User talk:BeenAroundAWhile/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Tangotango 08:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Thanks (VandalProof)
I must have been busy "carousing" when I wrote those opening paragraphs, and I wanted to thank you for fixing them a bit. Truth is, I've been so busy with the technical aspects of the program that I haven't devoted much time to interfacing with the users--I don't even have a semicomplete help file for it yet. Anyway, thanks for helping me--I can use all the help I can get. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work
When I first glimpsed your massive edit to History of California, back in March., I cringed. But as I reviewed it I couldn't find fault with of your edits, and instead I found you'd improved the article while trimming its excessive length. Just now I caught your edit to University of Bridgeport. You've done equally well on that article too, even though its problems were different. Thanks for contributing your time and editing skills. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I also wanted to thank you for copy editing Calvary Chapel Bible College. Good work. --Basar 16:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Also thanks from me re: Astrology College - my English grammar and phrasing is not always the best, so I really appreciate it. I wish you'd visit the other articles I've created and do your stuff there too! - Regards MayoPaul5 10:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Baba Fakruddin
Hi, thanks for reporting the copyright problem with Baba Fakruddin. However, Requested copyright examinations is not the place for reporting copyright issues with material already in articles -- please use the procedure described in Copyright problems to report the article as a copyvio, including blanking/tagging the article as necessary and reporting it to the copyvio daily log. Thanks, --MCB 04:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously I could not understand the directions even though I printed them out and followed them as best I could. I don't even understand how to contact you. I guess I will just go on as I have before, editing copy and trying to make sense of some of the articles: It is relaxing for me in an odd sort of way, but the vagaries of Wiki procedures are far beyond my feeble capacities, I have found.

You write as though I should know what a "copyvio" is (I can guess) and where the "copyvio daily log" is (I have no idea) and what "blanking/tagging" is (this is not English as I know it). Nevertheless, I thank you for donating your time to this endeavor and attempting to set me straight, although the Wiki-path to me seems just as snarled as the wires behind my computer. Sincerely. GeorgeLouis 13:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I started to just put a {tl|cleanup}} tag on Cholo, but I decided it wouldn't take too long to tidy up -- glad you liked the result, since apparently you are another quiet editor of copy like me. :) As for style questions, I'm often an 'editor-by-feel' who has learned what is correct mainly through massive amounts of reading, so I can't always justify my opinions using grammar-speak.

However, I think I'd agree that you "persuade TO" -- you are persuading a person to do something active, even if it's just "to change" their minds. That "to" should always be connected to a verb.

And "convince THAT" sounds correct to me too, because convincing someone involves presenting a fact THAT they must be "persuaded TO" accept. In certain sentences "convince TO" and "persuade THAT" might be acceptable grammar, but the sentences would almost always be improved stylistically by using the correct verb for either trying to get them to take an action (persuade) or accept a fact (convince).

Wow, that's quite a jumble of an explanation. Hope you can make sense of it!

Thanks again for the kind words, it's always nice to know when someone has noticed your work. Cheers! &mdash; Catherine\talk 20:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
So I was checking back on my edits to the Daily Bruin page (under the history I was listed as 71.106.173.44, which was odd since I was sure I was logged in as my usual name, dlipkin), but anyway, I am glad that you cleaned up some of the places I had missed information or wrote it oddly.

Anyway, I and everyone at the Daily Bruin appreciate it! I'll try to keep the page up-to-date with some changes that will be going on this year!

Derek Lipkin

Mother church and mother church
It's great that you're making sweeping updates to correct the various uses of Mother church, mother church, Motherchurch, and all other versions. However, many of the links you updated now break because Wikipedia doesn't forward users through double redirects. If you click on the links I've included you'll see what I'm refering to.

Although it's counter intuitive that Article titles would be case sensitive, they are. Here's the link that should be used Mother Church. I've corrected a number of the pages on my watchlist but I've also noticed you updated many more articles. You may want to go back and double check the links you modified so those articles don't encounter the same problem.

Take care - Dennis 13:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
According to Proposed deletion, "Proposed deletion is a process for deleting articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion." I cannot see that these articles are "uncontroversial deletion candidates" just for lacking sources; they would probably not be deleted at WP:AFD. u p p l a n d 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, you are obviously correct in principle that these articles need sources, but complete referencing of all articles is still a distant goal, and many articles without referencing have actually been written based on good sources. If you add the tag, chances are that the original author or someone else will eventually come back to them, (hopefully) check the content and add references. u p p l a n d 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yoyogi Park
Here I copy and paste the entire text from the webpage. Note line 3.

Yoyogi Park - Click here to see the gallery.

Is one of the largest parks in Tokyo, located adjacent to Harajuku Station and Meiji Shrine in Shibuya.

What is now Yoyogi Park was the site of the first successful powered aircraft flight in Japan, on December 19, 1910, by Captain Yoshitoshi Tokugawa, following which it became an army parade ground. During the postwar occupation, it was the site of the Washington Heights residence for U.S. officers. It later was selected as the site for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, and the distinctive Olympic buildings designed by Kenzo Tange are still nearby. In 1967, it was made into a city park.

Today, the park is a popular hangout, especially on Sundays, when it is used as a gathering place for people to play music, practice martial arts, etc. The park has a bike path, and bicycle rentals are available. As a consequence of Japan's long recession, there are several large, but surprisingly quiet and orderly, homeless camps around the park's periphery. -- Precis 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Precis: I sit corrected, in abject surrender.


 * Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 23:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Referring to Jonathan Club, I wrote: "Re 1988, see ." Precis 08:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC) You replied ".. your footnote goes to the wrong source, and maybe that was intentional." The footnote in fact goes to an article in the May 6, 1988 New York Times which contains exactly the quote that appears near the bottom of the Jonathan Club page. I cut and paste the NYT article below (my hightlights).

May 6, 1988 California High Court Rules Against Club on Membership AP LEAD: The state Supreme Court today allowed the California Coastal Commission to require that an exclusive club in the Los Angeles area pledge that it will not discriminate in exchange for permission to develop beach property. The state Supreme Court today allowed the California Coastal Commission to require that an exclusive club in the Los Angeles area pledge that it will not discriminate in exchange for permission to develop beach property. The Court refused to hear an appeal of a lower-court ruling that upheld the Coastal Commission's requirement. The Jonathan Club wants to add paddle tennis courts and a parking lot, all restricted to members only, on beach property, some of it leased from the state. The leases do not contain anti-discrimination clauses. '''But when the club applied for a development permit in 1985, the commission said it would require a promise not to discriminate against minorities or women. The club refused, saying its membership policies were irrelevant to the issue. But a Superior Court Judge ruled in the commission's favor and was upheld by a state appeals court.'''The club admitted its first black and female members last summer, and said in court papers it did not discriminate in its membership practices. John Shiner, the club's attorney it had not decided whether to appeal. Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top Precis 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The big "C"
I think that the statement in question is misleading because on many days the "C" cannont be seen from campus due to the severe air pollution. I would support a modified version that states the "C"'s true visibility.Insert-Belltower 22:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Every day that I walked onto campus from my apartment for all four years, yes... even when it rained and was very cloudy... I could easily see the C on the hill. Every single day. I do not think a modified version would be correct in the slightest. 66.214.118.69 06:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

BT
BT is British Telecom, probably. --Jumbo 03:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

British Telecom sponsor these journalistic awards http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/1999/no4_goodman.htm - Triviajunkie 00:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

UC Riverside stand-off
If you haven't completely given up on the UCR article, this is what I'm asking editors opposed to UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower to do. I don't know whether it will work, but we'll see. Since I seem to be the anti-UCRGrad editor who is making the most edits, it would be easier for me to simply revert back to them (after they are reverted by UCRGrad/Insert-Belltower) if other editors edited my edits (go to latest starkt entry in the history section) instead of the article itself. I don't know whether this will work, but I think it's worth a try. That way, when I revert back, I won't be overwriting any edits that were put in by other editors. starkt 15:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea, Starkt. I will try it for a while (gingerly) and let you see if you agree with my edits, which are meant only to improve.


 * Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 02:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, Mr. Louis. I appreciate the work you've been doing on the article. Feel free to use the content I provided to the UCR articles in any way you see fit. I won't have much time to work on further article development this week, as I am focusing off-line on developing a comprehensive statement covering the scope and nature of the conduct violations that have occured within the course of the editing conflicts over the past few months... but I appreciate your effort on developing the article further.

I have a question though: was UCR as tough a place for undergraduates academically as people quoted in in the UCR oral histories say it was before the problematic shift to full research university status in the 1960s?--Amerique 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In answer to Amerique's question about the "toughness" of UCR before it became a research university, I believe it was a challenging school but all the students were up to the challenge. In my class, 1957, every single person was accepted to a graduate program at some other university, I believe (though I myself took my master's 13 years later, at UCLA).


 * Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 03:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work on the UCR article. I especially appreciate the inclusion of the section on Native Studies. I was actually working on this article and pursuing WP:DR activities in order to clear the way, in the long term, for the non-biased inclusion of a section like this. As UCR is "the most diverse UC," I think all of UCR's various diversity/community initiatives should be highlighted, but Native Studies is especially important because of UCR's historic relationship with the Costos and their close relationships with Pechanga, San Manuel, and several other of the 20 or so recognized and non-recognized local tribes, as well as with the students in Sherman Indian School. I very much look forward to working with you on this article after I've completed the WP:DR process.--Amerique 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work and the time you have spent improving the UCR article. It has already been greatly improved and your work does not go unappreciated. 66.214.118.69 06:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

California History Editing
Looks like we're both working on that California History article. Please continue - I'll wait until you're done. Thx.

NorCalHistory 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing Hist of Calif article titles
GeorgeLouis, please see below:

Title of the California history articles We will have to rename the two sections of the California history articles. Any suggestions?

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 11:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Is there a WPedia reason for the "History of California" format as opposed to "California History"? Should we just keep the titles simple like "California History (to 1899)" and "California History (1900 to present)"? The blue category box already uses these terms. NorCalHistory 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a major discussion some time ago and consensus reached for across-the-board consistency for these types of articles, which is why they now begin with "History of ..." I believe if you go back far enough on the edit history that you will find the article was, at one time, entitled "California History."--Lord Kinbote 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting - thank you. Should these two articles then simply be re-titled to "History of California (to 1899)" and "History of California (1900 to present)"? Again, as noted the blue box with the poppy already uses these terms. NorCalHistory 19:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that makes the most sense, with History of California then becoming a disambiguation page.--Lord Kinbote 19:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objections, there seems to be consensus that the articles should be re-titled. Lordkinbote or GeorgeLouis, would you like to do the honors? NorCalHistory 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Done.--Lord Kinbote 21:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't get to vote. I don't know that much about California history, but I am assuming that 1900 marked some kind of watershed?? Anyway, what's done is done. I am also assuming that continuing forces that slop over the boundary line could be mentioned on each side of it. GeorgeLouis 21:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, article size is a consideration here as well and the break between the 19th and 20th centuries is a logical one based on that criteria. I don't know that one of these state histories has ever needed to be broken in two like this, there's a lot of info on California.--Lord Kinbote 21:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NAM shortcut
Hi -- first, thank you for being so polite and cordial in your response. I replied here: Wikipedia_talk:No_angry_mastodons And to reiterate, would you like me to just list that redirect at redirects for deletion? Though I'm not sure I like the idea of deleting redirects because of the acronyms used, I think you do have a good point because I did in fact think of Vietnam the first time I saw "WP:NAM" too. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

RSA
Explained RSA for Non-Aussies?? eg NZers? GrahamBould 11:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. A non-Aussie is anyone who is not an Australian. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Radical Edit of Hippie Lead
Hello GeorgeLouis. The lead of an article is intended to provide casual readers with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the subject matter without reading the entire article. It is a summation of the rest of what the article says. The lead should answer, as succinctly as possible, the who, what, when, where,why and how questions of traditional journalism. Readers who wish to learn more can then move on to the rest of the article as they see fit.

Your radical edit of the "Hippie" lead does two things:

1./ It deprives the casual reader of this opportunity. 2./ It introduces the material (thanks for not deleting most of it, by the way) into the rest of the article in a rather disjointed way. In particular, since the lead as previously written summarized aspects of the rest of the article, it creates redundancies.

You deleted most of the first paragraph of the lead:


 * Hippie, occasionally spelled hippy, refers to members of a countercultural movement that began in the United States during the 1960s. Initially the movement surfaced on United States college campuses, then moved beyond academic settings to most major cities in Canada, Great Britain, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand.  To a lesser extent hippie influence was felt worldwide, particularly in Eastern Europe, Mexico and Japan.  There is general agreement that the movement had significantly faded by the late 1970s, especially in the United States.

This first paragraph answered many of the who, what, when and where questions (why and how were addressed later in the lead). I understand that it is unsourced, however that is because of its concentration--nearly every word has been carefully worked out among various editors to represent their concerns for inclusion. This is very much a work in progress. In particular those who live in other parts of the world--I have corresponded personally with folks in Great Britain, New Zealand and Eastern Europe-- have complained that the "Hippie" article is too America-centric. The geographical scope of the first paragraph of the lead is a preliminary attempt to answer their concerns, though much more needs to be done.

I'm not sure how to answer your objection about sourcing because forty or more citations (just guessing) would need to be inserted to fully source this paragraph. Pretty awkward. In any case, a specific request for sourcing is usually more appropriate than immediate deletion. This gives the involved editors time to honor your request.

I understand that you believe that much of the information contained in this paragraph is doubtful. Personally, I would not have thought to include many of the geographical references (Japan, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand and Eastern Europe for example) before doing my own research on the subject. Nevertheless, a lot of thought has gone into this paragraph and I believe it is quite accurate.

For the reasons I have given, I believe the lead as previously written should be reinstated. It can, of course, be improved and refined--that is happening all the time. Thanks for participating, now and in the future. Founders4 18:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a question
Hi GeorgeLouis. An editor is currently claiming that I "chased" you away from the "Hippie" project. True or not true? I do agree, by the way, that the lead needs condensing, just not as radically as you proposed. Founders4 08:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 14:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks George. Good to know.Founders4 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Crick e Crock
You can keep your Crick e Crock thing if you want, but it is not a correct information. In Italy, such nickname is given to ANY Goofy couple, i.e. Mikey Mouse and Goofy, Donald Duck and Daisy and probably Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. So it is NOT another Italian name for Stanlio e Ollio. Kedar 18:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization at Prime Minister of Denmark
You were just a bit too eager decapitalizing Prime Minister of Denmark. As specified at [] some titles should be upper case. Some of your changes were of course correct. Thue | talk 19:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reference. It will come in handy. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 19:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment
If you have the time and inclination, I'd appreciate it if you would "weigh-in" on the current discussion at Talk:Hippolyte de Bouchard; it could use some objective, outside feedback. Regards, Lord Kinbote 22:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing to the discussion. It definitely helped bring the issue to a reasonable conclusion.--Lord Kinbote 05:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Zealand, New Brunswick
The Zealand, New Brunswick, article is having some challenges with, what I believe, is one very inexperienced editor. I picked the reference style, not only because it is one of Wikipedia's recommended styles, but because it is so obvious. I wanted to slow down the destructive edits of the rogue editor. So far no luck. I can't get him to join the discussion page. On his talk pages I have tried to lure him into the fold. I have tried warning templates, but I get the impression he is elderly and not willing or able to participate, other than to make horrific edits that wipe out large parts of the page. Almost all he writes about are his opinions and his original research. His spelling is just scary, and his sentences ramble and stray off subject. Whenever he does write something useful I incorporate it into the article, but this is a bit tiring. You can see an example of his work just before any of the reverted pages. I really don't want to report him, but someday I might have to just to keep my sanity. Fiddlehead 05:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Elderly, huh? Well, that explains it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 05:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (age 74)

Ilhavo comment is not chauvinistic
Hi!

I just add a new comment to your change in the Ilhavo entry... actually the story about pretty womans coming from that city is true... and is not a chauvinistic comment... it popular history... the reason besides that is the possibility that the city was created by greeks ... also just popular history... real history starts when i spoke about the vikings! that is why i changed again for the previous story.

Cheers

3RR in Zionist political violence
Hi, I hope I am mistaken but you seem to have broken WP:3RR there. I won't report you, but someone else may, so I suggest a self-revert. Here's a formal warning:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for calling that to my attention. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

your removal of information from Zippo
Hi, thank-you for your interest in removing unsourced statements in the "Z"s. This edit in fact removed sourced statements and I have reverted it. The problem with these statements is overgeneralization, not lack of sourcing. I corrected this problem and a few others here. I also added a new tag. --Jtir 14:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Zhuang
I've seen that you finally removed those statements about the disappearing Zhuang language.

Do you have any professional knowledge about Zhuang? I'm quite curious about it.

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know one thing about it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Zionism
Hi - I read on Talk:Zionism that you are trying to rid the article of tags. I've added two today in the introduction; it'd be great if you could add those to your "campaign"! Cheers Ozzykhan 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, let's hope somebody can provide the sources within 7 days or so. I'm sure I couldn't do it. GeorgeLouis 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, fine! I'll try! Ozzykhan 22:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Dorothy Healey
Your recent edit to Dorothy Healey (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 07:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dorothy Healey merge
You don't want to delete the article, you want to merge the article. To do that, after you're happy with the way Dorothy Ray Healey looks, you then replace the text of the Dorothy Healey article with a redirect to Dorothy Ray Healey. The details of this are described in Merging and moving pages, it's not hard. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here, have some cheese. GeorgeLouis 21:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Very hurtful.
There is no reason to be 'very hurt' - I suggest/ed that you review the WP:MoS since your copy editing used nonstandard form and reorganised the material in what I found to be a more confusing manner, despite what may have been good intentions.  Tewfik Talk 06:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pont de l'alma
Hello. Thank you for copyediting my article. I agree with most of your changes barring two. 1) The original bridge - I wanted to express the fact the bridge before the 1970 reconstruction was subtly different to the current bridge architecturally - I modified this slightly to reflect this fact. 2) You used the phrase 'what's more' which is informal. I changed it to 'moreover'. Jamesjiao 03:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Maurice Hawk Elementary School
You placed a notability tag on Maurice Hawk Elementary School. Could you specify what is lacking on Talk:Maurice Hawk Elementary School? It already states that it was recognised "with the Blue Ribbon Award from the United States Department of Education, the highest honor that an American school can achieve." and "The New Jersey Department of Education's Best Practices/STAR Program has recognized it in the area of educational technology." Thanks, Double Blue  (Talk) 17:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Please remove the tag and place your reason on the Discussion page there. Thank you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cape May City Elementary School
Surprise... it's a school district that has one school. Therefore the notability tag is gone. WhisperToMe 04:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 05:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there is a school district called Cape May - It has one school, so the school and the district are one and of the same. Even if the school isn't notable, the district is. The same goes for West Cape May (1 district, 1 school) WhisperToMe 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it now, but why is any given school district in the world more notable than another? What makes this district notable? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Steel Magnolia House
As you stated, advertising is not allowed, but "articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style."

First, the house not worthy of being limited to a single sentence. This is an absurd notion that continues to be repeated with each revert. The home is more than a 'filming location' - upon visitation is continues to provide materials from the film, visiting neighbors who were in the film, and *memorabilia for sale (see "second" on this). Additionally, the home is much more popular in revenue and media coverage than the house from the film "A Christmas Story" - a house that has its own Wiki Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Story_House .... as such, a mini-section within the "Steel Magnolias" article is more than appropriate.

Second, see this revision with the intent to create an "objective and unbiased" section - intentionally fails to advertise memorabilia currently "for sale" on www.steelmagnoliahouse.com:

12:19, 13 November 2007 71.254.84.75 (Talk) (8,737 bytes) (Removed sensationalism, yet this house is very popular and was a big part of the film. See the video on their homepage for proof. "A Christmas Story" house has it's own WIKI article....) (undo)

By the account of the home, there have been four visitors who, as fans, thoroughly enjoyed their stay at the house and claimed that the only reason they knew of the home was due to (its former presence within) the wiki article. Removing the section is a disservice to the kind of loyal fans who would perouse the Steel Magnolias article as well as those who continue to preserve the home.
 * Thanks for the information. I am asking other Wikipedians to weigh in as well. Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~). It would help your case if you were registered. I am copying this correspondence to the Discussion Page at Steel Magnolias and hope you will continue it there.Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Garrigues (disambiguation)
I've responded to your inquiry on my talk page. If you insist on putting the sources back into the page, then perhaps you'll please keep my other edits (I significantly cleaned up the whole page). Thank you. Bry9000 (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Les Garrigues
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Les Garrigues, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: :. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Garrigues (law firm) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Carados (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian L. Rochester AfD
Hi. I noticed you placed an AfD tag on Brian L. Rochester but did not seem to follow through with the rest of the procedure. I have completed the process here, if you would like to contribute your opinion. Regards, ... disco spinster  talk  21:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Garrigues disambiguation process
Hey, GeorgeLouis, I just wanted to say 'Well done' with the whole untying of the thing. Kudos. Whilst I'm here, I live in Spain and can testify to the notability of Garrigues (law firm) if your {hhangooon} doesn't work (although I suspect it will). ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How fascinating. I have known the 'Garrigues' with an s, around Montpelier and Nimes for thirty years. Being that it is a translation from French and Occitan I can see there may be others that use a different spelling. I haven't got any reference text in English to prove my point (all in French). Certainly, the s is silent in English. I assume that a precedent would be 'The North Downs' where the geography is referred to as the Downs, and in Kent we have no concept of a Down but in Hampshire they do 'Watership Down being an example. Both Downs and Garrigues being low calcareous scrub cover hills. Similarly it may be that in Languedoc the word is Garrigues but in Roussillon it is without an s. I think the concern should be flagged on the disamb page- to prevent silly edits Garrigues -> garrigues (comarca). As is, any garrigues from Languedoc will go to the disamb which is an admirable solution, and in future we can use garrigues to achieve the direct link.ClemRutter (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

ClemRutter (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rob Bell
Thanks for letting me know about the trivia section on Rob Bell. Trivia is discouraged and anons keep putting it back up; they must be big trivia fans I guess. What concerns me more is the undue weight given to the criticism section in that article, not as much trivia. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rob Bell (again)
Hello, I would like you to weigh in on the arbitration of the Rob Bell article. Virgil Vaduva would LOVE to appear fair in his language to you, but as you have witnessed, his prime "concern" is to label ANY criticim as having "undue weight" and censor it immediately. Your opinion can be added on the arbitration page right here:

Thanks!! -- Gump (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Blake Basin
Thought I'd drop you a note after reverting your edit to Oceanic trench. I'm not quite sure how to classify Blake Basin. It probably represents remnant topography from the break-up of Pangaea during the Jurassic. I've not been able to find much on the underlying geology that can provide a useable source to help expand the article. It should probably be classified along with rift/break-up related bathymmetric features such as the Faeroe-Shetland Trough and Rockall Trough. The Blake Ridge is probably underlain by thinned continental crust similar to the Faeroe Ridge and Rockall Plateau. I'm not going to add anything at the moment as it would be mainly OR, but I will keep on looking. Mikenorton (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bank of Canada governors
Thanks for your offer to mediate at Talk:Mark Carney. There appears to be something related going on at David A. Dodge... (if you have a chance) -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jim Kozimor
I have no opinion about your comment on my talk page, nor do I have any about Jim Kozimor -- which is why I used the word in the first place. If you think that I should not have reverted those edits in his article, I'll be happy to discuss it further. Otherwise, thank you for your comments. -- llywrch (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think you missed my point. To me it seems impolite if not impolitic to call anybody a schmuck. It might even be contrary to some Wiki policy or other if I searched hard enough. I am not considering any reverts that you made at all. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles neighborhoods
Where are you getting your sources from, may I ask? Agtax 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally I don't put anything into a story without a source, so they should be marked. Any article in particular that you are inquiring about? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's mostly West Los Angeles. Are you going to do some cleaning-up on other portions as well? Agtax 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two WLA articles, one on the region and one on the city neighborhood (although I think that is a weird way to categorize the information). I'm working on the region article to start and might tackle the city article when I find the time. See the Discussion page at Talk:West_Los_Angeles_%28region%29. Do you want to help? The breakdown of communities within West L.A. came from the two sources I cited; I don't believe I added any other information. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I can help, because that's where I'll be moving to in the future, hopefully. Agtax 03:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I done some clean up on some Westside communities. Agtax 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * , take a look at this! Agtax 04:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Street Children
Hi GeorgeLouis, I'm interested in editing the article on Street Children but I need some advice. I made a few remarks on the talk page but interested parties seem not to be around so I've begun a draft re-write of the entire article on my user page. Before I go any further with the article I'd like some feedback from editors more knowledgeable about Wikipedia than myself. Can you help by taking a look, please? --Almudo (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Almudo
 * I'm no expert, but I would post a query at Village_pump_%28assistance%29. Also you could make a Sandbox page of your own for your suggested article rather than just replace the whole thing at Street Children. I agree with you that the latter article needs improvement. For the faint of heart, there is alway WP:Bold! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Neighborhoods in Venice
The Venice article needs a little improvement. Since you know more about western Los Angeles, I figure you could help out. Do you know the boundaries of the Milwood neighborhood of Venice? Agtax 11:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, but trying to draw neighborhood "boundaries" in West Los Angeles is a futile endeavor, unless some official agency has already done so, or a non-official agency has claimed to do so. In that event, you could use the claim, but only as a claim. To answer your question directly — no, I have not seen any boundaries being claimed. The L.A. Times records "Milwood Avenue" first being used in connection with Venice in 1921; my guess is that the so-called "neighborhood" of Milwood is simply the houses that were built there. In any event, there still has to be a Source. Good luck with your hunting, and thanks again for writing! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Peacock terms
Over on Wikipedia talk:Avoid peacock terms, you wrote in November: "Is there a list of peacock-a-mamie articles anywhere? I'd like to take a whack at one or two." Yes, there is such a list. See Category:Articles with peacock terms. You may also want to look at Talk:Nur Ali Elahi (the last couple of sections on that page) to see discussion of my attempts to eliminate such terms from one article. -Amatulić (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fancruft
I think we may be getting our wires tangled here. I've rewritten the text to make it clearer, but the underlying point is that Wikipedia reflects it's readers because the readers can become editors. The essay has used that wording since 26 March 2006, and even then it was a rewrite of the statement "Of course, (so goes the refrain) Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone may add more information about their preferred subjects.". Also, this is an essay, it reflects opinion. I think the wording should reflect the opinion it is intended to reflect. Hiding T 14:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP reflects only the readers who become editors. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But since anyone can edit, anyone can be an editor. Hiding T 13:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The key word is reflect. A mirror reflects only the people standing in front of it, not those who could stand there. But I like the way the sentence now reads, which is "Of course, as Wikipedia is a wiki, its materials can be said to reflect readers' priorities, since anyone may add more information about their preferred subjects and become an editor" (emphasis supplied): A nice way of putting the issue to rest. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. I even agree with your emphasis. All the best, Hiding T 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

West Los Angeles district
It seems like on both articles, West L.A. and Sawtelle somewhat both have the same boundaries, which is confusing. In some maps, it's called 'West Los Angeles', while other maps, it's called 'Sawtelle'. Do you know what the deal is? Agtax 00:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that Sawtelle is a district within the larger area of West Los Angeles. In the article on Sawtelle, the boundaries are described differently depending on what definition of Sawtelle you are using. As I think I mentioned elsewhere, community boundaries within L.A. are really amorphous and probably should always be defined with the word "roughly" ahead of the definition. That, or pin the definition on some Reliable Source so that WikiP can't be blamed for being wrong. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So, West L.A. is actually a small neighborhood within Sawtelle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agtaz (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The other way around. There are three ways of defining "Sawtelle," as described in the article. But all three are within WLA. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So locals call the district either of those names? Agtax 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For most folks, Sawtelle means the Veterans Hospital or the cemetery. Mostly people will say West L.A. when they talk about anything outside of the government-owned land. At least that's my feeling. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cook Partisan Voting Index
Hi. I am working on adding explanations for California's congressional districts to the Cook Partisan Voting Index page. I will give an explanation here as well as to how the values such as the D +33 you mentioned, for California's 35th congressional district, are calculated. It is very complex to be able to explain, so I will give an example, using the results for the 35th.

The 35th district, under its current lines, gave Gore 83% of the vote in 2000, so when it's compared with Gore's nationwide score of 48%, Gore's score in CA-35 was 35 points higher than the nation as a whole. Kerry got 79% of the CA-35 vote in 2004, meaning CA-35 voted 31% more Democratic than the country as a whole, since Kerry also got 48% in 2004. You average the 35% and 31% for a Cook Partisan Voting Index value of D +33 for CA-35. Socal gal at heart (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response, SoCal Gal! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Westside
I'll see what I can find. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. What seems to be the problem? Agtax 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lots of theory, point of view, original research (if you can call what is in there actual research); lack of sources. This stuff has got to come out unless we can find sources to back up the statements. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which region should Malibu be in, since it's not part of the Westside? Agtax 06:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Malibu city Web site at http://www.ci.malibu.ca.us/index.cfm?fuseaction=nav&navid=3 says "Northwest Los Angeles County." A search of the Malibu Surfside News site didn't turn up any Malibu link with the Westside. Hope this helps. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I edit that link to Westchester a long time ago, and remove it, and you reverted it back. Why? Agtax 15:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I don't quite understand what you are referring to. What link did you edit? GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You reverted my edits on some LA articles of Westchester, West Los Angeles, and Inglewood. Agtax 02:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. Well, I couldn’t see any reason for linking the Westchester article to L.A. as a whole instead of to its immediate region. In the Inglewood article, you had Ladera Heights lumped in with the city of L.A. when it is actually unincorporated (county) territory. In Westside (Los Angeles County), I felt the addition of “Western” was unnecessary, but it you want to put it back, that’s fine by me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to include Ladera Heights at an LA city community. Agtax 03:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you reverted the geographical boundary name on the article of the Westside of LA? Agtax 23:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, Hi, Agtaz. I have been off line for a while due to a move to the mountains, so I haven't been too active. Are you referring to Imperial Blvd. as a boundary for the West Side of L.A.? I think that was the last change I reverted. Well, there was no source given for that addition, just as there are no sources given for much of the rest of that article. The area between Slauson and Imperial could equally be considered part of Centinela-South Bay — not really in the West Side. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Off topic
This may be off the topic, but do you know where in western Los Angeles that could be a great place for bm/ww couples? Agtax 05:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I never heard this abbreviation before. What do you mean by "great place"? GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Like district/community. Agtax 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean "Where can a black man and a white woman live without people staring at them?" I would say in Palms. Satie Gossett (son of Lou Gossett Jr.) lives there quietly with his white wife and their two kids, who go to a local public school. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. What about west of the 405 and south of the 10? Agtax 09:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be Mar Vista, Los Angeles, California. Not as interesting a place as Palms. Not as well served by bus transportation. But perfectly livable for anybody in the situation you referred to. Cheers! GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I know there's a lot of trouble in Mar Vista when it comes to gangs, or is it Del Ray? What about Westchester? I know this is not a chat room, but how do I email people on Wiki? Agtax 21:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mar Vista is in two parts — the gangs are south of the Culver City shoestring extension (south of Washington Blvd. — there is a big public-housing project there), but the part north of Washington has no gang activity. As for e-mails, I asked at the Village Pump and got this response: "They have to have enabled email (within their preferences), and you have to have a confirmed email address. If both of these are true, then when you click "E-mail this user" (a link on the left, when you're at a user page), you'll see a form that you can fill in and dispatch an email. See Emailing users for details." Cheers! GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For Westchester, I was meaning could that be another area for bm/ww relationships? Agtax 21:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

José Ortega y Gasset
I noticed you moved the image so that he looks into the article. (I moved it back w/o realising why it was moved or how recently.) I think that the current format is better so long as the lead remains a single short sentence. If you beef up the lead, I think it would be fine to move the image left (and perhaps the table of contents right). Srnec (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. Whatever works, works. Cheers! GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:V
Hi, nice to meet ya. I was born in the Eisenhower years btw, but I see you have me beat. Re: commas, I know, it offends my eyes too :) But the MoS editors (and other style editors, recently) have consistently taken the position that we're never going to be able to teach the world about the previous usage of ordering of commas and quotes, and have largely adopted the so-called "logical" order, thus:

blah blah "source", blah blah

Btw, on the subject of "themselves", (note the order :), you were spot-on, that sentence has a problem. I need to see how the other conversation about making changes to that section plays out ... there was just another edit, I'll go see.

I looked at your userpage. Why is it that the people who say they are "simple" are always the ones who aren't?

On the subject of "singular they": I think we're stuck with it. Even in opinion magazines such as NYT Magazine, which is more or less the style I shoot for in wiki articles, it's too late to stem the tide of "Any teacher should have the right to defend themselves...". None of the alternatives gained enough traction to stop it, as far as I can tell. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not talking about quotes and commas, but about the typographic convention that the punctuation takes the form of the word that precedes it. Thus, the punctuation in the following quotation would be italicized: "Did you read For Whom the Bell Tolls? You didn't? Well, you must have read To Kill a Mockingbird!" Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh...we must be talking about different edits then, I was talking about your reversion of my edit at WP:V that just moved a comma to the other side of the quotes in Note #4, there were no italics. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I have been staring at this screen too long. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty International
Why are you edit warring on the peltier page over this? The linked article clearly states "Amnesty International considers Peltier to be a political prisoner whose avenues to legal redress have long been exhausted." Why would you say the article doesn't say that? I believe you are referring to a different article. csloat (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I think I have been staring at this screen too long, and I shall go outside and play now. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes
You may want to have those boxes moved to another page, e.g. User:GeorgeLouis/ubx, User:GeorgeLouis/box, User:GeorgeLouis/userboxes… – 123Pie Talk  14:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Informal vs. Formal Usage
Oh, ok thanks. I thought that for grammar Wikipedia should have formal usage but now I see your point of how it can't just take out speech that is spoken everyday just because it is informal. I will stop doing it and thanks for your advice.RPlunk2853 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. It would be nice if you could go back and reverse your changes so that others will not have to. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon
Click here or on any of the WikiProject Oregon Banners on any of the Oregon articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When looking for things, please remember there are what we call archives for many talk pages, and its best to browse through them before saying you can't find something more than one person has pointed you to. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who the "more than one person" is, because nobody at all pointed me to the exact discussion. (Unless I somehow missed it.) I hope you can do so. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No one pointed you to the exact discussion since we figured you were familiar with Wikipedia enough to remove hidden comments that once pointed to the project you could quickly locate the item. My apologizes for not pointing you to the exact discussion, have you found it now? Aboutmovies (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

RobesonRadio
You recently reverted one of my edits here with the comment "Doesn't seem like spam to me". I had enough doubts myself at the time to place this message on the article's talk page. (It was probably not visible enough there. Is there a more effective way to do this?) I was influenced in making this edit by the fact that RobesonRadio, the user who originally placed the external link, has only two edits, both links to the same website which sells Old Time Radio CD's. On the other hand the historical information provided on that website seems useful. I reverted both of RobesonRadio's edits, but if you feel my reversion of the link on the Minstrel Show page was ill-considered, perhaps you could look at this edit as well. Thanks. 24.36.35.188 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Militarism article
Regarding the militarism page. The user that placed the neutrality dispute POV tag has not returned to specify anything in the interim 6 months since you reinstated it. That user has done no work on the article save the single edit removing material on the claim it was unsourced when it was sourced. The user has not posted anything actionable about the perceived flaws in the article, and has made no subsequent effort to communicate what he or she believes justified that tag. I question whether the user was not acting from purely nationalist rage regarding the inclusion of the U.S. history of militarism in the article, but that is unrelated here. I do notice that a lot of substandard work has been done since then, but the tag was placed before those changes were made so it is not related to any later changes. What is the proper procedure for the removal of this dead end tag? Militärwissenschaften (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, my friend. I agree. Just make your change and see if anybody objects. If so, that would indicate that the dispute continues. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

West LA demography
I noticed you removed the culture section in the West LA article. Don't you think it should've been re-decorated? Agtax 20:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I couldn't find the section you are referring to. Do you mean West Los Angeles or Westside (Los Angeles County)? If you have anything good to add, with sources, please do so. I haven't had these pages on my watch list for a while but will am adding them back today. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * .

I was referring to the region, not the district. I can get the sources from the West LA communities on the demography in the area. Agtax 04:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I removed the section is that there were no sources cited (I asked for some, too). The statements made were overbroad and apparently just based upon some guy looking around and making judgments with no facts to back him up. See BURDEN. If you or any other editor wants to find the statistics to prove the case, go right ahead. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Although, I always thought West LA was one of the most affluent areas in the city. Agtax 06:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Most recently . . . "
Hello, I saw you create this page. Were you intending to put that somewhere else? J.delanoy gabs adds 17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to go to User_talk:Gwen_Gale. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Double redirects
See Redirect. --Orlady (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure why I got a message warning against them. All I did was change the name of a page with a hyphen to the same page name without a hyphen. Can you explain? In confusion, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved the page again, so that the page that started as List of posthumously-born notable people has now become Posthumous birth. After making that page move, I changed the redirect destination for List of posthumously-born notable people to avoid double redirection. My short edit summary said simply "avoid double redirects." That was not intended to be a warning message to you or anyone else, but merely a statement of the reason for my edit. I can't explain why you received it as a warning. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, so. The edit summary said "(avoid double redirects)," so I took that as a warning. Thanks. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:G's neck.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:G's neck.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 15:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to consensus
I have restored my sentences but appeal to a consensus whether they should be kept or notClive Sweeting

Re: Rex Hunt
Hi there, I added the source you asked for. Not being very good with templates etc. I hope it looks reasonably professional. Cheers. --Maarten1963 (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Just what we needed. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles, California
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles, California, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.cheviothills.org/aboutcheviot.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles, California and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles, California with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles, California.

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

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles, California/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles, California saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! -Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 00:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why this announcement is on my talk page. You should send it to the person who added the information. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this, that person is you. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 04:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I just reverted the deletion that you made a few months ago. You didn't claim a copyvio then. Anyway, let's move the discussion to the article's talk page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

California population statistics
Do you know the current statistics for Califoria population as of 2008? Agtax 11:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'm sure you can find them on the Internet. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

History of LA
Do you have to remove everything I contribute on any article related to Los Angeles? Agtax 04:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you believe Los Angeles is residential segregated as articles claim? Agtax 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what articles you are talking about. L.A. is as segregated as any other big city; that is, pretty well segregated. By the way, I don't live in L.A. any more. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you keep reverting my edits? That edit was edited by an IP user a long time ago. Agtax 03:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mountain Communities Outskirts.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mountain Communities Outskirts.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. 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 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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gorman, California
I took a look at it, and you can find the comments on the article's talk page. Nice job so far.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Mountain Communities Outskirts.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mountain Communities Outskirts.jpg. 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), (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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 16:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No San Diego template . ..
I assume you mean the link from the Wikiproject Southern California talk page? It looks like the automatic daily update on the TfD page hasn't happened yet. The discussion is at Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 23. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Inglewood, California
You asked about changing bullets to images at the list talk page. You were told it was not appropriate, and your edits were reverted. Rather than continuing to redo your edit, you need to address the concerns in response to your question. Per WP:BRD, you were extremely bold in your change, and it has been reverted. It is now for YOU to discuss before continuing to redo a change that has been questioned as a violation of guidelines and policies, rather than continue to disallow anyone to revert it. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your referral to WP:BRD, which I had read before but unfortunately had not bookmarked, so it was nice to get it back again. I'm not positive that that particular procedure is the ultimate decision point for the possibility of using thumbnails instead of bullets in lists or any other place where such a makeup device might be of interest to an editor. Whatever you and I might decide under WP:BRD would in all likelihood be challenged elsewhere, so perhaps a wider discussion might be of interest. How do you feel about continuing the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Lists, or some other place you might suggest?  Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BRD isn't, in itself, a decider on whether to have image thumbnails. Rather, I was pointing to it to note that you made a bold edit, I reverted, and rather than reverting my revert, it should have gone to discussion to determine its appropriateness before redoing the edit. :) As lists is only partially related to the issue, I think it might be better to discuss at WP:MOS's talk page, which also has a wider set of readers. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I am willing to bring it up there unless you want to. (I would be able to put down all my reasons therefor, and you could then respond with yours, and let the Discussion begin!). Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably better you start it and iterate your reasons why you feel it is a good chance, and point to a diff showing how it looked. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I do, can you direct me to a page that might give the current policy regarding bullets? I tried to find one but could not. That might help to clarify the discussion before it begins. If not, I will just post something. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style would seem to be the starting point there. For image use, see Images and MOS:IMAGE. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Garrigues (law firm)
Sorry, I deleted the specialities because it seemed clear to me that Garrigues was a full-service law firm that offered a wide range of legal services rather than only a few marquee practice areas. Therefore if we wanted to include which practice areas are considered strengths of the firm in particular, we might want to add them back into the body of the article, see for example, articles such as Salans and Thelen LLP. Do you follow? Mediterraneo (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandberg, California
Following your question on the Help Desk, I've moved your sandbox creation to the correct location. Please take off the template if you're not going to do any more major work on it soon. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)