Jump to content

User talk:BeenAroundAWhile/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Canvassing

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

It appears that you have been selectively notifying certain editors regarding a content dispute that you are engaged in at Frank Vandersloot.[1][2][3][4] As you are already aware WP policy {WP:CANVASS precludes selective canvassing in content dipsutes. You've been warned about canvassing this in the past. Is there some mitigation reason in this case that would not qualify what you did as canvassing, just drop a note here and let me know. I will be checking back. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I asked three editors for assistance at WP:Peer review, per the instructions at that page, viz.:

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

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

Question

Something struck me about an edit you made a couple of days ago: [5] -- "the new arrangement, which is still in effect." How do you know it is still in effect? ta, —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

AN notice

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

Patrick Tingley

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

The times, they aren't a-changing

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

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

U.S. state of...., My apologies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Notability

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

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

John Muto

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

April 2013

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

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

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

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

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

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

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

Gross reporting (BOM, BO.com)

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

Edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

Good catch

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

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

Possibly unfree File:Einstein.Painting.jpg

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

File source problem with File:Einstein.Painting.jpg

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

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

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

A Barnstar for Your Work on Grammarly

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

Eagle Rock, California

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

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

Nomination of Garret Kramer for deletion

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

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

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

2013 Wikinic

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

Image without license

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

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

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

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

Mid-Wilshire

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

Hollywood infobox picture and other good work

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

Inaccurate Changes and Removals by GeorgeLouis to Harvard Heights wiki page

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

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

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

RS comment

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


Potential Conflict of Interest / Relationship with Publication Outlet

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olympiacos women's volleyball

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


Olympiacos women's volleyball answer

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

Assistance to protect neutral POV, article page ban for Binksternet

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

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

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

Thanks for the cheeseburger

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

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

Answer

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

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

Silver Lake, Los Angeles cite issue

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry but...

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

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

Los Angeles neighborhoods

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

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

New Statesman

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

Watts, CA Article

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

Lazard

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

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

WP:USERNOCAT

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

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

Thomas Lucy

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

Newspaper vendors pic

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

World Trade Center (New York City, 1973)

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

Bells are ringing in Bell

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

  • Fond regards

— DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Photographs

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Talkback

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

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

"Kiddie train" photo

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

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

Edit-a-thons at UC Riverside

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Allegations of copyvio unreservedly withdrawn. But: in the image you uploaded the copyright notice had been almost completely cropped. The chat about copyright would have been better placed within the Permission section of the Information box. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Call me kicking a dead horse but I should point out to RHaworth that when a page is taken to XFD using Twinkle it automatically alerts the creating user - see User talk:Launchballer#Speedy deletion nomination of User:Launchballer/Db-g6d.--Launchballer 16:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Urgh, if I'd've known that then! Just checked, and it is there. Sorry about that.--Launchballer 16:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

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

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

El Sereno, Los Angeles

Hello GeorgeLouis,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section templates

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

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

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

Possibly unfree files

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

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BeenAroundAWhile/Archive_4&oldid=1144522939"