" is a rather strong word. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

U.S. state of...., My apologies[edit]

Here is an example. I think it sucks personally see this?. BUT, per WP:LOC the only thing that is specifically stated is the title should not and yet, BAM, its the lead. I do not agree that this is the best. In fact, I think you and I probably agree. HOWEVER, we have other editors who will literally remove every freaking instance of United States in ANY US state article because, and I quote, EVERYONE KNOWS where this state is. Point of fact, they do not. BUT, I think that there should be a better mechanism that a lead that says, OH by the way etc etc. I am very open to discussion, my apologies if I came across as harsh, I was carrying invisible wiki baggage, which is not your problemCoal town guy (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your link goes to WP:List of cabals. Normally when I am confronted by a tautology such as your example, I simply delete the offending phrase with the Edit summary "Where else would West Virginia be?" Normally nobody bothers to put the phrase back in. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Have no fear, I have created a near bullet proof template, I will post it shortly for review. I agree. In fact, I was rather good at symbolic logic a few million years ago...or so it seems. I will be the Wiki man who loves to be hated and change the phrasing in the 50+ counties that have the locutionCoal town guy (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Surpise, NOBODY commented. BUT I did find why there is a tautology, the reason the code we edit will say, US County for US State of etc etc etc is because there is indeed a county article as opoosed to a US one and the "county article" is a stinker......do you think a merge or redirect could eliminate the ugliness???Coal town guy (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Angela Davis enters Royce Hall for first lecture October 7 1969.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Angela Davis enters Royce Hall for first lecture October 7 1969.jpg, which you've attributed to https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=170093222239&set=a.170093017239.120040.550367239&type=3&theater[dead link]. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GeorgeLouis. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GeorgeLouis. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 00:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

I can tell you are attempting to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Notability}}, but nominating articles for deletion with the statement "Not notable" is not helpful at all. I would be far less concerned with your nominations if you would be clear in what you are doing "This article has been tagged for notability since 2008, upon review I have not found evidence of notability" or something of the sort. Are you checking for sources? Ryan Vesey 05:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. No, I am not checking for any sources. If the article itself makes no claim to notability, then of course the tag "unclear notability" no longer applies, and I can nominate it for deletion. However, I guess I will just lay off. Thanks again. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

John Muto[edit]

FYI, the original creator of the John Muto article is blocked indefinitely, so they won't be able to take part in the AfD. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Frank L. VanderSloot shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but I don't believe anybody will believe that my recent edits involve any kind of war. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
We'll find out, if you do any more reverting; you've removed "journalists" 3 times now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, if it is a war, I proposed a Christmas truce, even though it's not the right season. I won't be doing any more editing until at least tomorrow. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 04:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Gross reporting (BOM, BO.com)[edit]

Since you weighed in here, I thought I'd let you know that there's currently a discussion going on here about Boxoffice.com. You're welcome to join in if you'd like. Regards, m.o.p 21:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 80.168.199.171 (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly. GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch[edit]

Thanks for copyediting my copyedit on the VanderSloot BLP. I changed the wrong side of the Wikilink. Andrew327 17:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I do that occasionally — can't tell my right hand from my left. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Einstein.Painting.jpg nominated for deletion[edit]

Possibly unfree File:Einstein.Painting.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Einstein.Painting.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Einstein.Painting.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Einstein.Painting.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for Your Work on Grammarly[edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
For your team spirit at improving on Grammarly. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Eagle Rock, California[edit]

A few things about your edits from someone with extensive knowledge of the area. Just because there is no source on a persons page for where they reside is not carte blanche reason to removed someone from a locality page. Many of the residents you removed are sourced from school yearbooks and other good sources that are not necessarily on their personal page, nor happen to be in an electronic form (which is NOT required for Wikipedia). As for the movie industry, many of the films referenced have specific credits at the end of the movies mentioning eagle rock, and any community within a hour of Hollywood has extensive history in the community which is part of their story. Everything you removed was valid, encyclopedic content, with very poor justification. If you want to continue improving the page, I look forward to working with you, but please discuss your edits on the talk page were consensus can be reached instead of wholesale deletions. Your good faith edits have been Reverted until appropriate discussion of your changes reaches consensus. Timmccloud (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I look forward to you or somebody else inserting the proper sources. See you on the Talk Page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Garret Kramer for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Garret Kramer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garret Kramer (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Wikinic[edit]

Wiknic logo.svg Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park LA Wiknic 2011 Group Photo.jpg
You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! howcheng {chat} 01:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:Map of Harbor Gateway neighborhood, Los Angeles, California.png[edit]

Copyright-excl.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Map of Harbor Gateway neighborhood, Los Angeles, California.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 23:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Mid-Wilshire[edit]

Thanks for your improvements to the article Mid-Wilshire. I'd appreciate your input in response to my "move" suggestion on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate Changes and Removals by GeorgeLouis to Harvard Heights wiki page[edit]

Your comments pursuant to your editing of the Harvard Heights wiki page on 05/28/13 state: "Hello, I'm GeorgeLouis. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Harvard Heights, Los Angeles, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)"

The changes made to the article were necessary because your editing of the neighborhood boundaries is inaccurate. Since at least the year 2000, the City of Los Angeles Planning authority has clearly identified the area known as Harvard Heights in multiple citywide ordinances, planning documents, and zoning maps. Furthermore, your contention that a reliable source was not provided for these corrections is entirely untrue as two separate and publicly posted pdf documents created by the City of Los Angeles were cited to. These documents are: http://www.preservation.lacity.org/files/Harvard%20Heights%20Survey%20Map.pdf and http://www.preservation.lacity.org/files/Harvard%20Heights%20Ordinance.pdf which can be found at the City of Los Angeles Planning Department Office of Historic Resources website (http://www.preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/la/harvard-heights). Unfortunately, the editing you performed relies on misinformation disseminated by the LA Times Crime Mapping unit. The publication has previously been informed in writing that the information contained on their website is inaccurate and is overly inclusive of surrounding areas that are not commonly considered, nor publicly marked as Harvard Heights by both residents and government alike. Furthermore, your citation source can be further contradicted when examined in conjunction with the popular real estate website zillow.com, which posits an altogether third set of boundaries for the neighborhood which is likewise inaccurate. Thus, it makes most sense to rely on the widely published information that City Planning and Zoning has relied on as the accurate boundaries of this neighborhood for the past 13 years. Furthermore, as a local resident of the neighborhood, I can attest to the fact that the neighborhood has been trying to correct this misinformation for years. These efforts to educate those who are not from the area have been very public, and have included the City sanctioned posting of Harvard Heights signs on every corner in the neighborhood between Western Ave and Normandie, as well as Pico Blvd to the 10 Freeway. For this specific reason, the wikipedia article was pursuantly edited in order to stop the flow of misinformation and point to reliable to sources for the Harvard Heights boundary lines. Please revert the edits to this wiki page to reflect this information.

Thank you. I've responded at "Boundaries sources" on the Talk:Harvard Heights, Los Angeles page. It would be best to keep all conversation over there. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood infobox picture and other good work[edit]

That was a great edit and a great edit summary, too. The rest of the work you're doing there is high quality and much needed.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

RS comment[edit]

Hi. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you comment at this discussion regarding a source's reliability? It involves a self-published source's use in a featured-BLP article. Dan56 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


Potential Conflict of Interest / Relationship with Publication Outlet[edit]

GeorgeLouis, do you have a conflict of interest WP:Conflict of Interest with regards to the publication outlet the Los Angeles Times? A vast majority of the information that you have posted to Los Angeles neighborhood based articles is content derived largely from the Los Angeles Times. It has been brought to your attention that some of the Los Angeles Times information you cite to is inaccurate or at odds with other sources, including widely disseminated maps, government documents, etc. You continue to edit such articles to remove other citations and references, and prominently refer back to the Los Angeles Times as a primary source, both in the article content itself, as well as in the external links section. Is there a reason you have mostly featured this publication/media outlet so prominently in name in these articles? This topic will also be posted to the WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Thank you. Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I am assuming you are acting in good faith and that you have not been made aware of Wikipedia:Outing#Posting_of_personal_information. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If it's not any inconvenience, could you comment at this RSN post? It seems I'm getting feedback from editors who've cited the source in their edits to articles, and I'd like a more impartial opinion, so I picked you out randomly from the WP:RS talk page, LOL Dan56 (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Sexist-by-occupation billboard, January 1977, California.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sexist-by-occupation billboard, January 1977, California.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the cheeseburger[edit]

There's always a problem with refs in templates - if you leave out the {{reflist}} and rely on the invoking page having one, you may come unstuck. Those errors are much harder to track down too. I think I made a mistake though with the <noinclude></noinclude> John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Tue 21:04, wikitime= 20:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know what <noinclude></noinclude> does. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Olympiacos women's volleyball[edit]

First of all, the fact that these players don't have (English) Wikpedia articles doesn't mean that they are not notable. I am sure you will agree that Wikipedia still has many gaps and many unwritten articles in a vast range of areas. Now the fact that this article looks like a puff piece to you is really baffling to me, but I assure you that it ain't. I will be delighted to provide you with sources, but I must inform you that the vast majority of the available sources on the particular subject are in Greek language. Anyway, as far as the names are concerned, I'll try to add some additional sources. The facts are already sourced. The article is a product of research and experience and every fact and name in it is accurate. Looking forward to hearing your point of view, Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


Olympiacos women's volleyball answer[edit]

I always provide numerous sources and conduct a thorough and meticulous search before contributing to Wiki. I fully understand your concerns but I really feel that they are a little bit far-fetched. I agree that sources are of vital importance to the Wikipedia philosophy and I personally take this matter very seriously. You are absolutely right when you say that no articles should exempt from the requirement for sources, but on the other hand, over-sourcing and constant suspicion over everybody who adds new information to Wikipedia are not commensurate with the Wikipedia philosophy and with the whole concept of contribution. Now, as far as yours truly is concerned, I can assure you that I most certainly am not taking advantage of Wikipedia's anyone-can-edit policy, I am not a sports enthusiast, nor am I (unfortunately for my pocket) a sports public relations paid agent. I am just someone who happens to have an extensive knowledge on all these things and I really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia by providing trustworthy and sourced information. I suppose you'll have to take my word on all these, obviously I won't be able to provide you with any sources whatsoever. By the way, I checked you out and I saw that you are a very experienced and distinguished editor. Keep up the good work, Gtrbolivar (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Assistance to protect neutral POV, article page ban for Binksternet[edit]

George, I have tried with great effort to maintain a balance of opinion in the Controversy section of the page on Mitsuo Fuchida, the lead pilot in the attack on Pearl Harbor. I admit I'm not that experienced on Wikipedia, but despite my best efforts, Binksternet continues to revert and edit to his own POV and bend the content of this historic figure, whom I know much about. He has even deleted my comments on the Talk page of Fuchida as well. Fuchida was a flawed man, but the "Controversy" section is grossly lopsided via Binksternet. I saw your name on Binksternet's (rejected) RFA as "Oppose" and thought, if nothing else, you might have some advice or perhaps help. I'm requesting an article page ban here

Thanks for your consideration--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look at it, but I have to warn you that somebody is going to throw WP:Canvass at you. (Not me.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Answer[edit]

First of all, next to the flags being used in the notable players section, the name of the country is mentioned. What's the point in adding an additional flag section? I don't think is right, it's an exaggeration. Secondly, did you see any of the pages I gave you as an example? Did you see the structure, the links and everything? They are exactly the same as my edit. In fact I used their structure and writing pattern to write this particular article. You didn't mention anything. Thirdly, why are you removing links to other wikipedia pages (Piraeus, Eva Chantava, Maja Ognjenović etc). It is totally unjustified and doesn't make any sense. I corrected them and once again you removed them. I think you should take a look to the links I send you (Fenerbahçe Women's Volleyball, Vakıfbank Spor Kulübü, Panathinaikos women's volleyball), I believe it will change your perception. What's wrong with adding links to wikipedia pages? I mean that's the right way and it encourages other users to create the unwritten pages, thus contributing to Wikipedia. You strike me as an open-minded person and I strongly suggest that you reconsider some of your views on the matter. Gtrbolivar (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I underand your concern, but would be better to use the article's Talk Page as a way to improve the article. Anyway, whatever is done in the article can later be undone if necessary. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Silver Lake, Los Angeles cite issue[edit]

I saw your 7/14 revert using CITEVAR as a reason. When I read CITEVAR I take that to mean newer editors on a page follow the already established citation style. You are a newer editor on this page and are not following the style. When someone changes one of your citations to the "established" style you revert it. When someone adds info to your cite you revert it. This is not following CITEVAR as I understand it.

Also, you spelled the author's name incorrectly; it's Khouri, not Khoury. When you reverted the edit you reverted the correction.

I am going to revert your revert for the same reason you gave: CITEVAR. Jaguar766 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the name, but this article has been around for YEARS before the rollout of the templates. There is no consistency on the page, as you can plainly see. Look out for WP:Editwar. please. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but...[edit]

...how is this blanking? Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 06:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I will have to admit that I am confused by the recent blankings in Richard Alatorre, and I suggest that discussion about them be confined to the Talk Page over there. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Los Angeles neighborhoods[edit]

Thanks for all your hard work trying to clean up the morass that is Los Angeles neighborhoods. Nice working with you. Looks like I created a bunch of work for myself to fix up the "keep" articles. Will you take care of removing the deletes from the list of neighborhoods and wherever else? --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Watts, CA Article[edit]

Thank you for removing my unreferenced mention of Sanford and Son from the Watts article. I've added it back and changed the wording to clarify and added several references. I usually provide a reference but since the wiki article on Sanford and Son didn't reference that fact but mentions it along with the fact that the show was so popular, I didn't think I needed to but I guess not everyone would be familiar with it. It's probably the most famous show to be based in Watts and outside of the riots is why a number of people are familiar with it. I hope it's OK now. Dbroer (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Lazard[edit]

Hello, I received a message saying that my changes to the Lazard entry were not based on verifiable facts. However, I bent over backwards to attribute everything to objective sources. I did so in order to replace the flagged request at the top of the page to do so. Can you please tell me what is objectionable or unverifiable in the current entry? I respect Wikipaedia's guidelines and am eager to comply. Philipmaher (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Philipmaher. Thank you.

No problem. It seemed to me that the changes were not based on neutral sources. Please join the conversation at the Talk Page over there. We certainly can salvage a lot of your stuff. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:USERNOCAT[edit]

Hi GeorgeLouis! Per WP:USERNOCAT, "user subpages that are draft versions of articles should be kept out of content categories." One of the tasks that my bot does is to comment out article categories that are on user subpages, such as this edit to User:GeorgeLouis/TemporarilyActive, which you reverted. If you don't like using the colons, you could use <!-- ... --> comment tags instead, which would also keep your draft page out of the categories. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the necessary housekeeping chores! Buena fortuna! GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Lucy[edit]

Just to let you know, the opinions you asked for have been added to the Talk:Thomas Lucy page. Paul B (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper vendors pic[edit]

Nice picture of the newspaper vendors. It definitely suits Mexico's article quite well. Happy editing, ComputerJA () 03:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

World Trade Center (New York City, 1973)[edit]

Information.svg

A tag has been placed on World Trade Center (New York City, 1973), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sign in Niagara Falls, Ontario, warning people not to climb over guard rail.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Sign in Niagara Falls, Ontario, warning people not to climb over guard rail.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Blurred Lines 18:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For the Berlin Images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Three-quarter view 1934 Chevrolet Master Coupe.jpg[edit]

Just for the record, file deletion goes to WP:FFD not WP:MFD. But since you uploaded the images yourself, you can just tag them with {{db-author}}, although this has already been done. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle does not have a FFD shortcut; at least I didn't see it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Third one down, "Discussion venues for files". Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 13:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Bells are ringing in Bell[edit]

Did you see today's news? Could that crook possibly be fatter?? I hope you can add the news. I am battling breast cancer (pretty good prognosis) and chemo is killing me...but I got both girls ;-) The only thing worse than fighting this cancer is warring with an HMO. Please pop in anytime!

  • Fond regards

DocOfSocTalk 07:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Photographs[edit]

Thanks for uploading so many excellent photographs. If you have any more of London and Leicester, in particular, I would be very pleased to see them uploaded. Celuici (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have more of the Leicester march, but they don't seem to fit any Wikipedia articles.
GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GeorgeLouis. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 11:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GeorgeLouis. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 21:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"Kiddie train" photo[edit]

The photo was taken at a beach amusement area in Hanko, Finland, but I have no info on the manufacturer. I estimate the track gauge to be 15" or so. It has since been removed from the site. --Janke | Talk 08:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a very nice photo and I added the information to this page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-thons at UC Riverside[edit]

The UCR Libraries are hosting three edit-a-thons focusing on their great special collections (science fiction, water resources, the Inland Empire and more) on Oct. 12, 2013, Oct. 26, 2013, and Nov. 23, 2013. Please participate if you can! Details and signup here. All are welcome, new and experienced editors alike! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mickey Cohen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • for Stompanato's funeral and then sold Lana Turner's love letters to Stompanato to the press.<ref>[http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19580411&id=WPYiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ec0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=927,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Weedpatch, California may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Gavin, "Weedpatch Comes to Life in Art Exhibit," ''Bakersfield Californian,'' September 19, 2007]]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brentwood, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • lacity.org/PLN/complan/westla/pdf/genlumap.btw.pdf Los Angeles City Brentwood-Palisades area map]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Purple Heart may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • clerical errors, where a Purple Heart is denoted in military records but was simply omitted from a (WD AGO Form 53-55 (predecessor to the) [[DD Form 214]]. (Report of Separation), are corrected on
  • {{cleanup

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crenshaw, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [http://www.leimertparkbeat.com]] Leimert Park Beat, a collaborative online community

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Armenian youth with T-shirt and happy face in image of Gorbachev.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Armenian youth with T-shirt and happy face in image of Gorbachev.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Map of Porter Ranch area of Los Angeles, California.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Map of Porter Ranch area of Los Angeles, California.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  • There was no need to use MfD and certainly no need to notify yourself! You should simply have slapped {{db-g7}} on the file description. Note also that the image was a blatant copyvio and that you new version must not be. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not appreciate your rude remark. Yours faithfully, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Perhaps I am dim but please explain what was rude about my message. There is no need to leave a message on my user talk page - I shall be watching this. My limit for the size of my user talk page is 64k bytes. I think this page is overdue for archiving. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Your tone was brusque, your conclusion about "blatant copyvio" absolutely wrong. Nevertheless, I assume you have been overworking on Wikipedia, as I have — hours and hours for the past few days — so there is nothing to worry about. I believe we should all be helpful to each other. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Allegations of copyvio unreservedly withdrawn. But: in the image you uploaded the copyright notice had been almost completely cropped. The chat about copyright would have been better placed within the Permission section of the Information box. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Call me kicking a dead horse but I should point out to RHaworth that when a page is taken to XFD using Twinkle it automatically alerts the creating user - see User talk:Launchballer#Speedy deletion nomination of User:Launchballer/Db-g6d.--Launchballer 16:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No son, perhaps we have different versions of Twinkle but with mine there is a check box "notify page creator if possible" which George could have un ticked. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Urgh, if I'd've known that then! Just checked, and it is there. Sorry about that.--Launchballer 16:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

Accidentally undid something you were working on. hit undo asap...--Antiqueight confer 01:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will send you some cookies. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

El Sereno, Los Angeles[edit]

Hello GeorgeLouis,

I saw your edits of El Sereno, Los Angeles, stating that "Much of what has been added since then appears to be a WP:Copyright violation."

Actually, Mr. George Casen contacted me, sent me color versions of his work and stated that I was free to use his research/findings without needing his consent. He stated that he did his research for the community El Sereno. I am the founder of the El Sereno Historical Society and this is why I think the WP: Copyright violation DOES NOT APPLY.

Mr. Casen's work is a reference article at the Los Angeles City Library, El Sereno Branch, which I gave a color copy of Mr. Casen's work so that the Library Branch could update their over-copied black and white copy.

In other words, I'm sure I did not break any Copyright. I'm not sure what exactly led you to believe I was violating a Copyright, but I understand your caution.

I would like to know what I need to present to prove that this is not a copyright violation? I didn't want to undo your edit until I had the chance to explain my use of the material and allow you the chance to respond as well.

I hope this can be resolved and I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your time.

El Sereno (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I am not an expert on the way one makes his previously published material available for use on Wikipedia, so I have asked for advice at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#El_Sereno.2C_Los_Angeles. Just keep your eye on that page: Somebody will step up and answer the question, although I understand there is a waiting list. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

section templates[edit]

Could you please stop adding
{{cleanup |1=section |reason=Citations needed. Shorten descriptors to bare necessity. Keep one blue link per line<noinclude> </noinclude>|date=October 2013|small=left |talksection= |nocat={}}

There are multiple things wrong. Please use the {{cleanup section}} template with only the parameters used on the doc page. It should read: {{cleanup section|Citations needed. Shorten descriptors to bare necessity. Keep one blue link per line|date=October 2013}} Bgwhite (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

New York crime section[edit]

My understanding of the phrase "as of" is different and I have changed the wording at the start of the sentence. Let me know what you think, as I believe that by stating "as of", one is stating that "as of this date/year" something "is" the case, and the present tense is therefore relevant.--Soulparadox (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No, if something is in the past, it takes the past tense. "As of 1914, Europe was on the verge of war." GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for this.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files[edit]

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 24#OTRS pending since March. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks, I appreciate the barnstar. I do try to credit authors, but I'm curious if something in particular caught your attention? No big deal, just curious.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GeorgeLouis. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 17:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for editing[edit]

Hi GeorgeLouis, we met when collaborating on gastrointestinal cancer. I can't say I completely agree with all your editing / simplification, but I do admire your ability to synthesise and present complex information simply. I'm having a lot of difficulty with this article: Advanced glycation end-products, and would love if you could bring your editor's scythe and toolbox to help me improve it. Since I've seen what a parlous state it was in, I've been trying to improve it in bits and pieces, but it hurts my head to find a way to express the content in a readable fashion whilst preserving the content (which is quite specific). AGES are one of the major pathological pathways that cause the complications of diabetes mellitus, so this topic is quite important. Would value some help, if time permits! LT910001 (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. I will look at it. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; --LT910001 (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It will take a while, so I would appreciate your not working on it until I've had a chance to go over it fully. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
No worries. If you'd like any assistance please let me know. LT910001 (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

AGE[edit]

Hi georgelewis. I watch the Advanced glycation end-product article and have seen your recent edits. I see that you are an experienced editor, but that you have not edited a lot of health-related articles. I just want to point out that sourcing content for health-related information is subject to the WP:MEDRS guideline, and your edits don't seem to be following that. There is a lot of hype around AGEs and ways to counter them in the longevity community, and you appear to be relying mostly on sources from that community, many of which fail MEDRS and do not express the consensus of the medical community. You seem to like others to stay out of your way while you restructure, so I will hang back but, much of what you have done so far will probably not stand under MEDRS. I have added a MEDRS-citations needed tag to the top of the article, for now. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Picture for Martin Ludlows page[edit]

Hi George,

I am attempting to edit Martin Ludlows profile. I would like to delete the current picture within the body of the article and I want to add two new pictures. I see that there is a block on the edit section for that part. I wanted to know if there is anyway you can remove the block or assist in this process.

I can be emailed at [removed].

Thank you,

Themba

76.169.18.121 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about a location[edit]

Dear George,

I know this may sound silly and funny. But, I have a funny question... in the article about the Daily Telegraph you allowed the use of this photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Daily_Telegraph_building_in_London,_England,_1974.jpg There you say that you took this picture almost 40 years ago. And I want to ask you... Where was that building? I know it's a funny, somehow unexpected question, but i am writing a story and the daily telegraph has an important part on it. And i want to make it as realistic as possible... however, i'm having some trouble finding out where was the telegraph located in 1972. I've already ask the telegraph staff, but, they haven't answered... yet. So... although, this is weird... i ask for your help. I thank you for your time and patience.

By the way, My name is armando and if you remember anything, can you please send me the information to my email [removed] com

Thank you very much and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.167.128.179 (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your work in addressing some of the issues raised by yesterday's New York Post article. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Catalan[edit]

Isn't it spoken in Italy too? (Islands). Andorra doesn't count as an EU state, of course. And M is common for currency values. Tony (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The map shows only France, Spain and Andorra. Catalan is not spoken in Italy, to my knowledge. M can mean either a thousand or a million. Or lots of other things. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brentwood, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[Margaret Sullavan]] – Actress<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0837925/bio ''Architectural Digest,'' cited in InternetMovieDataBas[</

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Watts, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • No Privacy These Days for 'Pit Boss' Star Shorty Rossi," ''The National Ledger,'' October 11, 2011]]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Central LA: region or city?[edit]

Hi,

You recently reverted an entry on several LA neighborhood articles from "central region of the City of Los Angeles" to "Central Los Angeles, California." The latter is misleading because it makes it seem like "Central Los Angeles" is a neighborhood, address or city of itself when it isn't. The idea to call this area comes from the Mapping L.A. project which clearly designates this area as a "region" of LA, not its own address, city, or neighborhood. Thus, the reversion to Central Los Angeles, California is clearly misleading. Isn't it? --Daniel E Romero (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Now that you mention it, I would refer to the area as the central region of Los Angeles, California, with the internal link going to Central Los Angeles, rather than a link to Los Angeles, California. I personally do not like a whole lot of links in the lede. Good catch. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Catherine Ashton -- Handling of Undue Weight Tag[edit]

Out of respect for your extensive record as an editor on Wikipedia, I think it only courteous to let you know that I have posted a short query on the Talk Page for Catherine Ashton questioning the approach you adopted to another editor's posting of an Undue Weight tag (a tag that, I am bound to say, seemed to me richly deserved). You removed the tag and told them, in spite of their candid admission that they lacked expertise in the field, that the answer was to "make the changes yourself. You can't expect other people to jump at your suggestion". (I gather you disapprove of singular "theys" but avoiding the usage here seems awkward). Perhaps you were merely the instrument of an institutional policy with which I am as yet unfamiliar? Your approach does, though, raise the question: "In that case, why have an Undue Weight tag at all?" Respectfully, Born only under Truman. Nandt1 (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I think you are correct. I was rude. I haven't looked at this article in a long time. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, thank you for this very courteous response. Undoubtedly none of us bats 1000. For whatever it is worth, I have made a concentrated effort over the past few days to address the Undue Weight issue in the Ashton article. All best wishes to you with your future editing! Nandt1 (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing Catherine Ashton (again)[edit]

I see you have picked up this challenge again, and find a number of your edits quite useful. On the list of activities, I am sure you are right that some of the items you deleted were puffery. But perhaps not all. I suspect that the business of developing the new EU diplomatic service (however it was phrased) may be quite important as a piece of institution building for the future. If we lack a source, I would tend to advocate looking for a source rather than deleting the fact. But unlike you, I am an East coaster, and this is my bedtime! Nandt1 (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it's morning here. Overnight you have done a lot of very valuable copy editing on Lady A. I hope you won't mind too much if I reverse just a couple of your more substantive cuts. One is the diplomatic service issue I mentioned above. The other is to reinstate the first sentence of Mr. Oborne's quote, which does -- and I think was clearly meant to -- emphasize the element of recantation here. Again, best wishes in your future editing! Nandt1 (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic Character of Neighborhoods[edit]

Hi George,

You wrote: Hello. I notice that you have been editing articles about the neighborhoods in Los Angeles to omit the ethnic characteristics from the lead paragraphs of said articles, with (usually) edit summaries decrying the information as having "racial" overtones, or similar wording. Don't you agree that the ethnic character of a neighborhood is one of the district's most salient features? Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My reply: Yes, I agree it is a salient feature but only if it is an area known for it being the center of a particular ethnic group. For example, Pico-Union is known as a hub for recent latino immigrants. Pico-Robertson is known as a jewish area. Chinatown - Chinese. Korea town - Koreans. Little Armenia - Armenians. So on and so forth. However, what I notice instead is the highlighting of how white an area is in the lead. E.g. this area is 70% white, this other one is 85% white, this is 48% white, etc. I don't think that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Why should only whites be singled out as the main ethnic group to determine to highlight the ethnic composition of a neighborhood? That seems like racial overtones. For example, one answer could be demonstrating how appealing an area is, along the thinking that more white % is better. While that might not be the only answer possible, and there might be answers to that question with no racial overtones, it seems suspicious that for example, Century City might be highlighted for how white it is when there is nothing particularly notable about that. If it is the area in Los Angeles County or LA City with the highest percentage of whites, it then would be notable for that feature. But I see this being done in many (if not most) of the areas in LA where there are significant percentages of whites. How is that helpful? Are there any wikipedia guidelines on leads highlighting one ethnic group over another? It seems to me like a simple case of ethnic bias. No offense. --Daniel E Romero (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
But why single out Hispanics, Jews, Chinese, Koreans, etc., to be featured in the lead? If a place is overwhelmingly white, why not say so in the lead, since the ethnic composition, especially in Los Angeles, is so important to understanding the community? And what do you mean by "known to be"? We only know what WP:Reliable sources tell us.
Anyway, I am open to opening up this discussion to the WP community at large, and it would be nice if you and I could agree on the wording of a WP:RFC and a place to discuss it. I suggest the notice be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography and the discussion take place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California/Los_Angeles_task_force. Do you agree, and would you care to propose some wording for the RFC that you and I can agree on before going to the community? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I agree we should open it up for discussion. In general, we should also take advantage of this opportunity to answer the wider question of what a lead should look like in LA's neighborhood articles. I noticed a similar concern to mine addressed by user PlayCuz at another one of your entries on a local neighborhood article. I believe it was East Hollywood or Silver Lake]. There, he was concerned that the lead seemed like a real estate brochure: noting percentages of renters versus owners and income. He felt it was not appropriate for a neighborhood lead. I agree. While his concerns were not about race explicitly, my concern about race in the lead is a similar concern: an attempt to show how "desirable" an area is for visiting/investing/home purchasing purposes, etc. In Urban Planning literature, there is a multi-faceted approach taking to defining what a neighborhood is: a neighborhood is not only its population but its sights, landmarks, points of reference and unique non-quantifiable characteristics. Both my concern and PlayCuz's revolve around this idea. It seems to be that even if those entries of 80% white, etc. are not necessarily ethnically biased, the focus of having a lead start with population statistics hinders the opportunity and the reality of seeing a neighborhood as more than who lives there.
Therefore, I suggest that neighborhood leads should be no more than a few sentences highlighting the most salient features of a neighborhood (top 3-4 features) in every category: population, history, etc. Taking 1 sentence or a few words from each of the subsections in the article. Moreover, I propose that the lead should not focus on ethnic or income or education unless the distinction is truly unique: e.g. hub of a certain ethnic group's cultural institutions, or having the highest percentage of that ethnic group in the city or county, or any other population variable: education, income, etc. Otherwise, the article lead should simply state the most salient or notable feature that a neighborhood is known for. You question this later point, but it is easily sourceable by citing to tour guide books or newspaper articles.--Daniel E Romero (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Taking your and my concerns as a base, I think I can fashion a WP:Rfc today or tomorrow, and I can post it here to see if you agree with the wording before we actually open it for discussion. Suit you? GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. There is a draft at User:GeorgeLouis/Sandbox. You can make suggest edits there if you like. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I glanced at it, but I haven't had a chance to really examine it. It seems a bit lengthy, so if you want to edit it down somewhat, that would be nice. But, as I say, I haven't given it a thorough exam. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I concur with GeorgeLouis that it is lengthy, but it compensates with the virtue of offering contrasting examples that clarify the relevant differences we are considering. PlayCuz (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for raising the issue. I fully share and have elsewhere expressed similar concerns with the way in which L.A. neighborhoods are described, relying almost exclusively on the (well-meaning, but not always objective or current) L.A. Times as source which is then treated as impervious to correction or modification. My point in describing the "white only" stats is that this is notoriously how real estate redlining occurs: clients otherwise interested in homes based on affordability are often "steered" away by pointing out to potential buyers that the neighborhood is not predominantly white based on official statistics (real estate brokers claim that, based on their experience of what homebuyers seek, this is merely a time-saver: why take clients to a minority neighborhood whereupon they will then decide it isn't "white" enough, when you can simply show them the ethnic stats and save everybody the trouble {and embarrassment} of eyeballing the actual community in question?). I object to Wikipedia reflecting and re-enforcing that practice, therefore I suggest this alternative recommendation for editing these types of articles as more NPOV. PlayCuz (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Image credits[edit]

Please note that the use of in-text credits in image captions is discouraged, because this information can be displayed on the file's page itself. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for Participation - Merger Proposal[edit]

Hello, you have been selected at random to leave a comment regarding the proposed merger of Duke of Edinburgh's Award and International Award Association. Due to the low traffic these pages receive it is likely there will not be enough participation to establish a consensus in the absence of personal invitations of this type. Seven users were randomly selected to receive this invitation. The discussion is here. Thanks for any input you can offer. BlueSalix (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks![edit]

thanks for your careful review of the Genetically modified food controversies article! Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

I haven't seen you pop up on my watchlist for a while, and I was just editing Eastside, Los Angeles and thought of you, so I thought I'd say hello!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will go back to L.A. neighborhoods in a while, but I just got tired of fighting. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I know the feeling. I hope I wasn't part of the problem. I just noticed this: File:Man wearing Purple Heart medal during Vietnam peace march, 1967.jpg while editing. It's a beautiful piece of work. I was there too. Oh what a time it was, what a time...Long ago, it must be, I have a photograph Preserve your memories; They're all that's left you...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Silver certificate (United States)[edit]

Hi GeorgeLouis- I saw the tag you put on the silver certificate list. I made some changes in a user space draft and wondered if you could give me your opinion if THIS is better. Thanks in advance.-Godot13 (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I am no expert, but I think you are on the right track. Here is what I did: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AGodot13%2FList_of_United_States_Silver_Certificates&diff=596510741&oldid=596460212. Thanks for asking, and I will leave it to you at that. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I took your advice and cut and pasted the new version into the article space. Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:BrickAtTable.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:Coalinga house.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Coalinga High School.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


Reference Errors on 27 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

March 9 edit-a-thon at MOCA in downtown LA[edit]

LA Meetup: March 9 edit-a-thon at MOCA
Moca.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the Museum of Contemporary Art in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday, March 9, 2014 from 11 am to 6 pm! This event is in collaboration with MOCA and the arts collective East of Borneo and aims to improve coverage of LA art since the 1980s. (Even if contemporary art isn't your thing, you're welcome to join too!) Please RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there! User:Calliopejen1 (talk)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Commons[edit]

Howdy George! Never encountered you before, but I saw some of your photos at Chevrolet Master and was intrigued. I then saw your numerous and valuable image uploads here at WP. I think it is a loss for those who edit in other languages that you keep them here, and I moved one image to the Commons. However, it took me ten minutes and was very boring, so I would like to respectfully wish/request/hope that you upload your often amazing photos to the Commons directly. Thanks a lot, hope to interact with you again in the future. Do you have any old photos from Macau? That would be great to see. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! The reason that I don't place photos directly in Commons is that it is also, to me, a much more tedious process than just putting them in the English Wikipedia. Also, I have run across recalcitrant editors there who have questioned some of my work, so I just prefer to work with English-language people, who, although not perfect, are usually not so pedantic. But mainly the upload process in the English-language WP is just a lot easier. I am sorry that you have to bear the brunt of moving the photos to Commons, but isn't there an automated tool you could use?
Yes, I was in Macau, and I will look for the pix, although I think they have vanished. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I can kind of see why... when one just looks at the photos and the upload pattern, it looks like the photo stream of a copyvio offender (the photos are of rare times and places, uploaded in no particular order) - but ten minutes of following up your other edits should make things clear. I have often had to deal with meaningless deletions there; useful and perfectly safe (copyright wise) photos being deleted because an editor who retired seven years ago forgot to cross a "t" eight years ago, all because some busybody is looking to feel important. Anyhow, I'll see if those Macau shots won't turn up in an old shoebox after all!  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Recreation of Abby Martin[edit]

You really need to read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Requested moves and Help:Page history. What you did was not "bold", it was disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your copy-and-paste move. That is not how we edit Wikipedia. Process is important. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that you have violated the trust of the community. An administrator was kind enough to relinquish protection because he trusted editors would do the right thing. You did not, and you made every editor look bad. This is why we can't have nice things. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
We disagree, but I love you anyway, sweetie. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thank you a lot for improving my article. Cheers! Ashish Lohorung (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional thoughts on school zoning[edit]

Talk:Tarzana,_Los_Angeles#.22Zoned.22_schools WhisperToMe (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

May 10 Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in LA[edit]

LA Meetup: May 10 Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon
Smithsonian logo color.svg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the Junipero Serra Branch of the LA Public Library (4607 S. Main St., 90037) on Saturday, May 10, 2014 from 10 am to 4 pm! This event is sponsored by the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center and the Asian Pacific American Librarians Association and aims to improve coverage of Asian Pacific American topics, particularly as they relate to southern California. Please RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

CipherCloud[edit]

Hi GeorgeLouis,

Thanks for your help on the CipherCloud page. I moved the DCMA take-down notice material up to the "History" section. In the move, I removed the Wired magazine sentence for the paragraph, as it is used as the source for supporting the section. This was my edit: "In April 2013, CipherCloud filed a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice against Stack Exchange Network for posting a discussion titled "How is CipherCloud doing homomorphic encryption?", which CipherCloud claimed contained copyrighted marketing material to criticize the company.[13]" Does this work and/or should it be in that section? Thanks for your comments.Jppcap (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I appreciate your work as well. We both seem to be interested in the same kind of article! Anyway, can you re-post this or a similar message on the article's Talk Page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CipherCloud because I think there are others also working on this topic. Also you might consider saying WHY you made the changes, even if it just "I think it reads better this way." Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for the advice! Jppcap (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GeorgeLouis. You have new messages at Talk:Daniel Amen.
Message added 02:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your work on the article. I think you have generally improved it. Just felt differently about one or two edits. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC) BTW, RE: diff.

I thought "popular press" was an acceptable expression for magazines and newspapers as opposed to scientific press or trade press. Wouldn't mind hearing what you think is a good way to distinguish various elements of the media. Thanks and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, "popular press" is often used that way, but someone who has never heard that term might be confused, so it would be better to just give the names of the publications, which would avoid any confusion. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

LA edit-a-thons on May 23 and 31[edit]

LA meetups: Adrianne Wadewitz memorial edit-a-thons on May 23 and May 31
Adrianne Wadewitz-6727.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

There are two LA edit-a-thons in memory of Adrianne Wadewitz, a prolific Wikipedia editor, in the coming weeks. Please join us May 23 at Occidental College and May 31 at the Institute of Cultural Inquiry to combat systemic bias and help further Adrianne's legacy. No experience needed! Please RSVP at the relevant page(s) if you plan to attend.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Nomination of Carpe Fulgur for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carpe Fulgur is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpe Fulgur until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Carpe Fulgur[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carpe Fulgur a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Carpe Fulgur. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 08:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Salcruz91[edit]

Hi George, I think your reversion of all of Salcruz91's edits is unwarranted, as most seem to be correct. Why did you revert them all? Go Phightins! 22:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No sources. No edit summaries. How this guy could have done all that research within just a few hours in also suspicious. If I am wrong, I apologize. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, he did not respond to notices on his talk page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You should apologize to him ... I double checked some of it, and it looked right. All one would have to do is look at a page of players' statistics. And as for why he didn't respond, he is a brand new editor, and may not know how to use talk pages yet. I would suggest you remove your warnings from his talk page, and maybe politely inform him about edit summaries. Thank you very much, and happy editing! Go Phightins! 00:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work. It sure looked like WP:Vandalism to me. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
No worries; we all make mistakes from time to time Face-smile.svg. Go Phightins! 02:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, GeorgeLouis. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by NeilN talk to me 15:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James Ashman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''James Ashman''' (1848–?} was a 19th-century businessman who was a member of the [[Los Angeles City Council, 1889–1909|Los

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of psychiatrists may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Jill Afrin]] (born 1962), telepsychiatrist]] for deaf people
  • *[[Vamık Volkan]] (born 1932, Turkish-Cypriot, political psychiatry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James Potter Davenport may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Arthur D. Houghton]].<ref>"Houghton Elected to Council," ''Los Angeles Herald,'' September 17, 1904]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Meredith P. Snyder may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • s history . . . .<ref>'Los Angeles From A to Z,'' University of California Press (1997), page 472]</ref></blockquote>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Albert Joseph Wallace may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository[[Wallace was named a member of the [[board of trustees]] of the [[University of Southern California]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Benjamin Ignatius Hayes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • bar]] today, He is considered by posterity to have been a learned man, with a brilliant legal mind.]<ref name=LAPL/></blockquote>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:George A. Smith, Los Angeles politician and businessman.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:George A. Smith, Los Angeles politician and businessman.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Owen McAleer of Los Angeles and his driving horse, Checkers, in 1905.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Owen McAleer of Los Angeles and his driving horse, Checkers, in 1905.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Table of contents[edit]

You keep doing TOC wrong and I keep fixing... Herman Silver

  1. There can be no material between the TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD. This is an accessibility issue for users of screen readers.
  2. For atleast five years, nobody uses {| align="right" to move the TOC to the right. This is what {{TOC right}} is for.
  3. TOC should go on the left side unless there is need to be on the right side. A long TOC or on disambig pages are examples where right side is applicable. Per WP:LEAD, "Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages."
  4. An image is traditionally on the right side of the article.

They seem to be all on Los Angeles politicians. I've enjoyed reading them. They are all very interesting. Bgwhite (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your work and the time it took to do it. don't intend to quarrel with anybody. All I know is that the "standard look of pages," so called, leaves annoying white space in the article. REALLY annoying white space. The relevant guideline states: "The TOC can, in some instances, be floated either right or left using { {TOC right} } or { {TOC left} } when it is beneficial to the layout of the article." That's what I do. It would be really nice if more Wikipedians would add well-sourced CONTENT to the encyclopedia instead of wasting time making unimportant changes to layout. I suggest if anybody wants to make a layout change, well, he should take it to the Talk Page of that article, where the matter can be discussed. It doesn't do morale any good to make unnecessary changes just for the sake of making them. As for images and tradition, well, good typographic layout has always been to have the subject in the image looking INTO the article. That makes sense. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Please use {{ping}}, {{U}} or similar means when responding people. This is a matter of common courtesy.
It is policy to be able to allow everybody the chance to see all of the material. The policy is you can float the TOC as long as no material comes before the TOC and first heading. Two of the five pillars of Wikipedia covers this. If you want to challenge this, goto ANI and see if you can ignore the five pillars. This has been debated multiple times before and if you want, I can give multiple instances of where this stands. I and other who enforce this have had hundreds revert. They are all shoot down.
The rules of MOS is you follow it unless there is a good reason not to. MOS states do not put TOC on right unless there is good reason. DAB pages are one. A long TOC is another. Bgwhite (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Very few editors have ever accused me of lacking courtesy. I don't know what {{ping}}, {{U}} means at all. If anybody talks to me on my page here, that's where I respond. I would certainly like to see the material you have offered me. I believe you are talking about guidelines and not about policy. Nevertheless, just shoot me some links. Yours in wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Please start using {{ping}} or {{U}}. Everybody has been using ping, U and others since notifications came on-line. This is common practice. Since this came into being, nobody now watches other talk pages for a reply unless they are page stalker. In this care, you are lacking courtesy.
  • Changing position of TOC by {| align="left" | __TOC__ |} ended atleast 3 years ago and nobody is supposed to use it. Please use {{toc right}} or {{toc left}}.
  • From this and other messages, you obviously do not keep up with rule changes and other changes. Things change all the time around here. Nobody can keep up with all the changes, but atleast attempt to.
  • I hate anybody that says guidelines isn't policy, so I don't have to follow it. They are usually the same people that turns around and oppose a change saying it is a guideline, we should follow it. A guideline is something ALL editors follow unless for the occasional exceptions. We don't throw it away because we don't believe in it. "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. "
  • You are choosing page ownership and looks over the ability of people to see all of the article. This is in no way a common sense exception.
  • Other messages, This is about a talk we already had on the subject. Hear for other messages. Bgwhite (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I prefer positive editing and writing. WP:There are no rules., so how can there be "rule changes"? The reason for that is so the encyclopedia will get improved by innovation. And one editor does not TELL another editor what to do; it is very demoralizing. I don't own any pages, and neither does any one else. As I mentioned before, I don't want to quarrel with anybody, so I shan't. It takes up time that I could be using to create articles. Take this message, for example: I've been agonizing over it for, oh, several minutes now, and it distresses me. I will put my output and quality of editing up against anybody else's. I would rather not continue this conversation: It is troubling. That's my gut feeling, and I hope it is respected. GeorgeLouis (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
My gosh, you can't teach a dead dog squat. This is about people with screen readers being able to actually read the article. Your page ownership issues and NO RULES issues over the ability of disabled people's rights (yes it is right via five pillars) is very disturbing. You are now going thru articles and reverting changes that I have made to comply with WP:TOC and WP:LEAD. I have shown you where the rules are located. I have shown you where it has been discussed that this is a rule that cannot be broken. I have shown you the leading person on disability issues in Wikipedia has argued this point. Any further reverting and breaking will be dealt with at ANI, where yes, this has also been discussed and blocks threatened if the editor did not stop.
I'm in no way taking issue with "output and quality of editing up against anybody else's". This is not the point and never has been. I've also praised your articles. I'm taking issue with your blatant disregard of allowing everybody to read and edit the entire article that you create. You have now said you don't follow guidelines, policy or the five pillars of Wikipedia with your, "WP:There are no rules., so how can there be "rule changes"?"
It is very demoralizing when somebody thinks this about him. It is very demoralizing when somebody refuses to create an article that EVERYBODY can read and edit. Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we work with consensus and since the consensus is that infoboxes and primary images go on the right we should respect that. The say way we should respect our visitors who use tablets, smartphones, etc. I agree with Bgwhite that ToC should stay in the place it is in all other pages. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Once there is consensus to remove WP:There are no rules as a WP:policy I might reconsider. In the meantime, "There are no rules." And since a problem has been called to my attention, I always put the TOC immediately after the first paragraph, as requested. So what is the problem? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You are not linking the policy page. Page is WP:IAR.
  • From Five Pillars, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles". (emphasis mine)
  • Not allowing a group of readers to see all of the page is reckless and is not an exception.
  • You always put the TOC on the left side and photo on the right. This hinders those on tablets, phones and other small devices.
  • You never follow WP:TOC and WP:LEAD. For the fourth time, "There can be no material between the TOC and first headline". Bgwhite (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:Caricature of architect Chauncey Fitch Skilling, 1900.png[edit]

Copyright-excl.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Caricature of architect Chauncey Fitch Skilling, 1900.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 16:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Caricature of architect Chauncey Fitch Skilling, 1900.png[edit]

Copyright-excl.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Caricature of architect Chauncey Fitch Skilling, 1900.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 17:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Terms of Use change[edit]

Hi GeorgeLouis. Just as a quick heads up, the Terms of Use were changed on June 15 to require disclosure from anyone engaged in paid editing. There is room to move in regard to how this is done, as you can do so on the talk page, your user page, or in the edit summaries, but you are required to disclose the employer, client and affiliation. None of this means that there has been any change in whether or not people can edit Wikipedia when being paid, just they they do so openly and in a transparent manner. - Bilby (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charles S. Burnell
added links pointing to Docket, Civil, Lowell High School and University Club
John W. Shenk
added links pointing to Franchise, Commonwealth Club, Union Church and Cobbleskill, New York
Leslie R. Hewitt
added links pointing to Los Angeles Harbor and Los Angeles Express
Jess E. Stephens
added a link pointing to Masons
William Ellsworth Dunn
added a link pointing to Preparatory school

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lucky Baldwin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:Lillian_Ashley_Turnbull_thought_she_was_Lucky_Baldwin's_wife.jpg|thumb|125px|right|Lillian
  • State of California|year=1878|publisher=A. L. Bancroft & Company|location=San Francisco}}</ref>) on the northeast corner of Powell and Market St. He also narrowly escaped death in a San Francisco

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Failure to follow accessibility guidelines. Thank you. Bgwhite (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi GeorgeLouis. User:Bgwhite is correct here. We do have rules, and you're free to ignore them if you can establish a consensus that doing so improves the encyclopedia. In the absence of that consensus, the kinds of changes you're making are going to be reverted, and eventually they're going to be seen as disruptive. If you think you've got a good case, take up at WP:MOS and get the rules changed. Otherwise, probably best to leave the TOC positioning alone. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ray L. Chesebro
added links pointing to Servicemen, Good Samaritan Hospital and Private practice
Edwin T. Baker
added links pointing to Blue books and Board of Equalization
List of Los Angeles municipal election returns
added links pointing to George Alexander and George Williams
Daniel Freeman (Los Angeles County)
added a link pointing to Manhattan Beach

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You added material after a TOC again.[edit]

See Robert L. Burns

You are also once again putting material between the TOC and first header. Did you not see the editors telling you this is wrong at ANI? Also per MOS, images go first and TOC goes left, unless there is some good reason not to. Not [18] and [19] You don't have one a good reason. There are rules, even though you think there are none. You didn't listen to people at ANI. You don't acknowledge MOS. You didn't listen to people on your talk page. The only thing left is a block and nobody wants that. Your choice. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I received this message and read it. Honestly, I have not placed anything between the TOC and the first header since you called this problem to my attention. Maybe you have run across some articles I did before you so kindly informed me of the guideline in question. On the other hand, I've noticed you have been changing some of my layouts without a full explanation as to why you did it, or maybe an erroneous one, such as claiming that I violated some kind of TOC "rule." Usually when I make a layout I try to avoid large chunks of white space and also I like to have the photos face inward, in keeping with what (to my mind) is basic layout that I learned several decades ago when I did them for a living. In any new articles I do I will be sure to abide by the TOC guidelines that you pointed out to me, since I do not care to engage in any kind of back-and-forthing: I would rather just write and post.
Also I want to point out that the reason WP:TOC exists is so that writers and editors continue to have the freedom to try new things in the hopes that others will adopt them, all to the benefit of Wikipedia. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
"I have not placed anything between the TOC and the first header since you called this problem to my attention." See July 24, July 23, July 21, July 13 and June 28. Now stop lying.
We have already talked about image and TOC placement above and at ANI. Per WP:LEAD, " Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages. " WP:LEAD is MOS. We follow MOS, but there are "occasional exceptions". Your "blank space" edits were even reverted by others. There is no try new things in MOS. There is no do what we feel like in MOS. We also do not remove Infoboxes. There is no rule that there should no be there except for classical music, musicians and composers. Now stop making up excuses or pointing to essays. Stop your saying you will follow MOS, but actually don't. Bgwhite (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I read the above and am simply appalled. I have no intention of getting into a debate when all I want to do is have a little enjoyment in life. This kind of stuff really takes the fun out of editing Wikipedia, which is one reason I haven't done it in a few days. I will check out the diffs that the esteemed editor cited above and try to see what he or she is getting at. (By the way, it would be really nice if somebody were to say, "GeorgeLouis, you have certainly added some interesting articles and done some really fine editing over the past several years. Gee, we are lucky to have a guy like you here!") Well, I can dream, can't I? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
From #Table of Contents, "They seem to be all on Los Angeles politicians. I've enjoyed reading them. They are all very interesting."
You just reverted edits that four people agree upon. You reverted to once again put the TOC in wrong spot. I'm done. I'm requesting a block as you are just edit warring. Bgwhite (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Map of Hancock Park, Los Angeles, California.png[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Map of Hancock Park, Los Angeles, California.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)