User talk:BeenAroundAWhile/Archive2

You keep removing www.shopoutdoors.com/activities.html as a link from the Frazier Park page. For your information, since you failed to ask, the Frazier Park Visitors Center is a legal California nonprofit 501c3 corporation and NOT a commercial enterprise. Our Center undertakes to promote the various community and recreational activities around the Frazier Park area. You need to leave this link alone, repost it OR undertake the mission of promoting the area yourself, which is not likely. You should start your own promotional website for Neenach and leave our efforts and work to do the same for our town alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.90.183 (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Know it all- leave this page alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.91.75 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting and removing everything I edit!? Each edit I make, you remove it. Agtax 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mostly because you need SOURCES. You know that. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I get my sources from other articles! It's also mentioned in the South Los Angeles article! Agtax 04:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Burden of evidence

For how to write citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.^[1]

I hope the above reference helps to avoid having your welcome editing reverted by me or anybody else. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a note at the main MoS talk page and the image use policy talk page to ask for additional views on the issue. Please stop reverting your use of images as bullets until there is actual consensus to support your view that image guidelines should be ignored. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. As I mentioned in my edit summary I was busy trying to figure out how to add the required Rfc myself, and it is disheartening to note that you did not wait for me to do so. Nevertheless, since I have never done a Rfc before I guess it is best that you helped out. Can you direct me to the "image guidelines" to which you refer? Also, it would be nice to have a link to this "image use policy talk page." Perhaps you sent me the link earlier, but I have lost that message. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted the notes to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and Wikipedia talk:Image use policy asking that comments be added to the original message. Again, please do not keep reverting your edit, which currently has absolutely no support, but has garnered another objection including point you to another guideline that it violates. You may also wish to read WP:OWN and WP:BRD. You were bold, it was reverted. Continuing to redo it when it has been objected to is not conductive to cooperative editing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

May I hold your high horse while you relax a little? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are still interested in giving a second opinion on this article, I have fixed the GA review page that the first reviewer did not complete correctly. Therefore, if you wish you can comment there. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
I want to ask your opinion about one of your edits. It's not a mistake I think, but I want to ask the usage of the word whom. I've heared it's the Accusative and the Dative case of the interrogative pronoun who, but nowadays you can also use who because the grammatical cases are disappeared from the English language, only few words remember it. E.g. the personal pronouns still have their cases: I --> me /Dat., Acc./, --> mine /Genitive/; you /Nominative, Acc., Dat./ --> yours /Gen./ he --> him /Acc., Dat./ --> his /Gen./ etc...
And whom used to be the Accusative and the Dative of the who, but you can simply change it into who. /for instance: She is the girl who I sent a bouquet for. She is the girl whom I sent a bouquet for. and She is the girl whom I sent a bouquet. mean the same. I hope you can understand it, sorry I do not want to hurt you, but I do not know how could you understand cases if your language does not use them. So, why did you change whom into who in the title of a Russian Aria song S Kem Ty? (С Кем Ты?) which means Who(m) Are You Playing with?? Why is it better with who than with whom. I suggest whom, because the preposition s (с) (with) needs Instrumental case in Russian, that Dative case is used in German languages for (like in German), and whom is a Dative form.
Sorry for the bad question, I just learn English, German and Russian all the three, and sometimes I do not understand the translations and transliterations between them :-) Please answer me on my Hungarian talk page because I check it more often. Yours faithfully! Ferike333 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong guy. I did not work on any such article. Give me a link and I will check it out. P.S. I took two years of Russian in 1950-52 but haven't studied it since. Yours faithfully, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is the article I was writing about: S Kem Ty?. It was just a question, I din't say it is wrong :) Why is who prefered here? Thanks Ferike333 (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I remember now! I made the change a LONG time ago because NOBODY says "Whom are you with?" It is a very colloquial expression both in Russian and in English, and should be rendered in colloquial language: You might WRITE something like "With whom are you corresponding?" but in the usual run-of-the-mill English, both formal and informal, you would write or say "Who are you writing to?" I think it has something to do with the ending of the sentence with a preposition. Anyway, rest assured that the most natural and unobtrusive translation from the Russian would be "Who Are You With?" Most people NEVER use "whom" when speaking or writing; only the intelligentsia (or editors) keep track of it nowadays. Hope this explains it, and I'm sorry for the confusion. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. I heared whom is not so often used in modern English, I just wanted to ask if it realy was not as useful as you would not use it in an article /sorry I do not know if this sentence was correct, it's still difficult me to write this thought in English :)/ Now I already know, I will keep track of it. Otherwise another question. You wrote you have taken two years of Russian. Does it mean the same as you learnt Russian during two years? No problem because of the confusion. Anyway have I had grammatical mistakes in my messages? /I just wanna know/. And please correct them me if I have. A vy govorite po-russki? Ya lyublyu russky yazik. I started to learn because my godmother is Russian and I wanted to be able to speak with her in two languages. But we have not met since :( And what do you think we should do with the prepositions on the end of the sentences? Because we learned by this way, but it can be whatever with it. You know better :) Thanx for the help. Yours sincerely, Ferike333 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, write me at forestview44@pacbell.net and we can continue this chat. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Eeerh, I know, it's been almost a year since we last talked, but would you fancy to continue this chat? My email didn't change, but you can see my alternate one on my user page. If not, simply say no. Thank you, Ferike333 (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know if the Department of Water & Power is free of racism and discrimination? Do you know anyone in the company? Agtax 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Agtax 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Not so long ago you did some work on the above article. Recently I been doing an overhaul, following somewhat of a chronological history, adding references, importing info, etc. You help with cleaning up the article, specifically with grammar/spelling/tense/vocab, etc would be greatly appreciated. (one doesn't so easily see one's own mistakes). SincerelyDjflem (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm on vacation and reduced to using a friend's laptop. When I get back home, I'll take a more prolonged look. In the meantime, could you find some sources for the Background section? GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish You a merry Christmas and lots of presents from the Santa, or from Jesus because in Hungary the baby Jesus brings the presents for children/people. I would write something wonderful from a poem but I do not know any in English. So have a nice Xmas and a nice holiday! Ferike333 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi George, I've made the link to the article list more visible. I found it hard to see when I first happened upon this little project too. Cheerio! Mattopaedia (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi George, I modified your most recent comment to use the <nowiki>...</nowiki> format, which causes the template to not be transformed. I guess it makes the discussion clearer? Please feel free to revert if not. And thanks again for reviewing articles on WP:ASE :-) Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually like it better with the finished boxes. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you recently placed a message on my talk page about the proposed deletion of Groves High School (Georgia). I haven't edited that page, so I'm unclear as to why you notified me about this issue. Do what needs to be done, of course. Cheerio and happy editing. Merenta (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for your feedback on the newspaper piece. I do want to integrate what's currently going on in the marketplace (pretty awful) with where the newspapers are headed. It's worrying, to say the least, that we might lose so many of these great organs of communication -- and I fear they won't be replaced by the 'bloggers.' In any case, thank you for the conversation. Take care and best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, this was in DYK yesterday. Wasn't sure you saw it, but knew it would interest you. Future of newspapers Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Coalinga Clock.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 02:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The information on the LA neighborhoods is simply based on relative location to other districts. I got the idea when I saw that the tables were in use for Chicago neighborhoods. Samhuddy (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, they are really simplistic and very often not correct. Also they should be sourced, per WP:No Original Research. It would be better if you improved some of the articles that have already been written. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw this edit of yours - how did you decide it was a commercial site? It looks pretty good to me. dougweller (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a dot-com site; seemed to go to a whale-watching signup page. But if you want, put it back. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, it's a site teaching how to see that something is a hoax -- ads for whale-watching in Lake Michigan are hoaxes. dougweller (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Help, I need an opinion from an uninvolved neutral wiki-editor on a subject Hello, if you have a few minutes to help a fellow editor out, I wanted to take a moment of your time to get your opinion on a dispute I'm having with a wikipedia editor. if you visit the page on Homeowners Association, and look at the discussion, the dissent is about a link I placed on the page to the website "Homeowners Association Websites Central." A certain editor "Wangi" not only believes that I have no right to place the link in the external links section, but further has accused me of starting bogus accounts as new users simply to add this link. I figure if I get some well known wikipedians to look at the situation, the link, and add their opinion to the debate, then at least I will know that the crazy accusations of user fraud will stop. Boy, who would have thought this would be such a hassle. Anyway the url for the link in question is http://www.athomenet.com/homenew/homeowners-association-websites-central.asp , and you can see the long history by looking at the history log on the homeowners association page.... Please, whatever your opinion may be, place it in the discussion area page in the topic of external links of Homeowners association central, and if you think the content is helpful, please add or undo wangi's deletion of the page. I will respect whatever your opinion is. Thank you: 69.15.97.162 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The link will take you directly to the appropriate section. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Great speedy deletion tagging work, by the way. More information. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Be bold and make your edits (bearing in mind all the usual caveats about sources etc). But please, no redirects or moves! – ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If I feel a redirect coming on, I will take a cold shower and then message you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful when tagging pages such as Tierra Gitana. The article is clearly about an album by the Gipsy Kings and as such has context. A1 only applies if the context of the article cannot be determined. Regards SoWhy 07:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The article did not fit my definition of one with content. That's why I tagged it — so that somebody with more neutrality than I could make a decision, which you apparently did. As to my being "more careful," I think that remark was insensitive and not useful. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis, please re-consider your reverting of the changes, as I think moving the lists to their own page improves the readability of the article - which is our goal. The article is a sub article off Califonia history - and is more about the the rancho era in California. The lists are useful but obscure the article. Eventually there will be 800 entries in the table. Editing has a wiki warning that it is over 30k. I have been the person adding content to this page, and was careful to preserve all of the content. In my mind, I did suggest that the list should be moved to its own page on the talk page (Feb 09). I did not hear any comment, and being new at this, went ahead.Emargie (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave it for a while, if you don't mind, and get some other people in to comment. It really doesn't make sense to me to have to jump from one page to another when searching for the rancho links. I will try to get some others to comment. Thanks very much for all your work; it is really wonderful! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Mexican Era table is out dated (and contains several errors) but someone spent time editing it this week. My reading is that the consensus (of a small number of commentors) is in favor of the list on a separate page. I plan to remove the Mexican Era table.--Emargie (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've just made a belated contribution here which supports your view. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello--I pulled out the text you had along with the link to self-confirming equilibrium. I also added self-confirming equilibrium to the game theory infobox list of solution concepts (at the bottom of many game theory articles). I don't really think that it belongs in the "see also" of most of those articles, but it doesn't deserve to be an orphan, either, so I guess that's a way to handle it until it's better integrated into article text. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write that material, I merely moved it from an article that dealt with two very separate subjects. The user you're looking for is User:Ozzyjazz. Mintrick (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What in particular do you find trivial? The list of videos? Feedback ^☎ 23:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In User:Feedback/ItsJustSomeRandomGuy, I had done a collapsable version of the videography. I didn't think it was necessary, but I do think the videography should be placed in completion and treated like any other TV Show, because List of Still Standing episodes or Runaway (TV series) also are articles that interest only a specific audience. The man is only notable for the videos, so IMO it's necessary. If not, just like your banner says, the videography can be "relocated" to a list article. Feedback ^☎ 00:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I find the article entirely too detailed, more suited to a fansite than to an encyclopedia. I've posted a note to that effect on the article's talk page, and if the consensus is to remove the note, then I am sure somebody will remove it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt we'll find consensus on that talk page. Only a handful of people have edited the page. Maybe on the project talk page? 199.1.152.210 (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What project are we talking about? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Idk what he was talking about, but maybe at the consensus-seeking thing here on Wikipedia... I forgot what it's called. Feedback ^☎ 22:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi George,

I tossed some of the "quiltor" links because the condition isn't really related directly to horseshoes or farriery. It's quite archaic and I am looking for a better explanation. I left the link in the horse hoof article, as it is somewhat relevant there. Montanabw^(talk) 23:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:JHunterJ: the example of the "school" disambiguation page on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) is just an example; it is not the actual disambiguation page. It is a copy, not the original. If you have an issue with the way the School (disambiguation) page is worded, you should take it up on that page; and if and when there is a consensus to change the wording of the disambiguation page, then the copy of it used as an example on WP:MOSDAB can also be changed. Trying to change the copy instead of the original makes no sense to me. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see you've requested the move of both Oberg (disambiguation) and Öberg (disambiguation) to Oberg. There must be some misunderstanding: moving a page giving the page another name. I think what you're requesting is that Oberg (disambiguation) and Öberg (disambiguation) should be redirected to Oberg, which by the way already already contains all the information from the two disambiguation pages. For this, there's no need to file a proposal – you can just be bold and do it yourself. I suggest you remove the proposal from Wikipedia:Requested moves (since it isn't really a move request) and just go ahead and redirect the disambiguation pages to Oberg. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried to do it, and was told by the Great God Software that I couldn't do so because Oberg already exists (I created it). Anyway, I have been working too long on WP and have to quit now, so if you could take care of it I would be grateful. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds odd. Did you try to move the pages with the move button? Because that's the wrong way (it's used for renaming a page). Redirecting a page is done by simply replacing the content with "#REDIRECT [[Oberg]]". After that, any time a reader opens the page they will be redirected to the Oberg page instead. I've redirected the articles (see this and this edit), and removed the request from Wikipedia:Requested moves. Don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page if you have questions! Jafeluv (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just fine. Thank you. I was pretty tired at the end of the day yesterday, or I should have figured it out myself. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this "essay" tag. You edit summary mentions the word "we". That word appeared exactly once in the article. I have now rephrased it. Was it simply the occurrence of that word that you thought made it look like an essay?

If you think it still looks like an essay, could you explain why on the article's talk page? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine now. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear George,

I hope you will not change the article. I have been reworking the part of Heisenberg's theory, which has been very badly explained in many of the secondary materials.

I do not believe that there are any standards such as you propose that limit articles to lengths (other than there was originally a length standard based more-or-less on how large a file would choke the browsers of five or ten years ago).

The need of readers who seek a way into a field such as quantum physics is (1) for something that is not filled with mathematical treatments that are incomprehensible to anyone without a couple of years of college physics and math, and (2) for something that will not cause them to go away with a false picture -- with something that will have to be uprooted later on.

I got stuck with Heisenberg for just that kind of reason, and ironically I spent yesterday afternoon with one of the physics professors in my university confirming what I suspected about what is at the core of his discovery. Now I can rewrite that part so that it is far less problematical than what is given in, e.g., Introducing Quantum Mechanics.

There are some long discussions about matters that do not need to be discussed at all, or at least I think that they do not need to be discussed. I've already mentioned them in the talk page for the article in preparation for deleting them. (It's generally much easier to make a major change in an article by arguing for the change first and giving interested parties a chance to respond.)

I will take a look at what you propose. I do not mean to dismiss your work. I just want the article to be sufficient for the needs of scientifically inclined but novice readers.

Thanks for communicating with me first.

P0M (talk)

I have replied to your request in Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics.  Chzz  ►  05:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  06:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re. Quantum 'state' - please see User talk:Chzz#Introduction to quantum mechanics (again)  Chzz  ►  06:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We recently have two users, one sock another a possible vandal adding rescue to dozens of articles. It was fine re-adding the tag but you should also participate in the AfD and rescuing of the article. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was the guy who wanted it deleted. I simply reverted the tag because it was removed with no explanation (I believe in fairness). Thank you for furnishing one. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for looking out for the best interests of all! -- Banjeboi 02:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added Mary Elizabeth Turner to the {{embroidery}} navigation template (I changed the section "designers" to "designers and embroiderers" - I've been meaning to do that for a while), in place of the "see also" link to her on the Embroidery page which you added. Hope this works for you. If we add see also links for all of the famous embroiderers through history it would soon overwhelm the page. - PKM (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. I made the addition only because the bot told me she had no links to her page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ask the bot now, you'll get a much better answer.  :-) - PKM (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did that, and the bot said Mary Elizabeth is now a very popular girl. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeLouis,

Solid advice! Going forward that's exactly what I'm going to do.

A quick question, where can I find the articles that need editing help?--PiRSqr (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Start at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Paul.Dirac.monument.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 "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Niels.Bohr.monument.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 "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Christmas.lights.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 "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi George, for that warning the syntax checker is rather pedantic, and it was fixed by removing a redundant "}}" (correct) and by adding an extra space (a change which should not ideally be needed). However the suggestions should work now - hope they are of help! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 07:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You may not have thot abt why keyboards sport an "&" key. It's not for typing Bang & Olufsen, nor for saving 2 keystrokes in casual chat. It's true that it doesn't belong in formal sentences except in cases like formal corporate names, but Dab entries are explicitly discouraged from being (even informal) sentences, and in practice barred from it: these are list entries, and should be terse, and should assist the reader by hinting that the connector between, say, "activist" and "writer" carries so little information that the slight mental effort of distinguishing and from end or add would be wasted, and that it is really there to keep the reader from thinking about other interpretations than "both apply", as they would if one were to write it "activist, writer". I'm not sure how old ampersands are, but the symbol is a stylized version of the letters E and T, as in the Latin et meaning and. It was carried over at least from Latin into English, but probably carried over twice, once into Norman French and then into English, for one reason: it's useful. It was put onto movable type for that reason, and onto typewriter keyboards, and into the ASCII code set, and then onto computer keyboards bcz it's still useful. Just bcz it isn't worth including on grade-school lists of punctuation marks isn't a reason to avoid it in suitable (tho formal) situations like Dab pages.
--Jerzy•t 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Nevertheless, ampersands are not used in formal English writing. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi George,

I think I should notice you of a discussion about your work – I was confused by the article Basic concepts of quantum mechanics you posted which has the same goal as Introduction to quantum mechanics. So I asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Introduction to quantum mechanics what people suggest to do with the situation, it is now being discussed at Talk:Introduction to quantum mechanics. Up to now, I did not find time to read either article. -- Momotaro (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have repaired your unintentional damage at Knickerbockers (clothing). The best Wikipedia editors are even more cautious about what they delete than what they add. If you have any further doubts about Knickerbocker or knickerbockers, please express them at Talk:Knickerbockers (clothing), and I or some other editor will try to satisfy them. No need to contact me personally. Thank you.--Wetman (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your little remark sets a poor example at my Talkpage and has been deleted. Please look at other editors' remarks at User talk:Wetman for guidance on approximately acceptable levels of courtesy.--Wetman (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeLouis! Thanks for the comments on the Jeong Yim page. Yes, I am trying to work on it. There is a fair bit of redundancy right now, but over time it will be refined. Huo Xin (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I've tried to edit the page to make it clearer. Note that the project is currently just a proposal. If you're interested or have more concerns, please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Citizendium Porting. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

After seeing what you've done, I tagged the page Lille University, Northern France for speedy deletion so that the other page could be moved there. But because the speedy deletion has been declined on the grounds that no discussion ever took place, I had to undo everything you did, and make the redirect go in the opposite direction of what you intended.

Please remember that simply copying and pasting the contents of an article to its new location does not transfer the edit history, and therefore violates the GNU Free Documentation License under which this text was made available to begin with. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. When was there a Speedy Delete suggested? Who suggested it? And what were the grounds? I didn't hear about any of this as I was working on the page. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested here. The reason I did not notify you then was because it was a good-faith edit, and a notification would probably have sounded like a warning, which I did not want to do, and no content would have been lost if implemented. The grounds of the speedy deletion was mere maintenance. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This recent edit of yours was the final straw for me. You politely asked CristianCantoro to explain what is wrong with the image. I gave you that explanation a couple of weeks ago, when you reverted my similar edit, and you never replied. You seem to ignore people as long as the current version of the article is your preferred one. You also removed the {{See also|Introduction to Quantum Mechanics}} that CristianCantoro added. I don't see how you can justify not linking that article—an article collaborated on by many editors, with which your single-author article is essentially in competition. In fact, you undid 100% of the changes by CristianCantoro, restoring the article to a version written entirely by you. The only substantive third-party change to the article since its creation that you didn't undo was this one. I also don't see how you can justify linking to your article from Arthur Stanley Eddington, George Johnstone Stoney‎, Banesh Hoffmann, and many other pages that don't (and shouldn't) link to Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. How is this anything but self-promotion?

I'm mystified by your behavior. You're an established editor who's worked on articles in many other subject areas, areas in which I assume you have some expertise. You seem to realize that quantum mechanics is not your strong suit, and you're not qualified to judge the accuracy of articles on the subject. Yet you write an article on the subject and revert all attempts to improve it. Please stop. The fact that you can't see what's wrong with that image doesn't make it right. -- BenRG (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hi, Ben. Sorry I did not see your response, which you mentioned above since I don't bookmark your page. This discussion should really be going on at Talk:Basic_concepts_of_quantum_mechanics. I notice that today, on 6 July, you posted a comment on that page, which is the first comment of any great length that I have seen on this subject, except several weeks ago on the Talk:Introduction to quantum mechanics, which I don't follow either. I will copy this exchange of messages to the Talk:Basic_concepts_of_quantum_mechanics page and reply over there. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:SirJohnStokes.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello GeorgeLouis, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Centennial, California - a page you tagged - because: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Closedmouth (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi George! Thanks for the comments on the Jeong Yim page. Yep, I know there's a lot of redundancy on the page and I'm working on cleaning it up. I haven't figured out how to do this methodologically. One of the problems regarding the Jeong Yim history is that various schools promote one version or another which are very similar in many aspects, but differ in when he was born, how he trained when he trained and with who and how long, how he died, and when he died. It's crazy, but in China and elsewhere, threats and actual fights have occurred because of these arguments of history. I'm not exactly sure how to deal with this without insulting the schools of which were created under his name and consider him a founder or co-founder of the Choy Li Fut martial arts system, but I'm trying.... Huo Xin (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just give the facts (with sources). Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I came up with the number myself using a topo map, you can verify it for yourself. Ben Goldberg (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems you are correct. I did not find those numbers on any other site though. That's too bad, because they're accurate! Ben Goldberg (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi George. I saw you marked the page Pan Wenshi as needing citations. I have put some in but as I have never done this before on a wikipedia article, I thought maybe you could take a look or suggest someone who could. I am not totally confident I did it right and there seems to be so many different style of citation in use on wikipedia. I almost wish there were only one so I could just learn that. ! I think you also marked it as not being neutral POV. I'm not sure what to do about that. I don't have a lot of source material to work from for this guy, and, full disclosure, one of the sources I have is the published work of my brother. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckennagene (talk • contribs) 22:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ray Watson (athlete), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Ray Watson. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello GeorgeLouis, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Leonidas I. Robinson has been removed. It was removed by Cuprum17 with the following edit summary '(Add Content and reference, remove Afd Tag, remove unreferenced Tag)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Cuprum17 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Hello GeorgeLouis, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to List of floods in Bangladesh has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(acceptable list article, in my opinion)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

I have nominated Basic concepts of quantum mechanics, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic concepts of quantum mechanics. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robin (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Really, I don't care any more. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look. Deb (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I bumped into that page while hitting "random page" and my sympathy gland twinged when I saw the "help me" tag on that page. So I tried to patch the article up a little, but the user kendwallace (who I think also posts as Quentinwllcs and as K.w 2009 based on overlaps of edits for stuff like 'Tartesso', 'Buckeye, Arizona', 'Quay Valley, California' and 'Emeryville, California') put all the advertising dribble back. Living in Denver, I have no horse in those races, I just thought I could "help." Based on grammar and particular typographical errors (and the comment on Deb's talk page), I'm suspecting the editor is a teenager, however I can't imagine why any teenager would be motivated to post such stuff on such a topic. Tangurena (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes — "Random page"! You run into such interesting stuff there! GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe even a teenager has so little command of written English. I was suspecting an overseas investor or something like that. Deb (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect "learning disabled." GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear [User:GeorgeLouis|GeorgeLouis]] ok i understand im sorry for copy it but i went back and took every thing copy on river island in lathrop article and put in my own words can u save the page and yes me Quentinwllcs|Quentinwllcs]] is my uncle we both new at this and yes we both have learning disabled but we both have intersest in these area and i would like you give us us a chance at this. Kendwallace (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Well, to help I would need to understand why he is doing so much work on articles on this topic. I deleted it, as I recall, as blatant advertising. It's going to be difficult to explain that to someone who doesn't have a good grasp of the nuances in language. In case you are not able to look at the deleted article, I will post a few sample sentences below.

• "Douglass Ranch is a sustainable job-based 250,000 residents master planned community along with Trillium development by El Dorado Holdings, JDMD Investments and Apollo Real Estate Advisors."
• "it will offer a broad range of Housing types,commercial services,employment centers,Medical services,schools including a community college and unviversity,parks,emergency response,as well religious facilites."
• "Douglass Ranch could bring in 250,000 to 300,000 residents that could generate about 154,493 jobs with 1.6 jobs per household at build-out over a 25 to 50 years."
• "Douglas Ranch developers also will design entire "green," or environmentally friendly and efficient, areas in the development that would require every building to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified."

To be fair, the topic probably deserves an article. But when someone has had warnings and advice given them and the article has been tagged, and they just persist in adding apammy unreferenced statements to it, any sympathy one might feel for them early on in the process quickly evaporates.

Having said that, I don't want to drive anyone away just because they can't write well. The question is, where do you begin? Deb (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear [User:GeorgeLouis|GeorgeLouis]],Deb,i understand and im sorry i try to obey the warnings and advice but get so lost here sometimes but im still learning and trying improve my editing skills but need help that why i come to you guys that why going back and re doing rivers island at lathrop and douglass ranch on my talk page in my owns words will not copy anything. (Kendwallace (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)).

can put new river island article on my douglass ranch talk page (Kendwallace (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)).

Well, I am just going to concentrate on preventing any damage to the one or two articles I am interested in. You will know what I do by checking the histories of those articles when you run across them. I may be doing some serious rewriting to them. Other editors can handle the other articles you are editing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello GeorgeLouis, Beetstra has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

no probs, I never really finished it, nor found time to move it to Wikipedia space (though I thought that musea was the multiple of museum, or is that only true in Dutch?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not knowing Dutch, I couldn't say (although I have been in the Netherlands), but museums is the proper plural in English. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You're right: there are a lot of silly people who have left a lot of stupid messages. All you can do is laugh. Take care, — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to clean up sources at Joyce, and it's pretty hard to do that with edit conflicts. Would you mind waiting until I'm done and remove the {{inuse}} template? Also, pls read WP:LEAD; I reverted the changes you made to the lead. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't make any changes to the lead. Or if I did I can't remember what they were right now! Oh, yes, I have read that WP:Lead pretty carefully from time to time, but thanks for reminding me of it anyway. Cheers. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis, I sincerely apologize for my impatience the other day when we were edit conflicting at Joyce; thanks for your work on the article! Eubulides' more recent edits there cleared up the image sizing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of J. N. Jayashree, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: J N Jayashree. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello GeorgeLouis, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Jason Barnett (boxer) has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary 'contest prod - appears to pass [[WP:ATHLETE]], despite any subjective judgement about venues'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to inform you that I've started a thread here about Worldenc's charts. If you could take a look, that'd be great. Killiondude (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bob Benoit (horse racing), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/california-racing-publicist-bob-benoit-dies. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you be so nice to, in the future, search for reviews/coverage and/or check whether the band/artist is notable before proposing album articles for deletion? I de-prodded some and saw more nominated by you go the same route. I'm not saying all album articles should automatically be kept, but so far the albums I handled were all notable. This is unnecessary work for everyone involved and better spent improving articles. Regards Hekerui (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I will be glad to. Sorry for the inconvenience. The articles did not give any information about awards, prominence, etc. I was assuming that the person or persons (or in many cases the public relations agency) submitting the articles should have included the information. I might explain that I have been working my way through the Wikipedia:Articles_written_by_a_single_editor category, which asks only for fairly quick decisions on how to tag the articles — even though I normally do a lot of work on them. For the Album articles, though, I have ZERO interest in pop music, so I'm not inclined to do any research or much work on them. Most of those albums are just junk anyway, in my opinion, but since you spent the time looking them up on the Internet, I suppose you know more about them than I do. By the way, the Wikipedia:Articles_written_by_a_single_editor category is quite interesting, with the articles ranging far afield; most need work. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeLouis. While you may be right that the link I removed is not spam (my reason for removing it is that the account that added it has mass added it to a number of other auto articles), I feel it still violates Wikipedia:External links, specifically where it states: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." Tiptoety ^talk 00:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point for the text, but can I also add the photos? They seem to be out of copyright, but maybe not? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, the photos. I would think they no longer fall under copyright, given the date in which they were taken. That said, I am not a copyright expert. Maybe ask Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello GeorgeLouis, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Ingra House - a page you tagged - because: not unambiguously advertising and possibly important/significant. Use WP:AFD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 10:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've blanked the article Bob Benoit (horse racing) for revision, as I'm afraid that Wikipedia does not recognize press releases as public domain. There's more information at the article's talk page. I'm watchlisting it, in case you'd like to discuss it further. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your addition to the top of Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. One of us, those who are working on the items in the category, should have made that change a long time ago. However, I wonder if something should be added to indicate why a value for |listas= is necessary. Would you be so kind as to look at what I wrote in response to Anakin on my talk page and add something that summarizes that or says it better?

Thank you again. JimCubb (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I am mere wordsmith. I can't find the interchange you are talking about. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The link is at the blue two words "talk page" or here if that is easier. The link should take you to what is 39 in the Table of Contents. JimCubb (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier for those of us who have no knowledge of this subject if you replaced the words "sort value" with something else. I frankly do not know what the phrase means (without looking it up). Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain how to do that succinctly. The best explanation of the term that the |listas= "sort value" sets the order in which a talk page for an article is sorted in the categories that are populated by the project banners. If it is missing or the parameter is missing, the talk page will be sorted by the page name. In some cases that is correct but in other cases it is not.

There are bots that look for missing "sort values" and create them, especially if the page name consists of two English words and contains no punctuation. There are pages in the category that I have deliberately avoided as a check against such errors.

While the sort order of categories that are generated by project banners is almost completely a maintenance issue, the categories that are on the article page are deemed by some to be important. The sort order there is governed by the sort value in {{DEFAULTSORT}}. There is no way to track the sort value in the "magic word" DEFAULTSORT so we use the value for |listas= as an indicator to the presence of the DEFAULTSORT value.

Does that help? JimCubb (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seemed to help Anakin101. He speaks your language and was satisfied. As long as the discussion is among experts in that field, there is no problem. Does it mean "the order in which items are sorted on the page"? Be of good cheer; it seems that both you and Anakin101 are doing a good job. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case, value does not mean importance; it means only which item is ranked higher on a list. Most people don't consider that to be covered under the term value. See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&defl=en&q=define:value&ei=4OcuS6nHA4nusgOJyuHLBA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAkQkAE GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That is what I get for trying to avoid being ambiguous. The "sort value" is what comes after the colon in {{DEFAULTSORT}}, after the equal sign in |listas= and after a pipe "|" in {{lifetime}} and category tags. If there is no sort value the page is sorted by its title, as you pointed out at the top of Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. This is correct for many articles. For biographies of almost everyone in Western Europe or the Western hemisphere it is not correct. The three reasons to have an explicit "sort value" are those I gave Anakin. It shows that the issue has been considered, it protects the page from a bot's placing an incorrect sort value on the page and it makes those pages that truly need such a value more apparent.

Now, do you think that it would be helpful to have this information at the top of the category and, if so, as a retired professional wordsmith, would you be willing to write it?

I read your user page and most of the entries on your talk page before I wrote you. The personal information section is very good. The suggestion on your talk page that you need to learn how to write a lead paragraph did make me laugh.

JimCubb (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, I think that simply defining listas as "It is a sortkey for the article talk page (for example, for Elvis Presley, |listas=Presley, Elvis, so that the talk page will show up in the P's and not the E's of the various assessment and administrative categories)" (as long as that is correct) will do the job just fine. If anybody wants more info, he or she can just click through to Category_talk:Biography_articles_without_listas_parameter. The last thing we need in WP is more WP:Instruction creep! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Patrick-Henry-by-Rothermel.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The original graphic (before cropping) came from the Wiki Commons File:Patrick Henry Rothermel.jpg. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Otto-von-Bismarck-in-North-German-Reichstag-1867.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The original file came from http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105273 and is now listed on the file's description page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Winston-Churchill-at-microphone-raising-his-hat.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The rationale is now on the file page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Winston-Churchill-at-microphone-raising-his-hat.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Wycliffe-A-Hill-and-Rena-Vale.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sidney-T.-Graves.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The following template was added to the file page:

GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Frank D. Parent.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Winston-Churchill-at-microphone-raising-his-hat.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Sidney-T.-Graves.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the deletable image templates that are placed on the file description pages, please do remove those if you've addressed the problem, even if they are files that you have uploaded yourself. These are kind of like speedy deletion templates but also aren't at the same time, and unlike conventional speedy templates, you may remove these on your own work as long as you've corrected the error, if it can be corrected. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, SchuminWeb. It is always a pleasure to talk with you. I'm taking a Wikibreak of just a few days (or maybe hours), but I will be back in touch with you about some other issues as well as this one. Have a pleasant day. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 00:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sidney-T.-Graves.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Zoot Sims cropped.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-enwikimedia.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 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-enwikimedia.org.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Tyra-Banks-Cropped.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-enwikimedia.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 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-enwikimedia.org.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Coalinga Clock.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-enwikimedia.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 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-enwikimedia.org.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coalinga Clock.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Los Angeles International Airport convenient to your location? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not any more.

Please be aware that per the WP:MILMOS, and the practice of WP:SHIPS that it is perfectly acceptable for ships to be referred to in the feminine (in fact it is the most-common method here). The general use is that either she or it is appropriate, but the article should be consistent and not change without significant reasons and a significant consensus. That means that your change of the pronouns on USS Nicholas (FFG-47) is not in accordance with the guidelines and has been reverted. Please do not continue to force this without entering into discussion. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The specific location of this is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Pronouns. I should also suggest that you study Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines if you desire to further edit this area of study. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so effing peremptory. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Rajat and Jayant Agarwalla requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you uploaded File:1923.04.22-Los Angeles Times Front Page.jpg and a slew of other public domain LATimes images last fall and I was wondering where you got the images in the first place. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, my friend VernoWhitney. The images came from the Los Angeles Public Library. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"EL" is Wiki-jargon for "external links". Their use is guided by WP:EL. I hope I didn't delete a cherished link!   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the less jargon the better. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I’d half forgotten about this; I’d been putting off doing anything as it isn’t a subject I know much about. Well done! Swanny18 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pat Tillman was characterized as "agnostic, if not atheist" if I remember the Krakauer quote correctly somewhere here (51 min long interview). It may be a better source (as he wrote a book on Tillman) than the LA Times piece. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

suppose i found this quote and inserted it in, and took out the NYT and LAT references on the logic it was a more accurate representation of Tillman, coming from the author of a book, instead of a short piece from a journalist on deadline. would you object? -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course I would not mind if you put in the quotation you mention. but the latest skinny is that Tillman was an atheist, not an agnostic. There are now four references on this WP page from journalists who probably had to write only one story that day and whose stories were vetted by editors. I suppose you know that publishing houses do not fact-check the books they publish. I would trust a major newspaper city room any day over anything in hard cover. Sincerely, and with great admiration for your WP work, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

i did not know that. thank you for your reply. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the decision to omit the cursing, but then again I doubt my opinion would change anything. I think it should be included because it shows how mad his brother was at Maria Schriver and John McCain to ascribing errant religious platitudes to his fallen brother. I believe by taking the curse out it detracts from the quote, dehumanizing it even. Just more of what happened during this whole episode. Ad nauseum sanitization and omittance is not what this article needs or what I believe Pat Tillman deserves. --Guymontague (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. Following this edit by your own good self, three articles (Gospel of Judas, 25th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment and Strategy+Business) now link to Thomas Desmond Williams - the wrong Thomas D. Williams in each case. Might I kindly ask you to reconsider your change? - TB (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your message. I will take a look at this problem. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC) I unlinked those pages. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I see that you've unlinked Thomas D. Williams in each of the three articles mentioned above. An argument could be made for any or all of them being notable (as a theologian, soldier and business advisor respectively); I suspect in the long-term we're better off with them as red links to encourage article creation. Would you consider it acceptable to link them as Thomas D. Williams (theologian), Thomas D. Williams (soldier) and Thomas D. Williams (business advisor) ? - TB (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly no objection, and then the DAB page would have to be made anew. I myself am not fond of red links (unless the linked person is really, really famous and there is very little doubt that the article will soon be created), but that's just my personal feeling. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Aye, not a fan of unnecessary red links myself - the Red Link Recovery project is a pet task of mine. This incidentally is where the DAB page for Thomas D. Williams originated - a list of titles linked from multiple article that never seemed to be getting written because, as it turns out, the links were for two or more similarly named but distinct subjects. Ho hum ;) - TB (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, nice to see that you are cleaning up some dab page :-) But instead of removing {{disambig-cleanup}}, replace it with {{disambig}}, otherwise it is not listed as an DAB page anymore. Christian75 (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the tip. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for inquiring to my Talk page. I appreciate the chance to talk with you before your doing more edits like that. After reviewing the edit, I just reverted your big edit to the St. Paul's Church dab page. Your edit, among other things, deleted redlink entries that were entirely valid by MOSDAB rules (see MOS:DABRL subsection in particular). I am responsible for most/all of the NRHP entries in the dab page. Some of them fully conform to MOSDAB rules. Others are imprefect because their supporting bluelinks point to a statewide NRHP list-article, when instead they should point to a more specific county- or city- NRHP list-article which was broken out from the statewide list. I would appreciate your help in refining the supporting bluelinks, so that they point properly to the list-article showing the same redlink. Simply deleting them is unhelpful. Could you please read up on redlink policy, and supporting bluelinks, and then we can chat further?

Also, about the mention of NRHP listing for items that have articles, I think still mentionin gthe NRHP listing is useful for showing they are historic churches and suggesting why they are notable. It's not a big deal, just something helpful for readers, no strong reason to keep the NRHP mention in those items. The NRHP mention is needed for the redlink items, though, as part of the supporting bluelinks.

About the St. Paul's churches in India and in other countries, I recognize that the entries do not comply fully with MOSDAB guidelines. But I imagine those are real churches and notable ones, and I think it would be better to just leave them in place, or to do the work to make them valid. E.g. by looking for a list-article of churches in India and adding them to that. I look forward to chatting further with you. --doncram (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that section and could not understand how all those red links could be considered valid. But I will admit that particular section is hard to understand. Also, mentioning the historical nature of these churches in a DAB page seems to fly against the principle of paring the entries to a bare minimum. What am I missing here? GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeLouis. fwiw, I think you did an excellent job at St. Paul's Church. I would have done it virtually exactly the same way. If you have questions, you might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) or Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, as other editors often have opinions different from those above. Keep up the good work. Station1 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Station1. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Station1 has been the one editor who has, in my view, been acting against the purposes of WikiProject Disambiguation and WikiProject NRHP (which seek to develop disambiguation to serve readers and to develop articles about NRHP places, respectively). Station1, not a member of either wikiproject, has been editing in a difficult way, simply deleting entries rather than fixing them, and this has caused contention. Some of the contention now, playing out recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#random attacks on nrhp disambiguation. It's your choice, but I hope your own interest is in helping to serve readers, and not in joining into contention that does not.

What is more productive, in my view, is improving some of the nonU.S. and U.S. entries in the St. Paul's Church dab page, as i have done in several edits.

As i already meant to suggest, you are not wrong to to feel that paring back entries is generally approved of; it is my opinion, and not policy, that keeping the NRHP mentions is helpful. The outright deletion of entries that could be fixed seems clearly unhelpful to me though, and is not supported by policy. Regards. --doncram (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who originally tagged the page for cleanup in the first place. And came here at GeorgeLouis' suggestion to provide my two cents. I have no intention of picking sides. When I tagged the article my concerns were not the NRHP redlink items. I personally feel that these should remain on the page. They are notable and will with time generate their own page. Boleyn's July edits addressed what I considered the most concerning issues, outside links etc. There are however a number of other outstanding issues I can see with the page in its current edition. 1) The US links need sorting, by state. Redlinks should appear at the bottom of the section, and not remain mixed in, this is a matter of hierarchy that is the crucial to making Dabs clear and easy to read. 2) The India links concern me. They are all redlinked, and in there current state are unpurposeful. In my opinion, they're just creating clutter. Dabs are for navigating the 'pedia, not providing an exhaustive list of everything with that title. Google does that already. talk, I see you argue for there inclusion, which I'll add does go against the preferred guidelines of WP:MOSDAB. However if you feel strongly that they belong there perhaps you should invest some time in creating the pages youself or at least adding a mention of the church on the city page. Turning redlinks into bluelinks shouldn't be a challenge if indeed the items are notable. I'll see what I can do about these issues. Have a nice day. -France3470 (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I copied all the above to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:St._Paul%27s_Church. Please don't add anything more here. Thank you. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're on board to help clean up disambiguation. A big part of the overall effort is to fix ambiguous links, i.e. links to dab pages. That helps directly in the articles that have the ambiguous links, and it helps at the dab pages too, by allowing "what links here" for redlink entries to work better in finding articles that meaningfully connect to a specific topic (which can then be used to create a proper supporting bluelink). There's a monthly dab-fixing contest, which is kinda fun and is certainly 100% productive, involving no drama. The leaderboard is at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links#DAB Challenge leaderboard; details are [here]. Please consider joining, by just starting to fix ambiguous links for dabs on the monthly list. It's easier to increase your count early in the month, by the way, as later all the easiest-to-fix ones have been done, but you can start anytime.

Also, you might want to watchlist the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig. I notice dab pages popping up there in my interest area, historic sites, and can often then easily fix the new ambiguous links to them, heading off problems later. Cheers, --doncram (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that any better. I had assumed as a member of the Tongan legislative assembly he was a politician. Sorry. Waacstats (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Those two stubs are fine. As a Tongan noble, it appears he doesn't have to go out on the hustings like a politician to get into this Assembly. I suppose he has to schmooze with his fellow nobles, but that probably does it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Au pair (disambiguation), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Au Pairs. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— 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 Wikipedia: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. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Au Pairs a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. 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 Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I knew that once, but I forgot about it. There is a lot to know here. Sincerely, in gratitude, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I have no idea what you're talking about. The article's content is quite on-topic. Please clarify. Weisbrod (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I put my concerns on the Talk Page of the article in question. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've raised this at WP:NORN. Using the Bible in this way is classic original research. It would be ok to say 'notable person x says that this quote and this quote show the Israelites are white', but you need a WP:RS to do it. Some editor saying that is original research. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Piling on here. Dougweller is correct. The statement is not a direct reading of the Bible (as I know from having read the Bible from cover to cover in more than one translation into more than one language, and from reading it in its entirety in the original languages). Thus it would be necessary, for the statement to go in to Wikipedia article text, to back up the statement with citations to reliable Biblical scholars that the statement is a reasonable inference from passages in the text of the Bible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Whatever you say. Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Waiting for you at the Help Desk. Thanks and warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 16:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi George, sorry it's fiddly. To make and entry, you copy the lines under the capital-letter instruction, and paste in just above the instruction. Then you double click on "yourdiff" and paste in the diff you've made at the article. Then remove "linked word" and type in up to three or four of the words you've unlinked; then double click on "InsertArticleName" and type in the article name. Let me know those pieces of information and I'll do it for you if necessary. Tony (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at Talk:Sugar Grove Petroglyphs.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit too radical an approach. I think you take out too much of what makes it a coherent story. I think you should work to the present structure. Writing a FA here at Wikipedia is very quirky. You might want to read through the FAC and see what reviewer concerns were there (leaving aside my runin with Tony1, which we've long since made up).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you are now a rollbacker. Please read WP:ROLLBACK at your leisure. If you do not want this userright, let me know and I will remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:HGDouglas.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I guess, if you think about it, every thing everywhere is in the "greater Los Angeles" area. I saw that he has a thing for the greater Sacramento area, too. Mracew (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might want to know that WP:FUCK is up for MfD, since you commented before on its talk page. Historically, since many opposed to the essay do not watch the page, they don't know when it hits MfD. The last MfD was speedy kept after being open just a few hours IIRC. I'm trying to get a constructive dialog going between the various opinions, and this is starting to happen. You can find it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (3rd nomination) if you care to comment. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Did I comment? I don't remember. I avoid pages like that which creep me out. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you reverted my adjustment to the Stephen Barrett criticism of the Institute of Noetic Sciences. I believe you acted in good faith. I also believe the revert was erroneous.

Barrett's list is published information. Counting the number of organizations on the list does not represent original research. It is simply a way of summarizing the context in which Barrett's criticism occurred. It is information that is directly and explicitly supported by the source. It is a routine calculation that most people over the age of six could perform for themselves.

As the article stands now, it is misleading and unbalanced. A casual reader gets the impression that Barrett targeted the IONS out for special and specific criticism, when in fact his criticism was spread over hundreds of organizations.

Please undo your revert and/or reply on my talkpage explaining how my changes could be OR.

Best regards,--Stepheng3 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was the casual use of "hundreds." This is not a calculation, but an interpretation. Could there be some other way of making your point, which, to me, does not seem very important at all? The sentence as originally written did not imply that Barrett targeted the IONS: It simply made a statement. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I could use an exact number, to avoid any unnecessary interpretation. How would that be? --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object, although I really don't think it is necessary. Let's carry on the conversation at the Talk Page over there if needed. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be contrary, but where did you get the idea that "criticism" implies a balanced perspective? I'm looking at reference.com, wheremost relevant definition seems to be "the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything". --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Normal usage. A music critic weighs and judges. "the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work" is one meaning. The other is "the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes " Since the word has two meanings, perhaps some other appellation might be in order? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. If the word has both meanings, I guess we'd better be clear. Thanks.

I wish could find a convincing discussion of IONS's merits that wasn't obvious COI. If I could, I'd add it to the article. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in this article only because I met a nice woman once who was really into this scene. (Big grin.) Otherwise, it doesn't mean that much to me. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand. When it comes to the subjects IONS investigates, I'm a skeptic, but I believe their researchers are operating in good faith. The current "adverse comments" are neither constructive nor convincing. I want Wikipedia to present a balanced view. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am now owner of a TUSC account! GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the formatting troubles at Talk:James_Cantor. The mixture of wikimarkups and html makes formatting difficult, sometimes unstable, and the need to avoid edit conflicts often means there isn't enough time to fully test things. It should be fixed now. BitterGrey (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey there GeorgeLouis, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:GeorgeLouis/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the prod tag you placed on 1906 Auburn Tigers football team, as the article was discussed at AfD on 13 January 2008 with a consensus to keep, and is therefore ineligible for deletion via prod. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no prejudice against opening another AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please point me to the policy. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PROD. Step 3 of the nomination process states that before nomination, the nominator should "confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it has...not been and is not being discussed at AfD." Additionally, footnote 4 states that "a rejected AfD candidate" is not eligible for prod. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you appear to be proposing deletion for any article that has been tagged as having no sources for any length of time stating vaguely that it is impossible to verify any of the information "because there is no way to check it". I'm sorry, but common sense says that most of these articles would be able to be sourced from somewhere, perhaps not easily from a quick google search, but it is certainly do-able. If you truly believe that deletion would be uncontrovertial, better reasoning is needed. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 21:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't think I have common sense or that you don't realize you are being rude to say so. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not say you are lacking common sense. It merely seems obvious to me that sources can be found for these articles with a bit of effort and it does not serve the project to throw them away at a whim. _wjemather^bigissue 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. No, I am not doing anything on a whim — more like conscious design. I'm working my way through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006, and I provide sources when I can find them (I do find a lot), removing the Unreferenced tags as I do so. A whole bunch of us are working on that project. It really doesn't matter to me how tenuous the Source is as long as there is one attached to the article. You would be surprised how quickly SOMEBODY will step up to find a Source once any given article is threatened with extinction. I call it Improving the Encyclopedia, but of course I am just one editor and I wonder how any other given editor might go about reducing the backlog? Maybe my Prod reason should be a little less confrontative? What do you think? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think mass deletions of valid content improves the encyclopaedia. Your reasoning is not confrontational, it is just that it is generally exactly the same for almost every article and does not actually apply to many of them. AfD would be better, since prodding alone only alerts editors with the article watchlisted, which often will be a small audience. As a minimum notifying relevent projects for each article prodded would at least go some way to making sure that articles do not get deleted unnecessarily. _wjemather^bigissue 19:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your attention. I've sent some messages to the people who edited the articles, asking for their assistance in providing sources. No resultsl yet. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi George,

I moved your Afd for British Colonialism and the BBC over to the correct venue. You can comment on the discussion if you wish, although I did include your original rationale on the page already. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OMG! Thank you. I do not have a GPS navigator to find my way around the WP road network, and I had no idea that little byway existed. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It took me a few clicks on the Arkansas Secretary of State's website to find the information we needed. I sourced it and removed your prod. Just because it's not on Google doesn't mean it's not verifiable. It needs updating. Can you please do that? Bearian (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the barnstar! Bearian (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Lugnuts (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, for your positive comments about my work, in the deletion discussion for the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System at the AFD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. Your comments are most appreciated. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

...thank you. Johnlp (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. I think yours is one of the nicest user pages I've seen. I wish I could sound as civilised as you do! Johnlp (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar! It's about time someone noticed the hard life of the humble volunteer... Sincerely, --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See also my response to your unrelated Albums Project question here. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you identify a source of the possible copyright violation? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The text in the article says the wording is that as sung by Frank Crumit, so the inference is that he wrote or rearranged the words himself and the copyright to his artistic endeavor is owned by his estate, unless it has expired. There is more information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abdul_Abulbul_Amir#Doubts_about_title_and_text. I am sure you know more about handling this than I do. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me at that. Not sure how I overlooked it in the first place. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, George, I did change user names. As a brand new guy to this I picked the user name Timothy Hawkins-Heathco but became dissatisfied with it when I saw the type of names others were using. My current studies span mythology - anthropology - archeology, and there seems to be a distinctive culture in each, including the kind of names commonly chosen. I received the approval of the Arbitration Committee for the new name, and at their suggestion Abandoned the old name. However, I had already worked my first article through the system, with some much appreciated help from some nice folks. When I added the new user name to the Project Archeology member list I noticed that others were displaying their real name instead of their user name and this seemed like a perfect solution. What do you think? —Cathbhadh III _(Talk) 02:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you are finding your way around here, and I hope you don't get put off by some of the rudeness displayed by others. As for your nom de Wiki, I also see you are getting advice from people you trust. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll carry on keeping a watching eye on Los Angeles Times in the 21st century. As a matter of interest, why do you nowiki your signature? Barnabypage (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooops. I forgot. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, and there I was thinking it was some brilliant subtlety of markup. ;) Barnabypage (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am brilliant and subtle, but not THAT brilliant and subtle. I have the barnstar markup on an electronic sticky and do a copy-and-paste when the spirit moves me to send a barnstar. I have now permanently removed the nowiki tags. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeLewis- in response to this revert, the disclaimers in the references seem very unnecessary. It would be better to use a full citation style. If you'd like me to take the disclaimer to VPP, I'll do so. Aside from the reference issue, do you have any other concerns to the changes I made? tedder (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The citations are complete to my belief, and anybody can go to a print copy of the newspaper to read the article, if one can find his way to the microfilm room and if one has the time and parking-lot fee. If one clicks on the link, one is taken to the Los Angeles Public Library page, which can be very annoying to the person who had just done the clicking and who does not have a LAPL library card, but if one has a library card, one can read the entire article on line. If one does not have such a card, one can possibly find the same information on line some other way, but I am not sure how that could be done. The note to the reader is an improvement to the encyclopedia, which of course we all desire, and I have been using the same message in dozens of other WP articles. I am not sure what VPP means. I didn't notice any other changes that you made, but I applaud your attention to this article and hope that you and all Wikipedians can help improve it (and any others that I submit). Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you reverted my addition, which is fine by me, but I would like to know the reason. Generally if reverting an edit that is not blatant vandalism, one adds a reason to the edit summary. Personally, I think a [sic] is okay, because that's the accepted academic notation for an intended spelling/markup/etc, but I won't argue if you disagree. (X! · talk)  · @005  ·  23:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry about that, X! . . . I simply rolled back instead of undid, and I shouldn't have done that. Rolling back is done without an explanation, and I think I just pressed the wrong button. Anyway, the explanation for leaving the dashes is in the footnote and I felt that [sic] could have been misunderstood, or NOT understood, by the reader. How about if we move the explanation up into the text instead of in the footnote? I will do that and see how the followers of the page like that idea. Sincerely yours, and with great apologies, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that's perfectly all right. The proposed solution seems to be a good compromise between the various parties, and I would support such an edit. (X! · talk)  · @047  ·  00:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello GeorgeLouis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ice Age: Continental Drift, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Although the title "Continental Drift" may change, there is evidence (Variety and the reference at NY Times in the article) that this is being made. If you feel it should be deleted, either PROD or take to AfD. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no. I think I was being a bit hasty. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

fragging even though usally only carried out against officers it has happened to enlisted men in positions of leaderhip before such as Jr. NCO's placed in charge.TucsonDavid (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, TucsonDavid! (Nice town, by the way.) I'm sure you are right, but then you should find some sources and change the main article accordingly. It would be a better piece, don't you agree? Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect created. Skier Dude (talk 06:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ill have to look up the reference and get that back to you but the standard is full dates in the paras in the beginning of the article but its ok if you changed that. Your not alone, there are other editors that feel the same as you. typically when the article gets higher in the grade scale through FA it becomes more of a requirement. --Kumioko (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:1930.05.06 Advertisement for Radio Broadcast With Lisa Roma.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 06:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bolton Hall Book Cover Little Land.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:1936.01.14 Carr Layout.tiff. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile/Archive2! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:1938.12.11 Bolton Hall mug.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:1938.12.11 Bolton Hall mug.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Column heading for Harry Carr Lancer column in Los Angeles Times 1931.tiff. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fred Lind Alles.tiff. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In my edit summary here, I said the image sized should not be locked according to "MoS", by which I meant WP:MOS; WP:MOSIMAGE, specifically. However, I was wrong; it is WP:PIC that explains why sizing images with pixel factors is not preferred: "Although pixel counts are easier to understand than upright factors, they adjust less well to user preferences... [M]any of the users who set the default width to 300 pixels to work better with their high-resolution screens will be annoyed with "200px" because it will make the picture a third smaller than their preferred size." I used the "upright" factor to size the tall image at Royal Victorian Order, instead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 08:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:1938.12.11 Bolton Hall mug.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure this is correct in English...?

I suppose, Cantor's argument was not published in mathematics, but rather in some mathematical journal...? CiaPan (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good point. I made a change which I hope will be satisfactory. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Re. your edit to the National Do Not Call Registry page:
Why do you consider the cited page, "Unwanted Telephone Marketing Calls - FCC Consumer Facts", an "activist" page? It's hosted on fcc.gov, and carries the FCC's credentials: contact info, logo, etc. Who or what is behind that "activist" page if not the FCC?

Also, you said of your edit: "The other link went to an activists' site with no mention of nonprofits on the landing page." That page mentions the exemption of "tax-exempt non-profit organization" in three places. Are we looking at the same page?!

I would like to know the reasoning of your edit. Thanks. Andy Nguyen (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't remember the reason and perhaps I was just confused. Certainly put it back if you think it is OK. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You might be interested in the CfDs I've started regarding the LA Times categories. Purplebackpack89 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Columnis-E.V.Durling-in-1934.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, I've been here for a while just floating around and decided to finally do something and help clean up the new pages of Wikipedia. Bluefist (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good place to start! GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

While I have you here, how would I put a template for requesting more citations, I found an article that would be useful if it had more citations. Also, is there a huge list of templates for cleanup, citations, and other such things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluefist (talk • contribs) 21:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I have not been able to find a single source. They seem to be scattered all over the place. I use four or five templates regularly that I have memorized, maybe another six from time to time that I have to look up, and I don't know much about all the rest. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages for a start, but that is just a START. You also have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INLINE and a bunch of other pages. I have some memorized and keep a few others on a Notepad I can refer to. As for the link you mentioned, Out in the Garden, science-fiction is such a specialized genre that I would avoid it. If anything, I would question its notability with {{notable}} (it doesn't seem to have won any awards) and definitely the fact that it is {{unreferenced}}, but the editors who follow science-fiction might have other ideas. A safe template to use for many problematic articles is {{cleanup}}. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am the page creator of Inu to Anata no Monogatari, the page you have proposed to delete for the following reason: Not notable.

Under the Wikipedia:Notability_(film)#General_principles you have asked me to see, there is one line saying that"Trivial coverage, ......without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as ... the Internet Movie Database." If you bothered to look at the article, you will see that it already has a listing on the Internet Movie Database. Hence, your proposed deletion has no other grounds to fall back on.

Do note that my articles always are based on credible sources and critical commentary, even if it is not in English. Hence, please do not carry out and remove this deletion, failing that, I will have to report you for vandalizing a perfectly legitimate article. Thank you.Lionratz (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Lionratz. Thanks for your message, but you can certainly stop a Proposed Deletion without making a threat. Now that you have aroused my interest, though, I am inclined to follow this matter to its conclusion. Normally I don't like to engage in any kind of gallimaufry, but you really hurt my feelings. In any event, the guideline to which you refer specifically EXCLUDES IMDB from being regarded as a reliable source. I'm sure you didn't read it carefully the first time, or maybe it is I who didn't read it carefully. Please let me know if you agree with me, or not, as the case may be. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello GeorgeLouis, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kirk Sommer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is an assertion of notabiluty - please use AFD or prod if you wish to delete this. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I think I have read that section enough. Perhaps you should read up on good manners before sending any more messages like the above. I made a suggestion for Speedy Deletion and you decided not to do so for a perfectly valid reason. That should have been the end of the matter. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from File:William George Jordan 1910.jpg, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, GeorgeLouis:

Thank you for trying to help me with my edits not saving problem. You indicated you had moved my file to something called Sandbox1, but I can't find it. Please advise where I may find it. I looked in my Sandbox, but nothing is there. I've looked through everything I have (which is only that article I'm working on) and can find it no where. Please tell me how to get to it. Thank you.Cmckibben (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what happened before, but right now you should be able to get to your rough draft by clicking on User:Cmckibben/Sandbox1. I am sorry your are having so much trouble. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Marie Mattingley Meloney 1943 obituary photo.tiff. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 20:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 21:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis: Thank you for your help last week. I figured out that through my own stupidity I had inserted a faulty external link and it was causing me the problem of not saving my work. If I'd looked at the top of the file, as you explained, I would have seen that I had a problem with a link! I finally figured it out, thanks to you! All the Best Cmckibben (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you George Louis for posting an informative biography of Irish. I'm a historian at USC in Los Angeles who is researching Irish for a book on white Americans who supported Japanese immigrants. I'm writing to you from the home of Irish's great grand-daughter. Her name is Barbra Brower and she too is very interested in researching Irish. She has some important corrections for your biography that she'd like to share with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonkurashige (talk • contribs) 01:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeLouis. I replied to your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates#Template:Registration required/doc. -- œ^™ 09:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, sucha newbie mistake on my part, first timer I guess... Anyway, what I wrote in the hair growth article was 100% correct, and I was wondering how I can leave the content there, while providing a reference that wont be considered as a conflict. I have already submitted an application to change my username to my real name. After my name is changed, can you restore the content I wrote on the article? Please advise me if I should do anything else on the matter.

Regards, Daniel Bendheim (aka Harry Donovan :} ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Donovan (talk • contribs) 08:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You just have to cite reliable, neutral sources on anything you put in Wikipedia. If you don't know how to do the Wiki style of footnoting, then just put your sources into the text and somebody eventually will set it aright for you. Read Wikipedia:KNOW. The gist of that is that even though any given editor might be an expert on any given subject, the rest of us have to have a neutral source that might say the same thing the editor would have said himself. I can say my eyes are blue, but you needn't agree with that assertion until somebody else says it too. Anyway, do your best with that article. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So, once I finish writing about an article in my area of expertise, I can provide lots of links, from which an editor will pick & choose the relevant ones? I simply would like to be recognized as the one who brought forth the information. I don't really care which site gets the credit. There are plenty of sites saying the same things, just different phrasing. Please advise if you can. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Donovan (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

More or less like that, yes. I'm not sure how you could be "recognized," except in the Page History. Once you get the article the way you want it, you can order a small, printed book through Wikipedia. You could actually order up a bunch of related articles within one book, and you can put your name on the outside with whatever limited text you like. You can have a bunch printed up and hand them out to whomever you care to. They actually are a handsome printed product, and not too expensive either. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine, who is a linguist specializing in the languages of the Caucasus, sent me some information on a reference for this article. He is in the process of moving, so he cannot lay his hands of the reference book at this moment. When he does, I will insert more specific information. Is the reference good enough to stand on its own for a short time as written? Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks OK to me. I had never seen this page before. Perhaps you are confusing me with some other editor? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I traced you through this edit.Ebikeguy (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well. That explains it! That was quite a while ago, and actually I have left that particular drive. I am now concentrating more on writing new articles on historical subjects and also, when I tire of that, I keep my eye on Special:RecentChanges and Special:Contributions/newbies. How are you doing these days? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You actually live in my part of the world. Do you ever bike in Frazier Park, California? It's mountainous, but I sometimes see the hardy kind of guy making it up the hill. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I LOVE Mt. Pinos! But I generally hike the trails up there, not bike. I'm not 22 years old any more, and they are very steep. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the articles dealing with the Mountain Communities of the Tejon Pass are my work. You start with that page and then follow the links all over this area, as far east as Scheideck, California. Haven't done Lockwood Valley, California, yet, but that is on my agenda, as soon as I get back from New Caledonia. Cheers. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Very nice work! Ebikeguy (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The article 1991 BDO World Darts Championship is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1991 BDO World Darts Championship 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. Jeepday (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm borrowing your American citizen user box—I earned the right to display it last July but it hadn't occurred to me to update my WP page until I saw yours. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I moved this to different spacing as suggested at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Middle_names_and_abbreviated_names, and because there were a couple of incoming redlinks at that spacing. If you've got a birth date you could add him to Macdonald#Notable_people:_MacDonald_surname too. (I just clicked on the Pulitzer Prize link from your stub to see whether it gave any more info or full name, then was surprised to see him still red-linked there, ... etc). PamD (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, PamD! Thanks for that link, which I had never seen before! No, I have no birthdate. I just ran across this gentleman's name as I was doing some research for Lee Shippey and decided to write up what Shippey said about him as a stub so it would not be lost forever. If I have the time I can explore the 'Net to see what else I can find about him, or you can help us all out by checking — if YOU have the time. I added him to the MacDonald page anyway. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your note. New to wiki edits.Boeingairbus2011 (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)boeingairbus2011

George, if you look at WP:FA you will be hard pressed to find an article where we place the image at top left, the TOC at the top right, and the infobox for the article way down the article. This isn't how we structure articles here. Regardless, pending discussion with you I haven't reverted you again in that respect. What I have done though is move the image back to the modeling section, as the use of the image at the top of the article constitutes a violation of WP:NFCC, as this person is alive. Please do NOT place the image back at the top of the article as this is a violation of said policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I found your message peremptory and upsetting, especially with the capitalized "NOT." Don't bother letting me know exactly what part of WP:NFCC disallows the placement of an image at the top left of a page. I read the whole thing and could not find it, but it is not worth my attention. A WP article on this lady, whom I remember fondly as an icon of the sixties, is not worth my effort either. You can revert all my editing and other corrections in this article, too, if you care to, whatever pulls your switch. By the way, many of those feature articles lauded in WP:FA could do with better layout; I pay no attention to those articles at all. Hoping that you continue to do yeoman service for Wikipedia and that you have a very good week, I remain yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Lacking specific sources about the Daily News's news operations (columnist, awards, etc), I've been unable to improve it past GA. If you have any ideas, they would be welcome indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I wouldn't worry about it. Those gradations have no meaning to me at all. If I think an article is good, it is good. As long as the information is accurate and well-sourced, I simply don't feel obligated to jump through hoops for other people. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It is an article I enjoyed writing (I have found Boddy to be quite the character). I am sorry I don't agree with you on the Tillman thing. Perhaps too much exposure to the rising generation, which follows the sentence structure "Vulgarity used as adjective, noun, vulgarity, verb" and considers being called "the s--t" quite the compliment.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Councilman James L. McKnight.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 00:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 00:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 00:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure not all 30 of the edits you spammed about Pat Tillman even know who Pat Tillman is, let alone need to be made aware of the discussion. I have reverted a good number of your posts; please don't do that again. NW (Talk) 17:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I really resent that. All those folks were active participants in the WP:Vulgarity page. And kindly do not talk to me that way. It is very stressful. Who gives you the right to be so high and mighty? No wonder people drop out of editing articles. And there were twenty-one message, not thirty. Really, we must be accurate in Wikipedia. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Active participants? I received one, and I honestly cannot even remember reading that page. Whether it was 21 or 30 or 15 or 45, it doesn't matter. Use discretion. Was this dispute so pressing that all of these people needed to be informed of it?

FYI, one of the people to whom I sent the message has taken it upon himself to sort out the mess and to survey the participants in the hope of gaining consensus, so I feel my assay was successful. Talk:Pat_Tillman#Clarifying_for_consensus And I would ask you not to be so peremptory. Frankly, I don't deserve it, and nobody does. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Re. Pat Tillman, and the quotation/censorship debate,

In order to clarify, I am asking users to briefly, clearly state which version of the quotation they support or oppose.

Please see Talk:Pat_Tillman#Clarifying_for_consensus

I am sending this message to everyone who has previously participated in the discussion; I do not wish to make any assumptions of the previous opinion.

I want to show clear consensus, so the issue can be resolved and edit-warring can be prevented.

Thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Chzz (talk) at 00:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash have a chat 00:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello George, I must confess I've been admiring your work on Ing from afar. In fact, you may have noticed that I lifted some of the Ing article for the GSLS article. A number of editors have worked on the GSLS article, and I think your resources could be of great help in improving the article. If you have any non-Internet news sources for Ing they might have coverage of the school. The school represents a singular time in the history of Ing; it's a shame more Ing schools don't have articles. On another topic, I see you're on the SoCal taskforce. Have you seen this? Lionel (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Since Inglewood is my hometown I like to keep the article as pristine as possible. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeLouis, about a week ago you put a comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle which gave the impression you would actually like to keep that article but couldn't because the case for notability hadn't been made. I don't want to persuade you of anything against your better judgment, but I am just curious whether you would still take the same view now that two other users have given reasons for notability and the main voice for "delete" there and on the parallel page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval Chronicle Society) is the original mover, whose level of argument .. well, speaks for itself. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You may recall my AfD of Hendrix Junior High School. You made a comment that the only possible notability had to do with the platypus mascot.

Well, turns out the vandalism went so far as to change the colors and mascot. Hendrix is still in the Arizona Interscholastic Association system – with proper colors (red and gray) and mascot (husky).

Thought you might get a chuckle from it. Raymie (t • c) 23:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you edited my addition to Women in journalism and media professions next to Lara Logan, removing the capital letters and making "foreign affairs" one word: "Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent"→"chief foreignaffairs correspondent." Can you explain why you did that? In the Lara Logan article it says "Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent" with capital letters and "Foreign Affairs" as two words.—Biosketch (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am so sorry for my error, Biosketch. Yes, you have a good eye. "Foreign affairs" should indeed be two words. A person's common job title, however, is lower-cased; an exception is a formal title of an office, like Emperor of Japan or Prime Minister of Australia. I tried to change the Lara Logan article as well, but the article is completely protected — very odd: I have never run into a completely protected article before. You can get some information on this capitalization matter at Wikipedia:MOS#Titles_of_people. I hope all goes well with you — happy editing! Sincerely, your friend, 03:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, you're quite right. Best regards.—Biosketch (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Back in October you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, why bring the issue up now, eleven months after the fact? I'm not complaining or annoyed; I'm simply surprised. Anyway, I don't understand why you say what you do: the two independent sources provide separate information, and I don't see anything that could come across as sufficiently POV to cause problems. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just ran across the article today. I'm not incensed about this piece, and if you want to vouch for it, that's fine by me. Cheers. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see that you marked Origen's Philocalia for speedy deletion. May I ask why?

You see, I expended quite some time on this, referenced it thoroughly, and thereby resolved a confusion between the medieval Philokalia and the text by Origen. I just don't understand how there can be a problem here? Roger Pearse (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. It was only a Proposed Deletion, which would give you time to fix any problems. As I said in the ProD, the sources didn't look legitimate to me, but I suppose they were. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No hassle! Roger Pearse (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Los-.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In February you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't care one way or the other. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I liked this. --John (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Man, I get few enough compliments! Most people just like to complain. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that one made me smile, so thank you. Thanks for the Barnstar too, that was very kind of you. --John (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

why did you delete Margaret D. Bennie Public School Leamington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagazuda (talk • contribs) 01:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if this is the wrong way to do it, but my name is Lawrence Ross. There was a question as to whether I'm from Inglewood California (on the Inglewood page). I am from Inglewood, and I still live in Inglewood today. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha1906 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Alpha1906, I can't find any trace of such a question. Can you give me a better link? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Columnist Matt Weinstock of Los Angeles Times July 1963.tiff, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Damiens.rf 02:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nedd Willard 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. Damiens.rf 02:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Very impressive. I can't think of a single aspect that went uncovered - it's truly comprehensive. Yet no issue is belabored -- it's a very readable account of a distinct and noteworthy topic. Well done!   Will Beback  talk  08:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: I added the ref you wanted, though it may have to be reformatted Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeLouis! I had been a long time, I just refreshed the WP:ASE list! Your help in checking potentially biased articles would be greatly appreciated! The list is intentionally short, I will keep adding fresh words every time the list becomes empty. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That you don't see the ILO's importance in the UNDg, especially being a professor.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also a former public information officer for the ILO. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you know little about the UN's work.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just follow the links in the demographics section. For some reason it starts at Alabama. Just select California and voila all is revealed. Carlossuarez46 (talk)

• No one determined the boilerplate; it's basically a paraphrase of the 2000 wording - which was inserted by a bot in 2001 or so - which also capitalized "White". I didn't use percentages unlike 2000, because they are often "overly precise"; i.e., they have more digits than the actual totals and give little indication of how many people are being talked about. See Homewood Canyon-Valley Wells, California, where the 1.33% this or 5.33% that basically is 1 person, 4 people. Do we need 2 decimals of precision? Does it add anything? No. Can any of this be changed? Of course, it's a wiki - you prefer something else, it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is a lot better than the 2000 version. Where do I go to edit it, or to engage in a discussion about it? Thanks again. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Protest? just change it, if you think you have something better. As for the percentages of rivers, etc., that comes from the census bureau. If you think it not worthy of inclusion, your position is contrary to consensus. As to using % rather than percent in text, that's a stylistic preference and if you prefer one way, you can change it. Rather than complaining about what other people are doing, perhaps you should just edit the articles you care about in the way you want beforehand; knowing, after all, that you do not WP:OWN them. There are doers and there are critics, please be a doer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I have started a conversation [] about whether to capitalize race names in census data. Perhaps the wisdom of the community will shed light on this subject. If capitalization is a no-no, a bot will need to do massive clean up, so my meager addings are in no manner problematic. Cheers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• On your preference on using "percent" rather than "%", see MOS:PERCENT, where in articles with lots of percents (as these articles are), use of "%" is preferred. But again, nothing is mandated; if you want to change "%" to "percent"; I suppose there's nothing against that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

CarlosSuarez, "please be a doer"? That is just insulting. By writing a message I am "doing" something. If you care to look at my record, I think you will see plenty of "doing." I await your apology. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the unexpected barnstar! It's true, I do hate using jargon around newbies (in real life too). It makes them feel excluded instead of welcome - and it's really just laziness on our parts. Thanks for the backpat! --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Charles-Randall-20th-Century-Calif-politician.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Los-Angeles-District-1-map-1920s-with-Charles-Randall.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. We hope (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. I put it back. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORUM. You should also note that rollback privileges should not be used except in cases of clear vandalism - see Wikipedia:ROLLBACK#When_to_use_rollback.-gadfium 06:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. I goofed by using Rollback. Difference of opinion, I guess, about Forum. By the way, I didn't care for what seemed to me to be the peremptory message just above; for myself, I try to be nice at all times. I don't care to pursue this trivial matter. (Although, on the other hand, freedom of opinion is not considered trivial to many folks.) It is too bad, though, that one cannot leave a comment just where it is. One could ask oneself: What harm does it do? Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeLouis - You commented on Palazzolo before, so I want to bring your attention to a new BLPN section I have presented at - Neutral BLP for Palazzolo

Struggling to find equity for this case, I was advised by an editor (after a long wiki journey) to give a few pithy examples of what has been written that is wrong, and then offer an alternative BLP, which I have done.

Thanks in advance for considering this case. I merely ask that someone adjudicate as my pleas to the present author fall on deaf ears.

--Fircks (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

{{subscription required}} and {{registration required}} are well-established as the way to indicate similar source access restrictions; they likewise use parentheses. In any case, the use of a monospaced font seemed quite abnormal. Also, many (all?) of the links can be generalized to the database provider and thus made non-library-specific. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I certainly don't mind the changes and will use that format from now on. I certainly can't remember where I got the other format from, and, as I said, I can't find it any more, so I suppose it has been supplanted. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "generalized to the database provider." Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The links unnecessarily used library proxy servers, limiting access to patrons of those particular public libraries. A little bit of URL-fiddling bypasses the proxies, making the links work for anyone with a subscription to the relevant database. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Councilman Roy C. Donley.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I came across Will H. Kindig while stub sorting. What do you think of the edits I made to it? Thanks. --I dream of horses @ 20:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see any changes to the text, but your classifications looked good to me. It may need more after the text gets completed. Regards, GeorgeLouis (talk)

Thanks. :-) --I dream of horses @ 21:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(You can learn about the talkback temp by clicking on this {{talkback}} :-) --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Los Angeles Times columnist Harry Carr.tiff. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Los-Angeles-City-Councilman-Charles-E-Downs-1925.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Fred E Stewart California Board Equalization.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Congressman-Charles-J-Colden.tiff. 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Access time , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Ernest L. Webster-Los Angeles Council.tiff. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the choice of words. It was a poor attempt at humor to commiserate with that other user after I reverted him. No hard feelings, I hope. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ben Lyons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello! You recently added a note to the Stanford University article saying that the lead is way too long. Way too long? It's four paragraphs; that seems to me to be completely appropriate for this very lengthy article, and I really don't see what ought to be removed. Could you please discuss this at Talk:Stanford University? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Edward-L-Thrasher-Los-Angeles-City-Councilman.tiff. 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop you a line and tell you you've done a great job cleaning up the W. V. Grant article. You've really put a nice coat of polish on it, doing the little things everyone else never sees. Nice work! Dayewalker (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, I came here to tell you the same thing! And to give you this:

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Your masterful cleanup of W. V. Grant, adhering strictly to our Verifiability and Neutral point of view policies in the midst of heated conflict, have earned you this shiny token of appreciation. Keep up the great work! – Quadell (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will stick this on my User Page when I have the chance. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the welcome, I have edited on Wiki for a number of years already. I disappear unfortunately when time does not allow, I hope my contribution in Networking have help. I also went thought a great deal of effort to get photo's that were not available anywhere ( to me at least ) put into the public domain by Cisco so they could be used in the article.

I may make a mistake here and there, but it is not intentional by any means and I know there will be someone to point out what I did wrong "quickly".

In any event, I wanted to leave you this note becuase after all the years I edited, you are the first to "welcome" me.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Camden, New Jersey adds an entry for Robert S. MacAlister as a notable, an entry that had also been added earlier to the article for Camden High School (New Jersey). Neither the article for Camden or the Camden HS article include a source, and the MacAlister article doesn't appear to provide a source for Camden being his home town or Camden HS as his alma mater. In the ongoing cleanup of these articles I would like to ensure that all of the entries have sources. Could I ask for your assistance in providing a reliable and verifiable source for his connection to Camden / Camden HS? Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work! I appreciate somebody like you keeping these lists pristine. I will add the cites myself. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I did my best to find sources, but I couldn't find anything. I'm not sure why I couldn't find the source that you had found, but it certainly meets the standard. Thanks for taking the time to reinsert the entries, with the source, in both articles. Alansohn (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have to have a Los Angeles public library card to access the LA Times list of files. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, having just re-examined the source, I find that it is open to all, but you really have to know where to look within the LAPL system. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi George, I left some questions on the WV. Grant talk page about the cite, I tried to help. Let me know if this stuff counts or not. I don't want everyone jumping all over me because I add a cite that does not qualify.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Sulpicia Dryantilla .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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Marshall V Hartranft real estate man reading.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the comment--I was a little peeved at the libel bit, which I think I read harsher than you intended, and reacted too strongly. I do think that a citation needed tag would have been the appropriate response, but I was wrong to snap. Best, Meelar (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Carl-C-Rasmussen-Los-Angeles-City-Council.tiff. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi: thanks for your message.

"Listas is a parameter found in the coding of the WikiProject Biography box which operates like DEFAULTSORT. It is a sortkey for the article talk page (for example, for Elvis Presley, |listas=Presley, Elvis, so that the talk page will show up in the P's and not the E's of the various assessment and administrative categories)."

Basically, it sorts the articles by last name in various categories. Hope this is helpful.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So what's the procedure you follow, and why do you do it? I mean, why, personally, is it fulfilling to do? It's an administrative chore, and he can be pretty boring at times, right? Is there a bot that recognizes the articles without? Thanks; let me know. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Skier Dude's talk page.

I added a statement of fact from Randi's article and OrangeMike called it reducinging the quality of the arttile. I really don't understand how a statement of fact that is in a different article can be cited as slanderous when that is his statements in his own words?

Could you take a movement to explain what is going on here?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at Monty845's talk page.
Message added 03:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Monty₈₄₅ 03:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you've added Ira J. McDonald to the notable-alumni list at University of Nebraska at Kearney. There, you've affixed the dates 1941-43. The article on McDonald lists his dates on the City Council as 1941-45. Could you please reconcile these? --Ammodramus (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:People-posing-with-potbelly-stove.tiff. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) 17:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 03:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC) ww2censor (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:People-posing-with-potbelly-stove.tiff. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) 09:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I know the interaction was unpleasant for you, and I apologize for that. Wikipedia is maintained entirely by volunteers, and Wikipedians vary widely in their politeness and helpfulness.

Our policy on non-free content (such as these images you added) is quite complex, and most new users who upload non-free images soon find that some of them get deleted for being outside of policy. In this case, our policy dictates that we can't use two non-free images to identify a person in an article; we have to use just one. Thanks for your understanding.

Some Wikipedian who specialize in image policy find themselves dealing with the same questions over and over, and it can make them grumpy. Regardless of that, I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, and I hope you stick around and continue to help out. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message; it explains a lot that yards and yards of boilerplate could not. I wonder why WP rules cannot be so clearly written? Oh, well. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:People-posing-with-potbelly-stove.tiff. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Good day. I have declined your request of CSD R3 on this page because it is not a recently created redirect, thus it fails to meet the criteria for R3. Consider listing at Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion instead. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. I appreciate it. This matter is not important to me, so I won't be following it up. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your observation. I have a source, but forgot to add a citation. I fixed that problem a few minutes ago.

My source says "For half its height visitors had carved their names into the face of the bricks."

The source does not specify which half is carved. The structure is 32 feet tall, so 16 feet would be carved. I tried to simplify this slightly by stating: "Over the years, trespassers have carved names or initials into almost every brick within their reach."

I also have another source that said someone would carve initials, then come back years later and carve again, so this did not happen all at once.

Some photos also show where it is carved. One photo is a close up of carvings.

I have been a hard time telling the difference between original research and stating the obvious.

I greatly appreciate your thoughts. I will keep everything you say in mind as I reread my sources. Wikfr (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

""Over the years, trespassers have carved names or initials into almost every brick within their reach." This is your interpretation. Almost? If your source said it that way, OK, but then put it into quote marks. You may not remember Joe Friday from "Dragnet." But his dictum was "Just the facts, ma'am." It works with Wikipedia, too. I might say it can make for dull reading, but at least you won't get it reverted. Cheeahs! GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues by rewriting within the context of the article. Are my interpretation considered OR? Do you recommend always quoting exactly? Thanks for your help. I need it. Wikfr (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're going to do just fine. If you find yourself aping the phrases in the sources, you can use partial quotations. or (a really nice touch) block quotes. I can tell that you yourself are a writer and, again, I reiterate that writing style is not the big point in Wikipedia but that sourcing and reliability are. You can use more quotes that you normally would in writing, and the article might seem a bit choppy to you, but that's OK. Also, you are using a lot of images. Again OK, but you might want to put most of them into a gallery at the bottom of the page. Some editors don't like galleries, so make sure your images are truly related to the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I was getting ready to add more images. Wikfr (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Images. There are some forks from there, too. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed the email address there, or I would have removed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey- I thought you might be interested in reviewing Rick J. Caruso, a new article created by some COI editors. When I get time I'll comb through it too. tedder (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I took care of it. He is an interesting guy, but as a mayoral possibility he bears watching. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson 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. JaGa^talk 05:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the nomination, I just want to say I know you very much want to save the article, and I appreciate that you haven't allowed that to sway your behavior; you've been courteous and friendly throughout. You may not have my agreement, but you certainly have my respect. Cheers, --JaGa^talk 09:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. That SUCKS! Just when he was starting to grow on me. I would like to recommend that you request (WP:REFUND) it be incubated here: WP:RIGHT/I. It only needs one or 2 more sources to pass WP:N, and the chances are better with the members of WP:RIGHT working on it. I know of your interest in Black history. Note that presently all 3 of the incubated articles are black conservatives... – Lionel ^(talk) 23:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Can you do it? You seem to know more about it than I do. I don't want the photo to be deleted either. George.

It's here Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Raymond A. Watson. All he needs is a couple more solid sources to overcome the "rural" bias. Btw the pic is at commons which means it'll be there into perpetuity, or until the Wiki Found goes broke, lol! – Lionel ^(talk) 04:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. I am going to let it sit for a while until passions cool. Yes, I can make some changes and add a few more cites in a few days or a week. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, George I've added in the references, but I'm not very good at the style, so you may need to fix that. Basically, the main source is a TLS article: 'The Hanky-Panky Way', TLS, 18 June 2010, p. 16. The book itself I have added the bibliographical information for. Hope this helps. Victorianistjaf (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. An interesting local politician with an outsized influence.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a policy against using a username with a famous name in it? Feedback ^☎ 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there is such a policy. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

.

Regarding your recent edit at Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004‎.

Although the spelling "judgement" is usually the correct form in British English, the variant "judgment" is preferred when referring to a formal decision by a judicial body. By way of example, see the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council's website here.

Regarding the changes I made to references in the article to the Privy Council, it's always the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that hears cases, and not the Privy Council of the United Kingdom proper; as such, I think a link to the more specific article is the most appropriate in such circumstances. Links to "Privy council" should generally be avoided, since it's an article about the generic concept of a privy council, rather than about any specific institution by that name.

Regards, Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC).

Hello, I added a discussion here about your proposed deletion. I translated this page from the French Wikipedia because Sabine Karsenti had no article in English. She had a prominent role in Battlefield Earth which was a widely viewed (or at least heard of) big-budget feature film, starring many A-List celebrities. She also had a starring role in a cult television show, The Crow: Stairway to Heaven, that has a wider following on DVD now than its viewership when it aired. She had no article before not because she was non-notable, but because most of her work was in French, and her article in French is over five years old. Finally, since I made the article (again, based on the French original which I translated, with information there that has been notable enough for the past five years) in late august, according to stats.grok.se it has averaged over a dozen views per day and gotten as many as 30. Not a lot, of course, but not insignificant. That means that deleting the article would remove some information from the wealth of knowledge that is Wikipedia. I've begun to add some interlingual wikilinks to have a different shade of blue, which is better than red, and I will add the rest of her filmography when I have some more time.JesseRafe (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, I have written a biography of Sir John for Wikipedia. Being an newbie and Wikipedia being complex beyond belief, I have no idea what to do next. It is somewhere in my user talk section. There are MANY John Stokes, so I think it best that the article has his full title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Poynton (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a good start. I did some Wikifying — decreased size of photo, fixed headers to WP Style. You should use inline quotations — a bit complicated to do, but they need to be done. If you can't get the hang of it, just put the citations in the body of the text, and somebody will come along and fix them for you. Oh, SPELL OUT everything you have abbreviated. Lt. Gen. for example. Also, don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes — to automatically place your screen name, time and date with your messages. Good luck! GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a copy of Sir John Stokes' autobiography and I know where a few others might be. However, only a few hundred were printed and distributed among descendents in Australia. The publisher (Ken Maynard Stokes) died in about 2001. I put the biography on the Internet in 1998 to make it more accessible and it is for that reason that links are given directly to the Internet document. The autobiography was doubtless written from diaries, but those have presumably been lost. Charles Poynton (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Charles Poynton (the time here in NZ is 10:47 on the morning of Sunday 18th)

I would use the Chapter numbers from the Web site and the page numbers from the book as well, if you have them. A few hundred copies is quite a large number to be printed for something like this. I am guessing that one or two might be in a library someplace or, if not, perhaps you can arrange for some donations? Anyway, since the whole thing is on the Internet, I think the Chapter Nos., with the chapter URLs would be just fine. Remember to paraphrase from the book or, if you are quoting directly, be sure to use quote marks. Block quotes are always good for fairly lengthy quotations, although the optimum idea is to keep any direct quotes pretty short. You don't have to do anything about signing your posts except to use the four tildes. The software takes care of everything. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

For efforts on ensuring LA councilmen ( and women) are represented visually in Wikipedia:) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Boy! I need that brewski this morning! GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 04:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 04:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi George, I noticed that you moved the TOC at civil engineering. I don't care how it's formatted, but it needs to be in its standard position for screen readers, per the last line here. Graham87 02:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're saying "After the lead and above the first section, either on the left or the right"? GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Graham87 15:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds cool to me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:This_Week_magazine_cover_Sept_24_1939.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that you have written a lot at the DRV. So much that the DrV is hard to read. I'd urge you to be a lot more concise at the AfD. 02:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Gee, that's all right. You give good advice. I was just trying to answer each of the (rather bizarre) objections raised by the people who apparently don't like the idea of county supervisors being Notable. If they had just stuck to the point . . . oh, well! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding an RFC, and then taking it to WP:REFUND, and making all those comments at DRV ... you have a poor understanding of process here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, friend Bwilkins, but I don't know what DRV means. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We're working on bringing the L.A. article up to Featured status. The history summary is a current topic. I just trimmed some excessive detail about the early Spanish explorers, so it's now about 662 words long. The history section of San Francisco, which is a featured article, is 1400 words long. We can do a better job of adding material on the last 70 years of L.A. history, and we've got several hundred words in which to do it. I've proposed some topics which we might mention (mostly crimes or civil disturbances). Talk:Los Angeles#founding and move of san gabriel mission. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Would you like to take on the project?   Will Beback  talk  06:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Will Beback; it is always good to hear from you. I am not really interested in Featured statuses for articles. I feel the criteria are often just not realistic and in fact are detrimental in many cases to ending up with a good, encyclopedic piece. I suppose they serve a purpose in getting a kind of "team spirit" going for many people, but right now I feel more fulfilled in writing new articles or in improving old ones. This is just my own propensity, though, so good luck with the project! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Not to worry. I was probably unclear in my request - I was just asking if you'd like to work on the history section, or at least propose additional topics for inclusion in that section. We've compiled a fairly extensive list of incidents that are currently omitted. Talk:Los Angeles#Modern history topics. Regardless of whether the article ever achieves FA status, I hope we can at least improve that one section.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on 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. Courcelles 23:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello GeorgeLouis: I have placed the entry on Sir John Stokes in my sandbox as per your suggestion. One day, some day, I will do some inline citations, but have some more pressing (paid) writing to do at the moment. What next? Charles Poynton (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I will do some cleanup and fix the citations. Then you can take it from there. Stay tuned . . . GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect of the above article, since for the last 2 months you have made no changes to it other than to add empty sections and continually restore the underconstruction tag. As an unsourced blp it is not an acceptable article, I suggest you work on it in your userspace, or leave it as a redirect until such time as you are able to create it properly--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, and I am sure you will understand that my opinion is just as valid as yours. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, this isn't about opinons. Its very simple, you are insisting on keeping a practically blank article in the mainspace, worse an unsourced blp, and for two months you have made no changes other than to repeatedly restore the underconstruction tag which it appears you have not even read ("This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this article has not been edited in several days, please remove this template"), it is not a free pass to prevent an article being deleted. The article is far better off as a redirect until such time as you or some other editor are willing to actually bother to edit it. Please restore the redirect or complete the article, I would prefer not to have to take this to WP:AFD--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you prefer not to do it. . . well, I won't argue with that. Nevertheless, since I aim to please, I will take up Bob Ronka next and give the waiting world a nice fat article. It will be posted within three hours. Let's see . . . that gives me until 7:12 p.m. local time. Sincerely, your WP pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

• Hello! This meetup is almost official, at Wikipedia:Meetup/Los_Angeles_5! - Joel J. Rane (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:James-C-Corman-in-1960.tiff. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It has been replaced in the article by another image. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted one of your recent edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking because it goes way beyond anything that could be considered a "consensus view". If you look at the talk page, there has been much recent disagreement (which I have been involved in, BTW) over what should and shouldn't be linked in the lead. I don't think anyone has actually pushed the view that nothing should be linked in the lead. If you want to promote this view, please discuss it on the talk page first. - dcljr (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Dcljr! No, I just made the suggestion. I don't intend to follow up on it. I know what works for me, and that is not to do any linking in the first paragraph. I know that others feel differently. Yours in Wikidom! Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words at WPConservatism. There are liberals on Wikipedia who give mouth service to NPOV: you actually live by it. The deletion at the AfD 2nd was ridiculous. It was solidly No consensus. When you're ready for round #3 with Watson, let me know... – Lionel ^(talk) 03:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't quite do the AfD nomination correctly. The nomination page is supposed to be located in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion space, I have created a nomination on your behalf at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loon News and copied your deletion rationale from the talk page. In the future, the easiest way to create the nomination page is to place the AfD tag, and then, when the page reloads, there will be instructions including a link to create a preloaded AfD debate. You just click that and follow the instructions at the preload, filling in the appropriate fields. Monty₈₄₅ 19:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I figured some nice person would clean it up for me. The instructions were confusing. It might help if you could rewrite them, or if somebody could just invent a program to do all that pasting, etc. Anyway, I hope you have a good day or evening or whatever it is where you are. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a gadget you can enable that will do everything for you (except come up with a nominating reason). Check out WP:TW. If you enable it, amongst other buttons, it adds an XfD button to your user interface, then when your on the page you want to nominate, you just select the proper deletion venue, such as AfD. Monty₈₄₅ 20:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Gee whiz. That's quite a gadget. I wonder why information on it isn't made more prominent. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cinema Stars Mural.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Palms Chamber Map 1948.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Kate Connolly. East Germany's last banned film finally sees the light. The Guardian. August 6, 2009.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I erroneously reverted a change you made on the Biographeis of Living People noticeboard. I was under the impression you added something about a "teenage boy wanker." Maybe it was not you. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I have reverted your claimed vandalism edit - please don't remove it again - raise a report if you object, thanks- Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Los Angeles City Council District 3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Reseda

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Pat Russell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Est, Pacific Palisades

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

George, it was good meeting you today... and had I known then that you liked comics and the singular "they", I would've enjoyed it even more! --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the adding of a source to the ethnic graph. That was really quick and helpful. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see an additional person patrolling new pages. I want to encourage you to persevere--you're not getting everything right, but I think you're learning. And It's very good to see someone doing this who is also interesterd in article writing. There's one keep point of view I do not think you fully understand, which is that the criteria at WP:CSD are interpreted narrowly. For example, A7, no indication of importance, is strictly limited to the types of articles it says on the template: it does not include songs, it does not include schools. There's a special speedy rule for songs, A9, but it's quite limited. (and the basic criterion of actual notability of a popular song is that it charted--this may strike you as absurdly broad, and it strikes me as absurdly broad also, but that is the guideline & it has wide consensus). And CSD G11 promotional, though applying to many articles, doesn't apply to ones with straight factual content, even if the organization or company is not very important. In doubt, use prod. I find it helps to re-read WP:Deletion Policy and WP:CSD every month or so, to avoid drifting from the consensus. If I can help you with anything, let me know on my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Danke schön! I know I made some mistakes. I have been PRODding more recently. I am actually patrolling the articles that need to have headers added—whittling down the backlog—but I find many of them are also candidates for some kind of deletion. PRODs seem to work because many of the articles are fairly ancient and unwatched. And if PRODs don't work, well, that's just fine with me, as long as I get some headers into the articles that remain. Sorry if I've made extra work for our find corps of Watchers like you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Peggy Stevenson with corsage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, GeorgeLouis, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic concepts of quantum mechanics whether the article Basic concepts of quantum mechanics should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Basic concepts of quantum mechanics, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! SavinSav (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, friend SavinSav, but I don't really care any more. That gang of pedants hovering around the Quantum Mechanics area so annoyed me that I just gave up trying to write something really simple for the average WP reader to follow. I appreciate your message, but WP can do with the article what it likes. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't aware that it was a direct quote from The Times.

On an unrelated note, it kind of took me a while to realize the section said 1966 and not 1996. You can imagine how shocked I was at first, thinking the incident only happened fifteen years ago, as opposed to forty-five.

MNrykein (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You tagged this as copyvio without listing a source. Any clues?

Yes, "History of Hisar" by M M Juneja. The author cites it, but there is no clue as to exactly which pages or which parts. Nothing to indicate the author did not simply copy huge chunks of it. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't logged on here in a while, and I was concerned to find a copyvio notice from you on my talk page. My concern turned to complete bafflement when I checked the link to the supposedly infringed source. I'm fairly certain I have never even seen it before. I'm trying to figure out what's going on, but the article and article:talk are gone, I can't find anything on my contributions page referencing the article or article:talk, and I haven't been about to locate any Wikipedia page discussing the article deletion. Can you give me some idea what's going on? Thanx. The deleted page was Greg Garcia, and the allegedly infringed source was http://www.isa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Products_and_Services/Conferences_and_Exhibitions1/ISA_EXPO/Events_For_All1/Spotlight_on_Industrial_Security/Spotlight_on_Industrial_Security.htm Alsee (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Only admins can see it, but the warning was for the Greg Garcia page, which has been deleted. You turned it from a redirect into a stubbed article in September 2006. It was deleted recently. tedder (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am unable to view the admin link, and the explanation was unhelpful. To clarify my question, I see three possible explanations for the notice on my talk page. Possibility (1) The Copyvio was targeted at me, I did something wrong, and I am unable to learn any specifics of my error to avoid it in the future. (I believe this to be impossible, as my content clearly pre-dates the supposedly infringed page. If anything it would be my copyright being infringed by that website.) Possibility (2) The Copyvio was targeted at me, I did nothing wrong, and I am being denied access to the facts to defend myself against a false/mistaken charge. Possibility (3) someone else committed a Copyvio and I was merely receiving an "informative" notice regarding the page I created. I believe (3) may be the most likely explanation, but if so then I would like to comment that the form notice was very poorly considered. Aside from being uninformative, it gives the strong appearance of charging me with a serious infraction. I am disturbed that it could unintentionally defame me to anyone who checks my talk page. As a matter of personal integrity I would like to resolve this before I merely blank the Copyvio notice from my talk page. Alsee (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to why all this is on my Talk Page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As I already indicated, I am posting on your talk page because YOU slapped huge nastygram Copyvio notice on MY talk page. I am attempting to find out why. I'm fumbling in the dark here because my recollection of my contribution is vague, the article has been wiped, the article history has been wiped, I can't find any wiki discussion of the incident, and even my own work has been wiped from my personal contribution history. According to tedder my contribution was dated September 2006. Your Copyvio notice on my talk page gave a link to allegedly-infringed content, content which was clearly written 2008 or later. I can't even check whether they infringed my copyright because my access to my own work is blocked from my own contribution history. Alsee (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't recall anything like that. I suppose it has slipped my memory. If you can provide a diff or whatever, perhaps that will jog my recollection. Which Greg Garcia is this? Maybe you can find the notice in your archives and post it here. Thank you so much. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm unable access any diff relating to the article. In particular I am denied access to what I wrote from my contrib history. The only access I have to is my talk page and the Copyvio notice you put there. Rather than repost your notice, here is a direct link to it. As I indicated above, I have not removed the notice. As a matter of personal integrity I intend to resolve this issue rather than just baselessly blank a Copyvio notice. To reiterate, my contribution clearly pre-dates the supposedly infringed website. I submitted the article in 2006 whereas the supposedly infringed website says (in the past tense!) that Garcia served from 2006-2008. Alsee (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. Someone else committed a Copyvio and the Copyvio notice was mistakenly directed onto my talk page. Alsee (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, GeorgeLouis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Allergic rhinitis have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Also even when it can be confirmed that a person has a disease it is not really of significance for a page on diabetes for example. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the cookies... J Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yum! GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello GeorgeLouis, I hope that you are having a nice day. I guess you if you live in California you must have a nice day. I reverted your edit to the Hector Santiago Colon article and would like to tell you why. The surname of Hector's father was "Santiago" and his mother "Colon". He was inscribed in his birth certificate with both surnames, without the hyphen, a custom which is very common in Puerto Rico and in most Latin countries. Before Puerto Rico was ceded to the US, it was common for people to use an "y" between both surnames, an example of this is "Cayetano Coll y Cuchí". The American influence has led many Puerto Ricans to continue to use both surnames as in Spanish naming customs, with a hyphen (ex. "Antonio Fernós-Isern") or nothing at all (ex. Ernesto Ramos Antonini) instead of "y".

The fact about Hector was confirmed by his nephew Lt. Col. Nelson Guadalupe whom I know. I became curious in regard to Hector's father whose surname "Santiago" I share and since Puerto Rico is so small I wondered if we were related. No, we are not related, but it is a fact that "Santiago" is his father's surname and "Colon" his mothers. Thank you for your contributions and your time and may you have a great day. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear GeorgeLouis, I absolutely agree with you in what you wrote about the quality of the Klaus article. Yesterday I tried to improve it a little bit. It is still partly terrible, biased etc., and substantial points are missing. In my view, there have been some far-left oriented users, probably of Czech origin, who contributed to this article with unbelievable bias towards Klaus´ market-economy stands and his person in general. They also used every opportunity to accuse him of things like alleged intelligence activities and friendship with Mr. Putin. In fact, Klaus is friend of the Republican Party of the United States. Of course, he was concerned to continue Russian oil and gas supplies to the Czech Republic during the 1990 years, as they were rather cheap, and there were scarcely any other supplies in needed quantities and with acceptable transportation costs. Have a nice day, --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Sierra Pelona Mountains, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Elizabeth Lake and Green Valley, California (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard von Krafft-Ebing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Frazier Peak directional sign.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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Los Angeles municipal election returns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Evan Lewis

Los Angeles Common Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexander Bell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Made some changes and posted refs to the talk page. As you're active, just letting you know in case you don't have it watchlisted. Kudos for the ongoing contributions. Dru of Id (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Howard Finn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mission Hills and Temple Emanuel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The San Diego Union-Tribune did, in fact, announce a name change to the deathlessly memorable moniker U-T San Diego on January 3. I added some sources for this, and I'd value your input on the talk page as to whether we should change the name of the article, or leave the old (and still possibly better-known) article name for the time being. Thanks very much. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeLouis,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

William H. Pierce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Masons, City Club and Elks Lodge

Los Angeles Common Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Edwards

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. They do it all the time. I don't know what purpose they think it serves. Deb (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

See MOS:UNLINKYEARS. – ukexpat (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Note the sentence: "Dates should only be linked when they are germane and topical to the subject, as discussed at Wikipedia:Linking#Chronological items."

See the explanation for my changes in my edit summaries and at Talk:R.W. Dromgold. So far you have not provided any explanation for your reversions from standard MOSBIO formatting. – ukexpat (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly exhibiting ownership issues with this article. Two experienced editors have now made the same, correct, edits to the article and you have reverted them each time with a rationale that amounts to nothing more than "I don't like them". What is it going to take to convince you that you are wrong? – ukexpat (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ukexpat. By way of example:

• Please read MOS:LEAD and discuss why your individual preferences should trump it on issues of the positioning of the image and the non-standard table of contents.
• Please read MOS:BOLD and discuss why your individual preference for emboldened words or phrases such as "Voting machines" and "Electric signs" should be preferred.
• On the subject of bold type, why do you not want his full name in the lead, as per MOS:BIO, and why is it in bold if it is not in the lead (see MOS:BOLD again)?
• Please explain why you want one quotation all by itself at the end of the article instead of weaving it into the text at the appropriate point; this isn't Wikiquote, after all.
• The article says "Dromgold was a successful candidate for the City Council in the First Ward in 1906, nominated by the Democratic Party and the Non-Partisan organization. He was elected and served a three-year term... " Please explain why the words in bold are necessary when the previous sentence tells us that he was a successful candidate (i.e. he was elected).
• And please archive your talk page - even though I'm editing from work with a fast connection, your talk page takes far too long to load as it has 292 (!) sections dating back to 2008. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 20:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bencherlite. It is certainly good to hear from you, but I wonder if you realize how peremptory all those "Please do thises!" and "Please do thats!" sound. Gee whiz, it is those stern admonitions from cyberspace that send potential editors in droves away from Wikipedia. I would certainly appreciate an apology for what seems to me to be just plain rudeness. As for the content of your message, I have no objection to your making the changes that you want to make at this point because I will be able to answer all of your requests (or, rather, demands) when I get some time. (I actually do have reasons for just about everything about which you commented, and I was lying awake last night thinking about them: A total misuse of "sack time." I know, Bencherlite, that you are just trying to improve the encyclopedia, but so am I, and I am rather offended at your message. Still, that doesn't prohibit us from working together, and I'll be providing an answer to you, but just not right away. In the meantime, make your changes, but I may want to resume the discussion in a few days or a week. I actually appreciate the detail in the message, just not the tone. Sincerely, still your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"I disagree with the edits and the reasons therefor. I thank the editor or his or her attention, but none of the edits invol...) " is all I got from you, you may recall. I don't owe you an apology for setting out a sample list of problems that you've readded to an article with a polite request (not a demand) for an explanation. If you disagree, feel free to complain at WP:WQA and see if you can find anyone there who thinks you've been badly treated. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 20:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now! You were offended by my message. Well, I certainly apologize for the rather glib way I phrased it. I guess I didn't pay that much attention to the wording of the reason for my reversion. I am sure you worked for a good long time on your changes (just as I did in writing the original article), and I didn't take that into consideration. None of us likes to be slapped down for the honest work we do. Anyway, I will get back to you on your comments above, which I felt when I first read them were less polite than they could have been. I am sure you didn't mean for them to come across that way, just as I didn't mean for my message to be so abrupt, so once again, I am sorry. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)