User talk:BeenAroundAWhile/Archive 2

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

La Fiesta
Hi! Kindly take a look at Foodarama The Foodarama article does mention La Fiesta. What's more, the La Fiesta coverage allows the article to meet the WP:GNG WhisperToMe (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. I missed it! Mea maxima culpa! Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Deprod
I have removed the prod tag from Dan Whitehurst, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I always like a second opinion on things like this. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article La Crescenta-Montrose, California, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Please note that you can't use the Patch website as a reference for itself. You must use independent, third-party sourcing that indicates the notability of this specific website (not the patch sites in general).'' TN X Man  21:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this info. Do you have a source for it? It is pretty obvious that the Patch is covering La Crescenta if you go to its site. Much like the New York Times covering New York. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, thanks for the "welcome," after all these years. Where are my cookies? Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have a source. It is true that the New York Times covers New York, but it is a notable publication (as shown by its extensive article). The La Crescentia Patch website, however, is not notable. Adding a link to their website is the same as adding a link to a La Crescentia auto-parts store or local La Crescentia restaurant. It doesn't add anything to the article and is basically advertising. TN X Man  21:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about Patch_Media? GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But Patch Media is based in NYC, not La Crescentia. They are notable, but their affiliates generally are not. TN X Man  21:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The various Patch sites are pretty notable in the areas they serve and at least are worthy of being used as External Links, since they provide info about the communities in question. I don't believe the External Links have to be notable. Anyway, this dispute might be better handled on a different plain than this one. Take out the Patch here if you want—it doesn't make that much difference to me (somebody else added it in the first place)—but please correct the grammar of the remaining sentence. Thanks for your attention. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Marcus T Grant
Hello GeorgeLouis. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Marcus T Grant, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. B music  ian  07:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications
Hey George. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling@undefinedwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   19:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding a page of guidelines
I have no idea how you do this, but I posted here hoping someone would see your help desk question. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edward Moore
I added content for Edward E. Moore related to Indiana using the source you suggested. I was doing research at the Indiana Historical Society and they had a copy in their research library. Rosalina523 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Your contribution adds very, very much to the article. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rose Hills, California
Sorry, it's "Rose Hills, California" not "Rose Hills, Los Angeles". My mistake.

PedroCazuela (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Introduction
Hi, just wanted to reach out to someone that is WAY more savvy than I am in this Wikipedia editing process. While I openly admit to be very new to the formal editing process/language used (this HTLM, php, code stuff gives me headaches when I try to add/edit information accurately), I do know how to do research and cross reference information and historical facts.

This is basically the purpose for me reaching out to you. For some time now, while reading about L.A.'s/local communities history, I have regularly come across articles historically tied to the Northeast L.A. communities of El Sereno, Lincoln Heights, and Montecito Heights and noticed that most of them have or have had misinformation added, mainly involving this "Rose Hills" community.

To get to the point, I live in El Sereno, have studies and researched the history of the local communities within N.E.L.A., and have come across many instances where unverified and historically inaccurate information concerning the community of "Rose Hills" has been added to many articles pertaining to this area. When I checked and crossed checked the edited history on a few of this articles, hopelessly trying to edit them to keep them historically and factually accurate, I have noticed that you have edited and corrected a few of them which had "Rose Hills" misinformation.

Let me say that I have nothing personal against this person/people, but facts are facts and when I see BS, I think it needs to be called, checked and corrected. Without making seem like if I'm on a witch hunt, I am asking you to please consider taking a look at the Wiki-site for "Rose Hills, Los Angeles" and if you are willing, tell me what you think about the facts presented. I don't want tell you what I found incorrect just yet, I would like to see what you think first.

I understand if you don't care to do this favor me, but from what I seen and read of your editing work, you too have a high standard for accurate and true history. Maybe you can consider it a favor to the greater good of Wikipedia, because the fact is if no one else edits the information, I will and I suck at using the editing codes.

Well, whatever you decide to do, I have to thank you for keeping the high standards in regards to the history and facts presented on Wikipedia. Hope to hear from you soon.

Where the hell do you find the tildes key? Finally.

PedroCazuela (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Responses are at Talk:Rose_Hills,_California. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on deletions
As you may have noticed, I have been trying to help 'fix' the deletion system-- not just for my article but for the next person in my place-- somebody who makes good faith contribution that's verifiable, cites reliable sources, but may be "not sufficiently notable".

I posted on VPP, got lots and lots of feedback, virtually all of it helpful, and have compiled all the ideas into an essay, Deletions and Openness.

I would really value your input. Some of the recommendations are more compelling than others. My personal favorite is the idea of a shared drafting space-- draft-quality like userspace with the collaborative nature of like mainspace.

How can we fix this, so that future new users who make good-faith contributions don't get rejected entirely? --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That looks really good. I did some editing and hope you will continue to improve it. I like your suggestions and will comment on the Talk page over there. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mashadi Jewish Community
I understood and shared your concerns about this article, but the subject matter is clearly notable (there are multiple books about the Mashhadi Jews, as well as piles of other material and even an extensive medical literature), and is already discussed in another better-written article, Allahdad incident. So I deprodded this one and redirected it to the other one. I hope you approve of my solution; if you have a better idea, by all means let me know. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. You know a lot more about this subject than I do. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: St. Thomas College, Palai
Hello GeorgeLouis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of St. Thomas College, Palai, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a copyvio. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Please be careful not to revert inappropriate but well-meaning edits as vandalism, as you did here. Such edits do not fall under Wikipedia's definition of the term, and calling them vandalism can discourage new users from contributing. GreenReaper (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, GreenReaper, but your definition of vandalism is a lot different from mine, and I resent your attitude. Thank you very much, my friend; I think you meant well by your message, but it seems very peremptory to me, and I certainly don't enjoy receiving such "advice" after all my years and all my work for Wikipedia. Any message that begins with "Please be careful" is paternalistic and insulting, and I hope you will not use it again in your admonitions to other editors. Thanks again. Sincerely, still your pal, and a friend to Wikipedians everywhere, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Max Rafferty
Hello, and thanks for your work on the Max Rafferty article; it was sorely in need of help. But I am puzzled why you keep removing the dates of birth and death from the lead; they are clearly supposed to be there right after the name per MOS:DOB - and in the infobox too per the same source. I guess they could be removed from the text, since as you say they don't need to be there three times, but they clearly are supposed to be in the lead and the infobox. Likewise, the person's nationality and profession are almost always Wikilinked in the lead; see the examples at WP:OPENPARAGRAPH or pretty much any biographical article. Can we come to some agreement here so we don't get in an edit war? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your query, for which I greatly appreciated the gentle tone. I hope I am responding in the same way: Actually, the exact dates of births and deaths are very much optional in the lead, not obligatory. The exact admonition is When full dates are provided in the text or in an infobox, year-pairs can be sufficient for the lede in some cases; in such cases no spaces are used, e.g., "(1943–1971)". You can't very well take out the exact dates from the text or from the infobox (for that would leave either one incomplete). Personally, I believe also that the exact dates clutter the lede by making it too long and burdened with minor information, but that's just my opinion, and I actually rely upon the text of MOS:DOB to support my change. When the article was begun, there was neither a proper lede nor an infobox, so the matter was moot (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Rafferty&diff=next&oldid=54950096). Somebody later added the thrice-told information, which I think should have been squelched much earlier on the basis of repetitiveness. Anyway, that is my reasoning. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, well, it seems much more common to put the full dates in parentheses after the name, but if you prefer it this way the rules seem to allow it. I have added the death date to the text since it's supposed to be one place or the other. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Terrific. I also like to follow the recommendations of Style guidelines for biographies of California public officials in dealing with this kind of article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I note that you are the author and only contributor to those "guidelines," so your reasoning seems rather circular. In my experience the year-only format is NOT the most common usage, for California or anyplace else, and the preferred usage at the MOS page you link to is (May 1, 1920 - July 10, 2006) rather than (1920-2006); the latter is merely a permitted variation "in some cases". --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. You don't have to use the full dates in the ledes even though many articles DO use them and many editors find the full dates not to be obtrusive. Others, however, think that repeating material is to be avoided and that ledes should be as kept as free of clutter as possible. I suppose it depends what one is used to. After a long period of habituation (reading dictionaries and other encyclopedias for example) I find that having to read the exact birthdate and death date slows down my comprehension, and that's why I don't use them in the lede for the articles I write and why I try to edit them out of other articles when I run across them. Of course, if anybody objects to my changes, well, I just back off because there really is no RULE about use or non-use. It's a lot like the infobox-vs.-misinfobox disagreement: There is no right or wrong, just whoever got there first, I suppose. Also it is similar to British vs. American spelling: No right, no wrong, just usage. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker here (big fan of both of your work): I think the dates thing may just come down to what we're used to. Those of us who spend a lot of time on bios get used to one format or the other; in my case, after having been gently "guided" on my first several bio attempts some years back, I've gotten used to seeing the full dates in the lede sentence, and to not seeing the places of birth and death there, but there's probably no overwhelming reason why any of that is better or worse than some different custom.  For the occasional user, it may not matter so much, as long as the info can all be found quickly and in logical places.  (And I suppose that one could also argue that this is why the infobox is there.)
 * Anyway, what I really want to do here is to compliment the two of you on your rapid and impressive collaborative improvement of the article and its sourcing. Nice work! --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nice compliment, Axiloxos! I just stumbled across the article (it linked from another one I was working on) and realized the article didn't give any sense of who Rafferty was. So I started expanding it, and then GeorgeLouis turned up and started fixing it too, and I think it is much improved. I am like you, in preferring the full dates of birth and death, but NOT the places, in the lead sentence. It may be partly a matter of taste and what we are used to, but it is also the prime example given at the Wikipedia style page. So I would really like to ask GeorgeLouis not to change existing articles to his preferred style - and not to list his preference as the "rule" at Style guidelines for biographies of California public officials. George, would you be OK with that? MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC) P.S. You say above "Of course, if anybody objects to my changes, well, I just back off". But in this case you didn't back off; you made the change twice, which is why I started this thread. MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP notification
Please see Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for a note regarding List of California public officials charged with crimes. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of California public officials charged with crimes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of California public officials charged with crimes 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 Articles for deletion/List of California public officials charged with crimes 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Cyber cobra (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * May I suggest a quick title change to List of California Officials Convicted of Crimes? Richrakh (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion, but there is nothing inherently wrong with a list of people charged with crimes and some of them later being cleared, or at least not convicted. The fact of their being charged will always be findable to the inveterate Web surfer, but the rest of the story demands to be told as well. Those who want to bowdlerize history should be ashamed of themselves, and I am just happy they are not working for the New York Times or Le Monde. There is a moral in this list to be stressed to every politician—that crime does not pay and that their sins, if such they be, will out. Likewise to every prosecuting attorney, the moral is to prepare your case well and to be prepared to lose as well as to win. For grand jurors: Don't be so sure that you are right, and always be wary of the political motives of your local district attorney.I am sure that is why this list has had more than a hundred hits almost every day it has run, thousands now—not because it is salacious, but because it is instructive. I can see individual attorneys, editors and students all over the state consulting this list with eyes open and mouth agape, as it to ponder that, "I didn't know there were so many shady characters—or damaged souls—in local politics." If this article is deleted, or its focus changed, it will be a sad, sad time: Wikipedia shut down its site a few weeks ago and urged us to "Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge."  Right here, right now, today, some are demanding not a world, perhaps, but at least a state of 37 million people without free knowledge of those public officials who have either served them—or raped them. I certainly will have no part of that. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAPBOX, WP:GREATWRONGS. EEng (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

California Club and discrimination
GeorgeLouis, for your entries on incrimination at private clubs in California please read my 1985 LATimes piece on the Music Center fund-raising victory party, which came after my coverage prompted changes there which made the Music Center more inclusive, though not its victory party venue.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-07-10/entertainment/ca-7817_1_fund-raising — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcay (talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Another California Club clip
And this may be of interest -- lots of details on California and Jonathan Clubs

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-06-05/local/me-9433_1_california-club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcay (talk • contribs) 10:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Lady Gaga coming?
There is a story I read today which to me should have some place in this article. Some residents wrote to Lady Gaga asking her if she would give a concert in the nation. It would be unique as it would be the first time an entire country has been to one of her concerts. If she accepts, of course it would probably get into the article but even if not it seems to me that it should be included someplace. But I wasn't sure where to put it. Here's the link that I found: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10797048 BashBrannigan (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of wiki hosting services
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Comparison of wiki hosting services, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Comparison of wiki farms. 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. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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. MadmanBot (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Common law
GeorgeLouis --

In your revisions to "Common Law," you undid two things --

1. The four meanings of the word "common law" had specific labels, "Connotation 1," "Connotation 2," "Connotation 3," and "Connotation 4." By removing the labels, the body of the article doesn't make sense.

2. The jurisdictions at the bottom were in historical order, you undid that organization (that's why the dates were there!)

I've "undone" all your edits. You're welcome to restore them, gently, to preserve the two organizational principles above.

Word to the wise -- no man is an island. When you see an article that has as long an edit history as "common law," and that already has a very high "quality" rating, assume that there's accumulated wisdom of years there, and tread lightly. I see your observation of "hostility" -- yeah, I can imagine. Hopefully there's a lesson learned in there.

Boundlessly (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't need any lessons. It is OK to make editorial changes, but not to slam others. Thank you for your attention, and I hope you have a nice day. Sincerely, from somebody who knows more than you think he knows, your friend, 17:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:1936.01.14 Carr Layout.tiff
Thank you for uploading File:1936.01.14 Carr Layout.tiff. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

File:1936.01.14 Carr Layout.tiff listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1936.01.14 Carr Layout.tiff, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Amendment to Dyke White page
Thankyou for moving the photograph for me. I was aware that it was in the wrong place, but didn't know how to move it. PamN (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Crenshaw mural
Hi there. I ran across File:Mural-Crenshaw-District-Los-Angeles.jpg while categorizing images on commons. I've cropped the commons version (see File:Crenshaw la mural.jpg) and I think it came out less pixelated. Your thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't take the photo. I only improved its contrast via iPhoto. The new image you referred to above seems really, really dark to me — just as it was before I worked on it. If you can hold off on sending it to WikiCommons, I will take another photo when the sun is shining directly on the wall — in the a.m. hours — and upload it. Let me know. Thanks, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me. Mackensen (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It will be a while, a week maybe, before I can do this. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Editorial
Hi GeorgeLouis - I was responsible for the most recent edit of the editorial prior to your amendment. I have been looking into the various definitions of 'editorial' recently. It got me thinking about the lack of transparency regarding authorship, and how this potentially allows senior journalists to reinforce their own work elsewhere in the paper. I have been looking for grounds to critique the practice and was thinking of starting here: http://www.apme.com/?page=EthicsStatement "ACCURACY The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation." On the grounds that: Unattributed Editorials allow an incorrect public perception regarding authorship to persist (Oxford Vs urban dictionary/ wiki definitions) They create distortion though emphasis by the implied authority of 'the editor' or 'the paper' - both artificial constructs. The omission of the Editors name, and the names of those who write in his/ her stead, and lack of transparency regarding who makes the decision on what to print is irreconcilable with the openness and disclosure which newspapers demand of others. I started a petition calling for change but am not getting as much traction as I would like - due I think to some of my background wording. http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/An_end_to_unattributed_anonymous_Editorials_in_New_Zealands_Newspapers/ I am really interested in the history of the newspaper editorial and the implications of the evolving definition and was hoping that you could point me in the direction of some further learning so that together we may improve the wiki definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campbell Larsen (talk • contribs) 09:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very interesting page, that. I will digest the whole idea and respond fully within a day or two. Thanks for thinking of me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Libraries
Palms Library pic added. Thank you!! jengod (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Vadim Gluzman
I removed the copy-editing tag you placed on this article, since there are no apparent grammatical or spelling issues to be dealt with. On the other hand, perhaps you saw different issues which need to be dealt with (certainly the article needs more information, such as Gluzman's repertoire, where he has performed etc.), so I thought I would let you know as a courtesy in case you wanted to identify these on the talk page. Alfietucker (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I think I got confused by the new Page Curation tool: I don't know why I marked this article. Anyway, there were only two edits, which I made myself. Again, thank you for following up on this. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Newmark family of Southern California
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Newmark family of Southern California, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_14792.html.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Expo Line edits
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you so much for your recent contributions to the Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro) and related station pages. A small favor? Rather than wholesale deleting information you feel requires a source, especially things that are easily verifiable like dates, please use the "{ { Citation needed } }" or "{ { fact } }" tag. This gives the contributing editor time to use existing cites to rectify your request. And, if you are going to update information on station pages, please do it on ALL the related pages that use the information rather than on only a few here and there. Your help and contribution is very much appreciated. Lexlex (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I got this notice by mistake, since I did not edit that page. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

VanderSloot at WP:BLP/N
Neutral notification abot an article which you have edited. Collect (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--Chris (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

James Ozias Wheeler
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of James Ozias Wheeler, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: John Ozias Wheeler. 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. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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. VWBot (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi, just a friendly reminder to only use rollback in the situations listed at WP:ROLLBACK. Cheers a13ean (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me. I think I had better give up the Rollback right. Can you advise me? GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

January 1913

 * Thank you for alerting me to the nomination of the article, and for the additions and your suggestions for improvement. Mandsford 13:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you. Now that the nomination has become a moot point, I'll answer to the question of a standard for the placement of events on a page.  The main criterion, as you've noted is whether it is accompanied by a reliable and verifiable source.  My preference is a work that's on Google Books and is from a major publisher or a university press, books found on Google Books, and (more for detail rather than notability) contemporary newspaper articles.  Regarding potential vandalism, the only problem we've ever really had with junk being put on these is what we call "birthday greetings"-- usually its for a more recent year (say, 1981) where an IP address writing in something like "Joe Johnson born this day in Cleveland".  There are quite a few people who patrol the pages, look over the history of recent additions, and take the stuff back down.  Other than that, the pages aren't vandalized that often-- every now and then, we get someone trying to be funny, and it doesn't stay up.  Although newspaper references are indispensable in confirming when something happened (and settling conflicting accounts in various books), the real test of whether an event from the time would meet WP:N rather than violating WP:NOTNEWS is whether it received "significant coverage" decades later.   Mandsford 02:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Is there a centralized place to talk about standardizing the layout for and content of all these articles? GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Frank Vandersloot
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; I just saw this message, four days late. Can you advise me of exactly what content you are talking about? Normally I fill in the edit summary, but perhaps I missed one. Just send me the diff so I can advise you. Thank you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In regard to the above, I looked back on my edits on the page you cited and could find no place on that date where I did not fill out the Edit summary. Please assist me. Thanks again. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your recent edits on the article have been reverted. Please do not edit disruptively/tendentiously. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information and the links. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Bob-Benoit-Horse-Racing-Executive-And-Publicist.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bob-Benoit-Horse-Racing-Executive-And-Publicist.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring in Defense of Video That Violates WP:BLP on Frank Vandersloot
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting message. Did you get the one I left on your page? What do you think? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Michael C. Seto
Thanks for your note. My general concern is that the article was written by an SPA here to promote himself and his ideas, including creating and padding articles about himself and his colleagues. As one of many examples, Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers was stubbed and tagged COI by an uninvolved editor for the same reasons as the Seto bio. I don't believe Seto is notable, but consensus seems to be that he is. The accomplishment that's supposed to confer notability (his book) has not had much impact outside its highly specialized field. The only reason Seto has an article here is because his friend with a COI has a long history of this behavior on Wikipedia. No one else would have written it any time soon. Jokestress (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally, I think the bio contains every en passant mention of him in hopes of asserting Seto's notability.
 * I laid out my specific concerns on the talk page and sought other views when the editor would not address what are crystal-clear examples of COI puffery. Since that time, the most egregious specific instances I mentioned have been addressed by uninvolved editors, but I feel there's more to do:
 * The long bulleted quotations from book reviews in non-notable journals are not necessary, per UNDUE and MoS.
 * There's a whole section sourced entirely to Seto's own work rather than to secondary sources (SYNTH/OR). Someone has tagged part of it as OR.
 * The justice.gov source doesn't even mention Seto.
 * The same ussc.gov source is listed 4 times to make it seem like more than it was.
 * In all, about half the sources were written or are controlled by Seto.

DR/N
Not enough information. Please clarify the dispute or this may be deleted as malformed. There is simply not enough information to identify the current dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I gave you more.GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James Edwards (Los Angeles politician)


The article James Edwards (Los Angeles politician) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not Notable. See Notability_(film) I checked the files of the Los AngelesTimes and searched the Internet, but there is no reference to this man being Notable except for one term on the Common Council.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!
Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Mascarel
Hi. I'm not sure what you intended by this edit, which redirected the article to a non-existent page, so that it soon got speedy-deleted. I have dug it up, restored the version before your edit, and updated the first reference from the French version of the article so that it works. "Joseph" is the name given in that source, so I guess that should be the title of the article. If you have information that he was also known as José, perhaps there should be a redirect from that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've got it! You meant Jose Mascarel. Fixed. JohnCD (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He was probably known as Joseph when he was born in France, but he was José once he got to California. I used his name without the accent because that's the way all the Sources had it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An interesting character. There are images here which I'm sure you have seen; I wonder if permission could be got for the one in LA town hall. JohnCD (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The photo is so old it is out of copyright, so it can be used by anyone. If you want to upload it, that would be fine. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)