Archives

User:GeorgeLouis/Archive1

The January 2012 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.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Dan Whitehurst, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I always like a second opinion on things like this. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Kindly take a look at Foodarama#La Fiesta The Foodarama article does mention La Fiesta. What's more, the La Fiesta coverage allows the article to meet the WP:GNG WhisperToMe (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I missed it! Mea maxima culpa! Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article La Crescenta-Montrose, California, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please note that you can't use the Patch website as a reference for itself. You must use independent, third-party sourcing that indicates the notability of this specific website (not the patch sites in general). TNXMan 21:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this info. Do you have a source for it? It is pretty obvious that the Patch is covering La Crescenta if you go to its site. Much like the New York Times covering New York. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for the "welcome," after all these years. Where are my cookies? Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a source. It is true that the New York Times covers New York, but it is a notable publication (as shown by its extensive article). The La Crescentia Patch website, however, is not notable. Adding a link to their website is the same as adding a link to a La Crescentia auto-parts store or local La Crescentia restaurant. It doesn't add anything to the article and is basically advertising. TNXMan 21:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about Patch_Media? GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Patch Media is based in NYC, not La Crescentia. They are notable, but their affiliates generally are not. TNXMan 21:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The various Patch sites are pretty notable in the areas they serve and at least are worthy of being used as External Links, since they provide info about the communities in question. I don't believe the External Links have to be notable. Anyway, this dispute might be better handled on a different plain than this one. Take out the Patch here if you want—it doesn't make that much difference to me (somebody else added it in the first place)—but please correct the grammar of the remaining sentence. Thanks for your attention. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Los Angeles Common Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John King (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) 10:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Walter Van Dyke, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Humboldt County and Mountain View Cemetery (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) 10:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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.

Style guidelines for biographies of California public officials (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to TOC

Walter Scott Moore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Freeholders

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ruth-Galanter-of-Los-Angeles-in-1987.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) 06:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added content for Edward E. Moore related to Indiana using the source you suggested. I was doing research at the Indiana Historical Society and they had a copy in their research library. Rosalina523 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Your contribution adds very, very much to the article. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Richard Alatorre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Development, East Los Angeles, Willie Brown, Lincoln Heights, Gold Line, El Sereno and John Burton

Ruth Galanter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Upscale and Municipal Court

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses are at Talk:Rose_Hills,_California#Copied_from_User_talk:GeorgeLouis. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much. You know a lot more about this subject than I do. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Andrew Jackson Bryant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Andrew Hallidie

Edwin Bryant (alcalde) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Hyde

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to revert inappropriate but well-meaning edits as vandalism, as you did here. Such edits do not fall under Wikipedia's definition of the term, and calling them vandalism can discourage new users from contributing. GreenReaper (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, GreenReaper, but your definition of vandalism is a lot different from mine, and I resent your attitude. Thank you very much, my friend; I think you meant well by your message, but it seems very peremptory to me, and I certainly don't enjoy receiving such "advice" after all my years and all my work for Wikipedia. Any message that begins with "Please be careful" is paternalistic and insulting, and I hope you will not use it again in your admonitions to other editors. Thanks again. Sincerely, still your pal, and a friend to Wikipedians everywhere, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for your work on the Max Rafferty article; it was sorely in need of help. But I am puzzled why you keep removing the dates of birth and death from the lead; they are clearly supposed to be there right after the name per MOS:DOB - and in the infobox too per the same source. I guess they could be removed from the text, since as you say they don't need to be there three times, but they clearly are supposed to be in the lead and the infobox. Likewise, the person's nationality and profession are almost always Wikilinked in the lead; see the examples at WP:OPENPARAGRAPH or pretty much any biographical article. Can we come to some agreement here so we don't get in an edit war? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your query, for which I greatly appreciated the gentle tone. I hope I am responding in the same way: Actually, the exact dates of births and deaths are very much optional in the lead, not obligatory. The exact admonition is When full dates are provided in the text or in an infobox, year-pairs can be sufficient for the lede in some cases; in such cases no spaces are used, e.g., "(1943–1971)". You can't very well take out the exact dates from the text or from the infobox (for that would leave either one incomplete). Personally, I believe also that the exact dates clutter the lede by making it too long and burdened with minor information, but that's just my opinion, and I actually rely upon the text of MOS:DOB to support my change. When the article was begun, there was neither a proper lede nor an infobox, so the matter was moot (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Rafferty&diff=next&oldid=54950096). Somebody later added the thrice-told information, which I think should have been squelched much earlier on the basis of repetitiveness. Anyway, that is my reasoning. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, it seems much more common to put the full dates in parentheses after the name, but if you prefer it this way the rules seem to allow it. I have added the death date to the text since it's supposed to be one place or the other. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. I also like to follow the recommendations of Style guidelines for biographies of California public officials in dealing with this kind of article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I note that you are the author and only contributor to those "guidelines," so your reasoning seems rather circular. In my experience the year-only format is NOT the most common usage, for California or anyplace else, and the preferred usage at the MOS page you link to is (May 1, 1920 - July 10, 2006) rather than (1920-2006); the latter is merely a permitted variation "in some cases". --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. You don't have to use the full dates in the ledes even though many articles DO use them and many editors find the full dates not to be obtrusive. Others, however, think that repeating material is to be avoided and that ledes should be as kept as free of clutter as possible. I suppose it depends what one is used to. After a long period of habituation (reading dictionaries and other encyclopedias for example) I find that having to read the exact birthdate and death date slows down my comprehension, and that's why I don't use them in the lede for the articles I write and why I try to edit them out of other articles when I run across them. Of course, if anybody objects to my changes, well, I just back off because there really is no RULE about use or non-use. It's a lot like the infobox-vs.-misinfobox disagreement: There is no right or wrong, just whoever got there first, I suppose. Also it is similar to British vs. American spelling: No right, no wrong, just usage. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker here (big fan of both of your work): I think the dates thing may just come down to what we're used to. Those of us who spend a lot of time on bios get used to one format or the other; in my case, after having been gently "guided" on my first several bio attempts some years back, I've gotten used to seeing the full dates in the lede sentence, and to not seeing the places of birth and death there, but there's probably no overwhelming reason why any of that is better or worse than some different custom. For the occasional user, it may not matter so much, as long as the info can all be found quickly and in logical places. (And I suppose that one could also argue that this is why the infobox is there.)

Anyway, what I really want to do here is to compliment the two of you on your rapid and impressive collaborative improvement of the article and its sourcing. Nice work! --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice compliment, Axiloxos! I just stumbled across the article (it linked from another one I was working on) and realized the article didn't give any sense of who Rafferty was. So I started expanding it, and then GeorgeLouis turned up and started fixing it too, and I think it is much improved.
I am like you, in preferring the full dates of birth and death, but NOT the places, in the lead sentence. It may be partly a matter of taste and what we are used to, but it is also the prime example given at the Wikipedia style page. So I would really like to ask GeorgeLouis not to change existing articles to his preferred style - and not to list his preference as the "rule" at Style guidelines for biographies of California public officials. George, would you be OK with that? MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You say above "Of course, if anybody objects to my changes, well, I just back off". But in this case you didn't back off; you made the change twice, which is why I started this thread. MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeorgeLouis. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Santee

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

added a link pointing to George Williams

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of California public officials charged with crimes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California public officials charged with crimes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a quick title change to List of California Officials Convicted of Crimes? Richrakh (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:SOAPBOX, WP:GREATWRONGS. EEng (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Comparison of wiki hosting services, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Comparison of wiki farms. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— 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. MadmanBot (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
	You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 23, 2012! Last year's was a blast (see the LA Weekly blog post on it) and we hope we can do better this year. We would love to have you there! —howcheng {chat} 03:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

GeorgeLouis --

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

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

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

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

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

Boundlessly (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for uploading File:1936.01.14 Carr Layout.tiff. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by 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) 21:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1936.01.14 Carr Layout.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. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Columbia College Hollywood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baccalaureate (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) 14:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]