Talk:Anaheim Hills/Archive 4

message: It has been proposed that the articles for the subcommunity of Peralta Hills, Anaheim, California and the not-yet-built subcommunity of Mountain Park, Anaheim, California be merged into the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California.
*Agree with the merge proposal. With removal of any duplications of material already in the Anaheim Hills article, plus the removal of any unreferenced statistics and information, both articles will pared down to a couple of short paragraphs that can easily be merged into the Anaheim Hills article. BlankVerse 12:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since only one editor opposed this, and as he is now banned, I've gone ahead and merged the two subpages. JCO312 00:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Due to the recent turmoil on community pages, a large community straw poll is being conducted. Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll is now open for voting. Despite resolutions made on this page, many others are facing turmoil similar to what this page is, or once did face. In an effor to solve the issue, I invite all Wikipedians to vote there by September 18th on this page following the procedures and ballot instuctions explained there. Thank You. Ericsaindon2 06:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll

message: With Ericsaindon2 now banned for a year hy the Arbitration Committee , is it necessary for this article to remain fully protected? Considering he and his socks were the main cause of conflict, I think it might be okay to switch to semi-protection at least. Danielross40 04:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that part of the problem was Eric's editing while he was supposed to be banned for a month, I would say that it is best to wait a little longer, and then go to semi-protection instead of fully unprotecting the article after that. BlankVerse 11:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eleven minutes after this page was unprotected, Eric Saindon was editing it as  (see my note on the IPs talk page). The page should be semi-protected. BlankVerse 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not appear to the Eric Saindon - it looks to me to be someone who is actually reverting Eric's edits. Cowman109Talk 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It certainly was Eric Saindon, as the same IP address posted a plea on Jimbo Wales' talk page as EricSaindon.  That being said, the edits made corrected one of the major problems I had, so perhaps semi-protection isn't needed.  On the other hand, if the block is going to mean anything, perhaps it should. JCO312 17:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection?

message: Where are these numbers coming from?  I've tried to look through the census website, but, as is noted in the article itself, the census bureau doesn't actually recognize this as a distinct place.  Is it worth removing the entire section, since it's uncited and can't really be totally accurate? JCO312 00:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I appreciate the enforcement of a arbcom ban, I think that the comment that was posted sheds light on the problem with this section.  Basically, the commentor said that he added up the numbers himself, which seems to be original research to me.  This is particularly true since the boundaries for this community are not recognized as far as I can tell. JCO312 05:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anaheim Hills, although not officially recognized by any governmental organization, still has a distinct history and some pretty recognizable boundaries which are likely to match census tract boundaries. It is not, for example, like trying to find where the boundaries for Stanton, California are without looking for the city limit signs or looking at your Thomas Guide. On the other hand, as it stands, the data violates both No original research and Verifiability, because to get and verify the data someone would have to do the same research that User:Ericsaindon2 did. If links to the census pages used, and a list of the sensus tracts counted, were provided Eric, I think that might possibly satisfy both WP:NOR and WP:V, but others may disagree with me. I personally think that even with the links and lists of census tracts that the data would still be borderline on both of those two major Wikipedia content-governing {policies, and we should only use data that has been enumerated by a reputable third party, such as a governmental organization, chamber of commerce, or civic group. BlankVerse 06:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: I tried to do some cleanup yesterday, but the article still needs plenty of work. First off I broke up the H-U-G-E paragraphs in the article into smaller, more cohesive and more easily read paragraphs. I then tried to break up some of the excessively long run-on sentences, but I probably missed a few. I also did some minor removal of the PR/real estate agent-style fluff from the piece, but there is plenty more of that to excise.
One big problem that I have is the comparison of the community of Anaheim Hills with a number of wealthy beach cities, which I think is comparing apples and oranges. For example, if you normalized the data to only compare similar-sized lots, I am sure the coastal cities would rate much higher for their median home value.
Next: The Communities section, which IMHO are really just very large subdivisions. Then there's stuff at the beginning of the Economy section that I don't think can be verified, and therefore should be deleted.
I've taken a break from editing the article because if I continue, I'll probably use the weed-whacker approach with wholesale deletions of questionable paragraphs and sections. At the moment, the article probably should have a warning tag at the top warning about the accuracy of some sections in the article. BlankVerse 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the demographics section as it's unsourced, original research and therefore unverifiable.  JCO312 19:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will observe the ban if you just leave this page alone. It is not hurting anyone, and I will go away, and come back in a year if you just stop deleting this entire page. It can wait a year, it is only one minor page. 69.232.38.2 04:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but are banned from Wikipedia. You don't get to dictate how this article is written, and you don't get to add any information to any pages. AniMate 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ericsaindon2 has ignored previous blocks and has outright lied on more than one occasion. Even if such a deal were appropriate he can't be trusted to abide by it. -Will Beback 04:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. --Coolcaesar 04:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that if Ericsaindon2 continues to ignore the ban, that it be worth going back to the ArbComm and asking for the ban to be made permanent. BlankVerse 12:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not oppopsed to that idea either, thought the prospect of coming back as an editor in good standing seems to be the only thing keeping Ericsaindon2 from editing this article round the clock... but he's still probably the most active contributor to it as well (and that's a bad thing). I seem to remember some talk back in September about the weed-whacker approach to editing this article. I think it might be time for a mass reversion, removing any and all unsourced claims, and rewriting this as an article that doesn't have Eric's fingerprints all over it.  AniMate 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with AniMate.  If that happens, though, the page will almost certainly have to be at least semi-protected.  I can't imagine, given his history, that Ericsaindon2 will sit back and watch that happen, ban or no. JCO312 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say lets go for it, we can change the article to a streamlined, NPOV, and verifiable version. Thus far, we've been able to revert any changes he tries to insert, and if he escalates his campaign, we should then go back to the ArbCom and look for an indefinite ban. AniMate 22:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The things that Ericsaindon2 put in here seem to have some truth. As I was going through that website that was on here, (Incorporate Anaheim Hills), it seems to verify much of what Ericsaindon2 was talking about. I was able to verify the validitity of the information after I emailed the email address, and they stated that they made calls to the Census Bureau, as well as other printed materials to determine these numbers. They stated that although their website was through the freewebs course, that they were in the process of registering the IncorporateAH.com domain. The 38 page plan can be seen on the website before it was removed from here, and I will add the information that was added prior to its removal (based on this website, not based on what Ericsaindon2 had here before). Architect King 04:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, can someone do a IP check to make sure Architect King isn't Ericsaindon2?  While I am aware of the assume good faith policy, Architect King has a similar pattern of bad grammar---including hyphen-dropping, improper capitalization, and confusingly vague sentence subjects (what email address? what course?).  Furthermore, every editor on this page who has supported Ericsaindon2's point of view has turned out to be one of his sockpuppets.  And to Architect King: If you're not Ericsaindon2, I recommend reviewing all three archives for this Talk page as well as the arbitration proceedings against him to see how I and Will Beback and BlankVerse exhaustively repudiated every single one of his points.  If you can come up with sufficient rebuttal evidence, feel free to mention it, but as the three of us (and several other allies) were quite thorough, I doubt there will be little you can add.  As for your own assertions of what some unknown person behind that "Incorporate Anaheim Hills" told you, they constitute simply conclusory hearsay unless you can substantiate them with further evidence.  --Coolcaesar 06:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I stated the website on the article. Freewebs.com/anaheimhills. There are 4 or so links just by itself on the website. Anaheimwatch@aol.com is the email address for the organization, as stated on the title page of the website. I did not think I would have to state that if it was right there on the website, but apparently I am not among the brightest people. And no, I do not support Ericsaidon2, he added a lot of fluff to the article which was unnecesary. I was pointing out that there were however some truths to his population claim. When you go to www.freewebs.com/anaheimhills, click on Documents and Proposals and click on the 38 page plan, demographic information is listed right there, like midway down the document. His demographic information before ws badly off, but his population information was close to accurate (I think that getting 53,997 compared to 54,000 is a little too specific for the area like EricSaidon2 stated, since it is nearly impossible to get that accurate without a demographic Census evaluation). Architect King 09:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I went through the arcives just now, for I am rather unfamiliar with the situation here, your truths are a little misguided. He did have people that were for him in some respects. For example, Serge was for his naming style. But yes, for the most part, I see that he was proved wrong several times. Although some of the things he stated (demographic information, weather charts, etc.) could be proven, but would break the NPOV rule, so therefore most of it is just fluff. Other things like the seal he "created" and the persistent adding of biased crap was a total waste of your time to deal with (which is why I am glad I was still editing the articles in other states at that time). However, I was merely pointing out that there is indeed a source that does state the Anaheim Hills demographics with credibility. I am very familiar with the group that is doing this, for they have been in the OC Register on numerous occasions, and have thousands of members. The leader of the group, Lindsay, attended my church in Westlake Village, and often keeps me up to date on the things going on in the group. I stumbled across this page in an effort to add her group to this page, for their significance is on the rise. I just moved to Irvine, so my edits in Orange County will probably be more numerous. However, I do not support most of what Ericsaidon2 did to this page, as well as to you fine editors. Architect King 09:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly sockpuppetry. Performing a google search for "Incorporate Anaheim Hills" shows 4 out of 23 results . True, all 4 links lead to the OC Register, not articles mind you, but to their message boards. Here's my favorite thread . Not too hard to figure out that Eric1018 is our good pal Ericsaindon2. AniMate 22:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure someone as dedicated as Ericsaidon would post here. I look here on occasion, but do not have an account. I mainly look here to see the Anaheimwatch posts about this proposition. By looking at things, it does look like Ericsaidon is friends with others on the website, but is far too outspoken. Architect King 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And it is not a well known group yet. I do not even affiliate myself with the area, all I was doing was adding some information that I knew about to the Anaheim Hills page. That is all, I am done with this page, for that is all I can contribute. Architect King 05:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The information your trying to add is unreliable.  I read the "report" of this supposed 2,500 member group.  Much like EricSaindon, they don't have any citations for their information.  Also like EricSaindon, the edits have some grammar and spelling problems.  In any event, I don't think that a "freeweb" website with an AOL email address doesn't rise to the level of credible information that can be used to justify the edits you've proposed. JCO312 05:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why dont you try to actually investigate it so that you can rebut it? You have not emailed the group to ask for information, or anything. All you have said is that you dont like it, and it must all be wrong. Maybe, an email to the group, and further reading of the website will help you make these decisions, rather than just saying, I dont like the information so it must be false. I will not revert it unless you email the person, and do some real research to rebut it. Until then, you cannot complain to me about its reliability, because you have no evidence. I have a better rebuttal to its accuracy, becuase I know the people that did this, and did investigate before adding it. All you have is that you dont like it, to go off of. Architect King 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has nothing to do with whether I "like it" or not.  I did read it.  It's a paragraph from a virtually unknown group (see Animates post above) that has no citations whatsoever in the original text.  You said that after emailing them they told you that they had collected the data from the census bureau.  I'm not sure why you want me to confirm that, because even if it's true, it's exactly the same thing that Ericsaindon2 said about his edits.  But one person saying "I talked to the census bureau" is nothing more than original research.  All you've done is made it original research plus hearsay.  The bottom line is that you're adding information from an unreliable source, as you've been told by multiple editors, and yet you still add it back. JCO312 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: Just a quick reminder: per WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits, everyone is free to revert any edit by banned user, .  That now includes  who has been successfully checkuser'ed.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (applause) Ericsaindon2 cannot escape the prison of his bad grammar.  Until he masters the basics of formal written English, we will be able to recognize and neutralize his original research no matter which username he presents it under.  Really, if he wanted to make the case for formal recognition of Anaheim Hills, there are good venues for that like American City and County magazine, but I doubt they would publish a submission by an amateur.  In any case, as ArbCom understood, Wikipedia is not the place for publication of such original research, especially when it is so clumsily structured and poorly written. --Coolcaesar 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Architect King is banned as a confirmed sock

message: can someone out up the demographics please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.211.84 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  where are the demograohics 

message: Can an admin run a check on User:Eric outdoors?  He is a very new user (first edit was 2 Jan 2007) and his peculiar grammar and spelling look very familiar. --Coolcaesar 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless EricSaindon2 has suddenly taken a weird interest in Wisconsin, I'd guess it's just a coincidence.  JCO312 17:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think HE'S BAAAAACCCCK..... 

message: After his latest round of inserting original research, I reported him to AN/I []. An administrator named Sam Blanning banned him indefinitely for repeated block evasion, and looks to be willing to block IPs/socks as needed. Any activity that pops up with him should be reported to the noticeboard, rather than to administrators who have edited this article or here on this talk page. AniMate 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the last part referring to?  I've edited this page just to revert the obvious socks.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means continue to revert obvious socks, but rather than complaining about them here, report them to the AN/I. That way they should be banned immediately, and we won't have to worry about reverting them over and over and over again. AniMate 03:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Ericsaindon2|Ericsaindon2]] indefinitely banned 

message: I'd just like to inquire as to the grounds of placing Brady Yoon in the [Residents] section of this page. Although he is somewhat known in this region (particularly at his middle/high schools), from what I can tell, he is not well known at a national level or even state level, I believe, with perhaps a few exceptions. It is true that his name was included in the article of Time For Kids, but other students mentioned like Jonathan Cohen or Erik Zyman-Carrasco don't show up in Wikipedia. I can see that he would be notable if he was the champion of the National Spelling Bee, but he was not. As for his Science Olympiad exploits, he has placed 1st nationwide in many events, but generally Science Olympiad success will be credited to the school/entire team. So I'm thinking that he might need to be removed. Perhaps in the future he might get back on the list, though :) --Havocrazy 03:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Brady Yoon? 

message: I noticed the coverage of the huge Anaheim Hills fire on TV today.  All the TV journalists were careful to refer to "the hills above Anaheim" or "the unincorporated area known as Anaheim Hills."  Even TV journalists understand that Anaheim Hills is not a city!  --Coolcaesar 08:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original or extra crispy? 

message: I've always wondered who lives in Anaheim Hills, especially the really rich parts of it.  As in demographics.  I'm surprised that there are relatively few notable people...  and are those notable people current residents or people that were born here?
Brady Yoon
69.235.223.127 05:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not too many famous people... 

message: Since this page has been unprotected (and several times before that), a number of newish accounts and IP addresses have been attempting to reinsert material introduced by Ericsaindon2. With the exception of one IP, all of these people claim they are not Ericsaindon2, who has since posted that they should be allowed to edit the article and reintroduce the material since they are not him. Problem is, it is still original research. It still does not belong in the article. I find it hard to believe that several residents of Anaheim Hills have all come here independent of Ericsaindon2 to reinsert his original research, and any attempts to do so will and should be considered vandalism. 
This sockpuppetry and block evasion is amateurish, at best, and totally transparent. The only way this article is going to grow and be refined, is if you stop trying to edit it Eric.  No one else wants to edit it right now, as you have exhausted all of our patience by your edit warring. If you leave the article in peace, people will forget the controversy and the article can and will flourish. 
You are passionate about Anaheim Hills and your community, which is to be applauded, but this is not the vehicle for you to express your beliefs in. Please stop editing the encyclopedia, and find another vehicle to channel your feelings about Anaheim Hills into.  AniMate 02:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care who the edits are from, because, as AniMate pointed out they are original research as deemed by the WP:ARBCOM.  The reintroduction of this material will be reverted on sight. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing edits that are admittedly from Ericsaindon2, and have requested semi-protection again. I hate to have the article protected again, but he has to accept that his edits  aren't good and he will not be allowed to edit here. Hopefully, he'll get the picture. AniMate 05:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on the semi-protection.  I'd rather let an impartial admin do it because I feel we need an outside opinion on it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You can see the ruling here. AniMate 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Eric, that's just another one of your bad faith lies, which only further decreases your credibility among the Wikipedia community.  Less than a fourth of the assertions in those edits were actually supported with citations.  For an example of a properly researched article, see my work at Lawyer, where over 95% of the assertions are supported by a reliable source.  Even worse, as before, you have a tendency to make assertions that are not actually supported by the source cited.  For example, the Anaheim Hills fire station Web page does not describe the boundaries of Anaheim Hills, and in any case, a fire captain's decision on how to administer his territory (an executive branch decision) usually does not affect the city council's representation or organization of the community (a legislative branch decision).  --Coolcaesar 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ericsaindon2... yet again 

message: Turns out that Ericsaindon2 took out the redirect in place at the original Anaheim Hills article and has been editing it for over a week. I've watch listed most of the redirects, but I guess we're going to need more eyes on them. He's a persistent little vandal, I'll give him that. AniMate 22:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. -Will Beback · † · 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's used so many IPs lately, it's pretty hard to track down all of his edits... and there are alot to track down. AniMate 22:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ericsaindon2 and [[Anaheim Hills]]

message: The individual communities mentioned within Anaheim Hills (Viewpointe, Copa de Oro, etc) aren't representative of the communities of Anaheim Hills as a whole.  The communities listed are mainly the ones with very expensive homes; other budget homes or middle-income homes are not mentioned.  The only exceptional community is probably Peralta Hills, as it extremely large, and one of the first to be developed.
-Brady J. Yoon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.203.60 (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communities mentioned aren't representative 

message: I used to live in Anaheim Hills and may have a picture of the area Mountain Park will be built on.24.9.123.130 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be swell.  •:• Will Beback  •:• 03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Mountain Park 

message: Do not remove  notes regarding material without a reference unless you're adding a reference.  I'm sick of these hostile edits; one more and I'll request another (longer) protection. —  X  S  G  08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you go work on deleting the other 105 Orange County articles that have MUCH fewer citations than this one does. In fact, this one has more citations than any city or community article in the entire county. Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, etc. all need major cleaning up. This one is fine. I have monitored this particular article, and it always comes under more scrutiny than any other article in Orange County, and it is the article with the most sources! I am going to go ahead and delete ALL the notable residents on the Newport Beach since NOT ONE of them is cited if you continue deleting things from this article because each word is not sourced. 75.43.204.194 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other articles not meeting Wikipedia's reference standards is no rationale for allowing this one to get away with it.  Plus, you're a pain in my ass so I'm unable to assume good faith for your edits and therefore will hold them up to a higher level of scrutiny.  You brought it on yourself.  And now, since you've done it again, I'm requesting protection, as promised. —  X  S  G  08:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I went on and put the Newport Beach article under the same scrutiny of this article. Cheers. 75.43.204.194 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bully for you.  I'd better go check those edits, now. —  X  S  G  08:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Will you look at that... your additions of the  tag were incorrectly dated (you made the edit in June, noy May).  You might want to go back and fix that. —  X  S  G  08:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that many, many settlesments have unsourced "notable resident" sections. But that doesn't mean references are never necessary. WP:V is a core policy and the presence of non-compliant material isn't an excuse (WP:other stuff exists). If someone challenges an unsourced entry then it's fair to tag it and, eventually, remove it if no source can be found. It's even allowed (though considdred less polite) to remove it immediately. So lets' let the tags remain and try to find sources for the material.  •:• Will Beback  •:• 08:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh Jeez, don't tell me it's Ericsaindon2 back again... didn't he get banned forever? Flipping hell, this religious war over Anaheim Hills has been going for over 2 years now. --JQ (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Required 

message: Ericsaindon2 placed his version of the Anaheim Hills page at 07:17, May 17, 2008.  Not recognizing this as Ericsandon2, I modified the results heavily, stripping away all of the peacocking and POV, and adding many  tags for anything that needed a reference or had a questionable source.  It's now June 23, 2008, and there have been many substantive edits between then and now.  Enough was cut from the article that the user (who turns out to be Ericsaindon2) has desired to add a great deal of the content back (all of which was reverted).  I believe it's too late to revert back to the article as it was on May 17 and if there is questionable material, please strike it and bring it up for discussion here.  I think the article as it is now is encyclopedic and useful, and we're in the process of dealing with uncited material. —  X  S  G  20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take responsibility for the material then that's fine.  •:• Will Beback  •:• 20:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Will.  I'm proud of my contributions to Wikipedia, and, having lived here, this is one of the pages I like to monitor and contribute to.  I'll take responsibility for the material.  Confirming the notables section is what will take the most time.  I'll comment the unconfirmed notables out and add them as they get confirmed as opposed to the other way around. —  X  S  G  20:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting the revert...