Talk:Point Isabel Regional Shoreline

message: Actually, copy-editing involves fixing grammer, spelling, punctuation, and general content of the article. Nothing will be removed unless it violates NPOV, or is innapropriate. I will begin copy-editing in a short while, but just right now I would like to know if there is anything I need to watch out for, or a specific point of contention in this article. If, while making my edits, I mess up, please tell me. Best regards.--Song 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for that. I'll keep it in mind as I edit. I read over this page, and read ILike2BeAnonymous's talk page, and your talk page as well. (One of my habits. I get bored rapidly unless I have something to read. Nothing against you or ILike2BeAnonymous personally.) Warning noted, but I have to request that you try to refrain from being rude. I can accept that this person is generally not nice, but I can make my own conclusions, thank you. It's just not nice to insult people, whether the insult is true or not. I will be considerate and honest with everyone here, and I expect the same courtesy from ILike2BeAnonymous. I don't mean to be insulting: if I am I apologize immediatly. One more point is that the copy-edit template belongs on the article page. It's not really important, but still. I'm currently editing another article, but I'll get to this one in about half an hour, possibly more. Best regards.--Song 00:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy-editing

message: You guys do argue a lot. I've been watching this page, and it just dosen't seem like either of you are enjoying yourselves. Tension is really running high. I've been looking for that 'Random Smile' template to put on here, but I can't find it.
Can everone here calm down? Wikipedia isn't really important, not in the big scheme of things. Don't get all worked up about one article, or one person.
If I interpreted the situation wrong, please tell me.--Song 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Far be it from me to tell you your interpretation of the situation is wrong (cf. the Firesign Theater's "that's metaphysically absurd!"); and you're absolutely correct in your assessment of the relative importance of this so-called "encyclopedia" (more like a big touchy-feely social club on steroids). But the fact remains that this article is a huge mess. Whether one cares about that or not, of course, is a horse of a different color ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The average messiness of the article is not important (in this particular discussion). What I'm concerned about is the air of semi-hostility and tension here (no offence, that's just the vibes I'm getting). I am going to get around to working on the article, but I can't do that if there are going to be arguments and (minor) edit wars. I just want all hot tempers to cool down. Is that too much to ask?--Song 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well IL2BA is basically in love with me and that's why he follows me around some article I frequently edit or have created after a previous arguement has subsided so he can be close to me. Well thats one theory of mine, since he's very rude and crass...uncivil and beligerant to myself and when you're a little kid boys are mean to you if they like you, so that's my theory. But then again I might just be trying to make light of the situation with a joke (wink wink). IL2BA is generally just as rude to me as he is to anyone that disagrees with him, but there will be harmony someday. On the plus side all the arguing seems to result in near perfect writing, facts, sources... ... ... wait for it... ... ...wait for it... ... wait... wait...eventually. All theatrics aside and apparent agression aside this is just wikipedia even if it seems tense it's not a big deal in the whole scheme of daily life. Funny you should mention the random smile, I gave IL2BA one on his talk page as a peace offering but he removed it, and although its probably vandalism to remove that, It wasn't exactly a comment so I let it go, in any case just flip through his recent history on his talk page and look for an edit summary to the effect of "I don't want Cholga's studpid smile <growl>". Oh you kids! And you interperted it just fine, me and IL2BA are just probably polar opposites I reckon I was raised by nurturing/indulgant/negligent parents and he was raised by strict parents or some other dichotoy which makes us utterly incompatable with regards to chemistry and agreement. As for the edit wars, what edit wars, that died down a while ago here. Although I really hope fundraise vs. raise funds isn'nt blown up by him á la downtown Richmond vs. Downtown Richmond was. But even if it is, this is just wikipedia, its an arguement that may have to happen to reach consensus and prevent a real edit war. And what pray tell is so messy about this article at this point, I think it would reasonably get graded as B+ or A- if we were to use that scale. Its a living article, even if it became a feature article it very well may get messay once again if someone adds in new information due to the mere fact that time goes on and new information becomes available, just relax and chill. Interpretations can be wrong, i.e. getting a joke or not getting a joke, recognizing sarcasm or missing the point. Wow we really can't agree on anything can we? Huge mess? That B.S. and you know it, the only huge mess is your interpretation if this article. Of all the articles you edit, this is probably one of the better written ones. And quit your complaining all you do is renmove content without adding in anything meaningful or giving any useful commentary besides this article sucks, cholga you write like a Junior High School Kids, blah blah blah. Give it a rest and either help out, or stop detracting from constructive edits and get lost. All you say is so negative, wikipedia will never be a good encyclopedia nor will this article unless you stop calling wikipedia a touch feely social club, which is just incorrect in so many ways and focus on the positive, how can we improve, this is a gerund this is not, did you know that? would you like help with... But persisting here at Point Isabel which youve even said above on this page you don't even care about it at all and are not interested, why bother? what's your motivation besides your spite for me, somthing which many people have called you on? Anyways enough said, and sorry if anyone is offended none is intended; and also for the convoluted reply to both of you, the critizism is entirely directed at IL2BA.CholgatalK! 22:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...*blinks*...Ah. I see. ...Umm....I'm sorry you and IL2BA are incompatible?--Song 19:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow. This is scary. 

message: Hey IL2BA I must insist that fundraise not only sounds better, but is just as gramatically correct as raise funds; and as such should be used as originally written. I know you are acting in good faith and must simply be misguided and think that it is not a word. You probably came to that belief at a time when it was not considered a word and was therefore in good faith that you removed it since you are uninformed of its wordiness, okay that I admit is not a word, yet.CholgatalK! 22:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, wordiness is a perfectly good word. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: lol71.142.84.165 04:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundraise 

message: allocates seems to be a better more specific and encyclopedic term to me, as it implies both supply and distribution.17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it sounds like a 50-cent word to you. It's neither more specific nor more encyclopedic; "provides" is better. Allocation is a different process; the park gives out "mutt mitts", so they can be said to provide them. The supplier of the mitts may allocate certain resources towards their production or distribution, but that's a horse of a different color. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what is a 50-cent word? you mean the rapper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not the typical English usage of the term. If one is handing out things such as mutt mitts at a park, one provides or distributes them; most people would not say that they are being allocated. "Allocation" is used for such things as allocating money in a budget for a certain purpose, or allocating resources in a planning process, not giving small items out to the public. You need to go beyond just what the dictionary says about a particular term; there's the issue of context and conventions of usage. (Slack cut if you're not a native English speaker on this last point.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "slack cut" I am a native english speaker in addition to being a native spanish speaker. Typical usage seems very subjective to me and who decides what that is exactly? seems like OR to me dude. "What most people say" or rather how most people speak is not the form in which we write, especially in an encyclopedia article, wouldnt you agree? The word is more apt.CholgatalK! 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be an argument for "allocated" since it's a 50-cent word; see WP:Peacock for more on this. And notice I said "slack cut IF you're not a native English speaker" (emphasis in IF in case you missed it). You cannot accept the slightest courtesy without shitting all over it. I give up. Sheesh. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well obviously you are not a native speaker of any decent dialect of English because your manners are very "shitty indecent".CholgatalK! 01:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you're stooping to ad hominem arguments, which will get you nowhere, fast. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but on close inspection I don't see what part of my arguement you find to be an attack on you? I commented on how I believe that wikipedia doesn't use the standards of typical english usage rather is uses the most proper and accurate academic wordings whenever possible or it strives to do so. When you wrote "that's because it sounds like a 50 cent word to you" reffering to me, see that sounds ad hominem to me, because you are focusing on my interpretation instead of the general understanding. But i will take it with a grain of salt and hope both I and you may enjoy your advice and not go the ad hominem route, maybe we can avoid the use of the word "shit" and its derivatives too? Even if we are ironically debating the word usage in a sentance regarding bags used to collect the very contensious word I'm asking we both stop using towards or relating to one another in an unfriendly manner? I am still having trouble what you mean by a 50-cent word, because the link you gave me connected me to weasel words and that doesn't seem to be your use of the term 50-cent. Would you just break it down for me and explain what that term means to you so that you may get your point accross more effectively so we may quickly resolve this "point of centention" between us, and hopefully (pwwwease) civily? Well and what did you think that i said was ad hominem, that is bombastically argueing against you and not for the point-at-hand. Let's get along =)CholgatalK! 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's okay for him to say everything about me is shit, its okay for me to at the very least critisize him for his use of it.HeebieJeebies 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. Are you Cholga? You sounds like her by using the word "me". Because if you you operate a sockpuppet, you can get blocked for it. So I advise you not to do it, even if you are upset about the situation. Chris! my talk 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  allocates vs. provides vs. supplies 

message: How can you be so sure that this would be assumed, the 21 acres is an exact figure from the East Bay Regional Park District the hectares is just an estimate so it should be noted i think.CholgatalK! 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody, so far as I know, assumes that this, or any other such figure here, is exact. And please show us one other article here that uses the "~" symbol in such a way to show approximation with figures such as these (measures of parks and similar areas). All such figures are assumed to be approximations. The only exceptions would be for such exact figures as the definition of a metre or similar scientific measurements. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  measurements 

message: I don't think this is "tabloid trivia" rather since it is such a noted murder i think it should me mentioned in the article that her remains where found at point isabel. I remember seeing the reports, in fact i was at the park when reporters where there, whilst walking my dog.CholgatalK! 12:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Peterson connection is relevant to the extent that many people in the Bay Area, myself included, had never heard of this park until she floated ashore there.--Fizbin 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly ROFL! but trueCholgatalK! 23:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The question is (or should be, in any case) whether this factoid about Laci Peterson is relevant to this article in an encyclopedic sense. If one goes by the standard that anything that happens in, or is associated with, a certain place is "notable", then yes, it should be included; if, however, one sets standards as to which things like this are worthy of mention and which are simply coincidences that really have nothing to do with the place itself (which is what I believe), then this doesn't belong here. To me, the Laci Peterson affair is on the level of tabloid news coverage, and therefore is not appropriate here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laci Peterson 

message: There is a disagreement wether this information should be included in this article between myself Cholga and ILike2BeAnonymous which opposes its inclusion. The rationales are apparant within recent edit summaries and the discussion above this section which has died. May we try and find a definitive desicion on this topic and avoid an edit war?CholgatalK! 04:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (note - even so, I did so before I figured out there was a discussion here, so feel free to revert - mine is just another opinion like everyone else's) Wikidemo (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laci Peterson remains - comments request