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.

Contents

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. 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
added links pointing to Olympic Boulevard and Western Avenue
Westlake, Los Angeles
added links pointing to Belmont High School and John Parkinson
Whitley Heights, Los Angeles
added links pointing to Grand Canal and Mustard
List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles
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. 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. 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
added links pointing to Equestrian, Granada Hills, Foothill Boulevard and Life style
El Retiro School for Girls
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)

Marie Lloyd[edit]

Please do not do that again. If you have a problem or seek clarification, either fix it yourself or ask on the talk page, don't just mindlessly tag a featured article. Thank you. CassiantoTalk 05:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: while I agree that Featured Articles should be edited with care, that does not mean they should not be edited at all, or even tagged. In this particular case I think the tag was justified, maybe to the extent that I am considering reinstating it myself. The meaning of the tagged phrase "earned her an extended audience" in the lead isn't clear, it isn't in the body of the article (and is therefore uncited), and the year given (1919) contradicts the year given for perfomance of the song in the body (1918). The editor had raised a valid issue which did not deserve this rather bad-tempered response. SpinningSpark 08:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Have people lost the ability to discuss things anymore? Is that how we communicate now, through tagging? There are 30 people watching the page, some of whom may be qualified to answer such curiosities. I'm confident that this editors question could have been answered more timely if they had've had the common courtesy to start a thread on the talk page rather than tagging questionable text. Again, this is a featured article and deserves a bit more respect. You and BeenAroundForAWhile might think it's OK to deface an FA with unsightly templates but frankly, I don't. CassiantoTalk 15:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It's perfectly normal to tag problems in articles and you should try not to take it so personally. You do not seem to be disputing that there is a problem, and I take it you are not in a position to fix it (presumably you would have done so already if you could) hence the tag is valid and usefully draws the attention of those that might be able to do something about it. It is not always necessary to open a talk page thread if the isssue is obvious. Certainly for a banner template, or where the issue is complex, the tagger should explain him/herself on the talk page, but this case does not seem to call for it. Thirty watchers is actually a very low number, there are more than that watching my user page, and the number who are actually actively reading recent edits is much lower—in single figures. SpinningSpark 16:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you think tagging an article is "fixing" the problem, or simply passing it on to someone else? I do not think there is a problem; the text is obvious when it says her audience grew. You say: "It is not always necessary to open a talk page thread if the isssue is obvious." If its that sodding obvious, why can't BeenAroundForAWhile be bold and fix it themselves? I also don't see the similarities between your watchers and ML's watchers? I hate to break it to you, but ML is a featured article about a Victorian stage performer who led a full and prosperous life within the English Music Hall, whereas your page is a user page where you talk about you and only you. Some of the 30 watchers on ML would be people who know about the subject and who have the sources available to fix things, whereas the watchers on your page are formed of people who like participating in forum discussions and small talk. I don't see the parallel. CassiantoTalk 17:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
"Mindlessly" is not a nice word, considering all the other words that could be used. I hope you fixed it because I did not understand it. Thanks for your participation in Wikipedia. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed "prod" tag[edit]

Greetings BeenAroundAWhile, Just dropping you line to inform you that after adding 3 refs., I've removed the prod tag on Frank Gibson, Jr.. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Encino, Los Angeles -- entry revision[edit]

The "and" was replaced by "&" in order to add detail that's important while also saving space in a section that is space-limited. JTF17A (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Clair Kenamore and Marguerite Martyn[edit]

Might we have distinct articles for each of these, rather than a combined article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought about it, but felt they were pretty well identified one with the other in St. Louis at the time. The size of the article is about right, and there won't be any new info, although I do have a couple of photos I will be adding. I have no objection to a WP:Request for comment, though, if you are so minded. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I actually did split them about a week ago. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the endorsement.[edit]

I have worked for months to research the page I created and was very discouraged when someone nominated me to be banned immediately when I haven't even put in the in line article citations yet, and worse yet, by someone who apparently is awarded thoroughly.

I don't think anyone on wikipedia knows as much as I do about the page I wrote, otherwise they would have written the article already. I am certainly open to improving the article and plan to get the citations in line within 24 hours. Everything is cited below, but I haven't been to bed yet tonight (now morning) just to get that far. I hope the mods agree with you, the article is worthwile, and I hope I can learn to write better articles because in that field I am well respected subject matter expert and I think I can contribute a lot and improve a large number of existing articles as well.

I feel like, and maybe I'm wrong, the whole point of wikipedia isn't for one person to get everything perfect immediately, but for the community to work together to act as a system of checks and balances to make the best articles possible.

Thanks for the kind words, Klok kaos (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC Notice[edit]

There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as one of every registered editor who has edited that article in that past year. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

James Tilden Carroll[edit]

Let me look for a third document to see which maiden name of his spouse is correct. I suspect that the marriage index may be a mistranscription of her correct name. If I can find the actual certificate it will have her surname. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like when his son got married, his mother was listed as "Mary Jane Conley". Can you send me a copy of the obituary? His WWI draft says that he was a clerk for the Montana Supreme Court. Yup, his Montana obituary only mentions that he was a clerk for the Montana Supreme Court, and that he moved to California, where he died. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure why this message is here. I think it belongs at Talk:James_T._Carroll. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 January[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) 00:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

February 18 Wikipedia Day event in DTLA[edit]

LA Wikipedia Day Celebration (February 18)
Ace Hotel.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

Please join us at our Wikipedia Day celebration at the Ace Hotel in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday, February 18, 2017 from 11 am to 5 pm! This event will feature lectures, panel discussions, lightning talks, open space discussions and collaboration, and--most importantly--cake! Please RSVP on the event page if you're thinking of joining us.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

  • Incidentally, I hope to maybe see you there as well! You and I have interacted a few times on Wikipedia, and it happens we both live in the Los Angeles area... I think it would be interesting to see another Wikipedia editor in person with whom I have had any interaction, and right now, dude sir, you are it! Please come and meet me, if your enthusiasm (despite having formally retired from this business, I know, I know) and health (?) allow. I promise to be a very normal person who probably spends too much time here. KDS4444 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for writing this. I really appreciate it. Unfortunately, I do not live in the L.A. area any more. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Aw, shucks. KDS4444 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

David ganezer[edit]

FYI I reverted your blanking of this redirect. WP:RFD would be the best option if you don't think it should exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It doesn't make that much difference to me, but I appreciate your direction. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Bones[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Thomas Bones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article appears to run into issues with WP:COOKIE. I can imagine that there are thousands of developers. So I can imagine that, unless Mr. Bones developed a significant area or neighborhood, he would not warrant an article.

While all constructive 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. Dolotta (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The WP:Prod has been removed. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


West Hills, Los Angeles[edit]

Respectfully the source you provided only speaks to median income for the community and makes no statement as to the affluence of the community. Furthermore there is no consensus supporting adding this almost meaningless objective to any community. Honestly this crusade of yours to add this adjective to various communities pages reeks of POV even borderline vandalism. Raitchison (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your posting here is rather rude and the actual contents thereof more suited to a Talk page about the article in question. It did not make me feel good. But I guess you knew that it wouldn't. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Not only are you adding this to multiple articles, you are re-adding it rather than discussing it. Combine that with this, an RfC that YOU started and which was closed with a concensus NOT to use that set of words, your editing is downright WP:TEND. You need to stop. Pinging BrownHairedGirl, who warned you a year ago about this behavior. John from Idegon (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: I have left a note below.
In leaving that note, I was unaware of the RFC (or maybe I did know, but forgot). Given its clear result, BeenAroundAWhile should refrain from adding this info unless there is a consensus to treat a particular article as an exception to that rule.
This is indeed starting to look very tendentious, with a dose of WP:IDHT added. It's the sort of conduct which would likely incur sanctions if it continues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Amit Horowitz editing?[edit]

In this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ami_Horowitz&diff=766613859&oldid=766613546

You removed an entire chunk of useful info - maybe it'd be better to edit it down instead Test35965 (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Please see my comment on the Talk page over there. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Editwar at West Hills, Los Angeles[edit]

Hi BeenAroundAWhile

I see that you have been engaged in a slow edit war at West Hills, Los Angeles about inserting the word "affluent" in the lede.

I recall that you have had several similar disputes on other articles about using this word, and I see that the dispute over your preferred use of similar terminology on this page goes back to at least 2013. Please may I remind you to follow WP:BRD? The usage has been disputed, so take it to to the talk page, and seek a consensus.

Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, BHG. Nice to hear from you. The discussion is now on the Talk page. I have proposed different wording there. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

It's listed on his death certificate, which I wasn't sure was appropriate to link. There's one via TMZ but some editors feel we shouldn't use it as a source. It's cooborated by Find a Grave, with very specific grace location details. Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this refers to. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean? Rusted AutoParts 02:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Whose death certificate? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

An Afd discussion about ethical journalism, that you might find interesting[edit]

Hi BeenAroundAWhile,

There's an Afd conversation about ethical journalism going on right now over at "Delete Ethical Journalism?" that I thought you might find interesting.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again,
Another related discussion at Jimbo's talk page that I thought you might find interesting....
Thanks again,
Scott P. (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[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.

Alice Maud Hartley
added links pointing to Washoe County and Trusty
Clair Kenamore
added a link pointing to Klondike

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Head shot of Clair Kenamore, U.S. journalist of the early 20th century.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Head shot of Clair Kenamore, U.S. journalist of the early 20th century.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of solitary animals for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of solitary animals 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 solitary animals 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. MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:W.H.Pierce-Los-Angeles-mortician.tiff[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:W.H.Pierce-Los-Angeles-mortician.tiff. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Come and join us at the Wiknic[edit]

LA Meetup: 6th Wiknic, 7/15 @ Pan Pacific Park
BBQ01.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are cordially invited to the 6th Los Angeles Wiknic, a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is planned for Pan-Pacific Park and will be held on Saturday, July 15, 2017 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible!

I hope to see you there! Howcheng (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Replaceable fair use File:Thomas-D-Shepard-of-Los-Angeles-1962.tiff[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Thomas-D-Shepard-of-Los-Angeles-1962.tiff. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
This bock has been imposed for this edit[2] to Vermont Knolls, Los Angeles, contrary to the consensus at WT:WikiProject Cities/Archive 19#Request_for_comment. Over a period of more than a year, you have been repeatedly reminded to desist from such edits, and your continued editing contrary to the consensus is disruptive editing.
Any recurrence will be followed by blocks of escalating duration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

BeenAroundAWhile (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I did not add anything. I merely reverted what somebody else had done.

Decline reason:

Right. And that's exactly what was inappropriate (see [3]) and what lead to your block. Yamla (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Wikibullying[edit]

Please refrain from the bullying. Your behavior is unconstructive. I would be happy to discuss any disagreements or changes in process you would like to see but deliberately altering a WP article to make a point is malicious.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. Can you be more specific? It would help if you posted a link to an instance of whatever it is. Your message was quite upsetting to me. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk page[edit]

Please take your edits to scientific method to the talk page. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Normally I follow WP:BRD unless I am uncertain. I am an editor, not a scientist, so if there is any Revert I am glad to engage in discussion as you have requested. I hope my edits don't do an injustice to the science. Thank you for your kind attention to the articles I am checking over for good grammar, word usage, and understandability, and I would prefer that any interested person tell me what the problems are on the talk pages of the articles, and they can certainly be corrected in the spirit of amiability. Sincerely, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Your last two changes introduced errors to the article. Please refrain from additional edits until your proposals are acceptable. No more errors in the article, please. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, as I mentioned above, I follow WP:BRD. Thanks for your message. I look forward to your reverting the scientific mistakes. We are all ignorant, only about different things. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

LA event this Thursday[edit]

LA Meetup: September 7 edit-a-thon near DTLA
Eugene W. Britt House, West Adams, Los Angeles.JPG

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the LA84 Foundation in Jefferson Park (near DTLA) on Thursday, September 7, 2017 from 5:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.! This event aims to improve coverage of female Olympians and Paralympians (some of whom will be attending!). There will be a deejay and food/drinks, and kids are welcome.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group, follow our Twitter account, and like our Facebook page!! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Bill Scott[edit]

A recent edit of mine was reported as vandalism, and I want to clear some things up. Someone had vandalized the page to say Bill Scott had died in 1995, as opposed to 1985 when he actually did. I have included a source to alleviate the confusion and I apologise for any disruption. Bob Greenlake —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That's OK. I was hasty; I simply noticed there was no Edit summary. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Logo for Trump 2020 campaign[edit]

Your removal of the image File:TrumpPence20logo.png from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020 was for incorrect purposes. While, indeed, it resembles the 2016 campaign logo, it is not the same logo. This is the logo that has been used on the vast majority of the 2020 campaign's materials as so far, thus it is to be considered their current logo until a new one is released. SecretName101 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"Incorrect purposes"? I am sure you mistyped. How do you know my purpose, other than because I thought it was not a correct logo? Surely you have read WP:Assume good faith, have you not? Sincerely, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The Father of Hollywood[edit]

Please see Talk:The Father of Hollywood#De-prod. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)