User:Ericsaindon2/Archive 3

US Government images

The U.S. Government does not go around creating city seals. The copyright of city seals is owned by their cities. The fair use exemption that we use them under is {logo}. -Will Beback 07:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the tags on several of your uploads. Please fix the rest yourself. Improperly tagged files may be deleted. -Will Beback 07:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the correct tag would be {govt-logo}. Please correct your uploads. -Will Beback 00:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California

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.

I count five reverts in the last twenty-four hours: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. This have better be the last offense. Block will expire in 48 hours. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Ocmap.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ocmap.gif. 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. 23:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, no problem. I know that they have been ganging up on you the past few weeks. I can see your issue. You have some tough shoes to climb out of with so much opposition, but in the end, I think it will all pay off, because you are the correct party in the matter. --OC31113 07:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration against you has been opened

I've nominated you as an involved user. Please submit a statement. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Coolcaesar 00:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, four affirmative votes are needed for the ArbCom to accept a case. They can take a while to decide. -Will Beback 01:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that while the ArbComm is considering your RFaR, this would a good time to look at part ArbComm cases and the final decisions in those cases. For example, one of the main considerations in Netoholic 2 was edit warring. In the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute, User:Vfp15 was also edit-warring, but it was his editing against consensus that was the primary issue. The Netohoiic case ended up in restrictions on editing and a mentorship. The Darwin dispute ended up in temporary bans for a couple of editors.

Arbitration policy/Past decisions is a page that shows some of the Wikipedia's priciples, such as sockpuppetry, that the ArbComm has ruled on and their decisions.

You might also visit Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates to request someone who can help guide you through the RFaR process. ^Blank ^Verse 12:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your RFaR is NOT a case of a personality conflict with a couple of editors. Both Coolcesar and Will Beback are editors with a long history of editing the Wikipedia and are editors in good standing with the Wikipedia community. They both have been in a number of conflicts and/or have been involved in other RFaRs, but only because they have little tolerance for edit warriors and nonsense being added to the Wikipedia. Will Beback, especially, is an editor that I respect and is often the goto guy for me when I need the help of an administrator.

Instead, your RFaR is about your editing behavior, including adding misinformation and misleading information to the Anaheim Hills and other articles, your edit warring and page move warring, and your refusal to go along with consensus, or even to compromise. Add to that your attempt to own the Anaheim Hills article. I'll be frank with you. The ArbComm will take the case and they will rule against you IMHO. [I have almost 10,000 edits and over 1 1/2 years editing on the Wikipedia, and was involved in the Netoholic RFaR, so you are getting the opinion of a fairly experienced Wikipedia editor.

re: your 'constructive edits': In my opinion, you are only doing a bunch of minor and low quality edits to other articles now that the Anaheim Hills article is (once again) protected. Compare, for example, your edit to Boyle Heights, Los Angeles, California [6], to my expansion [7]. I think that you are only now trying to spread out your edits because one of the complaints in the RFaR is your monomania related to the Anaheim Hills article.

My suggestion: If you want to do something constuctive, join the Recent changes patrol and start protecting the Wikipedia from vandalism. ^Blank ^Verse 14:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Eric, I don't know the whereabouts of Coolcaesar, but your comment on my talk page shows a lack of good faith in his efforts. If you recall, I got some of the others to agree to a compromise with you, but you rejected it. Your new suggest is very nice, but requiring everyone to apologize for their wrongdoings is not appropriate. Your suggestion of an RfC would be fine except that have already had RfCs on the exact same topic, as well as straw polls. You didn't accept the outcome of those dispute resolution procedures, so it isn't clear that you'd respect any future consensus either. That's why we've had to go to binding arbitration. -Will Beback 22:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The compromise that we offered was to move the article to "Anaheim Hills, California", in exchange for removing the infobox and demographic data. Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California/archive 2#Compromise. You replied:

I cannot promise that the infobox remain off the page

Which appeared to be a rejection of the offer. If you'd like to revisit the original compromise then let me know. -Will Beback 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)-Will Beback 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the article then the place to do it is at talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California -Will Beback 22:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, there's no consensus to retain the infobox or the demographic data. The only reason they are inthe article is that you keep re-inserting them over the objections of other editors. The status quo is not acceptable so long as unverifiable data, original research, and a copyvioed map are in the article. -Will Beback 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I went to the trouble of building support for one compromise, and you rejected it. If you want to revisit that proposal, then fine. But don't expect a parade of compromise proposals. We can compromise on the naming convention, but there's no compromising on WP:V. As for CoolCaesar, you've found us out- He's really my little brother. ;) (Okay, not really, but what were you expecting?). -Will Beback 09:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Rossmoor, California (content)

Since the link you posted is for a meeting that happened yesterday morning, and doesn't say what decisions were made at that meeting, how do you know that Rossmoor is under the Los Alamitos sphere of influence? ^Blank ^Verse 10:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Having grown up near Rossmoor, and still living not too far from there, I know it as a community that for over 50 years has zealously defended its independence (probably to its detriment IMHO). Although I did not know the full facts in the case, when I saw the addition you made to the article last night, it looked like an oversimplification of the situation, which is why I questioned it by adding the fact template, and then questioned matters again when the link you provided did not back up what you had added. As the material and link that I added last night shows,, as well as the link just included in your message to me, it is a complicated situation. It definitely looks like OCLAFCO wants to force a shotgun wedding with somebody, but it could end up being Seal Beach instead of Los Alamitos.

Also, If I read things correctly on the OCLAFCO website last night, the information that you added to Santa Ana Heights, Newport Beach, California, as well as the page move, is incorrect. OCLAFCO only initiated the first steps for the annexation--i.e. recommending the annexation and recommending a change in the sphere of influence. It could be two years or more before all the other steps required for annexation can take place, and anytime during that interval one or more parties to the annexation can decide to make changes or back down. ^Blank ^Verse 02:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

East Santa Ana Heights was annexed in 2003 and West Santa Ana Heights is not yet annexed. Your edits [8] was both incomplete and inaccurate and needs to be fixed. Your page move was premature and inaccurate. It also need to be fixed. Still to come for the annexation process, if I'm not mistaken, is a vote of the Newport Beach city council, a poll of the West Santa Ana Heights residents, and probably a vote of the Orange County Supervisors as well. When you update the info, you should also add some history about the residents of Santa Ana Heights turning down the attempt at annexation by the city of Santa Ana.

Your edit to Rossmoor, California was incomplete and misleading. You said that you were going to correct that, but have not done so yet. Also, in your discussion of the relationship between Rossmoor and Los Alamitos, you forgot the Rossmoor Community Services District, which is independent of Los Alamitos. The Zip Code is basically useless as an identifier because the post office uses descriptions and boundaries that are most convenient to themselves. ^Blank ^Verse 16:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edits were a slight improvement, but they are still poorly written, confusing, and incomplete. For Rossmoor, your edit also added a redundancy. For additional issues that need to be covered, who handles policing and fire protection for Rossmoor? Does Seal Beach have any influence over Rossmoor besides the Rossmoor Shopping Center?

What galls me the most is that you admitted that you didn't understand the unique nature of Rossmoor, but you still thought that you could edit the article. Since you say that you know individuals involved with Rossmoor at OCLAFCO, why don't you have them explain it to you. ^Blank ^Verse 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA request

I'd be glad to help you. To be blunt: I don't understand the naming conventions or rationales for naming the article one way or another. I think that all parties should be treated equally in 3RR violations, however, as blocking for violations of this policy are always preventative rather than punative, it doesn't matter very much now. Is there any component to this dispute other than the title of the article?

If you need help understanding the arbitration proceedures, etc. I can help you but I would prefer not to get personally involved in the dispute proper my taking a stand on the title of the article. Feel free to contact me on AIM (c6o6s6m6o) or email (user the email user function). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you have worked hard on this article. However, I must say that the note in the infobox makes my original research alarm tingle a little. As for the title, may I suggest that you eliminate even the slightest perception of a 3RR violation by not reverting at all anymore. Have you proposed the move at Wikipedia: Requested moves yet? I did my best to read your lenghty post and the equally lengthy talk page archives. It seems like the most salient issue in this debate is that there is no clear cut policy on how to name sub-city units which are not recognized as independent. Could you point me to the applicable policies which you think are relevant to this page's title (I must admitt I am not familiar with these naming conventions)? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes at Template:User cal

Hello, we changed the settings for the Cal userbox to allow you to personalize the text. Please check out the talk page for more info. ~ trialsanderrors 22:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey vs. Hello

I'm kind of confused by your edits here [9] and here [10]. On July 17, you claimed that you had never met OC31113 in person, but two days later he is allowing you to let you sign in using his IP address. This is starting to look like a pretty sloppy case of sockpuppetry when looked at with this edit [11]. You certainly seem to have a lot of knowledge about the Southland and especially Orange County and Anaheim, but in the Anaheim Hills conflict community consensus is clearly against you. These tactics aren't going to change that, and they certainly aren't helping your case. Danielross40 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Coolcaesar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration}

I have noted you as an involved party and/or commenter upon the behavior of user:Coolcaesar in the filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I greatly wish that you would comment on his behavior, and add references, links, etc. supporting your particular view to the current evidence already there. Please also explain his attitude/comments/witnessed behavior with detail about your experience in dealing with him. I do greatly appreciate it, and note that your reputation is protected upon comments at arbitration, and cannot be used against you. Thanks for your Time. --Mr.Executive 07:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Because you have been blocked, you may post your evidence here and someone will copy it to the evidence page, or you may e-mail your evidence directly to a member of the arbitration committee. Thatcher131 12:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:MapSantaAna.gif (content)

Thanks for uploading Image:MapSantaAna.gif. 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. 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

jquarry

Eric, perhaps I was a tad hasty in my initial judgement of you. I apologize. --Jquarry 07:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Eric, your editing privileges have been suspended for a month. Please respect the project and stop editing until your block expires. -Will Beback 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Caliber Motors.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Caliber Motors.jpg, has been listed for Speedy deletion according to the policies at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Eric: You claimed that you took that image by using the db-self tag, but I easily found it on the Caliber Motors website at [12]. Lying about the source of this image will be just one more thing to add to the evidence in your RFaR.

A suggestion: You need to quit your edit warring and spend more time studying the Wikipedia Policies and guidelines--both to become a better Wikipedia 'citizen', but also to help defend yourself in your RFaR. ^Blank ^Verse 09:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Eric: You need to look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Proposed decision#Ericsaindon2 banned. ^Blank ^Verse 15:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Regarding this comment:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California

Do not do knee-jerk reverts to the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California article (or any other Wikipedia article, for that matter) without checking the edits first [13]. If you had looked at the article's edit history and seen my edit summaries, you would have known that I had also spell-checked the article and added a section for notable residents (from checking the "what links here" link) besides deleting the infobox that Consensus shows in not needed or wanted. If you know of any more notable residents of Anaheim Hills, please add to the list. ^Blank ^Verse 05:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Still considering

I'm still thinking about my vote, I moved it from Article space as it is simply not an article. Feel free to move to any other more approriate name within the Wikipedia: namespace. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

[copied]
I addressed some of your concerns on the strawpoll for communities. I was still working on it upon your voting, so I apologize for the incompleteness. Ericsaindon2 07:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[end copied]

OK. For the future, may I suggest not posting to Village Pump to ask people to participate in a straw poll that is still being framed? And, also, normally the way to do this is to allow a few days for people to (for example) propose other alternative policies before you start the poll. Neither of my first two choices was even offered as a possibility. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Approach

I need to understand the underlying issues before I vote on the community merging issue. However, I will say that if you wish for me to be an ally of yours, you will need to stop making changes on articles that are contrary to consensus. Regardless of how right you may be, you need to focus on Talk pages, and building allies with reason and logic. Look at Chicago for inspiration. A vote in January failed. A vote 8 months later succeeded. In the mean time, no revert wars on the actual page. Patience. Focus on building consensus. Reason and logic is on our side, but it takes time for it to sink in. Give it the time that it needs. --Serge 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I interpreted this as an indication that you wanted me to be an ally. Whatever. If you don't want to cooperate and build consensus before you make changes to articles, you're on your own. Good luck. --Serge 21:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, regarding your strawpoll. I prefer to build consensus, and then use a strawpoll to confirm, rather than have one when the wind is still clearly blowing the other direction. All that accomplishes is cause the opponents to dig in. --Serge 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to play along with your charades regarding other ids, and pretending you're not them. If you want to play games, go play with yourself. If you want to form alliances and build consensus to get some serious work done improving Wikipedia, then do it straight. Thanks. --Serge 19:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)