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

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

Regards this edit, you actually do have access to the source (it's available on pubmed central [10]). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeorgeLouis, along the same topic, I made a comment regarding your edit at the chiropractic talk page, it is at the bottom of this long section. Thanks. Puhlaa (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings GeorgeLouis, I was just curious if you had a chance to read the source discussed here yet? Did you find my comment way at the bottom of this really long thread? I was still hoping to discuss whether the ideas expressed in the text you edited indeed need to be attributed and qualified, as was done in your edit here. There is no rush, sorry for nagging if you are just taking your time on the issue. Regards, Puhlaa (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the content been struck, rather than removed? Additionally I noticed that civil response to ask for cessation of incivility, as well as third opinion regarding the initial civility, was removed; may I ask why?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RCLC. The Talk Page is intended for ways to improve the article. The personal remarks, even though they may have been a LOT more civil than many are in WP, just interfered with the flow of the conversation. It would be better to engage the other editor on HIS talk page, because the dispute was just between you two. Well, that's my opinion anyway. I have found [ [rpa] ] to be a very useful tool in keeping remarks on track. Good luck with this article! It made me hungry just to edit it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If ever there is a meet up (as we are both in the Southern California Task Force), and we happen to meet, lets go out for burritos.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

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

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

I have read these two paragraphs that you posted here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomo, I am not quite sure why you opened this discussion. Surely you cannot be defending Rhode Island Red's personal gibes about me on a page that is intended to improve the article? I am regretful that I had to revert you so quickly (and more than once, too), but I certainly could not stand by idly and see such a personal affront to me remain on the page. Maybe I have a thinner skin than other people, but it is my skin. I don't believe WP:3RR is valid in this situation, which involves my honor and reputation. I hope you understand that there is nothing personal against you, or against anybody. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He managed to hit 5RR in under 24 hours this time - I posted the underlying issue at BLP/N and asked him to self-revert the fifth revert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, please see my message at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation# Request. Graham87 12:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which posting to look at there. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Frank Vandersloot, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. (Re: repeated removal of multi-level marketing from the article)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• GeorgeLouis, please be wary of your behavior on the article Frank L. VanderSloot. Your behavior in constantly reverting others without talk page discussion is teetering on edit warring/disruptive editing. Your input in the discussion above is requested as well as heeding the concerns brought there. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I would like your advice on the ability of an editor (me) to excise defamation from an article without waiting for discussion. I believe this is WP policy, per

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

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

I guess I'm just a bit confused. How is calling the company "multi-level" violate BLP? If it does, then obviously that's an exception to 3RR. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multilevel marketing has a pejorative connotation, as shown by these excerpts from the Wikipedia article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, okay, all that makes sense. You should simply not engage in any revert battles with Rhode Island Red. If the contentious material is added again without further talk page discussion, leave a note on my talk. I'm now much more certain that this falls under the BLP exception. Thanks for expanding on that. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP refers to "contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced". That is not the case here. "Contentious", as far as I can tell, is not defined as the objection of one or two editors against consensus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mess with other editors' comments if you can't get it right

This edit resulted in a list with only 5 entries even though 6 editors had commented by that stage; you neglected to put a number on RIR's primary comment in the section. I have fixed it, here. Let's assume that you didn't actually intend to convey the impression that there was one fewer voice favoring inclusion of MLM in the lead -- even then, you should not play with other editors' posts if you can't be sure of ending up with a result that is above suspicion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, RIR did not preface his first remark with a hashtag, but he simply answered somebody else's comment. Thus, I did not use a cardinal number for his comment as I did for the others. By the way, I am rather hurt by your brusque remark. I was only trying to make things easier to read. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The hashtags had been replaced with bullets to correct the numbering mishap. Like all of the other commenters, I had a bullet tag next to my statement. George removed it, burying my comment as Nomo pointed out. So, yes, if you can't do it right, then don't refactor other people's Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, Arthur Rubin and I were making the same or similar changes within four seconds of each other. Some of the editors had used hashtags. Thus the mixup. It would be nice if one would not jump to conclusions but instead were to WP:Assume good faith. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, Arthur managed to make his edit without removing the hash tag next to my comment[11], so that has nothing to do with your goof up. It would be refreshing if you simply accepted responsibility instead of trying to deflect this onto Arthur. Whatever. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Whatever you say. I have already apologized elsewhere. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I am not very expert how to do a citations, so I would like you do it for me. Thanl you again Nick.mon

Just put the citations right into body of the article in any way you like, and I will take care of it. Where you got the info, name of book and author, whatever, page number, etc. If you got it from a website, copy and paste the URL. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you very much!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Historical Right, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cavour (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) 11:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

A very interesting post. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did you know there is a way of disabling rollback on your watchlist?[12]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I never go backstage. Don't even know where the props are stored or where the costumers keep their needles and threads. Thanks for the info, though. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

PS:I admit that I'm a bit sloppy when it comes to putting reasons on my edits. The lead section on Bernard Cohn seemed a bit gossipy to me...almost like the writer had something against Mr.Cohn. (Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to possible Anti-Semitism). Anyway, I guess it stays. I don't want to get in an editing war with you!WQUlrich (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. The lede reports only what is in the article. Cohn was quite a guy! Anyway, Jewish people were very much in evidence in the beginning years of American Los Angeles, serving on the city council, taking an active role in civic affairs, etc. There have actually been quite a few studies made on this. Many of the Jews came from Alsace, which at the time was being switched back and forth between Germany and France with wild abandon. So they spoke French, English and (I suppose) Yiddish and German. Some writers have indeed painted Cohn in the usual way as a greedy loan shark, and Pico may not have known how to read English, but the judge's decision really indicated that Pio Pico knew exactly what he was getting into when he made the agreement with Cohn. I could have pointed this out in the article, but perhaps it more properly belongs in the article about Pico. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a difference of opinion on whether reverting is allowed in this case, which, as you know, involves a claim (by me and others) that there is a violation of WP:BLP in this article. I really resent the accusation of Edit Warring, something I don't believe I have ever accused you of doing, although you've done a whole lot of reverts to my changes. So please be a little nicer over what is, as I mentioned above, not a war, but just a different way of looking at things. To avoid a 3RR, which causes trouble for everybody, I would do a voluntary revert of the removal of the tag at the top of the page, but someone has already put it back and now the page is blocked again, so I can't take any steps in that direction. What's more, your boilerplate warning indicates that I have not been working toward consensus. Consensus is not necessary when damaging material is inserted into BLP's, as you very well know. The difference between you and me is that you honestly believe that it is not damaging to a businessman when he is accused of running a MLM, and I honestly believe otherwise. It would be nice if you could just assume good faith in this matter. Sincerely, yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you have demonstrated some bad faith in this episode. In your first contribution to the RfC, you indicated it would be "better to leave the description out of the lede and mention it briefly in the text below". In discussion after the RfC had concluded, when someone else raised the question of removing it from the body, you showed some understanding of the fact that the RfC wasn't intended to address that issue and said that if it was to be removed it should be discussed under a different rubric. But then when others (Jeremy and Andrew) started taking it out of the lead, you jumped right up on that bandwagon. So in fact I think you've been, shall we say, a bit opportunistic here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the comment. Opportunistic? Aren't we all? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Adventures of Unemployed Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (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) 10:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Traill until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Something struck me about an edit you made a couple of days ago: [13] -- "the new arrangement, which is still in effect." How do you know it is still in effect? ta, —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It was in the article that way. Some other editor stuck it there, and I just copied it since nobody had challenged it. I prefer that it be omitted unless we can find a source for it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reconcile that answer with the article history. In this version that immediately precedes the series of edits in which you added that phrase, the phrase does not exist. If you prefer it would be omitted, then it is puzzling that you would add it. Someone who adds it (without a source, even) would seem to believe that it's true, and I'm wondering on what basis you thought it was true. thanks, —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it took me a while, but I found the answer to your question. You can find it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=538727753&oldid=538725766.

The unedited text said: "Instead, contractors now receive commissions from each purchase that their referred customers make from Melaleuca, but the customers buy the products directly from Melaleuca, which handles the delivery directly." (Emphasis added.)

I changed it to read: "In the new arrangement, which is still in effect, contractors receive commissions from Melaleuca for each purchase their customers make, but the customers buy directly from Melaleuca, which ships them directly to the consumer." (Emphasis added.)

I don't know what editor originally used the word now.

Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

It appears that you have been selectively notifying certain editors regarding a content dispute that you are engaged in at Frank Vandersloot.[14][15][16][17] As you are already aware WP policy {WP:CANVASS precludes selective canvassing in content dipsutes. You've been warned about canvassing this in the past. Is there some mitigation reason in this case that would not qualify what you did as canvassing, just drop a note here and let me know. I will be checking back. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I asked three editors for assistance at WP:Peer review, per the instructions at that page, viz.:

These peer review volunteers have signed up to give feedback. Ask 2–3 of them in a nice and persuasive way to increase your chances. Taking a moment to appreciate and compliment their work here might not hurt, if you're sincere about it. If you haven't heard back from them (watch their talk pages) in a reasonable time, then ask more than 2–3 for help. Try editors in the article's subject area and be patient. If you sign up for the list, place yourself in the category you think you're most likely to do peer reviews for.[1] Posting at an associated Wikiproject (also listed below) could help. Copy editors are listed at the bottom.

The requests specifically referred to formatting, and not to content. I refer you also to Wikipedia:Harassment. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you had my page deleted I was wondering if you could tell me where I can write a biography then? Thank you... (Dnl.briseno (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

There has got to be someplace the L.A. Times is available that isn't behind some kind of paywall. Even a paywall site would be better, because at least that allows people willing to pay, but who aren't in L.A., to gain access. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any Californian can get an LAPL library card. Second, there is no other link to the older stories in the L.A. Times; if there is, I would like to know of it. Third, Wikipedia does not require that sources be available on line. Fourth, "idiotic" is a rather strong word. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example. I think it sucks personally see this?. BUT, per WP:LOC the only thing that is specifically stated is the title should not and yet, BAM, its the lead. I do not agree that this is the best. In fact, I think you and I probably agree. HOWEVER, we have other editors who will literally remove every freaking instance of United States in ANY US state article because, and I quote, EVERYONE KNOWS where this state is. Point of fact, they do not. BUT, I think that there should be a better mechanism that a lead that says, OH by the way etc etc. I am very open to discussion, my apologies if I came across as harsh, I was carrying invisible wiki baggage, which is not your problemCoal town guy (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your link goes to WP:List of cabals. Normally when I am confronted by a tautology such as your example, I simply delete the offending phrase with the Edit summary "Where else would West Virginia be?" Normally nobody bothers to put the phrase back in. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have no fear, I have created a near bullet proof template, I will post it shortly for review. I agree. In fact, I was rather good at symbolic logic a few million years ago...or so it seems. I will be the Wiki man who loves to be hated and change the phrasing in the 50+ counties that have the locutionCoal town guy (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surpise, NOBODY commented. BUT I did find why there is a tautology, the reason the code we edit will say, US County for US State of etc etc etc is because there is indeed a county article as opoosed to a US one and the "county article" is a stinker......do you think a merge or redirect could eliminate the ugliness???Coal town guy (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Angela Davis enters Royce Hall for first lecture October 7 1969.jpg, which you've attributed to https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=170093222239&set=a.170093017239.120040.550367239&type=3&theater^{[dead link]}. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

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

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

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} 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. Stefan2 (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 00:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you are attempting to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Notability}}, but nominating articles for deletion with the statement "Not notable" is not helpful at all. I would be far less concerned with your nominations if you would be clear in what you are doing "This article has been tagged for notability since 2008, upon review I have not found evidence of notability" or something of the sort. Are you checking for sources? Ryan Vesey 05:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. No, I am not checking for any sources. If the article itself makes no claim to notability, then of course the tag "unclear notability" no longer applies, and I can nominate it for deletion. However, I guess I will just lay off. Thanks again. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the original creator of the John Muto article is blocked indefinitely, so they won't be able to take part in the AfD. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, but I don't believe anybody will believe that my recent edits involve any kind of war. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll find out, if you do any more reverting; you've removed "journalists" 3 times now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is a war, I proposed a Christmas truce, even though it's not the right season. I won't be doing any more editing until at least tomorrow. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you weighed in here, I thought I'd let you know that there's currently a discussion going on here about Boxoffice.com. You're welcome to join in if you'd like. Regards, m.o.p 21:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 80.168.199.171 (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyediting my copyedit on the VanderSloot BLP. I changed the wrong side of the Wikilink. Andrew³²⁷ 17:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do that occasionally — can't tell my right hand from my left. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toluca Lake, Los Angeles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Universal City (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) 00:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Einstein.Painting.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. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Einstein.Painting.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your team spirit at improving on Grammarly. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few things about your edits from someone with extensive knowledge of the area. Just because there is no source on a persons page for where they reside is not carte blanche reason to removed someone from a locality page. Many of the residents you removed are sourced from school yearbooks and other good sources that are not necessarily on their personal page, nor happen to be in an electronic form (which is NOT required for Wikipedia). As for the movie industry, many of the films referenced have specific credits at the end of the movies mentioning eagle rock, and any community within a hour of Hollywood has extensive history in the community which is part of their story. Everything you removed was valid, encyclopedic content, with very poor justification. If you want to continue improving the page, I look forward to working with you, but please discuss your edits on the talk page were consensus can be reached instead of wholesale deletions. Your good faith edits have been Reverted until appropriate discussion of your changes reaches consensus. Timmccloud (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I look forward to you or somebody else inserting the proper sources. See you on the Talk Page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Historic South Central Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frank L. VanderSloot may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lucille Roybal-Allard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tejon Pass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tanjareen Martin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Inglewood, California may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harbor Gateway, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Downtown Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pico-Union, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mid-City, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arlington Heights, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mid-City, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mid-Wilshire may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Koreatown, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Westlake, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Emergenza may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Broadway-Manchester, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garret Kramer (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 high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Broadway-Manchester, Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Willowbrook

Green Meadows, Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Metro Green Line

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
	You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! —howcheng {chat} 01:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Los Angeles Harbor Region (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lakewood, Signal Hill, South Bay, California and Santa Catalina Island

History of Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Spanish

South Park, Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Central Avenue

Vermont Square, Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Exposition Park

Watts, Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Central Avenue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Map of Harbor Gateway neighborhood, Los Angeles, California.png

Thanks for uploading File:Map of Harbor Gateway neighborhood, Los Angeles, California.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your improvements to the article Mid-Wilshire. I'd appreciate your input in response to my "move" suggestion on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Hollywood Hills (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Universal City, Franklin Avenue, Immaculate Heart, Forest Lawn Memorial Park and Western Avenue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments pursuant to your editing of the Harvard Heights wiki page on 05/28/13 state: "Hello, I'm GeorgeLouis. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Harvard Heights, Los Angeles, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)"

The changes made to the article were necessary because your editing of the neighborhood boundaries is inaccurate. Since at least the year 2000, the City of Los Angeles Planning authority has clearly identified the area known as Harvard Heights in multiple citywide ordinances, planning documents, and zoning maps. Furthermore, your contention that a reliable source was not provided for these corrections is entirely untrue as two separate and publicly posted pdf documents created by the City of Los Angeles were cited to. These documents are: http://www.preservation.lacity.org/files/Harvard%20Heights%20Survey%20Map.pdf and http://www.preservation.lacity.org/files/Harvard%20Heights%20Ordinance.pdf which can be found at the City of Los Angeles Planning Department Office of Historic Resources website (http://www.preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/la/harvard-heights). Unfortunately, the editing you performed relies on misinformation disseminated by the LA Times Crime Mapping unit. The publication has previously been informed in writing that the information contained on their website is inaccurate and is overly inclusive of surrounding areas that are not commonly considered, nor publicly marked as Harvard Heights by both residents and government alike. Furthermore, your citation source can be further contradicted when examined in conjunction with the popular real estate website zillow.com, which posits an altogether third set of boundaries for the neighborhood which is likewise inaccurate. Thus, it makes most sense to rely on the widely published information that City Planning and Zoning has relied on as the accurate boundaries of this neighborhood for the past 13 years. Furthermore, as a local resident of the neighborhood, I can attest to the fact that the neighborhood has been trying to correct this misinformation for years. These efforts to educate those who are not from the area have been very public, and have included the City sanctioned posting of Harvard Heights signs on every corner in the neighborhood between Western Ave and Normandie, as well as Pico Blvd to the 10 Freeway. For this specific reason, the wikipedia article was pursuantly edited in order to stop the flow of misinformation and point to reliable to sources for the Harvard Heights boundary lines. Please revert the edits to this wiki page to reflect this information.

Thank you. I've responded at "Boundaries sources" on the Talk:Harvard Heights, Los Angeles page. It would be best to keep all conversation over there. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was a great edit and a great edit summary, too. The rest of the work you're doing there is high quality and much needed.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Silver Lake, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fairfax District, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Beverlywood, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] "Westside," Mapping L.A., ''Los Angeles Times''</ref><ref name=MappingLACentralLosAngeles>[http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/region/central-la "Central Los Angeles."
• ''The Thomas Guide: Los Angeles County,'' 2004, page 632</ref><ref name=MappingLACentralLA>[http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/region/central-la "Central L.A.," Mapping L.A.,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Beverlywood, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] "Westside," Mapping L.A., ''Los Angeles Times''</ref><ref name=MappingLACentralLosAngeles>[http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/region/central-la "Central Los Angeles."
• ''The Thomas Guide: Los Angeles County,'' 2004, page 632</ref><ref name=MappingLACentralLA>[http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/region/central-la "Central L.A.," Mapping L.A.,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Westwood, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Street and other boundaries are north, [[Sunset Boulevard]]; east, [[Beverly Hills]] city limits (to include the [[Los Angeles Country Club]]; south, [[Santa Monica Boulevard]]; and west, the [[San

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Jerry Pacht (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Edmund G. Brown and Municipal Court

Chinatown, Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to East Los Angeles

Hollywood Hills West, Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Franklin Canyon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you comment at this discussion regarding a source's reliability? It involves a self-published source's use in a featured-BLP article. Dan56 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Playa Vista, Los Angeles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holy Cross 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) 11:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgeLouis, do you have a conflict of interest WP:Conflict of Interest with regards to the publication outlet the Los Angeles Times? A vast majority of the information that you have posted to Los Angeles neighborhood based articles is content derived largely from the Los Angeles Times. It has been brought to your attention that some of the Los Angeles Times information you cite to is inaccurate or at odds with other sources, including widely disseminated maps, government documents, etc. You continue to edit such articles to remove other citations and references, and prominently refer back to the Los Angeles Times as a primary source, both in the article content itself, as well as in the external links section. Is there a reason you have mostly featured this publication/media outlet so prominently in name in these articles? This topic will also be posted to the WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Thank you. Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming you are acting in good faith and that you have not been made aware of Wikipedia:Outing#Posting_of_personal_information. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beverlywood, Los Angeles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hillcrest Country Club (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) 11:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If it's not any inconvenience, could you comment at this RSN post? It seems I'm getting feedback from editors who've cited the source in their edits to articles, and I'd like a more impartial opinion, so I picked you out randomly from the WP:RS talk page, LOL Dan56 (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lonny Chapman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Encino, Los Angeles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Palisades (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) 10:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sexist-by-occupation billboard, January 1977, California.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) 18:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]