Jump to content

Talk:Oxnard, California/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Could we please restrict our contributions to our own words? This article has had a number of copyright violations pasted in. WP:Copyrights. Rather, we need to summarize verifiable sources in an NPOV manner. Thanks, -Willmcw 11:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

old comments

It looks like the Chamber of Commerce has been busy adding to this page, plus I suspect there may be some more copyright violations that need checking. I don't have time to NPOV the page today, but I will try to get back to it some time soon. BlankVerse ∅ 08:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

maybe they can take down the parts that give away all the surf spots, especially Mugu.

    • No Chamber of Commerce adds. Just me adding to the page about the city I love. Feel free to check on copyright violations, but there shouldn't be any. The only thing I copied was the info on the SOAR initiative, but I only used the info to write my own peice on it. Anyway, feel free to check on everything, but it should be OK. And I wouldn't worry about Mugu, only those with NBVC clearance can access the beach.(Dcmcgov 00:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC))
"People are attracted to the city for its near-perfect weather, its miles of unspoiled beaches, its vibrant economy (home to several major companies), its unique ambience, and the opportunity to realize the "American Dream." Everything in that sentence is true. It looks like Blank Verse is becoming the "Edit Warrior" so despised on his/her talk page. (69.239.125.174 15:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC))
The hackneyed adage of English teachers everywhere, "Show, don't tell" is applicable to this situation. Instead of that rather meaningless bit of chamber-of-commerce fluff that I deleted, you should add some real information to the article that will provide the details that will allow the reader to draw their own conclusions about what a wonderful place Oxnard is. The article already has some info on the average weather stats but it probably needs some comparisons to elsewhere. The article already has info on the state, county and city beaches in the area. The article does need the addition of a list the major corporations headquartered in Oxnard, as well as mention the unemployment stats and compare them against the SoCal, Calif. state, and national stats, etc. The last bit of the paragraph that I removed ("...its unique ambience, and the opportunity to realize the "American Dream.") is pure opinion and doesn't belong in the article, and especially not in the introduction. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a real estate brochure.
If you look at the edit history for the article, I am not the only person who has removed that paragraph. I won't delete it again, but I am sure that someone else will come along and make the same judgment that I and User:Szyslak have made.
There is also more fluff in the article that needs to be edited. For example, "The weather conditions are considered by many to be the some of the best in the world." Instead of that grandiose statement, it would be much better to have a quote from some respected travel or lifestyle magazine. Another example, "The Oxnard Plain is full of the richest, most fertile soil in all of the world." That statement needs some reference or it should be deleted (you might try the U. of Calif. Ventura County Agriculture and Natural Resources Cooperative Extension [1]). BlankVerse 10:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
You state that I should add some "real information". Funny, before I started editing the Oxnard page, it contained only a very vague summary of the city ("FLUFF", I think you call it), and the demographic statistics. I've added info about the beaches, the agriculture, the neighborhoods, the Navy bases, etc. Everything that is quintessentially Oxnard. And everything that I have written about Oxnard is true. Yet, you consider it to be "fluff".
For instance, a common knowledge and undeniable fact about Oxnard's fertile plain soil is that it can cultivate virtually any crop all year long. Most agricultural fields in the world can only grow 1 or 2 crops a year. Oxnard's can grow 3,4, sometimes 5 or 6.
Hence the true statement referring to Oxnard's soil as the most fertile in the world. Everyone who knows anything about Oxnard's agriculture knows that to be a true statement, even ag experts on the other side of the planet. I can post the research facts as I continue to update the article.
The Oxnard Plain also benefits from a sub-mediterranean climate and cool ocean breezes from wind patterns unique to this area due to the south facing beaches and the Santa Monica Mountain ranges. The climate in Oxnard is more moderate than in any other region of California. It never gets too hot, and it never gets too cold. That's not exactly what I would call "fluff". (Dcmcgov 00:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

Read Wikipedia:Verifiability: "common knowledge" doesn't cut it as a source of information for an encyclopedia article. Since you seem to be unwilling to do the proper research, here's a couple of quotes for you:

  • "The areas studied showed a high percentage of Group I soils, primarily located on the relatively. flat Oxnard Plain. The Oxnard Plain because of these high-quality agricultural soils, coupled with a favorable climate, is considered one of the most fertile areas in the. world." Camarillo General Plan PDF
  • "The barley grass in Green Magma is grown in some of the world's most fertile soil on rolling hillsides in Japan and on the Oxnard Plain near the Pacific Ocean in California." [2]

So now, instead of your extraordinary hyperbole of the "richest, most fertile soil in all of the world", the article can be changed to say something like "one of the richest agricultural soils in the world". with an appropriate reference to back up the statement. BlankVerse 10:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As for the "Strawberry Capital": Watsonville also claims the title and has slightly more acreage. See [3]. BlankVerse 11:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-gang Court Injunctions

Last year a court issued an injunction against the "Colonia Chiques" Gang, disallowing free assembly in the neighborhood. This was seen as an act of racism and instigated a legal and public relations battle. I'd like to do more research and add this in.

Also, Chicana writer Michelle Serros is from Oxnard, but there doesn't seem to be a "Famous people" section (yet).--Rockero 20:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and don't the Dallas Cowboys do their off-season training there?--Rockero 20:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added Michelle Serros, using the info that I was able to glean from amazon.com. As for the Cowboys, I know that there was one football team that used to do training in Oxnard (I thought that it was the Raiders), but I don't think that any one trains there any more. I'd have to ask my sister, who lives in the area and would probably know that sort of info. BlankVerse 07:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

Anyone know if the "Refsing" neighborhood is real? It was added by an IP...--Rockero 16:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a Refsing Place in the southwest corner of Oxnard, but I doubt it qualifies as a neighborhood. BlankVerse 08:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Does El Rio qualify as a neighborhood? And if it does, why is there no information on it?

El Rio is definitely a neighborhood and it should be included. Maluka 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is in major need of a rewrite

Being that I lived forever in Oxnard, there are many things that aren't correct. For one, the Seabees were left out who have a separate base from the SWEF section, run by both the Navy and DoD. So much needs to be cleaned up. Many bands weren't mentioned, some of the "famous people" parts were incorrect.

I'll work on this later. Maluka 03:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

image

wow that is one unflattering skyline!--Alhutch 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if one tall building really counts as a "skyline". If you can find a more flattering, or characteristic picture of Oxnard's commercial district, then feel free to contribute it. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Having lived in Oxnard for umpteen years, the "skyline" has been a constant joke. You won't find a more flattering picture. Maluka 04:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a more flattering picture of the skyline which I've posted, it's a view from Spanish Hills in Camarillo. You can see some of the agricultural fields in the foreground, with the skyline and city and the Pacific Ocean in the background. Dcmcgov 17:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:70.38.98.161 has rewritten the portion of the article dealing with historic segregation, the rise of gangs, and the use of the gang injunction. I think some of the new text has valid points, but is the removal of the information justified? Since I wrote the portion in question, I'll refrain from reverting, but the current version sounds a bit too uncritical IMO...--Rockero 02:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be "uncritical", but it should be fair and balanced. For every one person that does not like the injunction, there is one person that does like it. The re-write lists everything that the the activists are arguing, but does not list the benefits of the gang injunction; it leaves out the other side of the debate. I agree that there may be constitutional issues with portions of the injunction, but I'm also not so dogmatic that I cannot see the benefits of it. Both sides need to be present. Also, to whoever wrote that last paragraph in the "History" section: I removed it and moved it to "Demographics". The History section is reserved for significant events in the city's history, not it's racial makeup. That's what the Demographics section is for. Dcmcgov 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


In the history portion, the tone of the section surrounding "white flight" caused me some concern. While it is factually correct, what are we saying about our city? There are several individuals that live within the "affordable" areas of the city, that are well educated and contribute on a daily basis to the betterment of their hometown. I am aware that the article does not say that there are no educated people in those areas, and that it merely indicates the disparity in education levels between the different communities, but is there any way we could word it differently? To site such a clear fact and not offer any insight into where these problems come from, seems to be a bit of an injustice. Perhaps I am being overly emotional about a purely factual statement, but I have to admit that it made me very angry to read it. I live in the "La Colonia Barrio" and I work for the City of Oxnard. The people that live around me are by and large young adults who cannot afford to live anywhere else. My brother is a college graduate and finds it much more feasable and acceptable to live in the "barrio" than anywhere else in the city. My father works in the same defense industry that is said to have played a part in our city's "white flight" and he is very pleased to live right in the middle of the "affordable" part of town with all the other Hispanics and African-Americans. Those same Hispanics and African-Americans that are the backbone of our labor force. The same ones that allow our economy to thrive. I hate to see them relegated to a one line blurb that refers to their socioeconomic status or where they choose to call home as some indication of their value to our city. Whether that is the intention of that portion or not, it is very clearly the immediate reaction of this reader, and I would imagine others as well. If I have taken it the wrong way or misinterpreted it somehow, I do not apologize. socalx11 --Socalx11 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 13:08 13 Sep 2006

Image Box

The image box looks great, however I am moving the very unflattering current skyline photo to the bottom, and replacing it with a much more flattering shot. Please dont be offended, but my photo represents Oxnard much better - it shows the agricultural fields, the city skyline and the Pacific Ocean - not just railroad tracks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcmcgov (talk • contribs)

No worries. 8)--Rockero 17:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep the unflattering one? I'll delete it if nobody objects. Doctormatt 23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the old image. Doctormatt 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected

Following repeated attempts by anonymous IPs and SPAs to insert the same unsourced statement into this and other articles, I have semiprotected The Wrong Version for three days. That should hopefully give you time to read WP:BIO and WP:RS, and either provide reliable sources for your statement or realise why it will continue to be removed. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Strawberries

The section on Oxnard strawberries appears to have been written by a novice. It is well known throughout the agricultural community in Oxnard that it is special in being one of the very few places in the world where strawberries can be grown and harvested twice a year rather than the traditional annual cycle. In fact I know of very few strawberry farmers in Oxnard who would manage to survive without planting two crops a year given the rent prices and cost of living.

I don't think it's somehow evil that the Chamber of Commerce is excited about including interesting facts about Oxnard rather than spending paragraph after paragraph in post-modernist style glee at the fact that a lot of the Hispanics living in Oxnard murder each other. Still the page does seem to need a little help! If I knew more about it I would change the section about strawberries but I don't think that faulty information about planting and harvesting should be kept...especially because it masks something interesting about Oxnard (like the fact that it has the deepest soil in all the world..a missing fact). I think we can all agree that it's ok for us to include interesting things about Oxnard without being accused of petty bias! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.158.55 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Transit

Why isn't there a section about transit (Metrolink, Amtrak, buses) in Oxnard?173.58.64.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

Carnegie libraries

The article currently states, "Oxnard was incorporated as a California city on June 30, 1903, and the public library was opened in 1907, one of only three libraries west of the Mississippi river financed by Andrew Carnegie." The latter part of the sentence appears to be completely incorrect, based on List of Carnegie libraries in the United States. There were Carnegie libraries in every U.S. state except Alaska and Delaware, including over 100 in California alone, and over 600 in all west of the Mississippi. In fact, there were more than three Carnegie libraries in California that opened before Oxnard's and are still operating. See also [4]. So I don't know where this information came from, and I'm going to remove the latter part of the sentence because it doesn't appear that it can ever be sourced, nor can I think of another interpretation that would make it true. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

James Cameron?

What does he have to do with Oxnard? All it says is that he made Titanic and avatar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.29.231 (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nard

can we have a reference for this nickname. Also, do we want to mention Stacie Halas, porn star turned teacher?[5](mercurywoodrose)99.31.167.221 (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wealthiest city

User: Uwatch310 seems insistent, virtually creating an edit war to defend calling Oxnard one of wealthiest cities in America. That statement is completely misleading. I have attempted to correct, show an additional source that shows a more realistic breakdown of wealth in the Oxnard area and stressed the content of the source already given. Instead, this user seems insistent on portraying an incorrect fact. Oxnard is a large city surrounded by much wealthier neighbors. Yes there are some sections Riverridge, Manadlay and some of the beach/harbor area that have some upscale residents, but downtown, Colonia and Lemonwood, in fact the majority of Oxnard acts as a statistical anchor, holding down the affluent region. Meanwhile, it is Thousand Oaks and its surroundings that brings up the median income. Compare home values and it obvious. Oxnard $354K ref=zillow http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-Oxnard-home-value/r_13150/, vs Thousand Oaks, at $629206K http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-Thousand-Oaks-home-value/r_34278/ and notice their surrounding area. Almost double Oxnard. With minor exceptions like the impoverished Santa Paula and unincorporated El Rio areas, Oxnard is at the bottom. I cannot find a legal definition of the statistical area. If they stick to the county border, I've already demonstrated the difference. If they extend to Oxnard's immediate neighbor to the south east, Malibu at $2.063 Million, that's almost 6 times Oxnard home values. zillow, citydata. How many sources do you need to discredit in order to maintain an improper statement? Trackinfo (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Oxnard, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oxnard, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oxnard, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oxnard, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What jurisdiction is it under?

What Jurisdiction is it under? Los Angeles? In other words, if you want to pull a building permit, what government do you ask? Thanks 12.33.223.211 (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

While Oxnard is part of Ventura County, I believe they operate building permits out of the city offices. It certainly is not Los Angeles, city or county. Trackinfo (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of source

@John from Idegon: There is nothing about this source that suggests it's unreliable, it even has a picture of the sign, which confirms the fact that there are five exits off the 101 in Oxnard. Just read through the page. Link: [6]

And yes, I have read WP:RS. Evancahill (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe. What characteristics of reliability does that website have? Where is the evidence of fact checking? Reliability does not equate with being correct in this instance. I reverted the addition of the link you made because replacing a citation needed tag with a poor reference does no good. It is better to just leave the tag until someone comes along and adds a good reference.
However, upon looking closer at the whole section, I see nothing at all in it that adds any value to the article. The narrative about exits is NOTGUIDEBOOK content and the bit about skyscrapers is unfocused and referenced to the crappy photo that was in the section (which is to say not referenced at all). No one walks away from reading that section with any more useful knowledge than they had before they read it. Can I give you a tip? When you have in mind something you want to add to an article, find truly reliable sources (newspapers, books, magazines, peer - reviewed academic journals) that talk about what you want to add and then compose your addition paraphrasing your sources rather than writing about something and then trying to find sources that verify what you've written. That will yield you a more encyclopedic output. Because in case you didn't understand the scope of an encyclopedia, everything in here is supposed to be based on summaries of what has already been published elsewhere. That is what an encyclopedia is. Thanks.John from Idegon (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: I added back in the section, but am going to focus it more on the layout of the city. Evancahill (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
You need to stop. The section is in dispute. Get a consensus before you add things back. Your editing is rapidly becoming disruptive. See WP:BRD. John from Idegon (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: My editing is NOT becoming disruptive! I'll find sources, but everything I said in there was true. If you want to take a look at the neighborhoods section, you'll find that it is. Evancahill (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Urban environment section

On what I want to add, I want to add a referenced, reliable section on Oxnard's urban environment. Antandrus gave me a source, and I want to use it. But, that is my vote. If you anyone else has different opinions, voice them. Evancahill (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, rather than add it to the article directly, you can draft it here. We can help you format the citation(s) correctly if you haven't learned how to do that yet. Some very general suggestions: make sure you understand what you are reading before you try to paraphrase it. Some of that document is dense planner-speak; some is quite general. Look at the link John provided (on your talk page I think?) about how to format the citation. And we've been through this already but I just want to state it one more time: beware of just adding things you think are true, and then trying to find citations later. Read the sources until you can recite their meaning back -- enough to bore your friends and family -- that is when you are ready to write an article. Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll draft it in my sandbox and post the draft on this talk page. Evancahill (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Urban environment of Oxnard

@John from Idegon: How is adding an urban environment section "disruptive"? Plenty of articles have that section. Everything I said in that section was true. I don't see a reason not to have that section. If you think that that section says untrue things, look at the neighborhoods section. The point of the urban environment section's purpose is to give readers a good impression of the general layout of the area. I'm proposing to add back in that section. If you have any objections, voice them here. Evancahill (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The content is not disruptive, per se, you are. You are edit warring content that is being disputed back and not trying to reach a consensus. At least you are talking instead of editing now, so that much is an improvement. Now if you would please address the concerns I have mentioned above (in the section above please so others can follow the arguements) arguing from reliable sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, perhaps the editors that follow this page and us can come to a consensus. Keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is seldom a persuasive arguement. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Evan -- if you want to write about California towns, I suggest you start by identifying a reliable source, reading it, and then paraphrasing -- rewriting in your own words -- its salient points, in an encyclopedic manner, slowly and carefully. John and Fettlemap have made good points above and on your talk page. We have a guideline here called Verifiability, not truth. This can be a hard thing for newcomers to grasp, but it essential for understanding the workings of this place. With a little reflection you will see that this is the only possible way for anonymous people to write an encyclopedia: if we didn't have this, all arguments would devolve into multiple parties shouting "but I know this is true!" Everything needs to be backed up with good sources, and that means sources that are fact-checked.
If you are interested in writing about settlements, may I suggest you start with the planning documents of the towns themselves. For example, Oxnard recently released a General Plan for 2030, and it contains a lot of background information on the town. These documents are written by environmental professionals, and peer-reviewed and fact checked before publication. Environmental impact reports on projects within the city also have a lot of information on "urban environment". A word of caution though: these documents aren't always easy to read and it takes some thought to distill them into appropriate encyclopedic sections of an article like this one. Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Antandrus, correct, General plans and EIRs can provide a reference for information that is not easily found elsewhere. Good tip. Thanks, Fettlemap (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I added in referenced material. Why are you still trying to edit war with me? Evancahill (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you guys reach a consensus quickly? Evancahill (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You added a bare url to a 233 page document and didn't even include the title in the cite as Antandrus did above. Without a page number, this is not a meaningful reference. If you have a proposal for consensus, present it here. The current consensus is against adding the Urban environment section to the article until it is rewritten with references. Fettlemap (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait to add anything for now. Thanks for the notification. I might draft a section in my sandbox, but I won't add it in until this discussion gives me a green light. Evancahill (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Fettlemap, Antandrus--Will you pleas back me up? Evancahill appears to be having a hard time understanding that unless he starts a discussion on what he wants to add, there will be no discussion and that if he wants the content in the article, he will need to participate. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I never thought or implied that I would not want to start a discussion, John from Idegon. It is clear you are agitated. Please calm down. As you said, we are supposed to work together, not try to oppose each other. Evancahill (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Evancahill, I am looking for a demonstration that you are interested in making a serious contribution to Wikipedia for Oxnard. Several editors have been willing to spend time coaching you on understanding how to improve your edits. You spend a week reverting the edit reversions with only feeble a (if any) attempt at improving the edit. You have not started a real discussion on the content you want to add. You ask for a consensus without making a proposal. You then make comments like "calm down," "stop edit warring" without showing that you have read any of the guidelines about editing Wikipedia. Consensus is the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fettlemap (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Fettlemap, I want to provide Wikipedia articles with useful info. I DID read the guidelines. Did you read the section below? I am going to start and urban environment section in my sandbox, and then post the draft on this talk page for review. The urban environment section is a legitimate, useful section of the article. Now that isn't the only way I want to contribute to Oxnard. I also want to improve the neighborhoods section by adding more info, something I already did. Evancahill (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Evancahill, I did read the section below and found it very encouraging. We will see wait and see how it goes. Happy editing. Fettlemap (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Urban environment draft

Oxnard is a combination of neighborhoods, and urban development focused on the downtown, coastline, and harbor areas.[1] The city's main land uses are industrial, residential, commercial, and open space.[2] The city is characterized by one and two-story buildings, the only exception being several high rises in the northern part of the city. The city is surrounded by agricultural land and the Pacific Ocean, as well as the Santa Clara River. The city's primary development lies along Highway 101 and the other main roads.[3]

References

  1. ^ "Section 1 of the General 2030 Plan for Oxnard". Granicus. p. 1-1. Retrieved 9 July 2016.
  2. ^ "Section 3 of Oxnard 2030 General Plan". Granicus. pp. 3-12 and 3-13. Retrieved 9 July 2016.
  3. ^ "Section 3 of the General 2030 Plan for Oxnard". Granicus. p. 3-1. Retrieved 9 July 2016.

Above is a rough draft of the section. Can someone take a look? Hope this works. Evancahill (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The word skyscraper is not on page 3-1 anywhere. The term high rise (they are not synonymous) is described as several. Most of it seems like way too close a paraphrase. And without other sources to round it out, I don't see the utility. YMMV. John from Idegon (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Evancahill (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
This can be a place to talk about certain neighborhoods and why they are interesting. WP:MOS prefers prose to lists. Most neighborhoods are not that different but your paragraph above begins to hint about some of the neighborhoods that are different. More could be said about the Henry T. Oxnard Historic District as a neighborhood. Fettlemap (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, those are great ideas! Thanks. Evancahill (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oxnard,_California/Archive_1&oldid=1137065483"