User talk:BeenAroundAWhile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:GeorgeLouis)
Jump to: navigation, search
This user is now confining his work to topics dealing with Los Angeles, California, more or less.

An apology for my former disruptive behavior at the Teahouse[edit]

Hello. I have come here to apologize for my disruptive and uncivil behavior on the Wikipedia Teahouse a year ago. I am sorry for any rude things that I said to the Wikipedia community and aboutt falsely accusing them of having an adgenda against hate groups, pseudoscience promoters, and pedophiles. To be clear, I do not support or advocate these group's ideologies, "especially those of pedophiles who view adult-child sexual relationships as healthy and harmless", on or off Wikipedia. Please forgive me. Frogger48 (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles (desambiguation)[edit]

Why not in Los Angeles (desambiguation) not should appear that these words are derivative from Spanish words?. this same should apply it in desambiguations Bambino, Amour, Je t'aime, Über Alles (disambiguation), etc, etc.--Vvven (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Mostly because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that your link does not go to an article in the encyclopedia that has anything to do with Los Angeles. Nevertheless, I don't feel strongly enough about it to revert your addition. Maybe you will do it yourself. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wholesale District, Los Angeles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fire wall, Central Market and First Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Danube Delta[edit]

You deleted a para, as it was not supported by a citation. Would it perhaps be better to add a "citation needed" tag in the text instead? Otherwise how will anyone know one is needed for that information? :) ~ P-123 (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Westwood, Los Angeles[edit]

Hi! I want to add in a bit about Warner Elementary from:

  • Hardy, Terry. "Top of the Class" (education section). Los Angeles Magazine. Emmis Communications, October 1998. Vol. 43, No. 10. ISSN 1522-9149. Start: p. 52. CITED: p. 56.
    • The school had some issues with multiple principals coming and going before Jeff Felz came in, and once he did he encouraged more parental participation.

Also I need a cite saying that Westwood is zoned to University High School... WhisperToMe (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think this will stand the test of time . . . BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Our 2015 End of Year Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page;
  • New record lows in the article backlog and on the Requests page;
  • Coordinator election results;
  • Membership news;
  • Changes around the Guild's pages;
  • Plans for 2016.
– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8[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.

West Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Olympic Boulevard and Western Avenue
Westlake, Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Belmont High School and John Parkinson
Whitley Heights, Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Grand Canal and Mustard
List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Platinum Triangle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edit[edit]

There is an ongoing battle against vandals and real estate spammers adding "affluent" to city articles. I have no idea why you reverted this edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I finally understand the problem upon your explanation. Nevertheless, when one of the salient facts about a neighborhood is its wealth, or lack of wealth — or any other distinguishing characteristic — then that fact should be mentioned in the lead, and not simply ignored. I invite you to take part in the discussion on the Sherman Oaks, California, talk page, where I point out that this matter has been carefully considered by others (not just me), and the conclusion reached was that if we can find the sources, we can use "affluent" as a descriptor for a neighborhood. I hope that helps you in considering this and other articles like it. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I read the discussion long ago, and consensus was reached to stop adding that stupid word. This isn't a battleground. Why not focus your energy on something that will actually help Wikipedia? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you might have read a different discussion, could that be? In any event, it is not stupid to describe a community the way it is. I am surprised that anybody would think so. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Spanish articles on senior high schools[edit]

Hi! I have been writing some Spanish language stubs on LAUSD high schools for the following reasons:

  • To expand Spanish-language coverage of the Los Angeles area
  • As a courtesy for Spanish-speaking immigrants who have poor English comprehension
  • To encourage the children of these immigrants-students at these schools-to become Wikipedians and improve coverage of U.S. articles in both English and Spanish

I am also having articles on other languages made depending upon the community demographics. An Armenian user made an Armenian article on Grant High School (Los Angeles) and I'm trying to have a Korean editor make that version for Los Angeles High School.

Do you know some Spanish? If so you are welcome to help in this effort :) WhisperToMe (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Whisper. I'm afraid I don't know enough Spanish to help out. French, yes. But not much call for that in L.A. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
There are two French international schools in Los Angeles: Lycee Francais de Los Angeles and Lycee International de Los Angeles so if you'd like you can help out with those. Also if you take photos for Wikipedia please let me know, as I can give you a "shopping list" of photos that can help the articles. if you tell me what parts are most convenient I can give you a list :) WhisperToMe (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

FAG![edit]

I am trying to reword the entry on using Findagrave so people can distinguish that using the text is bad, but that the location of the grave and the information from the image of the tombstone is acceptable. Please join the debate: Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles[edit]

I noticed you tagged User talk:166.170.49.219 for unconstructive editing with this edit. Please take a moment to read this policy on types of vandalism and tell me which category that edit falls under? Now read this policy about what vandalism isn't and see if you can find a category for that edit there. Are you now trying to intimidate other editors who disagree with your dubious addition of the word "affluent" to US city articles? Magnolia677 (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Magnolia. I do not appreciate what appears to be a snotty post. I do not need lecturing, beause, after all, I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Please stop your slow edit-war to get POV material into the article. It ought to be clear to you by now that you do not have the support of other editors for the changes you want to make... Thomas.W talk 21:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Thomas. I am sorry, but it is not my opinion. It is the opinion of WP:Reliable sources, which are cited. I would be very happy to describe this neighborhood in any other terms if you can find them. I think your quarrel is with the sources. Yours in Wiki-dom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for being nice. Wyeson 05:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Westlake, Los Angeles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Echo Park and Beaux-Arts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring on articles about districts of Los Angeles[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
Note that in addition to Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles, this edit-warring also extends to Encino, Los Angeles and Toluca Lake, Los Angeles. If you are unable to reach agreement with the other editors involved, I suggest that you open a WP:RFC to find a consensus solution, and that in the meantime you all stop adding and/or reverting contested material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. No problem. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Historic West Adams, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Palms, Western Avenue and Trinity Methodist Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

Hello, I was somewhat surprised to see you came again! I hope you're well and please feel welcome! Face-smile.svg

SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC notifications[edit]

How did you select what users to notify about your RfC on train station article leads? --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

(1) All those who made content edits during the past year at Abada railway station, Aosta railway station, Culver City station and Palms station (nine people altogether), (2) eleven editors chosen because they were recently active (during January and February 2016) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming and (3) the twenty most recently added editors to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/List of participants, as well as notices at (1) Wikipedia:WikiProject Travel and Tourism, (2) Wikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planning and (3) Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Pacoima, Los Angeles[edit]

I put the population into the intro to give an idea of how big it is. It isn't an area with three people, it has over 100,000 which is a BIG area. Unfortunately, it was measured in an odd way (by using the population in the zip code) so had to be stated in a complex manner in order to not be misleading about how it was measured. If you have a better way to word it I'd appreciate it. RJFJR (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but the WP:lead should be a summation of the entire article. We can work on that. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
There are more items that might be added to give it context but the population is probably one of them. Any idea of a good way to word it? RJFJR (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
(Sorry, I just realized I left the message on your user page instead of user talk page because I clicked the wrong link to get to your page. Sorry about that. RJFJR (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC))
I just say to go ahead and give it your best shot. Other folks may come along to help you fix it up. Be sure to read WP:Lead first. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC on LA Metro[edit]

Hi there,

Would you be open to creating redirects for people who, for instance, search for Palms station, as per Metro, that is not the official name. It really should be just Palms, for example. TJH2018 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure how that would work, nor what "It really should be just Palms" means. The objection of most commenting editors is to the syntax of the opening sentence, because, as has been stated, Palms is not a station, but it is a community. I might add that when people who live in Palms want to take a train, they will go to Palms station, and not to Palms, because they are already IN Palms. I hope to hear from you again. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[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.

Sylmar, Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Equestrian, Granada Hills, Foothill Boulevard and Life style
El Retiro School for Girls (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Academic subject, Gymnasium and Sanitarium

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

NFC[edit]

File:Sketch of advertising construction at side of road in Sylmar, California, 1939.png is in your sandbox. Non-free images are never allowed in user space. (WP:NFCC#9) This includes user pages, talk pages, sandboxes and drafts. (WP:UNOT#Non-free images) I would have removed it but did not want to risk an edit conflict. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wik-Ed Women Session #5[edit]

Wik-Ed Women Session #5
We Can Edit.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

I would like to personally invite you to the March edition of the Wik-Ed Women meetup, which will take place on March 15, from 6-10 in the evening. It will occur at Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, 2245 E Washington Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90021 (downtown LA -- map). The building has a pink top with old signage for American Accessories, Inc. dba Princess Accessories (Photos [PDF]). There is on-site parking in the back, which also has an entrance. If you cannot attend in person, you are more than willing to work remotely, as we appreciate all help that you can provide. Finally, here is a link to the Facebook event, in case you want to invite friends, as we are always looking for new editors to help expand coverage of women on Wikipedia!

I hope to see you there! Cosmicphantom (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Wiltshire Park redirect[edit]

Hi, Have had a query raised with me regarding the redirect of this page. Could you provide a bit more explanation of the redirect (no issue if you cant). Would you have any objections in the removal of the redirect restoring the previous page? Any advice or just a cant remember I've slept since then would be appreciated. Amortias (T)(C) 20:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This little enclave does not offer any sources to show that it is a true neighborhood of Los Angeles. Quite often homeowners' groups or interested real-estate people will say that any given geographical area is a legitimate neighborhood even when they don't have any WP:Reliable sources to prove it. I believe this was the case with this article, which you can find here. If any editor or other neutral person wants to write an article citing such sources, I am sure that it would be cheerfully accepted by the community. Does this help? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I would object to restoring the former page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. Will relay the message. Amortias (T)(C) 22:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of comment[edit]

My comment on KoreaTown wikipage was eliminated by you. As for being neutral, I have an unpaid position with the association whose webpage was eliminated and redirected to Koreatown wikipage. This has happened to other neighborhood pages that have been reduced to Koreatown. This is a political issue about ethnic enclaves an identity. I appreciate the policing but registering my complaint about having our wikipage eliminated and redirected does deserve to have it comments protected. Where were you when our wikipage was removed and redirected to Koreatown wikipage?554938Wilshire (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Trying to help you out, I did a search in the LAPL files of the Los Angeles Times for "Wilshire Park," but I couldn't find any reference to it as an authentic neighborhood. Do you have other WP:Reliable sources? If you do, let me know, and I will write up an article about the neighborhood for submission. (It is listed as a Historic Overlay Zone, which is not a neighborhood, but simply a zone within a neighborhood.) Or, you can ask some other uninvolved person to do it. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wilshire Park[edit]

Thank you for the link - I am learning as fast as I can, but I am new at this. Your help is very much appreciated. I will tighten it up as suggested, change the tone, and beef up the references - already working on self-educating so I can do a good job.

I have a question for you, since you are a specialist on the narrower topic of neighborhood pages.

What does it take to be allowed a Wikipedia page as a real "neighborhood"? Hancock Park, Windsor Square, Arlington Heights and even "the Flower District," a market for making profit, are allowed pages. How is WP different? WP is identified by Thomas Brothers Guides, by our Neighborhood Council (Greater Wilshire), by the Office of Historic Resources, and even within the Wikipedia page called "List of Districts and Neighborhoods in Los Angeles." What is the criteria for suppressing a page like the WP page, with Wikipedia's support for the suppressor (until you helped me out)? It seems random and arbitrary - or a convenient excuse for somebody with a political agenda and psychic powers to deduce evil where there is none.

WP is an historic district, and as you know, education is necessary to effectively prevent the loss of historic resources. The WP site had links to City agencies, historic articles, etc. The Wilshire Park Association, the "enclave" refered to so dismissively, is a legitimate 501(c)(3) non-profit with a mandate to educate and teeny-tiny barely-break-even assets - all from the donations of residents. The members are all volunteers and have no profit motive. WP doesn't need or want a presence on Wikipedia for any other reason than to make our historic district function well for the benefit of current and future residents. The removal of this information, which is valuable on many levels, was wrong. How arrogant of the KTown editor to let his imagination see little WP as a threat to the Koreatown fiefdom and cause all this bad feeling and resentment. And it's a shame. It's divisive. And wasteful.

This has also been done to neighborhoods miles away from Koreatown, by the same editor. Clearly, to me, the motivation here is something other than as stated. This is obviously flag planting and suppression. How can Wikipedia, whose mantra is respect, free expression and factual accuracy, allow this and side with this editor, and offer no solution to the conflict except to let it happen? It was necessary to lie about fellow editors and 'gin up non-existent conflicts of interest to do it, but Wikipedia bought it wholesale with no investigation of this editor's history. "Helpful," as one dismissive response said, or not, the term that applies is "bullying."

As I said, I am working on a new page, but I am afraid it will be attacked again. I don't have the time or appetite to play with this game any more. How do I get this to stop, once and for all, considering this is a repeat performance? Does this behavior rise to the level of requiring administrative intervention? Can the editor be banned from interfering further, based on the past and current incidents? WayBackHomes (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WayBackHomes (talkcontribs) 03:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


I am glad to help you out, but I think you are misconstruing a few things.

First, I was the editor responsible for merging the article on Wilshire Park, Los Angeles, to Koreatown, Los Angeles. I did this on 23 December because the former article, which you can read by clicking here, did not have the required WP:Reliable sources to fill out a complete article in the Wikipedia style.

There were other problems with the old Wilshire Park article, too, all of which were marked at the top of the page; that is,

  • This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2013)
  • The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (July 2013)
  • This article possibly contains original research. (July 2013)
  • This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (July 2013)
  • This article has an unclear citation style. (August 2009)

Therefore, as is often the case (spelled out in this essay), I redirected the page to Koreatown, Los Angeles, which is a larger neighborhood of which Wilshire Park is a part (according to a very good source, the Los Angeles Times.)

To respond to some of your points:

  • What does it take to be allowed a Wikipedia page as a real "neighborhood"? If a WP:Reliable source refers to any given district as a "neighborhood," or a "district," then I have been listing them at List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles. If they have enough information that can be found in WP:Reliable sources, then somebody might write a separate article about them, or a separate article might already have been written.
  • WP is identified by Thomas Brothers Guides, by our Neighborhood Council (Greater Wilshire), by the Office of Historic Resources. As odd as it may appear, Wikipedia uses for the most part only secondary sources, not primary. Read all about it at Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. This is to assure that the subject of the article is indeed WP:Notable (that is, people are taking note of it). This is a stricture that many folks have difficulty in comprehending.
  • What is the criteria for suppressing a page like the WP page? The page is not "suppressed." It is simply redirected to another page where cited information about Wilshire Park can be found. Anybody can add additional information there with, of course, neutral, reliable sources. If there are enough sources (that is, a lot of places where folks are talking about Wilshire Park), then a larger article can be written.
  • Can the editor be banned from interfering further, based on the past and current incidents? Yes, there is a procedure to have any such editor called to account, but it would be better (in my opinion) to concentrate on encyclopedia-article writing.

I hope this helps. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wilshire Park MIA
Hi BeenAroundAWhile, thank you for the notice on the merger discussion for Wilshire Park, Los Angeles. I just checked in on it and discovered the entire article has disappeared — into a draft format by Ronhjones. I tried reverting it back to the non-draft article, but couldn't. Can it be retrieved? If so can it also be protected? Perhaps beyond even autoconfirmed editors for a cooling off period? Thanks, Look2See1 t a l k → 08:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks like some other editors are working on this, so the new draft will go through the normal approval process. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I am editing the article according to the information you have provided, and I am slogging through a manual that is a little easier to deal with for a new user. It is submitted for review, and I am continuing to add legitimate references while it goes through process. However another user seems to be poised to remove/redirect/delete it again. How do I get some protection proactively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobOfAllTrades (talkcontribs) 15:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the tidy-up. I want to fix the "multiple issues," but am a little confused about what the "original research" issue is and the reversion of the tags. Could you please explain so I can fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobOfAllTrades (talkcontribs) 21:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC) BobOfAllTrades (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, again. It would be better to ask a similar question in the Talk page of that article. Right now I am working on another project. From the editing you have done over there, you seem to want to do the right thing, and I hope you stick around to work on other articles with which you might have an interest, but not a direct connection. Once you learn the ropes, perhaps you'd like to lend your talents as an editor and a writer to some of the other areas in Wikipedia? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

And thank you - you have taught me a lot, and I appreciate your time. I really am trying to wrap my head around this but with only limited results. Writing is not really my long suit, as you can tell, and it was kind of you to suggest that I continue. My "direct connection" as it is called has been deliberately suppressed in the latest revision, I have added many new sources including from the LA Times, and deleted anything that could reasonably be considered subjective or poorly cited, but it is still being flagged. It is no different in tone, content or citations than pages for analogous named communities like Hancock Park, Windsor Square, Los Angeles, Miracle Mile, Los Angeles and many others. It feels like being told "Bring me the broom of the Wicked Witch of the West." I will, however, do as you suggest and ask this question of all the editors of the article. BobOfAllTrades (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Haight-Ashbury diggers ref[edit]

This YouTube clip appears to be from the PBS "Summer of Love" documentary used as a reference for the Diggers paragraph and the statements by Peter Berg and Peter Coyote pretty much support the text in the article. Rupert Clayton (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Ir would be good to leave a note on the talk pave over there. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Plaque commemorating namesake of Robert L. Burns Park in Windsor Square, Los Angeles, 2015.png[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Plaque commemorating namesake of Robert L. Burns Park in Windsor Square, Los Angeles, 2015.png, 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 object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t c) 04:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You are probably right. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Huygens-banknote-cropped.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Huygens-banknote-cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a CLUE what this is all about. Never seen this image before. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Russia and homophobia[edit]

Hi, my intention in highlighting that Russian public opinion survey in the Pussy Riot article was to give a cultural context to their LGBT advocacy. In the West we have undergone a major cultural shift in the past 50 years; LGBT people are generally accepted and most of us have at least got to the point of acknowledging that someone's personal life is their own business. Russia hasn't gone through this cultural shift, so PR's LGBT advocacy is quite shocking to conservative Russians and was probably a factor in the conservative backlash leading to the anti-gay advocacy laws. I think the article is better if some cultural context is given, and the public opinion survey is one way to do this. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for writing, and for being polite. I appreciate it. Please simply restore the information, with a source. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

James Greer McDonald[edit]

Can you explain in more detail your reasoning behind the revert? 'we don't need this level of detail' makes no sense. The birth day of the person is already in the article, so the 'level of detail' is already there, I simply made it more consistent with other biographical articles. For a simple example, look at the Deaths in 2016 list, and you will note that every single article, large and small, consistently does the same thing with birth and death dates. Why on earth would this particular biographical article fall outside of the norm. Omegastar (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Because to my knowledge there is no guideline, or policy, demanding that exact birthdates be placed in the lead of the story. I think you can agree that the main thrust of a lead should be the MAJOR details of a person's life, not the exact date the person was born, which teh reader can find later on. All people are really interested in at first glance is the time period that the subject lived. I am sorry that other articles have the exact birthdates, but I am not watching those. If you can find a policy that REQUIRES the exact birth dates, I would be happy to be notified. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is the policy: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph. Specifically, point 2, "Dates of birth and death, if known". The examples given below all provide the day of the month of the year, with the only exception being lack of knowledge of said day or the month of the year. Since that knowledge is not lacking for the birthdate of James Greer McDonald, it should be included in the lead. Omegastar (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
That is a guideline, not a policy, and I don't happen to agree with it. Cramming specific birthdates into a lead is simply cramming too much extraneous information into it, and I am sure you can see my point. Still, I appreciate your looking up this guideline. Doesn't change my mind about good composition though. I really can't see the point of taking a perfectly good sentence and adding a few words that destroy its flow. But it is your decision. Good luck with your editing. Sincerely, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits to La Canada Flintridge page[edit]

Just wanted to further clarify my edits to the La Canada page to avoid any back an forth. Sport Chalet's source page shows it closure, the wording was been adjusted to reflect this as requested on the talk page. Delphi Academy of Los Angeles is a dead link, I had removed it. Also it seems that La Crescenta-Montrose percentages didn't add up (66+20+20 > 100). I had updated the percentages to reflect the referenced source to match. I would appreciate it if instead of simply reverting edits you check out the talk page or the referenced sources. If any of my edits look unclear, or if I am making any assumptions you think are wrong I would love to hear why you think these edits are incorrect and see if there is a better solution. Thanks! Apriestofgix (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I am more of the WP:BRD kind of editor. In other words, revert first and discuss only if there is an objection. But I see your point. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
All good! I know you're just looking out for the health of the page, so no hard feelings. Thanks for the cleanup you're doing right now. Cheers! Apriestofgix (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: About my contributions[edit]

Just curious, can you got back to my talk page again? I'm a little confused about the part where my contributions were unacceptable because they cannot accept "original research." I just renamed some pages because some of the channel names were changed by the NPO. Any thing that has to do with this, please let me know. I didn't do anything wrong or did any additional changes towards most of the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20chances (talkcontribs) 22:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. I will get over there sometime today or tomorrow. Cheers! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
So I should just revert the edits that were considered unaccepted due to the lack of any sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20chances (talkcontribs) 11:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

LA[edit]

Re: [1]: I know the rules. You may have noticed this was a VOA, and there is a guideline for that. Drmies (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not notice that the account had been flagged. Anyway, the query by this person seemed to be a legitimate one, just expressed in a not-very-artful way. I would have no great objection is you were to remove it again, if you think it best.Sincerely, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

I got those information from other Wikipedia articles, and the references that I have provided comes from the various online articles published by the various news agencies and some of them are from reputable entertainment magazines. Just wondering why did you ask me for that question because I am very surprised that you would be interested to know my reasonings behind it. Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I am interested in helping out new editors. So, anyway, just for your information — be sure to keep all the messages on the same page. Good luck with your writing! Your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Inadvertent duplication of paragraph[edit]

Just an FYI: On an edit you made last month to Mail Online, it appears that you inadvertently duplicated a section here It appears that someone just removed the duplication. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for all your contributions, especially to the Los Angeles area. MB298 (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

References and further reading[edit]

I just have to speak to you about this edit which is rather misguided. Further reading is for sources that may be of interest to the reader but have not been used to provide information to construct the article. In this particular article that is obviously not the case because the works listed have all been cited multiple times in inline references. Even when references have not been cited inline, it is possible that they could still be general references. The distinction between general references and further reading is important. According to WP:FURTHER general references are subject to the external links guideline whereas general references are not. This could potentially lead to sources being inappropriately removed for not meeting the WP:ELNO restrictions.

There is no "normal" style for referencing on Wikipedia, multiple styles are acceptable. See WP:CITEVAR and WP:STYLEVAR which proscribe arbitrarily changing acceptable styles. See also WP:FNNR which explicitly allows various section heading names. The style used in the article in question has certain advantages. Where a references is cited multiple times, but to different pages, the full reference need only be entered once in the bibliography and shortened references with the specific page number can be placed inline. It also has the advantage that the bibliography can be sorted alphabetically by author, especially helpful if the list is very long. There is no doubt that this style is accepted at even the highest level of quality scrutiny on Wikipedia; I have written a number of articles using this style that have become Featured Articles and appeared on the main page. For instance, see Mechanical filter. SpinningSpark 10:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem and accept that you have done a lot of research. Best wishes, and keep up the good work. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)