User:Ericsaindon2/Archive 2

Re: Your comment to Mike Dillon and your comment directed at me

Ericsaindon2, the reason Mike Dillon responded to your comment about me was because you posted it at Talk:Anaheim_Hills instead of my personal talk page, which is where you should have posted it if you were soliciting a response exclusively from me. Mike Dillon's response was correct; I informed Serge about the poll because I know he has taken arms with the neighborhood naming issue on several fronts in the past (notably La Jolla) and he has participated in more than a few debates on city naming in general. Mike Dillon is also correct in his appraisal that Serge's point of view is against my own, so if I were truly acting in self-interest, I would not have brought in Serge. Regarding your assertion that Mike Dillon keeps giving you "crap," well being mostly an observer on this whole issue from the beginning (I added you to my watch list when I saw some edits you did to California a couple months ago), I agree with everything Mike Dillon has said on this matter. You seek respect on Wikipedia but just when I believe you are working diligently to get things right, I have to revert some senseless vandalism, and now I see that you are venting about "big Wikipedia names" on Serge's talk page. I admire the ardor with which you approach Wikipedia, especially your zest for the Anaheim Hills article - and I empathize with the frustration that must come from working on something (i.e. an infobox) only to have it removed from the page and outvoted (several times over). However, it is important to yield to the methods in place that seek to uphold certain standards and procedures within the Wikipedia mission - these are championed by the "big Wikipedia names" who know have been around and are familiar with Wikipedia Policy, like Mike Dillon and Will Beback who have been around for a while. If not for editors like them, I shudder to think of the horrid state of this mind-bogglingly amazing world project. Soltras 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Cityofyorbalinda.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cityofyorbalinda.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm not sure I know which box you mean. Is there a consensus on the talk page supporting the inclusion of the box? -Will Beback 02:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I movd the map. There's no reason to squeeze it into the demographics box. What's the deal with the "editor of the month" awards on your user page? -Will Beback 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Eric: Again, please do not add the infobox until a concensus is reached that it is desired. In controversial matters like this, it's important that we move forward democratically, instead of having one person decide what is right. A firm majority has stated that the infobox should not exist on this page. Thanks. Adambiswanger1 03:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

If you make another silly page move you may be blocked for vandalism. -Will Beback 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And please read WP:POINT - "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". -Will Beback 04:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting Anaheim Hills

Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) If you come across a cut-and-paste move that should be fixed by merging the page histories, please follow the instructions here to have an administrator repair it.

If you cannot rename a page, or you think that the renaming may be controversial, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and list it there. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I know you were trying to evade the straw poll. [1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In case you are wondering, the policy prohibiting cut and paste moves is on Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You were asked nicely to not to do C+P moves and then you did it again, just to prove a point. That is considered disruption. Furthermore, please realize that while you may have contributed significantly to an article and your contributors are appreciated, that in no way makes you the owner of any article. You are a member of a community and you need to act as such and be respectful to your fellow editors. Speaking of which, don't attack AmiDaniel. Instead, please rationally discuss the issue with him instead of saying that he doesn't use his brain. besides being a gross violation of policy, acting like this will not gain you any respect. I'll stop nagging you now, but consider this your final warning on this subject and please try to be more civil from here on out. Thanks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox, again

Ericsaindon2, the infobox has been outvoted numerous times. I am going to remove it for the second time today. Please do not replace it. Since you feel strongly otherwise, please address the specific concerns on the Anaheim Hills talk page. Soltras 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it's not my plan to engage in a revert war with you, Ericsaindon2. I just wanted it on record that I reverted, then asked you not to replace the infobox in deference to its popular opposition. Soltras 02:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

When you address these concerns then I will be more willing to re-evaluate my personal position on the infobox. Until then, do not suggest that I "leave the infobox be." Ericsaindon2, if you re-read my messages to you, you will see that I have been empathic to your struggles and have given you the benefit of the doubt that you claimed hadn't ben afforded to you by other editors, even though you jumped the gun and accused me in front of everybody of recruiting allies to weigh the votes (you admitted your error, but have not apologized). Please note my concerns and the concerns of others on the talk page and you will understand why it is that we choose not to have an infobox (as it is) on the Anaheim Hills page. Soltras 03:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Erc, please read WP:CONSENSUS. The majority of the involved editors agree on the article title, and on the lack of an infobox. Reverting over and over again is not an appropriate response to a disagreement. The fact that you replaced the original text of the article with your own text does not give you ownership of the article. Your words now belong to the community. This is a collaborative project and you need to work with other editors. Calling your colleagues "mildly autistic" does not help, and might even be regarded as a personal attack. -Will Beback 05:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Will. No point in getting into a revert war. You can only prevail with patience (sometimes measured in weeks, months and even years), reason and logic. You must achieve consensus. --Serge 07:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Eric, once again I must remind you not to take out your anger about Anaheim Hills on the project. Do not move major articles to new titles without discussion. Your behavior is not constructive. If you continue you'll most likely get an indefinite ban. Please, do as Serge suggests and work within the system. -Will Beback 09:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Eric, I have made a proposal for a compromise. Please respond. Your new poll is not a valid process, as we've just finished a poll on the same matter. -Will Beback 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: PLEASE

Ericsaindon2, it is clear that I voted for A. We do not need to organize the talk page so that my vote looks like your vote. I voiced my opinion there. I'm not being difficult, I am just not acquiescing to your rigid format. I am the only one who has participated in your poll so far, so please reconsider whether or not I am working against you or otherwise inhibiting your campaign. Soltras 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vote

In your tally at the top of the page, you had counted both my (a) and (b) votes even though I had made it clear that my original vote was based on misinterpreted information, though you counted your own only once when you covertly changed from (c) to (b), setting me up for outside accusations of double-voting. You have broken up my comments and added bulleted votes on my behalf to make it look like I voted twice. Then you deleted my comments altogether when I withdrew. Just leave my comments alone, or address them if you disagree with something. Just like you resist the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, Calif. naming convention for its lack of merit, so I resist your imposed strict structure of voting in favor of the standard way of communicating through talk pages, which is to comment and sign. Soltras 23:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California

Your recent edit to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 00:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

This is in regards to readding the infobox on Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. You have been blocked twice previously, hence the 48 hour block this time around. With your excessive history of violating the 3RR and incivility, if you continue when you return, your block may be significantly longer. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Since you seem to be having trouble fitting in here at Wikipedia I've posted a "request for comment" to get additional community input on how we can best proceed.Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2 Please respond here. If you're participating as a user of Wikipedia your aim should be the success of the project, and if that's your aim then you should get with the program. -Will Beback 08:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of RfCs is to bring the community together to reflect on a topic or an editor. This particular RfC alleges that you have violated a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is certified by five users who agree and have tried to resolve this with you, and is endorsed by two other editors who agree but have not been involved. The section marked "Response" is set aside for you to make whatever reply you wish. The best response would be an acknowledgement of previous errors and a commitment to conform with project norms in the future, but you can say whatever you like. RfCs sometimes don't succeed in changing in behavior and when that happens the next step is the Arbitration Committee, who may impose a range of remedies including banning an editor from an article or from the entire project. Let's try to make sure that doesn't happen. -Will Beback 20:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not the naming convention or the infobox, it's your behavior. Eight editors agree. Yes, you can certainly avoid the ArbCom by promising to follow the policies and guidelines that you've broken in the past, and by sticking to that promise. You wrote, "Yes, I did do all of those things, but I thought it was out of the greatness of the article." It's good that you acknowledge your activities, but the "greatness of the article" is not sufficient excuse for those actions. If you insist that you were right to have acted as you did, and that you will do so again, then the ArbCom will have to get involved. It's your choice. -Will Beback 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've spent a great deal of time over the last two months trying to explain to you how to edit on Wikipedia. I spent a fair amount of time yesterday compiling the RfC. Please extend to me the respect of reading it, and its links, fully. I suggest that you first read the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2#Applicable policies and guidelines, as those are the rules that you have violated. If you still don't see how you violated them, then check the "diffs" which link to examples of your bad edits. If you still do not understnad, please ask your future questions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2. That way everyone can respond. -Will Beback 01:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, please log in and user your username. It is confusing when you edit under IPs. -Will Beback 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot edit with your username because you are blocked then you should not evade that block by editing with an IP. -Will Beback 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

As Will Beback stated above, please read over Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy. You have now endorsed your response to your RfC three times, once as yourself, once as an anoymous contributor (User:71.128.23.163), and once "on behalf of" your alternate account (User:Es92808). There is already sufficient evidence to condone indefinitely blocking the account User:Es92808; however, I'm hoping that you'll recognize the fault of your actions and that will not be necessary. If you continue to abuse sockpuppets, however, I will request a CheckUser to determine any other accounts that you are using for such purposes, and I will indefinitely block each of them accordingly. Note that your main account will also likely face long blocks for such abuses. Please, clean up your act, and begin contributing positively to Wikipedia. Your disruptive behavior is far more important than who is right or wrong in individual disputes. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Responding to a complaint about using sock puppets with sock puppets shows a clear lack of understanding of the problem. -Will Beback 08:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Boxes

I see you are adding infobxoes with unsourced data. Please stop and add the sources to your information. Otherwise the boxes will be removed. -Will Beback 03:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Put the sourced text in the body of the article. For communities without official boundaries, please also name the actual areas described by the statistics (for example, the ZIP code or census tracts) so that they are verifiable. -Will Beback 04:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You said that you'd source the data today for those new community boxes you added to various O.C. neighborhoods yesterday. If there's some reason you can't do so promptly, then that's OK. We can take the info down and you can add it back once you've found the sources. -Will Beback 08:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect

You have incorrectly stated the situation here:[2]. As I recall you rejected the compromise, insisting that the article be moved, the disputed data kept, and the infobox returned. Please clarify. -Will Beback 08:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, there was no agreement on the compromise. Let me know when you agree, or wish to describe it further. -Will Beback 03:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Anaheim Hills

Hi there. Sorry to brush you off, but I don't really have time to take a look at the page to see if the discussion has been resolved. Please place a request on WP:RPP instead to allow another admin to investigate. I also don't really have time to help you promote your infobox. I have had only a handful of edits on WP the past few days because of being busy in real life and I am not really sure when I'll be able to give WP more attention. Sorry. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection of Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California

As I responded in your previous request for unprotection, I am rather strongly opposed to the idea of unprotecting the article. I don't believe your actions over the last week--using sockpuppets in your RfC and other discussions on the talk page, requesting that I move the article to your location and reprotect without asking on the talk page first, etc.--have in any way demonstrated that you intend to refrain from edit-warring and editing the article in an otherwise disruptive manner. I further still see absolutely no sign of consensus on the proposed changes to the article and thus would not be at all shocked if minutes after unprotection edit wars and move wars flared up again. Please note that my decision on this matter has nothing to do with my opinion on your ideas; I am simply acting in the interest of preventing disruptive actions such as move and edit warring. Might I suggest that you wait until your RfC has concluded and until enough time for discussion has taken place to arrive at consensus? Please remember that Wikipedia has become what it is today because of the ability of a mature, academic communtity to work together, resolve disputes, and compromise--that means that individuals will not always get their way, no matter how right they believe themselves to be. Lord knows that many of my ideas have been completely rejected by the community, though on most we've been able to arrive at reasonable compromises. No matter what the situation, my persistently fighting the community would have resulted in absolutely nothing, except for perhaps loosing the respect of others. Please, try to work with others in a mature fashion. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Why are you posting a city infobox in Anaheim Hills? We've been over this before - there's no consensus for it. Please take it down. -Will Beback 08:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:GGrove.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:GGrove.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:YLSeal.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:YLSeal.gif. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)