Talk:Anaheim Hills/Archive 1

message: I removed the following because these "facts" werew unverifiable (or at least i couldn't verify them)
*However, Anaheim Hills enjoys the lowest crime rate in the city and one of the lowest in Orange County. Violent crime is virtually non-existent; however, drug problems and petty theft remain as minor issues.
*However, the local high school has decreased in prestige over the last few years mainly to drug problems and the loss of the top students to other school districts, namely Troy High School in the Fullerton Joint Unified High School District (FJUHSD).  While the local elementary and middle schools are excellent, Canyon High has failed to meet the standards of a school in such an excellent community.
*Anaheim Hills has excellent places for shopping, most notably the Festival Center in east Anaheim Hills.  Other places of interest include Oak Canyon Nature Center, Knowlwood (Voted the Best Hamburger restaurant in Orange County), two movie theaters, an excellent public library, and an excellent choice of foods, including Macaroni Grill, Mandarin Taste, Hibachi Steakhouse, and Wood Ranch BBQ and Grill.  In 'n Out and Chipotle appear to be the current trends in fast food.
*Anaheim Hills has a reputation of being a quiet and safe, yet exciting place to live.  It is an excellent place to live whether you are a teenager or senior citizen.  Another plus is that the weather is generally excellent except for a few days in the summer when it can get above 100.  The temperature almost never goes under freezing, and snow hasn't fallen in many decades.
I also added the references section, cited a couple of things, and added a link to a map of the area. In light of these changes, i have removed the POV tag.  Not sure who originally wrote this article, but it really did read like a tourism ad.--Alex 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I changed the Anaheim Hills section from the junk written by Mike Dillon. Its apparent he has never been to Anaheim Hills. And I was not the original writer when it was in a Travel Brochure state. I think that these changes are fair and unbiased, and actually make sense, if you have ever been to Anaheim Hills. Stop changing it back to the original text because that text was poorly written!
Ericsaindon2 13 May 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for starting to add references for some of your additions. However, links to plain websites like http://www.census.gov and http://www.dataquick.com are not really sufficient. You should try to reference an actual publication or URL. Mike Dillon 18:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, all you have to do is look at the edit history to see that I didn't write anything substantial in this article. Mike Dillon 18:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. The only way we can be sure that it is "fair and unbiased" is if you cite your sources properly. As it is, it seems to be pushing the point of view that Anaheim Hills is so much better and different than the parent city of Anaheim (with a tone that smacks of bias to me). It's possible the sources support most of the "data points", but we can't know unless the sources can be reviewed. Mike Dillon 02:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes (May 2006) 

message: Editors who repeatedly add references to the fictitious "city" of Anaheim Hills are effectivly vandalising this encyclopedia by adding untrue information. There is no seal of this non-existent city. There is no mayor. Anaheim Hills is a neighborhod of the city of Anaheim, and nothing more than that. I'm sure it's a fine neighborhood, but it is not a city. -Will Beback 19:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't just the seal. The map is also fictitious since there is no reference given for the official boundaries of this neighborhood. Without an official reference, we have know way of knowing whether the boundaries of Anaheim Hills were made up by the uploader. The page really should not have  and it definitely should not be in :Category:Cities in Orange County, California. Mike Dillon 01:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that isn't enough "proof". I'm afraid we'll have to keep "defying" you until you can sort out your references and pro-Anaheim Hills chauvinism. Mike Dillon 02:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. You may want to sign your comments using ~~~~. It helps others follow the timing of the discussion and its participants. Mike Dillon 02:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "City" of Anaheim Hills 

message: I removed the "city seal"; Anaheim Hills is not a city.  Antandrus  (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: City tag for non-city

message: Since I ended up intimately involved in the disputes over this article that I don't really care about, I thought I'd summarize the situation:
# Back in April, somebody started adding paragraphs upon paragraphs of unsourced, biased material to this article. User:Will Beback, a Wikipedia adminstrator involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California posted a "heads-up" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southern California#Anaheim Hills, California. Will asked for help from the project's editors with "archeological" editing, so I put it on my watchlist. After looking at the article, I made the bold decision to revert all of the changes instead of putting  everywhere.
# After a month passed,  showed up and started making more unsourced additions to the article. I'm not sure if he was involved in the original changes, but he has a habit of switching between editing anonymously and logged-in; see the most recent IP edits: . I reverted his changes as original research and for the lack of citing sources. Despite what User:Ericsaindon2 has said elsewhere, this was unrelated to sourcing the "location of a store" but was related to two paragraphs of unsourced demographic information.
# After I reverted three times (before violating 3RR myself), I put a note on User:Will Beback's talk page since he was an admin with knowledge of the situation. I added  and  to the article, but I didn't revert anything else until the next day. Ericsaindon2 reverted my changes and vandalized my userpage by adding the same two templates to my page.
# After another admin (User:Zzyzx11) got involved, I eventually added  and put a note on the talk page. Ericsaindon2 reverted this again and vandalized my userpage with that template.
I basically haven't made any other edits since, leaving the situation to admins. I did add  to the "Location in Orange County" claim in the infobox since the map does not make clear what the source of the official boundaries shown on the map are (I believe they were made up).
My fundamental objections are:
# Unsourced demographic information attempting to support the biased opinion that the neighborhood of Anaheim Hills is "better" than the surrounding city of Anaheim. User:Ericsaindon2 added links to the article that were intended to be references, but they were actually plain domain names, not full URLs.
# The fake "city seal" for Anaheim Hills, created by User:Ericsaindon2 (:Image:Ahills.jpg and :Image:Ahills65.jpg). This "seal" claims a 2007 incorporation/foundation date for the fake "city". There was an earlier fake city seal claiming a 2006 date that was created in April during the first round of problems with this article (probably by the same user).
# The inclusion of this article in :Category:Cities in Orange County, California, when it is not an incorporated city.
# The use of , a template intended for use only with incorporated cities.
# The use of , a template used only on the county's article and the pages of incorporated cities in the county. Until a week or two ago, it was called .
All of these things lead readers to think that "Anaheim Hills" is its own city, not a neighborhood of Anaheim, California. I hope this explains my position clearly. Feel free to ask any question here or on my talk page. Mike Dillon 05:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike Dillon has correctly summarized the matter, and I agree with his objections. There are many facts that we can write about the district of Anaheim Hills, but we mustn't go beyond what is factual. That includes obfuscate its political situation. Should the neighborhood secede then we can decribe it as a city, until then it is a zipcode, a neighborhood. Intentionally inserting false information is either vandalism or, more politely, hoaxing. Either way it has no place in the project.  But factual matters aside, Wikipedia has standards and procedural norms that've been disregarded.  Edit warring will not be tolerated. This is a collaborative project and no one may insist that we must rely on their special knowledge as a reference. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -Will Beback 08:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of disputes 

message: This poll has been open for almost a week and no new votes have been added in three days. Reviewing the
vote I see six clear "support" votes, one clear oppose, and two conditional oppose votes by IPs who are believed to be Ericsaindon2. I count that as six to two in favor of changing the title to "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California". That is amounts to 75% in favor, a clear supermajority. If the two IPs are counted separately that is six to three, 66% in favor, which is still a two-thirds vote. -Will Beback 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of this, I will move the article to "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California". -Will Beback 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Another embarrassing day for Wikipedians.  Number of non-Wikipedia references to "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California" found with google?  Zero.    Some encyclopedia.  Making up names for articles that NOBODY outside of Wikipedia uses to refer to the subject of the article.  Outrageous.  Shaking my head in disbelief.  I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. --Serge 01:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is both an article at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (which is not registered or linked to anywhere) and then there is this one on Anaheim Hills, California. THey are the exact same articles, so whichever title you like better, look at that article (although Anaheim Hills, California is the only one that links to all cities in Orange County, and all the talk pages it was referenced in) --Ericsaindon2 01:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I do not really care what the article is named. But please respect Wikipedia's policies. As per WP:MM, Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) Thus, I had to merge back all of these edits back to this page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: again, like I said, Anaheim Hills, California and Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California are both pages with the exact same titles. Feel free to visit the one that you like the best. --70.237.91.134 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: This is an informal way to voice your opinion about if an infobox should be included on this community page.
Benefits
*:An infobox adds to the overall quality of the article, and puts all facts about a location in an organized manner
:The "facts" about Anaheim Hills can be presented in a different "organized manner", one that does not give the impression that it is a formally organized municipality. Any "quality gains" achieved by the infobox would be lost by the confusion and inconsistency it would generate.
*:This infobox has completely been modified to meet the ideals of Anaheim Hills as a community including no city seal, city flag, and leads to the Anaheim City Website, and states Community of Anaheim Hills, California on the top of the infobox
:The infobox has not been completely modified and remains very similar to that used for cities. The very presentation of "official"-looking statistics gives the impression of an actual governmental entity, which it is not.
*:It provides the only cohesive map that shows Anaheim Hills within Orange County, and appears  like other similar infoboxes
:A map of Anaheim Hills can be presented in the article without having an infobox. Furthermore, any map showing Anaheim Hills would most appropriately show its location within the City of Anaheim, not Orange County.
Drawbacks 
*:It can lead to some confusion if Anaheim Hills, California is not changed to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California
:It will confuse, regardless of the article's title, because NO OTHER Wikipedia article about a neighborhood, district, or other subdivision of a city, to my knowledge, has an infobox. 
*:Some may think that a few facts are unnecessary on the page
If you support the infobox, please state "support", and if you decline it please state "decline".
*Support --207.200.116.131 03:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it again just before you added this note. Having a copy of the box on this page is enough for people to see whether the support including it or not. Since this is a long weekend for most people (in the U.S.), we should try to wait a couple days before making any changes on the issues being polled (the infobox and the name). Mike Dillon 07:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Newport Coast existed as a census-designated place before 2001. I don't see much of a problem with having an infobox for a CDP, but now that it is part of Newport Beach the infobox should be removed. The situation here is different: Anaheim Hills was not a CDP for which statistics were officially produced - here an effort is being made to "cook up" figures and statistics so that Anaheim Hills can have its very own infobox, where at least with Newport Coast the figures are (assumably) Census data. Denvoran 15:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just pointing it out. I still oppose having the city infobox on any unincorporated entity. It would be different if there were a reasonable , but I honestly can't imagine one that would be of much use. Mike Dillon 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Since you didn't sign your name I don't you who "me" is. Without getting into the claim about the IP, even 3/5 is far from a consensus in favor of the infoboxes. Certainly the topic is "considerable" - we've been considering it for weeks. But since the poll failed the box should not go in the article. . -Will Beback 09:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll:Infobox 

message: I count votes from five people who are opposed, and votes from two people who are in favor. 2/5 is not close to a majority in favor. -Will Beback 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you didn't sign your name I don't you who "me" is. Without getting into the claim about the IP, even 3/5 is far from a consensus in favor of the infoboxes. Certainly the topic is "considerable" - we've been considering it for weeks. But since the poll failed the box should not go in the article. . -Will Beback 09:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: I have included a detailed map of the Anaheim Hills area at a more close up view. I hope it clears up any confusion that you may have had about the Anaheim Hills boundaries. Yes, I know the map does need some updating, but it is the best I could do.......for now.--Ericsaindon2 06:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding that. What is the authority for this map's boundaries? Does the City of Anaheim have official boundraies for its neighborhoods? From the description it appears that the boundaries are not the same as a Zip code, unlike many neighborhoods. Are there census tracts? Lastly, please don't post copyrighted images on Wikipedia, except in very limited circumstances. -Will Beback 06:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking at the City of Anaheim's General Plan. It makes no mention of a neighborhood called "Anaheim Hills", only the "Hill and Canyon Area". It does mention "West Anaheim", which elsewhere you wrote is not officialy designated. So are you asserting that Hill and Canyon Area is the same as Anaheim Hills, and if so, what is your source? -Will Beback 01:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The correct link to the image is :Image:L_welcome_pagestack1_006.jpg. Soltras 05:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image, :Image:L_welcome_pagestack1_006.jpg, appears to be the same as :Image:Anaheim Hills 6.jpg. It reads, "Anaheim Hills: Planned Community Association". So, it's not a city, and it's not a recognized neighborhood. It's an "association". Are we sure that the association covers the same ground as the "Hill and Canyon Area"? -Will Beback 06:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I can tell, "Anaheim Hills" is a development within the Hill and Canyon Area, but is not the entire area. Here it's described as a "3,000 lot master community". This real estate site calls it a neighborhood , but since the city doesn't it is a bit iffy. -Will Beback 06:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So Anaheim Hills is a consortium of developments/HOAs that occupies parts of the officially recognized Hill and Canyon Area? -Will Beback 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, it's an unusual arrangement, but perhaps increasingly common. Regarding cityhood, I personally doubt we'll see it anytime soon. First, in all of the research I've done I haven't seen any mention of a movement for independence. Second, such a city would have very little sales tax base (the main source  of income for most Califorina cities), and so probably would not be economically viable. Bedroom communities don't work as cities. That's my opinion, but it leads me to question any assertions of a meaningingful independence movement. -Will Beback 07:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed Map 

message: How did you determine the census and demographics figures? Whenever I try to enter "Anahiem Hills" at http://factfinder.census.gov, all I get is that it "cannot find any information for the location you specified". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that it was probably retabulated from the 92807 and 92807 ZCTA data. This would be fine if it were more explicit about the source (cf. Ladera Ranch, California#Demographic estimates). Mike Dillon 14:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some links for the ZCTA data: 92807, 92808. I spot-checked that the numbers in this article match the combination of the two ZIPs by recalculating the African American number of 0.2% (632 + 418 / 36283 + 19612). The ZCTA reference maps are here: 92807, 92808. Mike Dillon 15:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as long as someone rewrites the section to be more like Ladera Ranch, California#Demographic estimates, I am fine by that. But then that leads back to the original question posted above: What are exactly the boundaries of Anaheim Hills? Of course, if you enter "Anaheim Hills" into the USPS Zip code finder, it lists 92807, 92808, 92809, and 92817 (which is designated for PO Boxes only). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm not sure how I messed up the math, but the actual statistic is 1.87%. I guess no published statistics match the "0.2%" in the article. Mike Dillon 03:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: These demographics are avalible by using ONLY the 92808 zip codes statistics. Since Anaheim Hills only contains parts of the 92807 zip code, the 92807 zip code cannot be used in a census search. The parts of Anaheim Hills in the 92807 are greatly outnumbered by the other noninclusive parts of Anaheim that contain the 92807 zip code. When the OC Register does statistics and figures regarding Anaheim HIlls, all data can be found on the DataQuick database, although the OC Register does pay alot of money for access to this private organizations information. --Ericsaindon2 02:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then how come the "Black or African American" statistic for the 92808 ZCTA says "2.1" percent and the change you made on May 19 says "0.2" percent? Mike Dillon 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Because like I told you, the counted zip code, 92808, may say 2.1, but you bare not including the WHOLE PICTURE. This sector of the 92807 zip code is nearly .5%, which nulls that 2.1% out. But when looking at the 92807 zip code in its entirety, you can clearly see that the african american population is significantly higher, because the parts of the 92807 zip code that are not in Anaheim Hills have a significantly higher African American population than the 92807 Anaheim Hills parts. This MUST be calculated using neigborhood statistics and not zip code statistics, like I have done. --70.237.91.134 05:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are neighborhood statistics? The recognized "neighborhood" is "Hill and Canyon Area". It osunds like individual census tracts would have to compiled in order to get the right statistics for the area.  -Will Beback 08:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  You are completely wrong. 92807 has a 1.7% statistic for "Black or African American" and 92808 has 2.1% (632 people in 92807 and 418 people in 92808). So basically you've just admitted that you're doing original research since the only way to come up with these numbers is logic that only you know (i.e. not based on the published boundaries of any recognized authority). This entire exchange is getting more and more ridiculous. Mike Dillon 14:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But you took the demographics from the ENTIRE 92807 zip code! That is not correct! The African American Population in 92807 may be the number you stated, but this part of Anaheim Hills' 92807 zip code is below 0.2%! And remember you cannot just average the numbers together because the 92807 zip code for this sector of Anaheim Hills has many more people than 92808 does, virtually making the 2.1% in the 92808 zip code nonexistent. Check your math, and dont include the whole 92807 Zip Code!--70.237.91.134 04:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what exactly are the neighborhoods and communities you are using to define your data set? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: OK. Here is my math:
\frac{632 + 418}{36283 + 19612} \sim 1.878\%
I don't know what your math is because you're making no sense, but even if half the people in 92807 lived in "Anaheim Hills" and there were no African Americans there, your numbers are wrong:
\frac{0 + 418}{\frac{36283}{2} + 19612} \sim 1.107\%
Even if all of 92807 was part of "Anaheim Hills" and had no African Americans, your numbers would be wrong:
\frac{0 + 418}{36283 + 19612} \sim 0.747\%
Your "0.2%" is a bullshit number. I'd like to see your math. Mike Dillon 04:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, are you saying that you are using data from both DataQuick and Census.gov to compute those averages? Such calculations would be inaccurate unless both DataQuick and Census.gov took their data at the same time. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have been using DataQuick, and it has thrown user Mike Dillon off a bit because he was using Census and couldnt figure out why there was such a discrepency in the numbers. I told him that it is harder to use Census because they dont recognize Anaheim Hills, whereas DataQuick Orange County does. But to make Mike Dillon happy, I switched to Census and did the calculations neighborhood by neigborhood to get the totals. --Ericsaindon2 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see: Anaheim Hills is unrecognized as a geographic location by the U.S. Census Dept., the U.S. Postal Service, the state of California, and the city of Anaheim. It's an indistinct neighborhood, and so I think we should avoid detailed demographic and geographic info. Let's just say the area has over 50,000 residents and almost 19 square miles. We will be perfectly accurate in both respects. Also, can we all agree about the P.O.? That screenshot is very odd content. Even if we don't agree, let's at least move it to this page for discussion. -Will Beback 08:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: Eric, there is mail for you at User talk:Ericsaindon2. You can respond there. Cheers, -08:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just keep the infobox on the page. I mean at the very top of the infobox I put Community of Anaheim Hills--so you would have to be totally oblivious to think Anaheim Hills is a city at that point, plus the first words in the article state that it is just a community. There is no way you could misinterpret that this is a community, unless you just skipped reading the infobox altogether. Furthermore, the infobox is totally accurate and uses neighborhood by neigborhood census tracts, versus just Anaheim or 92807, 92808 as a whole. I spent alot of time working on this box, and rallying information that I feel approporiate for the infobox. It is not creating any confusion, I mean even in the infobox it states City:Anaheim, even the dumbest person could figure out Anaheim Hills is just a community. Pls, why would you deny people the opportunity of learning everything about Anaheim Hills on one page since everything you research about Anaheim Hills is very scattered, and/or incomplete information. I think that Wikipedia, as it stands now, gives the most comprehensive information about Anaheim Hills, and I have had a couple of personal emails saying that I represented Anaheim HIlls well on this page. Although it may look like a city infobox, I have made it so that its idiot proof, and couldnt be mistaken. Can you just leave it because I know its standard rules for a city to have this box, but the box has totally been customized to fit Anaheim HIlls with the removal of the seal and flag slot, as well as the addition as included in the City of Anaheim. --70.237.91.134 03:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eric, you have once again violated our policies by reverting the repeatedly. Please do not make these unilateral edits when the rest of the editors disagree with you. Please respond to the messages on your talk page. -Will Beback 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you people just leave Eric alone! The page reads well, and it is obvious that it is a community for this fact is stated over and over again on the page. Stop using an abusive power that you have and keep blocking him just beacuse he is improving an article. Not everyone will approve it, but it is a good article, and I believe that the infobox is beneficial to the article (because Eric is right about it being hard to find information about Anaheim Hills on the world wide web). You cannot seem to give any reason that the infobox shouldnt be there, unlesss you personally have something against user:Ericsaindon2 or something, and I cannot come up with a reason that it shouldnt be there. He switched all his data over from DataQuick, or whatever its called to meet the ideals of the Census Survey, and even did his calculations neighborhood by neighborhood, which is a timely process, just to gain the approval of other uncooperative editors, and they still arent happy. So what! The infobox was not originally intended for communities, yet it has been totally changed and customized to fit Anaheim Hills as a community, and not as a city.--207.200.116.131 04:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a collaborative effort. Editors who are not willing to honor the input of other users should find a different project. If other editors agreed to the box then your agruments might make sense, but it is inappropriate for Eric to keep re-inserting it over the objections of everyone else. It is also inappropriate to keep moving the title of the article. Eric himself moved several other neighborhood articles to the "neighborhood, city, state" format, so he clearly understands it and is apparently avoiding that format for this article intentionally.  As for the demographics, this neighborhood has no official boundaries, so there can be no exact data about it. Vague data would be fine. I hope that when his block expires he will work with the other editors to find a consensus, and then will honor that consensus. As for you, please get a username if you want to have a separate identity. However if this is Eric, please be aware that abusive sockpuppets are not tolerated.  -Will Beback 04:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DataQuick vs. Census Debate 

message: It seems that (a) certain contributor(s) is/are trying very hard to assert Anaheim Hills' "independence" and is/are going to great lengths to distinguish and separate it from Anaheim. Posting an "infobox" for the community is misleading and inappropriate. Even Hollywood and Brooklyn - probably the two most recognizable "communities" in the country that are parts of cities and not cities of their own DO NOT have infoboxes! Why should Anaheim Hills, which is much less known and far less important than Hollywood or Brooklyn? Using an infobox suggests that Anaheim Hills is formally organized as some sort of municipality, which it is not. Instead of showing the location of the community within Anaheim, which would demonstrate that it is a portion of that city, it shows its location within Orange County - just like the infoboxes of legitimate Orange County cities do. This is misleading! It lists a mayor, suggesting that there is a mayor of Anaheim Hills - this is not true! The infobox supplies irrelevant, "fluff" information - it is clear from other parts of the article that the community is in California, and who cares what time zone a neighborhood is in? Simply slapping "community" on the heading of the infobox does not eliminate these confusions and inaccuracies.
Furthermore, the title of the article as "Anaheim Hills, California" is in the format generally used for independent cities and towns, or for legitimate place names used in mailing addresses. Since "Anaheim Hills, California" is none of these, using it as the title of the article is inconstent and misleading. The article on the Los Angeles district of Hollywood is titled "Hollywood, Los Angeles, California" and the article on the New York City borough of Brooklyn is titled simply "Brooklyn". The title of this article should either be "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California" or "Anaheim Hills", but not "Anaheim Hills, California".
In light of the above arguments I am removing the infobox and moving the article again. If someone can provide legitimate arguments supporting why Anaheim Hills, among the many tens of thousands of neighborhoods of the U.S., is so exceptional that it merits its very own infobox, please state it here. Likewise, please state why this article should break convention and be titled as {city, state} even though Anaheim Hills is not a city, town, or a postally acceptable place name. Denvoran 06:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all well and good, but lets get some kind of concensus before just moving the page around...especially since you have put forward two proposals. There are plenty of unincoprorated areas that are listed "place, state" that are not officially towns or cities. I see some logic in the name including the city of which the community is part - but from what I see there is far from any kind of style guide on how to handle this. Another option is Anaheim Hills, California (community) and that has the advantage of easier wikilinks Anaheim Hills, California since you can easily get wikipedia to ignore the info in parens easily - ie include the pipe but no text after the pipe like this:  will create a link that is named for the article minus the parens Symes 10:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that "Community, State" is primarily used for unincorporated areas outside of a city (or at least not entire contained within a city). Anaheim Hills, however, is a neighborhood fully contained within the city of Anaheim, so it should be named "Community, City, State". Mike Dillon 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've started an informal "straw poll" on the naming in the Page move section above. As for the infobox issue, it would be nice if we continued the ongoing discussion in the Infobox City section above instead of splitting it up. Mike Dillon 14:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox and Title

message: So I re-worded/wrote the recently added "Economy" section, but I added a  beside the list of companies that are headquartered in Anaheim Hills, just to ensure that the original writer is sure that they are indeed headquarters, and not regional branches.  If anyone from the area can verify this list, feel free to remove it.Adambiswanger1 05:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy

message: Here is the USPS screenshot:
:Image:USPSAnaheimHills.png
I am removing it from the article. Mike Dillon 06:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USPS screenshot 

message: Will, will you vote on the infobox and on the redirect page, it would really help out the votes. --70.237.91.134 05:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Comments on Straw Poll  

message: Anaheim Hills, California
                          	                                                	
Image:ahills232.JPG       	Image:ahills232.JPG                             	
Community Facts           	Community Facts                                 	
Community Population      	53,997 (community)                              	
Population Density        	1054.8 km                                       	
City Population           	335,887 (Anaheim, California)                   	
Percent of City Population	6.22%                                           	
                          	                                                	
                          	Area                                            	
-Land Total               	17.6 square miles                               	
-Water Total              	1.37 square miles                               	
-Total                    	18.97 square miles                              	
Population Characteristics	Population Characteristics                      	
                          	                                                	
Caucasian/White           	69.4%                                           	
Asian                     	20.8%                                           	
African American          	1.8%                                            	
Hispanic/Latin American   	3.9%                                            	
Other                     	4.8%                                            	
                          	                                                	
                          	                                                	
Housing Types             	Estate Sized, Large Single Family               	
Median Income             	$102,000 (household)                            	
Median House Value        	$994,000 (as of May 2006)                       	
Location                  	Location                                        	
                          	                                                	
Country                   	United States                                   	
-State                    	California                                      	
-County                   	Orange County, California                       	
-City                     	Anaheim, California                             	
Postal Codes              	92807, 92808                                    	
                          	Unofficial Borders                              	
North                     	91 freeway                                      	
South                     	Orange, California                              	
East                      	Riverside County line, Cleveland National Forest	
West                      	55 freeway, 92806 zip code border               	
                          	                                                	
*I added an infobox on the demographics portion similar to the one on the Ladera Ranch, Mission Viejo, California Community page to the Anaheim Hills page. I did have to modify it because some information that was avalible for Ladera Ranch wasnt avalible for Anaheim Hills and visa versa. I would like to include the map on this infobox versus the way it sits right now because where it is located right now in the page is not where the location is described. I dont know how to add the map to the infobox lower down on the demographics page, but if someone with more knowledge about doing that could assist me I would appreciate it!--Ericsaindon2 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Community Infobox Preview 

message: I have created a whole new infobox totally custom for communities only including things tht communitites have. It does not include all of that governmental information, but rather focuses on the people and characteristics of a community, which can be determined in some communitites in other ways besides through Census. This one provides a whole new look, and disincludes the city seal and city flags. However, it does include features that are more directed to communities, like unofficial boundaries, and people characteristics to replace governmentl statistics that arent avalible for unincorporated areas. I hope it suits the needs, and I think that it will provide a good addition to the page. Also, it will give Wikipedia a heads up when people are researching Anaheim Hills. It is the only place where statitics are avalible for free about Anaheim Hills, since the source of the infomation, DataQuick, costs money to get the privately researched information. It is more necessary on this page than any other city page, because other cities have that information posted all over the internet, and communities dont have it posted anywhere, so why deprive the public of this valuable information when it is avalible, and can be avalible on Wikipedia?
*Support --Ericsaindon2 04:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll New and Modified 

message: Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California?Adambiswanger1 03:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the issue is split right down the middle by means of opposition and support. It is not causing any problems, so just leave it. --Ericsaindon2 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Eric, why are you opposing moving this page while you are moving many others? -Will Beback 04:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Because those pages dont have a split vote on whether to move it or not like this one does. If nobody votes (like what happened on the other pages) then it can be moved, but there is so much controversy on this page that it should remain unaffected until a clear resolution can be come to. If Mike Dillon decides to start an arguement on another page, like he did on this one, then we can change those back too. --70.237.91.134 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we move this thing

message: From where are we getting the weather, crime, and other information? I don't see any sources that look like they would contain such info. -Will Beback 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weather, crime, etc 

message: Is it ok if I add a history section to the Anaheim Hills page? I will upload it within a few minutes, but in the meantime I would like to hear some comments on this talk page. --Ericsaindon2 04:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I noticed that an infobox has reappeared on the page. I'm not sure what changes it reflects to address the concerns by those who opposed in the above polls, but I think out of prudence considering the situation here I think it would be wise if for a little while major changes took place after consensus on the talk page. I realize that maybe I haven't made my concerns clear with why I oppose an infobox so I shall do so as clearly as I can:
*The Anaheim Hills boundary is currently described in the article as follows: "Anaheim Hills is comprised of two zip codes, 92807 which serves the western portions of Anaheim Hills, and 92808 which serves the eastern portion of Anaheim Hills. Not all parts of the 92807 zip code are included in Anaheim Hills. Only those residents that live south of the 91 freeway in the 92807 zip code are in the Anaheim Hills vicinity." The infobox cites the population as 53,997. The sources provided give data based on whole zipcodes, but Anaheim Hills is defined on partial zips. How was this (very precise) figure ascertained? By the current definition of Anaheim Hills boundary, I see no viable way of constructing a population figure unless one can be directly provided by some outside statistics agency.
*Similarly, after visiting the referenced sites, I couldn't find the data that was used in the infobox for racial percentages. This may have come from the US Census by adding up the zip codes data, but (aside from the fact that Census isn't identified as a source) the inhibitions of partial zip codes creates a problem here too. Additionally, if the data was added up manually per zip code, great care must be taken with the manipulation of percentages because they are relative values, not absolute (I speak from experience).
*My argument extends also to the precise values ascertained for land and water area. I didn't see this information from the sources provided.
*How was the median home value calculated? If it was averaged from the participating zip codes, then care must have been taken to account for more or fewer homes from one zip code to the next. (in an extreme example, picture two neighboring zipcodes, 11111 and 22222. In 11111 there is a single home and it's worth $1,000,000. In 22222 there are a ten homes all worth $100,000. The average home value for the area is $181,181, not $550,000 which is the plain average of the two zips.) Hopefully I have made it clear why I am so interested in how the data was constructed.
*Finally, and this is on a different vein, I think an infobox for Anaheim Hills even with perfectly correct and well sourced data sets an impossible precedent for other communities because counterpart data for other neighborhoods may be incomplete or just unavailable.
I think this is worth repeating: let us refrain from infobox adding until a consensus has been reached. Soltras 06:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see DataQuick listed as a source. Please post all your sources. In any case, this still doesn't explain how the infobox cropped back up after it was voted down (twice). Soltras 06:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an infobox straight from the Ladera Ranch, California page, which is  the only comunity infobox that currently exists. It has been modified to fit the information known about Anaheim Hills. This infobox contains NO governmental statistics whatsoever, just population, characteristics, area, etc. --Ericsaindon2 06:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of the Infobox 

message: Anaheim Hills, California has now been full protected to prevent copy-and-paste moves from this article. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anaheim Hills, California]] Protected 

message: ::Google Search: 
*Anaheim Hills, California (pages displayed 23,098); 
*Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (pages displayed 16)
Yahoo Search: 
*Anaheim Hills, California (pages displayed 25,641); 
*Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (pages displayed 13)
Alta Vista Search: 
*Anaheim Hills, California (pages displayed 14,512); 
*Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (pages displayed 7)
Actual Reference from the City of Anaheim's Police Department Page---
*East Anaheim Police Center Located in Anaheim Hills;
*Oak Canyon Nature Center-Located in Anaheim Hills;
*Anaheim Hills Festival-Located in Anaheim Hills;
www.realtor.com-
*Homes for Sale in Anaheim Hills, California
Postal Service Notice- 
*("please do not use Anaheim Hills, California in mailing letters, use Anaheim, California)
Google.com/maps-
*Type in Anaheim Hills, California; take you right to location of Anaheim Hills, 
*Type in Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California you get this this message "could not find this location, check spelling and/or name usage"
I have yet to find any place, besides Wikipedia that uses Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. There are a few references that are currently larger and more powerful than Wikipedia that dont use Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California when referencing Anaheim Hills, but rather use Anaheim Hills, California. --Ericsaindon2 03:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How come every time I prove my point, everyone gets all quiet? It must be a sign that I am winning this controversy? I think it is since nobody is talking, and/or is willing to prove me wrong. --70.237.91.134 04:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my guess, but it is a Friday night and nobody who voted Support above has been online to rebut your claim. Or you could be right in your observation. Whatever the case, I will say again that I do not really care about how this article is named. I never even voted in the straw poll. The only thing I care about is that you should not violate the clear, cut black-and-white policies of Wikipedia such as the three revert rule and resolving disputes. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof:What the Majority of English Speakers Would Recognize in Naming Convention 

message: The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place. 
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.
When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond in kind, and do not make personal attacks. 
Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette.
You cannot consider any of my edits vandalism. --Ericsaindon2 04:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what do you call removing the  tag to a page that another uninvolved admin has currently move protected?  Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text From Solving Issues 

message: In order to promote peace and reconciliation, I propose that we move the article back to "Anaheim Hills, California". Though the practice of naming articles according to the scheme of "neighborhood, city, state" is very common and practical, it is not a policy. On occasion, some editors have objected strenuously to having their neighborhood article named in that way. While consistency is important in an encyclopedia, the exigencies of collaborative editing are such that sometimes it's virtualy necessary for common practice to give way to individual preference. 
This case is slightly different than some because many recent edits sought to portray the district incorrectly as an independent place. Those edits sensitized other editors to claims of independence. However I think we've moved past that stage and there is no longer any question that Anaheim Hills is a part of Anaheim. The article now properly reflects that fact in the text. 
If moving the article back to just "Anaheim Hills" will bring peace to the article, and if editors can agree to remove contentious boxes, and unverifiable data, then I think it is worth making an exception to normal practice. This is all too minor to fight about. -Will Beback 09:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. I still support the "AH, A, Calif" format, but my main issue has always been with the infobox. It has reappeared this morning. I still do not know where this information comes from. The sources provided do not give this information (that I could see) and at best they give info broken down by zip code - yet Anaheim Hills is defined on partial zip codes. Ericsaindon2 mentioned something about DataQuick, but it's not listed as a source and when I researched it on my own, I couldn't find in the site where to get data for Anaheim Hills. Soltras 16:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, given the impass we've reached I support this.  Will Beback sums it up well. However, I don't want to sound bitter, but shouldn't the magnanimousness expected of the winning party be also expected of the losing minority?  Or are we just recognizing their unbending determination? Adambiswanger1 20:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, but I must object to the statement, Though the practice of naming articles according to the scheme of "neighborhood, city, state" is very common and practical, it is not a policy. .  It is NOT a "very common and practical" practice ANYWHERE.  And to the extent that this unique naming format is used within Wikipedia makes the practice a violation of Wikipedia's own primary article naming rule.  --Serge 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree with the move, but get all of that protection stuff off the page. It looks like your entering some top secret CIA site, and all it is is an Anaheim Hills information page. I cannot promise that the infobox remain off the page (but we will solve that issue after we solve the naming dispute). I dont seem to understand why, if all the facts were verified, that the box cannot remain on the page? Everything was verified, and has sources, and so what if it is not typical for a page to have an infobox! There is no designated community infobox, so that doesnt mean there cant be, it just means that there isnt at this time. Now, since there isnt, the infobox needs to be determined on a page-by-page basis, and it shouldnt come through a straw poll whether it is there or not, but through practicality and verified information. And the straw polls are ianccurate of original opinions because everyone on this page, besides maybe myself, Serge, Adambswanger1 are all working together and all agree about everything because that is standard for admins to do. They dont want to get into a confrontation or they may loose their adminship, so they dont argue, and since they dont argue, they all just agree with eachother, making the polls worthless of original opinion. Now, I am not the one loosing here, neither are any of you, but its those people who rely on Wikipedia for a good source of information that there should be an infobox on the page. It compresses all the demographic facts, and does not include any of that governmental stuff that real infoboxes for cities do. It has facts that are avalible, but take alot of time for people to calculate neighborhood by neighborhood facts like these are. Now how can you deny these people of these facts just because all you admins are backing eachother up, and not truely letting your real feelings out? I have not heard one good reason why the infobox should not be on the page. There is no confusion of if Anaheim Hills   is a city, because the infobox is totally modified to just include facts avalible for the area. Now, on this page especially, an infobox is essential because its the only site on the world wide web where someone actually to took the time to go deep into Cenusus records to determine the Anaheim Hills demographics that are verifiable, but are timely to compress. I think that depriving the page of this beneficial infobox would be depriving the people that rely on this site for information on the things they like to look up. Now the only arguement I have heard was that it was big and clunky! Now, just because it is big and clunky doesnt mean that all people that read this article should not be supplied with the information. They are not going to enter the page, and say that box is clunky, I am leaving. No, they will say wow, someone actually took the time to comprise a bunch of Census data just for this page. Like I said, if the deletion of the infobox is a personal attack against me, I am not the one that is loosing, its the readers. And about this page move, I fully support the name, and have wanted it changed to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim Hills, California, or Anaheim Hills (California) from the getgo. I just dont like the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California name. So I do support the naming portion of your compromise. --Ericsaindon154 23:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not help when you create a sockpuppet account to evade User:PS2pcGAMER's 3RR block of your primary User:Ericsaindon2 account . Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: Earlier today I blocked two users for violating the 3RR over the inclusion of the infobox.  Now, two more users are revert warring.  The page has been fully protected until this dispute can be resolved.  The version that I protected it at is NOT an endorsement of it.  It was simply the version that I came across when I saw the revert war continuing.  Please, come to an agreement.  Thanks. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection 

message: FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2. Regretfully, -Will Beback 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Rfc 

message: I got the approval for the community infobox, go check it out in your free time. []
:That's very nice, but I hope you are not thinking that you can create a one-man project in order to circumvent the opposition to your edits to his article. Playing games is not appreciated. -Will Beback 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that was not my intention at all. I just want this infobox, since it was approved, to go onto a few of Orange Counites community pages. They are all Census materials defined by their zip codes. My point was not to combat my conflicts with other editors. --Ericsaindon2 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I was hoping that no other community page would end up in such turmoil. A clean black and white community box should be used for ALL communities, and information not avalible for that particular community should be left out (same with adding additional information not on the infobox). I just would hate to see other communities go through so much turmoil. I mean look at this pages conflicts, 13 3rr rule breakings, 1 rfc, 33 pages (printed) of complaining and backstabbing, and a completely split arguement between admins and regular users. I dont think that this war is the way to solve anything, but to make changes so that it can be avoided next time (by adding rules and Wikipedia templates). I hope that you guys can at least support my endeavor to go forward with the new community infobox, and add it to a few pages using the census information on the communities particular zip code. If you just look up the zip codes, all of this information should be there. I would appreciate it alot.--Ericsaindon2 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, I must say that I dont have any hard feelings towards anyone. I know that we all have very different ideas about debates like this when rules are not strictly defined. So know that I am not mad at any of you, nor do I hold a grudge. I know we are all human, and have strong opinions about different things, and that is what makes Wikipedia such a great place is that everyone puts in their idea to come up with a final project. Just know that I am not mad at any of you, and I hope you keep taking stands to modify rules you may not like on Wikipedia. :) --Ericsaindon2 04:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It wasn't "approved". You added it to that page yourself. Not that an infobox needs "approval", but what you're saying is misleading. The main problem with the statistics in the infobox has always been their unverifiability due to the lack of a reliable source for the neighborhood's definition. Mike Dillon 01:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Ericsaindon2's grossly misleading misstatement of the facts is evidence of bad faith on his part.  He also still does not understand that the statistics are inherently unreliable because there is no officially recognized neighborhood boundary.  He also does not understand that ZIP Codes are not required to correspond with neighborhood or city boundaries, which causes problems in many parts of the United States and California in particular.  --Coolcaesar 03:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PS Community Infobox 

message: This page has been protected for the past two and a half weeks. No discussion has occurred on the issue in the past week on the talk page. Are the issues being resolved and the disputed parties moving towards consensus? How is the progress on the Request for Comments going, and is there progress towards actions against any users? If there are no objections, I will request unprotection. Calwatch 00:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request unprotection?