Talk:Harvard Heights, Los Angeles

message: This article had incorrect boundaries for the entire neighborhood, which I have corrected in my first edit to this article. There was also a map with the same boundaries, which I have removed. The boundaries that had been posted in this article were those of the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, not those of the neighborhood itself. I also removed a comment directed against the Los Angeles Times boundaries, which, as the Times has pointed out, are for the entire neighborhood, not just part of it.  Click here to view my changes. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Harvardheightshpoz has reverted most of the changes and added a photo, without an edit summary or discussion on this page. I reinstated my additions, plus the photo. There seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of the aforementioned editor about WP:Ownership. Also note this message on  Harvardheightshpoz's talk page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundaries 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Harvard Heights, Los Angeles's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "MappingLASouthLA":
From Adams-Normandie, Los Angeles:  "South Los Angeles," Mapping L.A., Los Angeles Times
From Pico-Union, Los Angeles: "South L.A.," Mapping L.A., Los Angeles Times
From Jefferson Park, Los Angeles: "South L.A.," Mapping L.A. website of the Los Angeles Times
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Harvard Heights, Los Angeles]] 

message: The following is copied from my Talk Page. It was posted by User:Harvardheightshpoz at 16:36, 30 May 2013‎ GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks GeorgeLouis for bringing the discussion here.  I don't know all the particulars, but i have corresponded with Harvardheightshpoz at his/her Talk page (and replies at mine) and I have the impression that this editor is just trying to set the record straight about what are the boundaries of this area.  My impression is that the LA times has misstated neighborhood boundaries; pretty convincing evidence is information about signs being posted which promulgate what the boundaries are.  We should not ignore the knowledge of locally-informed persons-on-the-spot.  I'll try to look into the sources given in the article and comment further.  I do appreciate your concern that good sourcing should be provided in encyclopedic articles, and in general appreciate your efforts to improve coverage in wikipedia of LA neighborhood articles.  Cheers, --doncram 20:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundaries sources 

message: User:Harvardheightshpoz may have a conflict of interest. Note the name of the user and the edits he or she made on the page that seem to have a non-encylopedic WP:Point of view. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, I haven't followed everything going on here, and in particular I don't know which specific edits you are seeking to call attention to, but i think that is nonsense in this case.  The editor (at whose talk page I have posted) is clearly interested in this article, and is trying to set the record straight on the size of the neighborhood.  The editor is relatively new to wikipedia and does not know all the policies (like most editors).  But as far as I know the editor does not show any evidence of having a profit motive or anything else.  I appreciate your concern, and, sure, the editor should read wp:COI about Conflict of Interest policy.  However that policy does not mean a person cannot edit.  I do appreciate you state this as "possible" coi, too. --doncram 03:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Doncram, I respect your opinion, and I am deleting the tag.  It is obvious to me just by the WP:User name, let alone the fixes and reversions that the editor has made, that he or she is a booster of the hpoz (historic preservation overlay zone) and not a more-or-less-disinterested Wikipedian, but that doesn't mean the editor has nothing to offer. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, yes.  And indeed the user should indeed consider the UserName policy of wikipedia (which I am not completely familiar with), and consider changing your username, which I know can be done, i guess i should suggest this at the user's Talk page if that hasn't been raised there, will check there. --doncram 14:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

text: That COI and a little promotional touch were concerns was my interpretation as well, per my deletion of this edit some time ago . 99.149.85.229 (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That deleted edit was to remove "Many of these detailed architectural features have been documented by the photographer Jett Loe through his Kickstarter funded "Untold LA" project to create a digital book full of beautiful images of the area."  The link doesn't work properly.  I approve the removal of that text from the main body of the article;  it does seem unnecessarily promotional or a digression or something;  it is appropriate for an external links section item however.  I see there is an external links section item.  Hopefully it does link to a properly functioning point where the artist mentioned has pics of this neighborhood, or to individual pics.  I see also that some Jett Loe pics may have been added but show as deleted files; perhaps/probably the pics themselves cannot be included in Wikipedia due to copyrights, but the external links section could link to them if they are posted somewhere. --doncram 14:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm dubious re: including this in the external links section, unless the photographer or the photographs themselves have received attention and are established as notable. It looks a lot like spamming to a personal website for an upcoming IPad book. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to clarify that I am neither a photographer, nor an interested party who is being compensated financially or otherwise for the correct dissemination of information about a local neighborhood that I happen to be familiar with. Furthermore, I am not employed in the real estate industry, nor do I represent a particular group whose interests lie in the Harvard Heights neighborhood. I simply happen to be a well informed, and well educated native Angeleno and resident of Harvard Heights. Consequently, I have put in a request for a username change, as suggested by doncram, so as to distinguish myself as having other interests. I will be editing other articles on various topics on a forthcoming basis, however when I devote myself to a topic, I like to see it to it’s suitable end before jumping to another matter. Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible conflict of interest 

message: User:GeorgeLouis may have a conflict of interest.
GeorgeLouis's pattern of contributions and editing to Los Angeles based content in Wikipedia articles has heavily and predominantly relied on information from the Los Angeles Times, and this user has failed to materially disclose that he [personal identification removed]  and thus may have a potential WP:Conflict of Interest. When other users and editors, such as myself, have provided conflicting sources, references and information to edits that GeorgeLouis has performed based on his LA Times source, he continually cites to the LA Times as the only WP:Reliable source. GeorgeLouis lacks neutrality in his edits and in the majority of the article content continues to call out and refer to the LA Times by name when unnecessary, and/or the information cited to is conflicting with multiple sources. GeorgeLouis has not demonstrated good faith based on his repeated failure to reveal his affiliation and potential bias toward a former employer and the same publication outlet he promotes throughout the majority of the articles he has edited. GeorgeLouis has already engaged in discourse with myself and editor doncram, but refuses upon presentation of other WP:Reliable sources such as through widely disseminated government publications, maps, third party websites and photographs of neighborhoods to believe that the LA Times has been factually incorrect in reporting certain information, but in particular on Harvard Heights, Los Angeles. Please review the editing history for this page particularly, and this user's overall contribution history to other LA neighborhood based pages, particularly where he has removed other relevant sources and replaced them with LA Times references. It is highly relevant that an editor removing valid citations and sources and replacing them with largely one source, happens to be connected to that source. I would suggest another editor provide feedback to the Harvard Heights, Los Angeles page. 
I have copied here the WP:COI question posed to GeorgeLouis on his talk page.
:>>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) 17:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Los Angeles Times is ipso facto a WP:Reliable source. I'm not sure about the other documents you mention (widly disseminated maps, government documents, etc.). Each would have to be judged on its merits. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat the question, GeorgeLouis do you have a conflict of interest through a prior or existing relationship with the Los Angeles Times? Would this relationship cause you to have a bias with reference to this source? Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No and no. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Information that you publicly posted on third party websites would seem to contradict your response here. Unfortunately, I cannot link to them though as they contain your personal information. Harvardheightshpoz (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of Interest

message: Removed this sentence from the opening paragraph: "The neighborhood has one private and two public schools. It is the site of a private library dedicated to the memory of singer Ray Charles."
That information is stated further down in the section on "Education".  I don't understand why - unless perhaps all the sections should be summarized in the opening - this information gets stated twice in the article.  Phatblackmama (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, PBM, that is exactly right. The lead is supposed to sum up or highlight what follows. That works particularly well on a smart phone, where you really want all the info at the top. Examine WP:Lead for more info on this. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Paragraph 

message: Some names were recently deleted with the reasoning: "not notable.  Write article first."  However, having an article is not a requirement for inclusion.  I have restored 2 names, and have added additional citations.  Phatblackmama (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable People