Welcome!

Hello, Agtaz, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Studerby 22:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not convert english spellings to american. Policy here is to leave them they way they are. Cheers. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your spelling changes to Serious Organised Crime Agency, back to the British standard, for a British topic. That is in accord with general Wikipedia policy, please see WP:ENGVAR. Studerby 22:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You posted this:

"Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Agtaz 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC) "

I have not "blanked pages". I don't what you are talking about. K1ng l0v3 01:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd have to see it - if it's organized crime commited by gangs - then I suspect that'd be fine, but feel free to add one and we'll work from there. Sorry for the iffy response - if you have any other questions I'm usually a bit more helpful ... talk to you later.danielfolsom 23:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for all this info you're posting about the dates cartoons were created? Wahkeenah 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. Where are the dates coming from? Are they on the cartoons themselves? Wahkeenah 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using other wikipedia pages as a source is against the verifiability rules. Wahkeenah 00:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because wikipedia is not an original source. It is subject to editing by anyone. Therefore it is not reliable. To put it another way, I could write an article about something and make up the information, and then write another article (under a different user id) citing the first article. Wahkeenah 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found your user ID on several of the cartoon articles you re-edited today. I think Buccaneer Bunny was one of them. Mind you, I have not looked up which dates are right. I just wanted to know where you got the info. In the case I just mentioned, the Beck-Friedwald book says the film was released on May 8, 1948. That's a verifiable source. There's nothing in the book about the production and/or completion dates of the cartoon. Wahkeenah 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a blue cover. Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies (c) 1989. Buccaneer Bunny is covered on p.185. Wahkeenah 00:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, it would be nice to get the exact release dates in the cartoons as well as the summary page(s). With proper citation, of course. That would take awhile, and that's one reason why I haven't done it. Wahkeenah 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. I would not run if nominated, and if elected I would not serve. Why do you ask? Wahkeenah 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came on so strong. I was just envisioning having to do a bunch of reverts. Wahkeenah 00:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. Are you going to college, and if so, where? (don't tell me if you'd rather maintain your privacy). Λυδαcιτγ 22:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado College. Does LATTC offer business majors? I'm probably going to major in economics. Λυδαcιτγ 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agtaz,

I've seen that you've added yourself to the moderator userlist on User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof#Moderators ([1]). However, you aren't a mod. Maybe you wanted to request approval to run VandalProof? If so, the right page is User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval. Let me know what your edit was supposed to mean ;-) «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 14:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, . But user access, not moderator one. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Agtaz. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Agtaz! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 13:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind going to two FACs for article I have brought up to FA-quality, IMO, recently. These are Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne and Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None. I'd really appreciate any criticisms or support that you could provide for these two feature article candidates. Thanks. Paaerduag 02:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are both adventure games, released by the Adventure Company. What else would you like to know?--Paaerduag 02:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting this! I created this article, as you can tell I'm not from LA. So I have no idea of the geography. A link told me Compton was in South LA. If you have an interest in gang culture you might want to join our project at Wikiproject Crime. If not keep up the good work. Jmm6f488 05:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, i dont really kno lol, i think it just shows up after u hav afew headers, sorry but im not really sure bout shit lik tht, but just holla if ya need sumthin else - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 19:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, hav u got a ref fo the str8 outta compton page where ya rote "The album sold over 3 million units" ? coz i'm tryin 2 get the page up 2 a better standard and u'd need 2 hav a ref fo shit lik tht, but i didnt want 2 revert coz u myt hav a ref and u seemed lik a pretty kool dude, so holla back G - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 19:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok kool, if ur goin' 2 add the refs thts no prob - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, i dont really kno wot ya mean, r u talkin' bout the signature ? holla back - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, this iz a bit crazy so i myt not explain it well, but woteva here goes, u go in2 "my preferences" at the top of tha screen, and in the raw signature u put sumthin like the codin in my signature page here. i kno i didnt really explain much but just ask 4 the help wit the bits u dont understand - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 19:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, i dont really no tht much bout how ya get sigs 2 work, coz TBH i only got mine 2 work like last week, but this User:Hoof Hearted helped me with mine, u cud ask him. Sorry i wasnt able 2 help ya mo - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok kool - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, i suppose theres no prob wit it, y do u ask ? - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, i thought i shud tell u tht i added refs 4 the 3 million sales info 4 ya - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 17:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, u lived in LA ? thats kool G, where do ya live now ? holla back - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 16:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, well @ least ur still in cali and not the east coast lol, im guessin' ur in2 hip hop, whoz ur fav group/rapper ? - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 16:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, pretty much anythin' from the West Coast, like N.W.A, Eazy, Cube, Dre, Snoop, Warren G but also sum ppl from tha East lik Biggie and Public Enemy. Also the dirty dirty rappers lik young buck and t.i. r quite gd. So wen did u join wiki then ? - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 16:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the West Coast rulz imo, its got the best rappers out there, or it used 2 anyway - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 16:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, im down wit that - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 16:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, i hav, y ? - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 15:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you know the name of the song in GTA:VC when Tommy gets a private lapdance ? It's Goin' Down 19:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i dont think that's the right song, i'm talking about the one when he's in the pole position club and he is given a private lapdance, maybe i'm wrong but i'm sure it was different song - It's Goin' Down 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Ryda came up wit an idea 4 a West Coast Hip hop project, although ur not a part of the Hip hop wikiproject, i thought i wud ask u if u wanted 2 join anyway coz u said u were into the west coast shit, cud ya add ur name here if ur interested. Thnx G - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 16:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok kool, i think u'll really help out the project - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 17:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, the project has started, cud u add your name 2 the members list, Wikipedia:WikiProject West Coast hip hop/Participants. - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, thnx 4 joinin', i think ur editz will help out - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to thank you very much for correcting some of the information in the Greg Ford article I created. I truly appreciate it. — Cinemaniac (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention: I know most of Greg Ford's films by memory (and I hope I'll be able to put a Filmography section in the article soon). But d'you know if Ford has published any books ? If he has, I haven't been able to pin them down on the Web. By just listening to his audio commentaries, you can tell he admires the work of Tex Avery and Friz Freleng (the latter director is particularly more "ignored"—if that is the word—by some critics today). It'd be interesting to actually read his takes on the field. — Cinemaniac (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't, unfortunately. He doesn't give his date of birth in his DVD commentaries—then again, why would he?—and I know he doesn't have his own blog. Even a Google search hasn't proven very helpful. There's always something... — Cinemaniac (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I first signed up for an account, it listed the benefits, one of which read: "The ability to start/create pages." I guessed it meant I could create a page without the permission of an admin. I basically did the same for historian Michael Barrier during my unregistered days, believe it or not, any number of months ago. During those days, Mike Barrier's Wikipedia page was a stub about the Star Trek actor, not the animation historian. So I basically added as much info I knew about Barrier to that article (which, by the way, has since become a disambiguation page for the two separate articles). — Cinemaniac (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. That doesn't mean the Greg Ford article is going to be deleted, does it? If it does, I had no idea I couldn't create a Wikipedia bio—however limited it may be—without admin. approval. I guess I should've asked first, eh? — Cinemaniac (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Much obliged. That's a load off of my mind! — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy the cartoons of the Golden Age of American animation in general, but I am a particular afficienado for the Looney Tunes. I thought that would be apparent. If it's not, just look at my contributions and the discussions on my talk page. — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that, too. It's gonna take some time, too, to create more LT and MM pages—time that, unfortunately, I usually won't have. But after New Year's I'll have more time to devote to the Wikipedia animation project, I sincerely hope. — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there already is one: Wikipedia:WikiProject American Animation. You should consider joining; from the looks of your contribs, you'd be a valuable asset to the project. — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Compared to other wiki projects, there aren't too many of us. :) If you yourself need any help, just drop me a line and I'll see what I can do. — Cinemaniac (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How old am I? Sixteensomething... — Cinemaniac (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think that would be a good idea for a separate article. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal for such an article has produced a rather intense response. Click here for more detailed feedback from various fellow editors. — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my exams are over now, so I'll be actively contributing again. What exactly do you suggest we do? I've heard of similar thoughts to create more LT character articles, but some other editors have said that such articles would A) be extremely short, or B) become saturated by speculation and fancruft. — Cinemaniac (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to discourage, and I hope that you didn't think I was trying to do so. I was simply communicating what other editors had said before. That doesn't necessarily mean consensus was reached, and that certainly doesn't mean you should stop trying to do The Right Thing. I think that we should still pursue giving these more obscure characters their own articles—just keeping these earlier advisings in mind. . . — Cinemaniac (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion continued here. — Cinemaniac (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --Flesh-n-Bone 11:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited to the article for this. --Flesh-n-Bone 20:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Agtax! I thought I could ask for your help and advice. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might like to critique them:

• Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
• Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Comments and suggestions are appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

If you have the time, it'd be great if you could look over those two articles and assess their flaws and weaknesses. Thanks, and, again, a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many more edits do you need to become an admin? ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well you used to edit some pages that I did and back then I remember seeing that you were trying to be an admin. I just wanted to know how that was going. I figured you would be an admin by now. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean? ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? Boredom. And I thought if you were an admin, I figured you could come back to the GTA articles and help keep disruptive edits away. No worries, though. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well nothing right now. I just wanted to prevent it. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		You've always been thinking of ways to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Looney Tunes, proposing several great ideas concerning the Looney Tunes television history. Even though some of them might not have come to fruition, I believe it's profoundly essential that new ideas be proposed in order for Wikipedia to keep growing. With that in mind, I present to you the What A Brilliant Idea Barnstar, to encourage you to continue thinking of ways to improve the wiki's coverage of Looney Tunes on TV. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gang control sections? I'm not too sure I know what you're talking about. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Hah I almost forgot about that article. It looks fine really. I think the only info you could add at that point would be cruft. That "expansion" tag should probably be removed. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just minutes ago, MrJanitor1 merged the Charlie Dog article with the Porky Pig article, without providing any reason whatsoever on the talk page or in his edit summaries. I notified him of this, and informed the user that it would probably be best to ask for consensus before making such a move. I then went ahead and reverted most of the edits pertaining to this redirect, but found myself hitting the wall when trying to restore the Charlie Dog page. I've asked Ted Watson about this, but he's not exactly sure how to do it, either. D'you think you could help us out with this? Thanks! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It took the use of some major brain cells, but I think I've been able to restore the Charlie Dog article (by way of copying the original text from the Porky Pig article's history and then pasting it back on the Charlie Dog page). It looks like that worked. Sorry to bother you like that. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 23:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Watson has posted his own comment about the proprosed "Miss Prissy" article at my talk page. Click here for the most recent posting. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need Sources for the above article. Can you help. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just noticed your comments on dissolve's page. Regarding trivia - the idea is to pick out the wheat from the chaff. E.g in Colors (film):

• The film's theme song of the same title was performed by Ice T.
• The producers hired real gang members. Some were shot during the film's production.

These two facts should be incorporated in the main text in a more meaningful context.

• In April 1987, during the film's production, Sean Penn was arrested for punching a photographer who was taking pictures of him without permission. He served a month in jail for this assault.

This is more to do with Sean Penn and should be put in his article if not already noted.

• A mural of Jesus Christ on a wall in one scene can also be seen in a scene from Falling Down, a 1993 film in which Duvall appears as an experienced police officer.

This isn't such a big deal is it? It's an obscure fact that doesn't carry much meaning as it stands. (However, say this was a running theme in an actor's or director's work then that would be more meaningful and should be re-stated as such)

Think of wikipedia as a way to present the most important and interesting facts. I for one don't mind trivia but the truth is the most interesting parts should be in the article and the lesser ones discarded. This is my just opinion, so if you disagree feel free to keep the info. Sorry for the impromptu essay! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have twice reverted the edits which removed your text regarding the "selfishness issue". You reverted by saying "It is true." -- but this isn't sufficient. As you know, content needs to be verifiable, and the text has been tagged as needing references. If you can't give references PROVING that this is true, it isn't true (in the context of Wikipedia) and will likely continue to be deleted. If you don't have references at the moment, I hope you'll consider removing the text (to avoid these edit disputes) until you can supply them. Just some friendly advice.  :-) Leena (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand your question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you're changing names of racial groups? Agtax 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- yes, to make them more ethnically consistent. In fact, I'm not "changing" the names, I'm using the scientifically more accurate monikers.--Kontar (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-I would agree in using Caucasian, but all ethnic groups are derived from a region which environmentally "creates" their ethnic differences. The Caucus mountains is not the only area which has produced people who would be considered to have their characteristics. In general, European peoples are similar in ethnic physical traits as well as cultural and regional association. Caucasian is simply not inclusive enough. Also, "Caucasian" is inconsistent with "Asian," "African," and "Native American." If you use "White people" you would have to use "Yellow people" to describe those of Asian descent to remain consistent, which is of course not physically accurate, regionally relevant, or even culturally descriptive. --Kontar (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Unfortunately, no- as the data has not been collected yet. Also, as a general problem with the article, the US statistics are not representative of a worldwide view of the subject. A broader collection of data is needed to increase the accuracy of the article. --Kontar (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-As I mentioned above, "white" is not a scientific classification. Nor is it consistent with the other descriptions (ie. Asian). The article is about ethnic relations and classification. "White" is a color, not a geographic ethnicity. Encyclopedic entries are meant to be accurate, not popular. --Kontar (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-I agree. The problem there is that all of the groups you have mentioned are considered anthropologically European in origin. It's a sticky subject, I admit, but South Africans and Australians are not indigenous groups to those regions. They are anthropologically "foriegn ethnicities" to those regions and migrant cultural groups from Europe. --Kontar (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-That is correct as well. Russians are considered part of Eurasia, with the western portion and those of lighter skin and rounder eyes to be of "European origin", where those who are darker with narrower eye folds to be of mixed Asian descent. Eastern Russians are more difficult to anthropologically classify due to their regional relations with Western Asians. Again, this is a fault of the article in not covering this issue. In general, Russians are considered to be "of European descent", even though they are CLEARLY not located in Western Europe. Western Russia is geographically considered part of Eastern Europe. It is the same issue as Australians and South Africans. --Kontar (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Caucasian" is discredited in the field of biological anthropology, as are the sister terms "Negroid" for people of African descent and "Mongoloid" for people of Asian descent. If you use Caucasian, you need to use Negroid and Mongoloid for consistency. Sound silly? Of course it does. Caucasian "sounds better" only because a few people still use it in the US, but again, it is a scientifically erroneous term. --Kontar (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pic is okay but somewhere around here there is a guideline/policy that says that nude images should be limited to articles where a casual user could expect to find them. For example, articles like breast, penis, or buttocks are expected to have nude images. The title "Aurora Snow" doesn't hold that same expectation. I know Wikipedia isn't censored, believe me I know, but nude images of people are frowned upon. Dismas|^(talk) 06:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from WikiProject California!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on California related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

• Main Page
  
• Talk page
  
• Cleanup listing
  
• Template list
  

As well as the existing pages:

• Assessment
  
• Article Worklist
  
• Deletion sorting
  

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi! Optigan13 (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct date for the citation in the Westwood, Los Angeles, California article is 30 Jan 1998. I have corrected your improper edit of 3 Jan 2008. It is not very hard to gain access to the L.A. Times online archives to verify these kinds of things (you can do it at any LAPL branch).

Please do not make edits unless you understand what you are doing, or you will be classified as a vandal and will be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must leap to the defense of my sometime contradictory correspondent, Mr. or Ms. Agtaz. I feel you do him or her a disservice by referring to him or her as a "vandal." I have often reverted the edits of Agtaz myself because I feel that they were made either (1) in haste or (2) in ignorance, but I don't believe he or she ever made any edits for the purpose of vandalism. I think Agtaz honestly felt he or she was improving the encyclopedia, not damaging it. Agtaz's problem is that he (or she) has never learned to do on-line research (with accompanying in-line sources) that would really improve our work here. Agtaz has much to learn but labeling him or her as a vandal is not he way to help. Just my opinion, and in friendship, I am, yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question on its talk page, and I need some info, mind answering? FMAFan1990 (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question has been answered. Agtax 23:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a response FMAFan1990 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Agtax 00:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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} 23:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention is called to the discussion here, suggesting retitling Los Angeles Task Force to Los Angeles County Task Force. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]