This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
I added the WikiProject Southern California banner to this article because the Owens River is the primary water source for the City of Los Angeles. --
Gmatsuda20:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Added the WikiProject Los Angeles banner since the Owens River has provided the City of Los Angeles with the majority of its drinking water since 1913. --
Gmatsuda (
talk)
11:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I'd like to help clean up the article, but I cannot, because it is protected. Is there a reason it shouldn't be simply semi-protected (given that there was a disruptive IP editor)? —
hike395 (
talk)
04:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The block prevented me from even
adding a simply link to a wikiarticle, so I did some checking. It seems that
User:Shannon1 is the culprit who caused established users to be blocked (rather than just IP editors). Here's the sequence: he repeatedly reverted edits apparently under the guise of some personal rule he established for the article as an ad hoc (
wannabe) moderator. He claims in edit summaries that since he warned of the rule, that it validated his repeated reverts. However, after his reverts to delete preceding edits, he then posted significant verbatim information directly from the reverted edits! (Is there Wikipedia terminology for such editing--as for one who claims/acts as a self-considered 'article owner'--or a log to report such actions?) Additionally, it looks like
User:Shannon1's other recent edits in
Owens River are also easily-verifiable as questionable (it looks like they undo constructive fixes). Unfortunatly the moderator who blocked the article didn't apparently make the quick effort to see those questionable edits and instead just warn/block
User:Shannon1 instead of blocking all established users. It also appears
User:Shannon1 made a preemptive plea of ignorance in his comment preceding this post, but considering his shouting (all caps in edit summaries), there's no doubt he knew of his culpability regarding the block. He even admits above that he reported his actions but after doing so now claims "no clue"? Perhaps a mea culpa from
User:Shannon1 will convince the moderator to unblock the article? An apology to other users is in order also, but even if provided, that will probably only involve expressing sorrow (e.g., "I'm sorry") as is common nowadays--instead of the actual 3-Rs etiquette for a true apology, i.e., a detailed admission of Regret & Responsibility with an agreement to perform a specific exceptable Remedy(ies).
US40AL-01 (
talk)
22:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Saw Vsmith's recent edit on the article; I noticed he removed a whole lot of hidden comments that look a lot imitating the ones I put on there except there were far more and they don't sound like I placed them... I wonder who did it :)
Shannontalkcontribs17:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)reply