Talk:East Coast of the United States

Scrap It

You know it seems some editors are just bent on destroying this and other related articles. So let's just scrap it. The East Coast of the US doesn't exist, there is nothing to learn or know about it, and it has no importance as a place in the US whatsoever. And we can add the Northeastern United States to this as well of course.70.172.204.219 (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Culture/Settlements

This is how to do things. I have more to say on this matter, so I am putting it here.

BTW Hoppingalong, read this:

"While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." Ref: [1]

This is exactly what you are doing, esp. in this most recent 'clash', you need a concensus-based discussion. And the fact that they're incitable because they're incorrect and then removing them is just abusing the system. If they're incorrect, you dispute it or change it, not use WP:V as your weapon.

I also have more to say more-specifically regarding the article and this section, that I'll add soon.--ɱ 20:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What? I think some of what you added was wrong or irrelevant. And it is new or returned by you after three years out of the article, so there was no consensus to include it. Pass WP:BURDEN and it can go back in. Read this: WP:BRD. Leaving unsourced and inaccurate or misleading stuff in articles is not the way we do things. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think info wrong or irrelevant, you make minor changes (that is, not deleting an entire section) and/or mention it on the article talk. No excuse there. And 'no consensus'? THere are hardly any involved editors anyway, as you say it's a small article. And in both volume and following. And leaving unsourced information is fine, better than deleting it altogether. And innacurate things are fixed, not deleted along with their entire section. And your WP:BRD says this -

"If you have reason to disagree with the explanation given, or you don't see any explanation at all, start a new discussion (section) on the article's talk page to request an explanation for why your edit was reverted, or to present your argument. You may also wish to ask the editor directly on their user talk page. Discussion is a primary method for editors with different ideas to work out solutions."

Which means that you cannot just go at 22:51 reverting my edit. I am angry, yes. There's a wiki essay on that saying that we're all humans, people tend to get angry. Also, you love all of these rules, advised strongly against here- WP:3LA. Listen to that essay, whoever wrote it is smart.--ɱ 04:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And you practically made 3 reversions anyway. Not entirely, but essentially. Please put the information back, really. All of the people on the Dispute Resolution were saying that the info should be preserved. And I significantly changed the wording so it is more accurate. Your challenge was not to that text, it was a text not modified by me. So really your claim of removal due to challenge isn't accurate.--ɱ 04:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You must not have read WP:BURDEN. Just clarify, correct, contextualize, and cite to Reliable Sources and we will have consensus. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read it. And I've read plenty of other policies and essays that say otherwise, esp. when it comes to content dispute. That's what this is about. The direct issue. Which means using talk and/or non-drastic edits. You can't snake around discussion by claiming that because the content is wrong it can't be cited and everything needs deletion. You seem to so often use WP:V and BURDEN as your handy and so versatile tools, using them as a reason for incontestable deletion, no community discussion necessary whatsoever.--ɱ 04:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

But I am glad that you are using talk. And you'd have no idea how annoyed I'd be if you were still this way against me and on top of that made terrible and nonconstructive edits. At least you have good faith.--ɱ 04:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is part of a policy, WP:V. If the information is true and relevant, you should have no problem adding Reliable Sources, as I have done to several other facts in the article. We will not need to discuss; I will agree with you with a smile on my face and gladly defend the edits to any terrible, terrible Wikipedians who would then remove it. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have little to no problem with adding refs, yet I do not believe you can or should sneak around and use those policies as multitools. This is a content dispute, not a ref one. And in the case of that Nov 6 22:51 edit, I changed the material so you really had no right to delete it without challenging it again, which you hadn't done.--ɱ 04:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Start-class?

Who labeled this start-class? We still have practically more headers than text underneath them. And that's embarrassingly pathetic, in the non-critical sense of those words. I'd suggest reverting that and returning the US Geo stub template to the article.--ɱ 04:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems like more than a stub to me, WP:STUB. But it is no big deal. I will put it back. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Dubious claim

"The 14 states which have shoreline on the East Coast are, from north to south, the U.S. states of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.[5] Vermont, though it has no Atlantic coastline, is considered among the "Eastern Seaboard" states"

It seems rather odd to claim that Vermont, which is 100 mile from the sea, is an "eastern seaboard" state, but Pensylvania, whose main city is located on a salty tidal river, isn't ( according to the above list ).Eregli bob (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Vermont is generally considered East Coast because all of New England is usually considered East Coast. I don't know why Pennsylvania isn't listed.Red Hair Bow (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)