Talk:Anaheim Hills/Archive 2

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?