User talk:Ericsaindon2

Welcome!

Hello, Ericsaindon2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -SCEhardT 01:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Ca wildfire.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ca wildfire.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 01:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome and thanks for getting a username. Regarding the "Location and Wealth" material - please put it in only one article. Either Southern California or California, whichever is more appropriate. Also, please cool it with the Anaheim Hills. It'd be great if you could go back over the Anaheim Hills, California article to improve it. Cheers, -Will Beback 18:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Southern California

Please do not remove either the {{fact}} and the {{unreferenced}} tags until you or someone else has cited verifiable references using the procedures outlined on on how to cite sources on Wikipedia. A user (myself) has requested in good faith for some of the claims you have made by verified by reliable published sources. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Also, I agree with User:Will Beback above that your "Location and wealth" information should only be made on one article, preferably on Southern California. Because your content is SoCal-centric, I would prefer you do not put on the California article unless you also add examples of some of the suburbs in the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, and other regions statewide. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ah_011.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ah_011.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ah_014.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ah_014.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 11:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

talk pages

Please come visit the atlak pages of the articels you are editing. In particular, talk:Anaheim Hills, California. Your edits are not conforming to Wikipedia practices and norms, and we'd all like to help you rather than working at cross purposes. Wikipedia is a collaboration. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mpcom.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mpcom.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ×Meegs 09:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The following images are also missing source and licensing information:

• Image:Demolished.jpg
• Image:Anaheimhills.jpg
• Image:Anaheimhillsgolf.jpg
• Image:Irvinepark9.JPG

Thanks. ×Meegs 09:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, California

Please do not remove the OR tag until the issues have been resolved. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Are you trying to be disruptive? [1] I am trying, in good faith, to be a neutral observer here. I have not been involved in your dispute over this page with User:Mike Dillon and others. But based on the page's history and the talk page, the proper procedure is to tag the article with {{or}} to let other readers know that this page is indeed under dispute. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And what about Image:Ahills.jpg? Mike Dillon claims that this image is actually a fake. [2] Therefore, you might want to edit the image description page and provide some references to prove that the seal does exist, or else Mike Dillon might nominate it for deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Fine. I will leave the {{OR}} off for now. But again, based on his recent edits, I sense that Mike Dillion's current major objection is Image:Ahills.jpg, the seal, which he claims is not official or verifiable. So unless you find something to prove that it is notable, designed by a notable person within the community, and not by yourself, it will eventually have to be removed. Good luck. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ahills.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Ahills.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Will Beback 18:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects

When you went through and did the dozen or so page moves of Orange County neighborhood articles, you failed to take care of the double redirects. Also, since you seem to have done the moves just to spite User:Will Beback for moving Anaheim Hills, California to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, you should probably read this: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It's pretty obvious that's what you're doing since you made a bunch of page moves to conform to neighborhood naming convention, but then reversed the one move by Will Beback that you didn't like. Mike Dillon 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

When citing sources and external links, please paste the exact URL/web page where the information came from, not just the home page of the web site. For example, you would paste http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/14/immigration/index.html instead of just http://www.cnn.com. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

removal of {{sprotect}}

If you continue to remove the {{sprotect}}, you may be blocked for disruption. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

====Regarding reversions[3] made on May 15 2006 (UTC)==== Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

You have violated the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Further reverts will result in a block on your account. -Will Beback 04:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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. The duration of the block[4] is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question[5]. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Anaheim Hills

Hi Eric. I'm sorry if you felt insulted, as that was not my intention. My intention was to get you to understand the importance of citing sources and collaborating with other editors using the talk page. The reason I did not initially leave you any explanation beyond edit summaries was that I knew that you were involved in the first round of unsourced edits to Anaheim Hills in April and I didn't expect you to respond since you had ignored an earlier request to discuss your changes on Talk:Anaheim Hills, California (as well as the "POV!" discussion).

As for the rdesk.com references, they are still not up-to-snuff, but I trust that they can be improved. A real reference would have more of a summary of housing price data and its trends, rather than data about individual home sales. To avoid being "POV" (see WP:NPOV), you really need a source that makes the conclusions about relative neighborhood "quality" itself, rather than drawing conclusions yourself from raw data. Hope that helps. Mike Dillon 04:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

New templates

A new template is just like any other page. You create a template by prefixing the article name with "Template:", for example Template:Infobox Neighborhood. However, if you're intending to create the neighborhood infobox, I'd suggest trying to work with some more experienced editors. You might want to seek guidance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southern California. P.S. I believe you can still edit your user talk page, despite being blocked (plus, your block is due to end in a couple hours). Mike Dillon 05:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

An alternative is to create the template in your userspace, e.g. User:Ericsaindon2/Infobox. You include it in a page like so: {{User:Ericsaindon2/Infobox}}. That way you can test with less risk of someone deleting your tests for being unencyclopedic. Mike Dillon 05:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which fancy boxes you're referring to specifically, but that's why I'd recommend involving some editors with a little more experience creating Wikipedia templates and HTML in general. Mike Dillon 05:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing privileges

Eric, I appreciate the energy you bring to your participation in Wikipedia. However I am afraid that you may not fully understand our project. We are here to describe things as they are, not as we wish them to be. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We're not here to promote or advocate. Furthermore, we expect that all information added will be verifiable, and with a good faith assumption that intentionally inaccurate information will not be added. Creating a "city seal" for a city which does not exist counts as a hoax, and hoaxes are not tolerated. Finally, Wikipedia is a collegial effort which depends on consensus. You need to convince other editors if they disagree with your edits, you may not simply keep adding the same material repeatedly over the objections of other editors. Nobody "owns" an article. If you break the 3RR again or add false information again your editing privileges will be blocked. Please rely only on reliable sources when editing, and please work with your fellow editors. -Will Beback 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You have now been blocked for 3RR. When the block expires you may edit again, so long as you observe our policies and guidelines. -Will Beback 04:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Bpdt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bpdt.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, The Selfless Editor

Ok, I underestand you blocking me, but why would you go and block an unaffiliated user like the one you have blocked for backing me up? I am sick and tired of you think that all these pages are your kingdom, and it is not right!

What unaffiliated editor is that? -Will Beback 06:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Bebackipedia" that does have a nice ring to it. I apologize if I made an error in the blocking, but I can't help that person without knowing which usernames or IPs are not you. It's clear that someone has been making a lot of reverts and other improper edits, and they have all been of a similar nature. I previously warned you that your editing behavior was not acceptable. The blocks will expire shortly. When they do you are welcome to make edits here that are consistent with our guidelines and policies. -Will Beback 01:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I dont know who has been making the edits, but I have been blocked like 99.999999% of the time, so it definately wasnt me. The second I make another edit, I am blocked again.

I'll go ahead and unblock this account. Please edit responsibly. -Will Beback 05:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

While you were blocked you wrote to me several times asking to be unblocked. You promised if I unblocked you that you wouldn't make any "drastic changes" without cinultation with the other editors. Since I unblocked you you've re-inserted the infobox twice even though there is no consensus to include it. You are disrupting the process, showing no good faith, and are pushing a POV. Please stop making changes to the article that are not supported by the other editors. And do not engage in sock puppetry either, in an attempt to get that support. -Will Beback 20:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hill Infobox

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.Adambiswanger1 22:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Eric, you MAY NOT add the infobox to the Anaheim Hills page until the group comes to a concensus. Thank you for contributing but you must obey the rules or you will be blocked by an admin. Adambiswanger1 03:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Eric, you've been blocked for 3RR again. Please read WP:3RR. Then read it again. -Will Beback 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Eric, if you'll commit to refrain from inserting infoboxes on the page, and if you have read the 3RR policy twice, I'll ublock you now. -Will Beback 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you have assured me that you will only place boxes in the talk for discussion, and that you have read the 3RR policy, I will unblock you now. -Will Beback 06:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please also read our core policies, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Your editing history indicate that you don't fully understand these policies. As for Dataquick, discuss that on the talk page please. -Will Beback 06:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you promise me that you would not go back to adding boxes to the article?

Also, please remove the tags from your user page which are intended for articles or talk pages. -Will Beback 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Eric, you just moved a number of pages for areas in unincorporated Orange County to incorrect names (including Ladera Ranch, California and Sunset Beach, California). The Ladera Ranch page will have to be fixed by an administrator because of your misspelling during the page move. Please be more careful in the future and Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Mike Dillon 02:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. [6] 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:[7]. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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)

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: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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)