Talk:Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Supposed copyright violation

I don't really know who added the material in the first place, nor do I know which came first — the WP article or the Cheviot Hills Web site article. I hope you can resolve the issue. It would be nice to see the article, or something like it, back again. Sincerely, 69.231.211.10 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC) I should have signed the preceding, so I am signing it now. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Cheviot Hills website. I wrote the articles on the Cheviot Hills website, CheviotHill.org, which information I also contributed to Wikipedia. I kept the information on my computer and took it from my computer. Neither I nor the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association claim a copyright in it. I wish whoever is responsible for taking the page down would put it back up.PalmsCheviot (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. While you didn't put a copyright on the page, we can't just assume that there the page is not copyrighted, we need to hear it from you. So I'm asking, does this mean that the website would be in the public domain? Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 01:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see by checking http://www.cheviothills.org, the material is not copyrighted. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page before it was reverted had massive problems, which can be corrected (marked since December 2007). Put it back and I will wp:Wikify it. But there still needs to be wp:inline citations or it would be classified as wp:original research. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've Wikified the article and suggest that it be substituted for Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles, California. You can read the new version at User_talk:GeorgeLouis/Sandbox, I hope that you will unblock the page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before anything goes back to normal, I need the webmaster to explicitly state that the page is released in the public domain or another acceptable license for Wikipedia. Remember, even if a page does not have a copyright symbol, under US law, it is always copyrighted. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 01:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course you have your opinion, but on what grounds do you base your authority to block this page? I am not challenging it; I would just like to know: I thought we were all equal here. What if I were to be wp:bold and just put it back? Remember, wp: Ignore all rules. Also, you are wrong about copyright. Any writing can be released to the public domain without any stipulation at all. It is copyrighted only when it is NOT put into the public domain.(Maybe Wikipedia is following a tighter, safer rule.) Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion. I'm going by policy. I have a question though, did you even read the page I linked to? Most of the questions you just asked me are answered there. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 06:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a new, Wikified page so we will be talking about the same thing. If you still think this is a wp:copyvio, please re-tag it or, better yet, let us know which parts are copyvio and which are not. I am sure the entire page was not taken from the http://www.cheviothills.org Web site. You could remove just the copyvio sections and leave the rest of the page alone. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After attempting to do just that, I have restored an earlier version of that portion of text, as the result was not particularly coherent. Meanwhile, please do not remove necessary maintenance tags from articles. The copyright violation tag is only meant to be removed when the copyright concerns are addressed. If you wish to write a new version of the article in the meantime, you should do so in article subspace, as the tag directs. This is important for the legal protection of the project. Even if some of the sites infringed upon do not display copyright notices, copyright protection is automatically bestowed, and we need a specific, legal disclaimer that we can use such material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the identity of User:PalmsCheviot was confirmed via OTRS ticket #2008072610000174. He is planning to replace the material in question with footnotes cited to his original sources. howcheng {chat} 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Someone has edited this article to take out any account of the controversy over the Expo Line which is probably the biggest news story in the history of Cheviot Hills. For some reason, that person has also removed any mention of the fact that Cheviot Hills does have some apartments. [1]. I am not sure why someone would be offended by the mention of apartments, although I suspect a real estate agent might have edited out references to the Expo Line controversy. 71.118.50.87 (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from these URLs: http://www.stevens-torp.com/rpch_info.html, http://www.westsiderentals.com/southerncalifornia/houses/for-rent/cheviot-hills/cheviot-hills-houses.html, http://www.cheviothills.org/aboutcheviot.htm and http://www.lilesnet.com/wa6cjc/bicycle_mobile.htm. Infringing material has been removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering who gave Moonriddengirl the authority to shout at other editors in ALL KAPS. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only "all kaps" that I see in the above are URL and GFDL. It is common to place those abbreviations in all caps. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I call these all kaps: DO NOT RESTORE. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, clarity helps. :) The use of all caps in the edit summary is to ensure that in the future editors scanning the history see the notice, as there is no other way to emphasize text in edit summaries and it is essential that we take all due steps necessary to prevent the inadvertent reintroduction of copyrighted text into the article. The process for administrators is to clarify in edit summary and leave a note at the article's talk page. Alternatively, I could have deleted the article back to the point prior to the introduction of this text (here), but this would also wipe out all subsequent improvements. However, on second glance, there don't seem to be that many of them. (Alteration of "Emergency services" with a subheader of "Police service", for instance, and change of <references> to {{reflist}} A few words here and there. Perhaps that would be preferable after all. Sometimes well-meaning editors find what looks to be a better version earlier in the article's history and restore it, and when that earlier version contains material we can't use, we have to exercise all due diligence to ensure that doesn't happen. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There. No more chance of inadvertent copyright violation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed

There has been a request for sources since July 2008. I'm challenging the Notable Residents paragraph and removing it. The factoid is silly anyway because Cheviot Hills has so many notable residents by virtue of its location and income level. If you want to put back any of the deletions I am making, kindly have a source attached to your reversion. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this page reads like an advertisement

This page reads like an advertisement for the neighborhood. "Easy freeway access"? "Excellent views"? Please, they are unverified and disputable claims; and "...a wide selection of ... private schools within a short drive" could only be written by real estate agents. This page has to go. Disagreements? 140.247.248.106 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC) expat[reply]

Absolutely correct. I have blanked the offending sections. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been vandalized to restore the version of the article that sounds like a real estate ad. 99.98.2.132 (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bunker Hill, Los Angeles which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors can also comment at Talk:Los Angeles Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 03:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Material moved here ISO support

The following very commendable information (removed from the article) is placed here, so that verifiable support can be found for it.

"Cheviot Hills Sports Programs are some of the largest in the City of Los Angeles. Marcus Charuvastra and Daryl Moss were responsible for the majority of growth associated with Cheviot Hills recreation Center. Their combined time spent working there spanned two decades."

SoCalStuff (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MappingLACentralLA":

From Mar Vista, Los Angeles: [2] "Central L.A.," Mapping L.A., Los Angeles Times
From Mid-Wilshire, Los Angeles: [3] "Central L.A.," Mapping L.A., Los Angeles Times
From Palms, Los Angeles: [4] "Palms," Mapping L.A., Los Angeles Times

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

Is "78.8% white" so relevant to the facts about this neighborhood that it needs to be the first phrase? This is not typical for articles about towns or neighborhoods. Demographic statistics are typically not even in the lead paragraph at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.84.249 (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. For some reason there's a lot of that nonsense in the LA neighborhood articles. We're trying to get rid of it all. You can just take it out of the article yourself if you want to, also.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first editor is not "right" at all. Neighborhoods are often based on racial or ethnic composition, which traits are extremely important in defining the conception of a neighborhood within a city or even outside of it. Take Harlem, New York, as an example. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typical house

The description in the photo of a house being "typical" is an editorial judgment, an opinion. It should suffice just to call it a "house." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you really think identifying a house as simply a house is even necessary, and is some sort of improvement? 207.237.14.175 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205051033/http://cheviothills.org/ to http://www.cheviothills.org/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205051033/http://cheviothills.org/ to http://www.cheviothills.org/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://cccha.org/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is Cheviot pronounced by locals?

I live near enough Cheviot Hills to see it on signs. It looks like a French word but given that Angelinos don't pronounce Spanish words properly, I'm guessing they have their own unique pronunciation for Cheviot too. The internet is not much help (too many AI's making up their own). It would be nice if this article included a pronunciation. 207.237.14.175 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]