Talk:West Bloomfield Township, Michigan

message: Listen, people: the links to the American Fact Finder for census data on this place are screwed.  You should make them link to the relevant tables instead of the main American Fact Finder Page.  In fact, this is such poor sourcing that you better fix it or I am going to delete all of the data and mark it as non-Verifiable. Because as it stands, it aint verifieable.  Fix it!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.37.195 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the Census Reference Links 

message: There has been an edit war of late on this article regarding the use of the subjective adjective "affluent" in the lede on this article.  I and many other editors feel the use of this adjective is improper, not only here, but in any Wikipedia settlement article.  It is inherently POV.
Why?  I am not at all saying this is not a community with a lot of very "comfortable" people living in it.  It is, I know it.  I have dined with some folks there in homes that have dazzled me beyond compare.  The problem is the term.  Affluence, as defined in Wictonary is:
===Noun===
# An abundant flow or supply.
# An abundance of wealth.
#: His affluence was surpassed by no man.
# A moderate level of wealth.
#: The had achieved affluence, but aspired to true wealth.
# An influx.
Nothing in that definition states any objective quality which merits the description "affluent".  Do we measure it on net worth? On annual income? On home value?  And even if we could decide where to measure it, at what level of that measurement does one become affluent?
To an man living in a cardboard box under a bridge, a guy who sleeps in the back of his car seems pretty affluent.  To a successful cattle rancher in Eastern Oregon, Warren Buffett and even some of the people who live in WBT may seem pretty affluent.  But to the guy that moves that ranchers irrigators, the rancher's worth of several million dollars may seem like more affluence than he can comfortably conceive of.
In short, the use of adjectives such as "affluent" or "poor" or "upscale" is nothing but WP:PEACOCK.  If you have never read that part of the WP:MOS policy, it is, briefly, the use of words that sound good but add nothing to the factual content of the article.  So let's just stick to the facts and let the impressive econommic demographics that are in the article speak for themselves, ok? John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of subjective adjectives in lede 

message: # An abundant flow or supply.
# An abundance of wealth.
#: His affluence was surpassed by no man.
# A moderate level of wealth.
#: The had achieved affluence, but aspired to true wealth.
# An influx.
Nothing in that definition states any objective quality which merits the description "affluent".  Do we measure it on net worth? On annual income? On home value?  And even if we could decide where to measure it, at what level of that measurement does one become affluent?
To an man living in a cardboard box under a bridge, a guy who sleeps in the back of his car seems pretty affluent.  To a successful cattle rancher in Eastern Oregon, Warren Buffett and even some of the people who live in WBT may seem pretty affluent.  But to the guy that moves that ranchers irrigators, the rancher's worth of several million dollars may seem like more affluence than he can comfortably conceive of.
In short, the use of adjectives such as "affluent" or "poor" or "upscale" is nothing but WP:PEACOCK.  If you have never read that part of the WP:MOS policy, it is, briefly, the use of words that sound good but add nothing to the factual content of the article.  So let's just stick to the facts and let the impressive econommic demographics that are in the article speak for themselves, ok? John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Noun

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on West Bloomfield Township, Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090430203903/http://factfinder.census.gov:80/servlet/STTable?_bm=y to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S1901&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-CONTEXT=st&-tree_id=307&-redoLog=false&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=16000US2685510&-format=&-_lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The link to "Chaldean people" that has been twice included in this article DOES NOT refer to a Wikipedia page which describes the people it is referring to. The link should either be pointed towards something informational and relevant or not included at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.139 (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Using all capital case letters on the internet is the equivalent of shouting in real life. Please don't do it. If another editor objects to a change in content such as you made they revert it. It is then up to the editor wanting the change to form a consensus on what to include. The changes stay out until a consensus is formed. If you cannot form a consensus then the content does not change. Your problem it appears is not with this article but with the linked article. Most likely you should raise your concerns there.  Please properly sign your postings. John from Idegon (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaldean people link