User talk:BeenAroundAWhile/Archive 3

NORN Strauss Howe
Hi, I am contacting you because you already commented on the dispute over Strauss-Howe at the No Original Research noticeboard.

I wonder if you could give your thoughts again so that we can wrap up the discussion one way or the other. I know there's a lot of extra stuff over at the board, but basically all it boils down to is this: Is the below statement supported by the two sources below. I think that the "webinar" link isn't even a reliable source, and the LSAY report says nothing directly about Strauss and Howe other than that their "definition" of Generation X was widely accepted. None of the statements below are directly supported. I'd be grateful if you could weigh in, as the other editor and I are at a stalemate.

"Twenty years later, Jon D. Miller, at the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (funded by the National Science Foundation[67] ) presented evidence that the negative stereotypes and predictions about Generation X written in books like 13th Gen were an exaggerated description of youth in the 1970s and 80s. Today, it’s quite the opposite writes Dr. Miller: “if we could use only three words to describe them (Gen X), the most applicable words would be active, balanced, and happy. These words apply to a large majority”.[68] Although Strauss and Howe pointed out some important trends of that era, and the book was well-researched, many of the negative predictions and stereotypes are no longer relevant and the generation has moved on.[69]"


 * http://lsay.org/GenX_Rept_Iss1.pdf [69]
 * http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=122044 [68]

Peregrine981 (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just stick to what the Sources say, and leave out the interpretation. Sorry I can't be more helpful. If the other editor doesn't accept, you might have to try another tack in Dispute Resolution. Is there an Interest Group on Wikipedia to which you can turn for additional knowledgeable editors? GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * thanks. That is already helpful since it confirms (at least to myself) that I am not completely crazy. I'll see what we can do going forward. If problems persists we'll have to go to dispute resolution, as I don't think there is a reliable group of people knowledgable on the topic who are active. Best, Peregrine981 (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be in for a long war: It takes time if the other person is stubborn. You may have to wp:rfc at a couple of other notice boards, but be sure you notify everybody you are doing so lest you be accused of forum shopping. I am in the same soup at Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot, and it seems to be taking forever, as the pot keeps on boiling. Best to be patient. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

William Whipple Robinson
Just letting you know that when you added the prod to the above article you didn't leave an edit summary indicating this. Thank you. Rotten regard      Softnow  21:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooops ! Thank you ! GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter
This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:1988 Kitty Dukakis.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:1988 Kitty Dukakis.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Newmark family of Southern California
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Newmark family of Southern California, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_14792.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

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 license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Newmark family of Southern California and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Newmark family of Southern California, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Newmark family of Southern 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 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Newmark family of Southern California. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

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 [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Newmark family of Southern 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! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While not a verbatim copyright violation, some of the text on the page remains a close paraphrase of the source. I've given some further explanation of the problem at the article's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A copyright clerk took a look at it and left a message which you should read at Talk:Newmark family of Southern California. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ryan Vesey 00:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

prior RFC/U
You might also notify those who were active at all in the prior RFC/U as they might well have insights pro or con on RIR. Be sure the notice is absolutely neutral in form and content, and is sent to all involved. Collect (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't need another charge of WP:Canvass from u-know-who. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not change major Signpost titles
Just ask first; why not discuss it? Tony  (talk)  12:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tony. Well, whoever wrote that headline really botched it up, and I fixed it. What is the big problem? If anybody is intent on having an incomprehensible headline, he or she can just change it back, and I will consider that I did my best to improve the encyclopedia. See WP:BRD. I don't need to be chided by you or anyone else. Not today. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

RIR RfC
Hi George I'll comment there when I have time. Meanwhile I would suggest that you remove the quote from Nomo. I agree its not [a bit] out of bounds but its also not relevant on an RfC about RIR. Anyway, that's my suggestion. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice it until you brought it to my attention. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, I thought it was probably an oversight. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 03:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Parley P. Christensen
Hi there, I added the precise date of birth and death because they were available and added for biographical completeness. Hope that answers your question. Lawrence142002 (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)User:Lawrence142002
 * Uh. The article was complete. Days and dates in the lede are not required, and most encyclopedias don't bother with them there. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, LOL!
Thank you for the best ever Wikipedia reason for changing a page

Priceless!! Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (diff | hist) . . Humboldt Bay‎; 03:15 . . (-1)‎ . . ‎GeorgeLouis (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎History: Fame is fleeting; notability isn't.)

File permission problem with File:Doria-Apartments-Los-Angeles-Built-in-1905.png
Thanks for uploading File:Doria-Apartments-Los-Angeles-Built-in-1905.png, which you've sourced to http://www.flickr.com/photos/cityprojectca/4360275505/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Puffin  Let's talk! 22:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
I replied with specific guidelines on my talk page, where you posted your question. If you want an answer on the article talk page, then post your question on the article talk page. In any case, please stop edit warring. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Nedd Willard. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I really resent those two messages; the tone is very belligerent. I haven't seen your reply on the other page yet, and I remind you to WP:Assume good faith. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied on my talk page, where you posted. If you didn't watchlist it, you won't see it. I'm not going to reply in two places. And I resent your multiple reverts, when I am simply trying to apply well-established policies and guidelines with which I am very familiar and you apparently are not. So chill. Yworo (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My reversions did not carry with them any aspersions on you or your editing abilities. The expression "So chill." is really rude: Would you say that to any of your office colleagues? I am sorry I have to point this fact of courtesy out to you. I will look at your remarks on the other page pretty soon. Meanwhile, I am writing another article for this fine encyclopedia of ours. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't cast any aspersions on either you or your editing abilities, and I am sorry if you took anything that way. I have a problem with your behavior, which is apparently to revert without waiting for an answer. That's a problem, as there is no deadline here. Please give things more time and you won't give the impression that you intend to edit war. Yworo (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Puffin  Let's talk! 16:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
George, Thanks for your interest in List of journalists killed in the United States. I'm hoping your interest will be an incentive for you to add information to the page that will will add value to it.Crtew (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, since you're not yet making any contributions but you've started a larger discussion, would you please then at least at a minimum articulate your objection(s). I honestly don't see what kind of point(s) you're trying to make. While a wikilink to a policy seems common (bad) practice throughout Wikipedia Talk, I will be expecting you to make your thoughts and arguments complete. There is not yet at this time a complete thought or argument that you have put forward. All I have to go on is a link to a policy and a statement that you don't think crimes are important. That's simply not good enough. Also since you've started this discussion, you may also invite the lists that I have mentioned on that talk page. That would be the decent thing for you to do as this is pulling me away from making useful contributions and you're the one who wants to discuss "something". Please don't take this as a indication that I think you're acting in bad faith, but I'm trying to set some standards here that I expect you to meet. I think you mean well. I just don't see at this point if you understand the issues because I've got nothing to go on. By all means, you are still invited to make positive contributions to the article if you are so interested and inclined. It would be nice to work with you rather than against you! (And I really do mean that in a nice way.) Crtew (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody owns Wikipedia articles, neither thee nor me. As I mentioned somewhere else, I don't want to see you wasting your time on something that might very well be deleted after months of your work. That happened to me with a project that was very interesting to me and had thousands of followers, so I know it is possible. It is better to get some feedback now rather than later. I think the list is very iffy, being based upon victimhood, but I would not like to propose it for deletion because the wider community might feel different, and, really, it is just not that important to me. If nobody chimes in from the RFC, then you have ipso facto evidence that the community thinks it is a fine idea, or just doesn't care. Either way, you are ahead. I think these RFCs expire automatically after a while but, if not, I think you could delete them after—say—six weeks, with no harm done. If you do get feedback, you might take what ever it is to heart. In the meantime, just go ahead with the project and improve it as much as possible. Again, simply my opinion: I have no direct line to Anybody in Authority. Buena fortuna. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

REPLY TO ARE THESE SOURCES RELIABLE
Hello thanks for the reply on the page - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard .User:Jmh649 has recommended I read the article on secondary sources, which is what I intend to do. Thanks again for your help --CR.ROWAN (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The deletion discussion
George, Would you please put down some relevant reasons for the deletion of the List of journalists killed in the United States. Are there policies that you know about that might make this a real issue. Right now it seems a personal opinion about victims. Crtew (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will do so on the Discussion page for this article. I am sorry it is not clear. This is not personal, but I just am totally uncomfortable with this article. You will see more solid reasons at the Discussion page, maybe even before the day is out. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
The WikiLove was much appreciated today, thank you. Best of the season to you and yours. Andrew (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

etaoin shrdlu
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give ETAOIN SHRDLU a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Etaoin shrdlu. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. –Quiddity (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Templated explanation above. Hope that makes sense! Just info for "next time"; you don't need to do anything.

Also, I've added a lowercase title template to the final destination, which will fix the capitalized E. :) –Quiddity (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Marseille". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! -- TransporterMan ( TALK ) 22:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

MOS/BIO
When I reverted my post, your second post got deleted. I'm not sure why that happened, but just letting you know it wasn't intentional. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Objective opinion
GeorgeLouis, Thanks for your comments at the Chiropractic talk page. I am wondering if you can offer me an objective opinion and any further advice? I enjoy editing collaboratively, but am faced with what appears (to me) to be an unwillingness; I am not sure how to proceed? When edits are made that I feel are inconsistent with policy or reliable sources, I usually revert per WP:BRD and try to initiate discussion. I did this most recently with JzG (an admin) here. From my perspective it seems that when I revert edits that I think are against policyt I am accused of edit warring and the changes are re-instated without consensus; when I try to discuss at the talk page, all that is said to refute my policy and source-based challenges is that I have a Conflict of Interest.

At the discussion of the Consumer Reports source, any reasonable discussion is marred by simple COI accusations against me. Then you posted a request to stop the accusations of tendentious editing, so I struck my accusation, but in return I get more accusations against me

To me it seems that the edits being made are against policy like WP:NPOV and WP:RS, but they are being made anyways. I don't want to push the issue if my COI is indeed getting in the way, but I don't feel that is the case. For example:
 * 1) The WHO definition of chiropractic was removed from the first sentence of the lead and replaced with a “historical” perspective with no source
 * 2) The consumer reports source deleted
 * 3) Two secondary sources deleted without discussion

Would you be willing to tell me if you think my perspective is accurate, or if I am mistaken? If I am mistaken then I am going to take a wiki-break :) If my perspective is accurate, how do I proceed when the talk page is not working and edits like these are getting pushed-through? Is there an appropriate noticeboard? Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I read your message on New Year's Eve, which I'm sure you will agree is not the best time to reply. Will do so soonest. Good luck to you, and you seem to be editing in the proper spirit. More later. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks GeorgeLouis! Any feedback is always helpful and welcome! Puhlaa (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have indirectly mentioned you here, in case you care to comment. It was not to criticize you, but to defend myself. It was in this specific edit that I mention coming to your talk page for an objective opinion. Thanks, Puhlaa (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Chiro page
Regards this edit, you actually do have access to the source (it's available on pubmed central ). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi GeorgeLouis, along the same topic, I made a comment regarding your edit at the chiropractic talk page, it is at the bottom of this long section. Thanks. Puhlaa (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Greetings GeorgeLouis, I was just curious if you had a chance to read the source discussed here yet? Did you find my comment way at the bottom of this really long thread? I was still hoping to discuss whether the ideas expressed in the text you edited indeed need to be attributed and qualified, as was done in your edit here. There is no rush, sorry for nagging if you are just taking your time on the issue. Regards, Puhlaa (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
You are invited to join the discussion at Requests for comment/Viriditas1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Burrito
Should the content been struck, rather than removed? Additionally I noticed that civil response to ask for cessation of incivility, as well as third opinion regarding the initial civility, was removed; may I ask why?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, RCLC. The Talk Page is intended for ways to improve the article. The personal remarks, even though they may have been a LOT more civil than many are in WP, just interfered with the flow of the conversation. It would be better to engage the other editor on HIS talk page, because the dispute was just between you two. Well, that's my opinion anyway. I have found [ [rpa] ] to be a very useful tool in keeping remarks on track. Good luck with this article! It made me hungry just to edit it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If ever there is a meet up (as we are both in the Southern California Task Force), and we happen to meet, lets go out for burritos.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2013 (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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nomo, I am not quite sure why you opened this discussion. Surely you cannot be defending Rhode Island Red's personal gibes about me on a page that is intended to improve the article? I am regretful that I had to revert you so quickly (and more than once, too), but I certainly could not stand by idly and see such a personal affront to me remain on the page. Maybe I have a thinner skin than other people, but it is my skin. I don't believe WP:3RR is valid in this situation, which involves my honor and reputation. I hope you understand that there is nothing personal against you, or against anybody. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Harassment Warning/Improper use of Warning Template
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read these two paragraphs that you posted here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RIR warned
He managed to hit 5RR in under 24 hours this time - I posted the underlying issue at BLP/N and asked him to self-revert the fifth revert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Pawn (chess)
Hi George, please see my message at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation. Graham 87 12:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know which posting to look at there. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2013 (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) 01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * GeorgeLouis, please be wary of your behavior on the article Frank L. VanderSloot. Your behavior in constantly reverting others without talk page discussion is teetering on edit warring/disruptive editing. Your input in the discussion above is requested as well as heeding the concerns brought there. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I would like your advice on the ability of an editor (me) to excise defamation from an article without waiting for discussion. I believe this is WP policy, per


 * "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."


 * In your opinion, how should this be done without being accused of a 3RR violation? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm just a bit confused. How is calling the company "multi-level" violate BLP? If it does, then obviously that's an exception to 3RR. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Multilevel marketing has a pejorative connotation, as shown by these excerpts from the Wikipedia article:


 * "MLM companies have been a frequent subject of criticism as well as the target of lawsuits. Criticism has focused on their similarity to illegal pyramid schemes, price fixing of products, high initial start-up costs, emphasis on recruitment of lower-tiered salespeople over actual sales, encouraging if not requiring salespeople to purchase and use the company's products, potential exploitation of personal relationships which are used as new sales and recruiting targets, complex and sometimes exaggerated compensation schemes, and cult-like techniques which some groups use to enhance their members' enthusiasm and devotion.[10][12]"


 * Walter J. Carl stated in a 2004 Western Journal of Communication article that "MLM organizations have been described by some as cults (Butterfield, 1985), pyramid schemes (Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997),[41] or organizations rife with misleading, deceptive, and unethical behavior (Carter, 1999), such as the questionable use of evangelical discourse to promote the business (Hopfl & Maddrell, 1996), and the exploitation of personal relationships for financial gain (Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997)".[41][42] In China, volunteers working to rescue people from the schemes have been physically attacked.[43]


 * VanderSloot has taken great pains to distance his firm from the MLM label. His quotation was in the article, as follows, before Rhode Island Red deleted it.


 * The company is described as a multi-level marketing company by several sources,[1][13][28][29] but Melaleuca says that the company “is not a multi-level marketer because its business model does not meet any state or federal criteria” and “unlike multi-level marketers, its model is not ‘predatory’ and is based on sales directly to consumers—-never other distributors.”[30][36][2]


 * What's more, Rhode Island Red continually refers to the removal of the phrase as "white-washing," which implies that there was something black about "multilevel marketing."


 * But the most important point is that the phrase is contentious, as witnessed by the controversy on the talk page, so, according to the policy, it doesn't matter if "the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable," it is supposed to b removed.


 * So how can an editor do this without facing blowback by another involved editor? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay, all that makes sense. You should simply not engage in any revert battles with Rhode Island Red. If the contentious material is added again without further talk page discussion, leave a note on my talk. I'm now much more certain that this falls under the BLP exception. Thanks for expanding on that. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP refers to "contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced". That is not the case here. "Contentious", as far as I can tell, is not defined as the objection of one or two editors against consensus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't mess with other editors' comments if you can't get it right
This edit resulted in a list with only 5 entries even though 6 editors had commented by that stage; you neglected to put a number on RIR's primary comment in the section. I have fixed it, here. Let's assume that you didn't actually intend to convey the impression that there was one fewer voice favoring inclusion of MLM in the lead -- even then, you should not play with other editors' posts if you can't be sure of ending up with a result that is above suspicion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, RIR did not preface his first remark with a hashtag, but he simply answered somebody else's comment. Thus, I did not use a cardinal number for his comment as I did for the others. By the way, I am rather hurt by your brusque remark. I was only trying to make things easier to read. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The hashtags had been replaced with bullets to correct the numbering mishap. Like all of the other commenters, I had a bullet tag next to my statement. George removed it, burying my comment as Nomo pointed out. So, yes, if you can't do it right, then don't refactor other people's Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, Arthur Rubin and I were making the same or similar changes within four seconds of each other. Some of the editors had used hashtags. Thus the mixup. It would be nice if one would not jump to conclusions but instead were to WP:Assume good faith. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, Arthur managed to make his edit without removing the hash tag next to my comment, so that has nothing to do with your goof up. It would be refreshing if you simply accepted responsibility instead of trying to deflect this onto Arthur. Whatever. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Whatever you say. I have already apologized elsewhere. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed of Historical Right
Thanks for your help, I am not very expert how to do a citations, so I would like you do it for me. Thanl you again Nick.mon
 * Just put the citations right into body of the article in any way you like, and I will take care of it. Where you got the info, name of book and author, whatever, page number, etc. If you got it from a website, copy and paste the URL. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much!

Thanks for the Strawberry! :D
Thanks for that strawberry. Few people only appreciate others work, so a simple reward like this would help me contribute more to the Wiki community! :D Thank you so much. -- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Intention to resume edit-warring?
Re this -- I think it would be a real mistake. You have been advised at 3RRN to engage in discussion and to refrain from further edit-warring. Your sandbox work indicates you intend to choose the latter, against the advice that you received. Perhaps I am reading your intentions incorrectly; I'd be pleased to hear that I am. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A very interesting post. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Rollback
Did you know there is a way of disabling rollback on your watchlist?  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 05:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I never go backstage. Don't even know where the props are stored or where the costumers keep their needles and threads. Thanks for the info, though. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi GL
Before you undo everything I did, please be informed that another editor, emerson7, advised me that the succession boxes should be removed because they were redundant with the drop-down mayoral listsWQUlrich (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

PS:I admit that I'm a bit sloppy when it comes to putting reasons on my edits. The lead section on Bernard Cohn seemed a bit gossipy to me...almost like the writer had something against Mr.Cohn. (Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to possible Anti-Semitism). Anyway, I guess it stays. I don't want to get in an editing war with you!WQUlrich (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing. The lede reports only what is in the article. Cohn was quite a guy! Anyway, Jewish people were very much in evidence in the beginning years of American Los Angeles, serving on the city council, taking an active role in civic affairs, etc. There have actually been quite a few studies made on this. Many of the Jews came from Alsace, which at the time was being switched back and forth between Germany and France with wild abandon. So they spoke French, English and (I suppose) Yiddish and German. Some writers have indeed painted Cohn in the usual way as a greedy loan shark, and Pico may not have known how to read English, but the judge's decision really indicated that Pio Pico knew exactly what he was getting into when he made the agreement with Cohn. I could have pointed this out in the article, but perhaps it more properly belongs in the article about Pico. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kenneth-Hahn-Los-Angeles.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Kenneth-Hahn-Los-Angeles.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
Your recent editing history at Frank L. VanderSloot shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, we have a difference of opinion on whether reverting is allowed in this case, which, as you know, involves a claim (by me and others) that there is a violation of WP:BLP in this article. I really resent the accusation of Edit Warring, something I don't believe I have ever accused you of doing, although you've done a whole lot of reverts to my changes. So please be a little nicer over what is, as I mentioned above, not a war, but just a different way of looking at things. To avoid a 3RR, which causes trouble for everybody, I would do a voluntary revert of the removal of the tag at the top of the page, but someone has already put it back and now the page is blocked again, so I can't take any steps in that direction. What's more, your boilerplate warning indicates that I have not been working toward consensus. Consensus is not necessary when damaging material is inserted into BLP's, as you very well know. The difference between you and me is that you honestly believe that it is not damaging to a businessman when he is accused of running a MLM, and I honestly believe otherwise. It would be nice if you could just assume good faith in this matter. Sincerely, yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you have demonstrated some bad faith in this episode. In your first contribution to the RfC, you indicated it would be "better to leave the description out of the lede and mention it briefly in the text below".  In discussion after the RfC had concluded, when someone else raised the question of removing it from the body, you showed some understanding of the fact that the RfC wasn't intended to address that issue and said that if it was to be removed it should be discussed under a different rubric.  But then when others (Jeremy and Andrew) started taking it out of the lead, you jumped right up on that bandwagon.  So in fact I think you've been, shall we say, a bit opportunistic here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the comment. Opportunistic? Aren't we all? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pedro Cardoso
Hello. Yes. I have left my thoughts on the talk page for the Portugal actor, Pedro Cardoso (Portuguese actor). I apologize for this comment being posted short, but I highly recommend you check out the talk page and see what you think. Yes, I am fully aware that this page is for a voice actor from Portugal, but be on the lookout that there is another actor from Brazil who shares the exact same name, but they have no relation from each other. --BlueMario1016 (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson High School (Los Angeles)
On the Jefferson High School (Los Angeles) page there is a "discuss" link. I notice you had a response on the link, I wanted to explain why the Grid was remove. The Grid was the reason why I updated the page. Can you give me your opinion on the paragraph below:

The Grid was remove because a reviewer name "Tedder" explain to me that you could not say "The first African American ...". I tried to explained to him that you can say John F. Kennedy was the the first Irish Catholic president. He says that it was not allowed and he removed the Grid. That logic never made since to me....I would like to put the grid back on the page, but I respect the review process findings even if I do not agree with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svgperson (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ruth Traill for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ruth Traill 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/Ruth Traill until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. You commented on the talk page and I believe your concerns were justified. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)