Talk:Anaheim Hills/Archive 4

Why not name this article simply Anaheim Hills?

The current title, Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, though consistent with the unencyclopedic and Wikipedia naming policy violating [[community, city, state]] format, is well, unencyclopedic, cumbersome, and violates the Wikipedia naming policy (which says to use the most common name). Use of the [[community, city, state]] format is an undocumented arbitrary and pointless convention at best, so there is no reason to follow it. Why not name this article simply by how most people refer to the subject of the article, namely Anaheim Hills? Anaheim Hills already redirects directly here, so there is no ambiguity issue. Unless there are objections with well-stated reasons (simply saying one wants it to stay Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California for the sake of following an undocumented arbitrary contrived convention, without addressing the points above about the current name being unencyclopedic, cumbersome and violating the use-the-common-name Wiki naming policy, will not be considered a well-stated reason), I will go ahead and rename it. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is reached by discussion, not majority will of irrational arguments. See WP:Etiquette. --Serge 20:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, re name it, it all sounds good to me. Your point is well argued, and I fully, 100% support the page move. It should be done soon. OC31113 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Serge, do not move or rename the article unless you wish to involve yourself with Ericsaindon2's arbitration. And yes, I still remember what you tried to do with Hollywood, and I'll remind you that the consensus was against you then, as it is now. Also, OC31113 is a suspected sockpuppet of Ericsaindon2 (his feeble attempts at disguising his writing style are not fooling anyone). Please wait until the Arbitration Committee has submitted its final ruling in Ericsaindon2's case before attempting to change the existing consensus. --Coolcaesar 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly you mean by what I "tried to do with Hollywood"... you make it seem like it was something nefarious. My goal is simply to professionalize Wikipedia in the realm of U.S. city and community article names. The currently used informal convention is hackish and unencyclopedic. Anyway, no problem waiting. In the mean time, do you have any objections with well-stated reasons to not professionalize this article name (as well as every other U.S. community name without ambiguity issues) to be consistent with other encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, book and other reference publications, once the arbitration is over? Thanks. --Serge 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Serge, do not move it at this point until user:Coolcaesar reads the rulebook, and finds out that in this case, it does not matter what a strawpoll says, their are basic article naming principles on Wikipedia, and that is the way it is. But, if this user demands on threatening me as a sockpuppet, let him have his little tantrum for at least right now. OC31113 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, shortly after posting the above, OC31113 was confirmed through the CheckUser feature as a sockpuppet of Ericsaindon2 and was blocked indefinitely. --Coolcaesar 17:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

At best, you're bordering on using an ad hominem argument here. Eric's inappropriate behavior which resulted in him being blocked does nothing to refute the substance of his (or his sockpuppet's) arguments. I'm still waiting to read any objections with well-stated reasons to not professionalize this article name (as well as every other U.S. community name without ambiguity issues) to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia naming conventions, other encyclopedias, newspapers, magazines, books and other reference publications. --Serge 17:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Will Beback and CoolCaesar gave such objections earlier, under heading 3 Community, State Setup-Mislead by Aministrators JCO312 22:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I just reread that section. It's about whether the use of the U.S. community "convention" is consistent within its domain (U.S. communities). I'm questioning the consistency of the "convention" itself with other conventions (both within and outside of Wikipedia). There is nothing there by Will, Caesar or anyone else that comes close to an objection to renaming this page to Anaheim Hills with well-stated reasons for following instead the undocumented U.S. community unconventional "convention" of CommunityName, CityName, StateName (!), even where there are no ambiguity issues (!), which is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia, including most other countries, and every published reference out there. These points are not even addressed, much less refuted.

The name of the subject of this article is Anaheim Hills. There are no ambiguity issues with this name, therefore, according to Wikipedia policy, Anaheim Hills should be the name of this article, period. The undisputed fact that Anaheim Hills is a community in the city of Anaheim in Orange County in the state of California in the country United States on the planet Earth is gist for the text of the article, not its name (unless there was an ambiguity issue, in which case some of it would arguably be useful as disambiguation information in parentheses in the name). Simple. --Serge 17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good idea to exempt a community page from the regular requirement that the State also be included in the title. Frankly, the title as is makes more sense to me, as it is the most accurate way of describing the area. Given that, I don't see why it's a problem to keep it as is. JCO312 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand how you feel. There is something appealing about including additional descriptive information in the title of an article. The CommunityName, CityName, StateName format not only implies that any article with a title conforming to that format is about a community, but also it specifies the particular city and state to which that community belongs. So of course Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California is a "more accurate way of describing the area" than is Anaheim Hills. But...

• Is the title an appropriate and consistent place to describe anything about the subject of the article other than its name (assuming there is no ambiguity issue, which is a special case and does not apply here)?
• Isn't the title simply supposed to reflect only the name of the subject of the article?
• Doesn't the description of the subject belong in the text of the article, not in its title?
• Doesn't specifying all that extra information in the title, especially without enclosing it in parentheses to clearly indicate it is disambiguation information, inaccurately and unprofessionaly imply that the name of the community is Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, rather than what it really is, Anaheim Hills? Consider the impression a non-American reader may form from this...
• Most importantly, is adding additional descriptive information in the title of an article, which is not in parentheses as disambiguation information when applicable, consistent or inconsistent with Wikipedia policies, conventions and standards?

I think the answers to these questions are clear, and if you give them some honest consideration, you too will come to agree that Anaheim Hills is the only appropriate title for this article, because that's the name of the subject of this article, and to be clear, consistent, professional and encyclopedic, that's all the title should reflect. --Serge 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't taken the time to fully think through your points (I will soon) but with regard to the last one, I don't think that the name as it exists is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies, conventions or standards. For example, all of the pages about neighborhoods in Philadelphia (a place well known for its communities within the city) use the CommunityName/CityName/StateName format. I also don't think this amounts to excessive information that is more appropriate in the body of the article. By that rationale any major city wouldn't need the state or larger political division included in the title. Continuing with Philly as an example, a non-US reader would probably get the impression that "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" is the way that the city is most often referred, when of course that's not true (since some people on this page seem fans of google searches as evidence, "Philadelphia" gets 450 million hits while "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" gets around 14 million. I understand your point about not wanting to put too much information into the title of an article, but when dealing with a community I think it's worth noting with some detail where it is. JCO312 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you use neighborhoods in Philadelphia as an example illustrates my point: It is the guidelines for U.S. city and community names that is inconsistent with Wikipedia conventions. Of course, any city or community article whose title is based on the unconventional convention (e.g., Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California), will be consistent with any other city or community article whose title also is based on the unconventional convention (like the neighborhoods of Philadelphia). According to WP:Naming guidelines, the title of any Wikipedia article should simply reflect the name of the subject, period (assuming no ambiguity). I see no reason to make U.S. cities or communities an exception to this otherwise very consistent and encylopedic Wikipedia policy. Therefore, I see no reason for this or any other U.S. city or community article to comply with this contrary guideline. --Serge 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this many times. There is not a consensus for making the change you propose. -Will Beback 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't proposed a change. I've asked a simple question: whether anyone has any objections based on well-stated reasons to not change the name of this article to Anaheim Hills. So far, not one such objection has been offered. I've also stated that without any such objections, I will make the change. Isn't that reasonable? Or are you arguing that the consensus to which you refer is developed by voting; that Wikipedia is an experiment in democracy? --Serge 22:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, you have seen a number of objections, and with all due respect, it isn't for you, or any of us by ourselves, to decide whether the reasons stated are "well reasoned" enough to be sufficient. The fact that the community has rejected the proposal several times is grounds for you not to make the change unilaterally. JCO312 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that some reason other than blindly following the undocumented and unconventional Communityname, CityName, Statename convention has been stated as an objection to moving this page to Anaheim Hills? If so, please let me know what that reason is, because I've missed it (it is precisely the lack of reason that is the basis of my position on this). Or are you saying that blindly following any convention qualifies as a well-reasoned objection to changing the name of an article? I'm open to considering that, but no one has argued that either. And I'm not making any changes unilaterally. I've stated repeatedly, that if anyone provides well-stated reasons to not change it, I won't. Isn't that reasonable? --Serge 22:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not reasonable. Well-stated reasons have been offered repeatedly, it's just that you don't agree with them. The consensus has been to keep this article with this title. -Will Beback 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer your last question first. No, it's not reasonable because you're the one deciding what qualifies as "well reasoned." Wikipedia isn't simply an experiment in democracy, but the community consensus model is used (as I understand it) so that one person doesn't make those sorts of decisions.

As to the question of what objections have been raised, I can see a few. First, simply calling it Anaheim Hills makes it unclear that we are in fact talking about a loose community, rather than a well defined, seperate and distinct municipality. Second, since the naming convention generally requires that municiple locations include the State where it is located, it would be odd to not provide that information in the title here. Including more specific location information seems justified in the title, as it serves to do no more than specifically and accurately identify the place we're talking about. Finnaly, to name this page in the way formerly proposed (Anaheim Hills, California) would suggest that Anaheim Hills is its own city, and consequently, the best alternative is to call it "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California." JCO312 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The title "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California" is redundant and sounds incredibly stupid. It should be moved to "Anaheim Hills." ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we all calm down here! Every community we go through this, and every time its the same arguements from the same people. A solution is desperately needed. I do not think that sufficient evidence has been provided in favor of the (Community, City, State) format. But, just listen, what has been supported is (Community). I do not care what the straw poll says, it breaks the rules. If someone were on trial for murder, the country would not hold an election to figure out if he is guilty or innocent, they would use the legal system and laws in place right then. Well, whay should it be different here? I dont care if its 2 versus 22 million, the principle naming convention was established long ago in favor of simplicity. Clearly the conventions are in favor of simplicity, and that should be used here. Plain and simple.

Sacrificing accuracy for so called "simplicity" is not a particularly good idea. There is nothing complicated about the name as it exists. There is no clear cut naming convention that governs what to do with a page about a community. There are, however, rules that require that U.S. cities also include the state in which they are located. I don't see why a community should be excluded from that general rule.

Oh, and while the country wouldn't vote on guilty or not guilty (people don't get found "innocent") a jury would. And if you want to talk about plain and simple rules, community consensus is used all over Wikipedia to resolve these sorts of disputes. JCO312 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There may be no "clear cut naming convention" for what to do when a community name has an ambiguity issue with another article, but when there is no ambiguity issue, as in this case, the convention is clear: use the most common/used name of the subject of the article, period. In this case that is simply, Anaheim Hills. Clear. Consistent. Simple. Done. Why all the hand-wringing?

Now, as far those cases where there is an ambiguity issue -- which is beyond the scope here, since Anaheim Hills has no such issue -- there is considerable objection, including from yours truly, regarding the concept that there should be a "clear cut naming convention" even then. I believe the existing naming conventions are more than adequate. Simply use CommunityName (disambiguity information), where the content and format of disambiguity information varies depending on the ambiguity problem that is being solved. If the ambiguity issue is with another geographical place, then the disambiguity information should contain geographical information that disambiguates this one from that one. If the issue is with something of another type, then this one should be disambiguated with the word community (e.g., Anaheim Hills (community)), while the other one with whatever type it is (e.g., Anaheim Hills (film), assuming the other is a film). The very concept of "pre-disambiguation", and disambiguating without taking into account what we're disambiguating with, is inherently problematic. City and community ambiguity issues should be handled just like any other Wikipedia article: only when an actual ambiguity exists, and then on a case-by-case basis, each time taking into account what the particular ambiguity conflict is with, and resolving accordingly. Otherwise, we're trying to solve non-existent problems, and, as a result, creating goofy constructs in Wikipedia article titles like Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California and Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. --Serge 22:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a consensus in favor of this article name, which editors have expressed is logical and consistent. -Will Beback 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --Coolcaesar 22:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We'll see. --Serge 23:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the archives. There is a clear Consensus on the naming of this article. ^BlankVerse 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been proposed that the articles for the subcommunity of Peralta Hills, Anaheim, California and the not-yet-built subcommunity of Mountain Park, Anaheim, California be merged into the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California.

• Agree with the merge proposal. With removal of any duplications of material already in the Anaheim Hills article, plus the removal of any unreferenced statistics and information, both articles will pared down to a couple of short paragraphs that can easily be merged into the Anaheim Hills article. ^BlankVerse 12:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for neither articles are stubs. There are 10 or 11 other community articles that are far smaller than this one in Orange County. Stop venting your anger out on me, and admit that 3 pages of printed text is not a stub!Ericsaindon2 01:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agree For the reasons stated by Blankverse. It has nothing to do with anger (I'm not angry at anyone) but he's right to say that if you remove the duplicate info, it's really more of a stub. JCO312 02:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Most of the info in the articles duplicates what is already here. There's just not much to say about housing developments, much less future housing developments. The size is not the issue. One of the articles does not quote a single source. -Will Beback 08:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since only one editor opposed this, and as he is now banned, I've gone ahead and merged the two subpages. JCO312 00:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Ericsaindon2 keeps asking to discuss changes on the talk page, so I figured I'd take him up on it. Much of what was added was unsourced, for instance the line about it being one of only 6 communities in the country with over 50,000 people, and the line about it being a notorious community. That's about as POV as it gets. I've reviewed all the archives on this, and it seems clear to me that the community voted against the map, although I admit I may be confusing that with the discussions about the infobox. JCO312 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is only 1/6 in the country with 50,000 people+ identified by the Association of Gvmts. I understand the line about the most notorious community, for I did not add that, just reverted it (I should have checked to se if what I was reverting was legit. since I did not write it). However, the Association clearly states that Anaheim Hills is the only community within a city to be recognized by the group, and that should remain in the article for it is fact. It is also 1 of only 10 communities recognized by the association, as User:OC31113 stated. Although the link is inadequate, upon further research, all but the line about it being notorious are correct. I do not want to put words into OC31113's mouth, but I think that he was making the tie between Anaheim Hills being the largest US Community, and therefore assuming it is the most notorious. Although the point that it is the largest community in the US within a city, it is not the most notorious by any means. But, I do think that the fact of it being the largest in the United States should be stated in the article for it is a fact. Ericsaindon2 04:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus, I noticed that an anon. IP made this edit. I am going to assume it was OC31113 for he edited around that time, and made the initial edit. But this edit was legitamate, and was somehow reverted.

• If the community were to be an independent city, it would rank as Americas wealthiest town with a population in excess of 50,000 at a median household income of over $111,000. [1] It would also rank as the 35th wealthiest town of any population.

Now, I see that Anaheim Hills has a median household income of $111,000+, and the highest on the list provided is Newport Beach at just over $100,000, that would make Anaheim Hills the wealthiest community in the US with 50,000+ people. I do not seem to see how that is vandalism, and needs to be reverted. I will put it back into the article, and ask that you discuss it here before reverting it. Ericsaindon2 04:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a really distorted statistic. Where are you getting it from? If you look at the other lists in that article you're linking to, several other California towns (with smaller populations) are clearly wealthier, including Atherton and Rancho Santa Fe. The last time I checked, the lovely mansions in those cities were a lot bigger than the cookie-cutter starter homes in Anaheim Hills. Furthermore, as many people have pointed out to you, the lack of defined boundaries for Anaheim Hills means that it is impossible to make direct comparisons to cities which do have defined boundaries. --Coolcaesar 04:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cookie cutter starter homes? Is that not a bit dramatic. All we have are mansions in our community, one of which I own. So, I do not know how you can call the homes here "cookie cutter" when all 54,000 of our residents pretty much reside in homes over 3,500 square feet, some up to 25,000 square feet. So, I think that cookie cutter would be more appropriate in other community articels. Plus, Anaheim Hills is composed of Census tracts south of the 91 freeway!!!!!! There are no partial tracts in this event, and as I noticed, the List of SOuthern California ZIP Codes has a good link to what I am talking about. It is idiot proof at that point. Ericsaindon2 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus I just located these statistics.

Atherton-Median Home Size:3,198 square feet

Rancho Santa Fe-Median Home Size:3,602 square feet

Anaheim Hills-Median Home Size:3,599 square feet

Atherton-Median Home Value:$1,341,000

Rancho Santa Fe-Median Home Value:$1,512,000

Anaheim Hills-Median Home Value: $1,400,900

Please, PLEASE, stop just saying "I found statistics" without providing a link to them. Your paragraph remains uncited, the link that's included is to the list of highest income cities, but since you don't have any facts supporting the Anaheim Hills numbers, the paragraph is inappropriate. JCO312 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at both the links that were provided, and I'm not finding support for any of those statements. The first link isn't just inadequate, it's broken. I've browsed the SAGC website, and what I've found so far is that the county/place profile pdf, the SCAG City Growth 1980-2000 pdf, and the Orange County Census data pdf don't make any mention of Anaheim Hills at all. The second link provided mentions Anaheim Hills once, but only as an example of an "area within a city." Perhaps you could be more specific as to where you've found the support, because if it's there then I agree with you that it's probably worth putting in (albeit without the POV spin of "notorious" attached to it).

The second thing you've mentioned was removed because the other editors thought it was unencyclopedic to talk about what a community would be if it were something that it's not. I agreed with them then, and I do now. It shouldn't be in there. JCO312 04:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think that paragraph about what Anaheim Hills would be if it were a city (since it's not a city) is appropriate, but it's DEFINITLY not appropriate without a citation about the median income of the community. I'm going to remove it based on the lack of a cite, if you have one, by all means, put it back and let's have other opinions about whether it belongs there. But again, if all this census data is available it needs to be cited in the article, otherwise it just shouldn't be there. Truth be told, the lack of cites is a little odd for a lot of this data, particularly the demographics section. I think it's all good information that would belong in the article, but it's gotta be backed up by some facts. JCO312 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Since AH is not on the this list, Highest-income places in the United States, we need a reliable source for the median income of AH. -Will Beback 08:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I TOLD YOU, CENSUS TRACTS SOUTH OF THE 91 FREEWAY. THEY ARE NOT PARTIAL, AND COMPLETELY DONE BY CENSUS!!! YOU WILL GET ALL THE STATISTICS I HAVE PROVIDED BY USING THESE NUMBERS. I HAVE SAID THAT THOUSANDS OF TIMES!!!!!!!!Ericsaindon2 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. And where did Ericsaindon2 get those square footage numbers? Which don't look right to me, by the way. Atherton has enormous houses (some of my high school friends lived there). --Coolcaesar 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Atherton does have a few houses that tend to be on the larger side. BUT, they also have many townhouses that overlook the water, which are very small. So, 5,000 square feet, and 1,000 square feet is around 3,000 square feet. Anaheim Hills lacks these small homes that Atherton possesses. Anaheim Hills has 'enormous' houses as well, but they also have some more moderate sized homes (3,300-4,000 square feet). With enormous and moderate houses, the median is going to be larger than enormous and cookie cutter, which is present in Atherton. Ericsaindon2 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And Coolcaesar, where dont you live by. It magically seems that every controversial page involving you I come across (which is a hefty amount) you have lived in each place. So what does that mean, you have lived in like 100+ cities and counties in your days. I seem to find that hard to believe. Ericsaindon2 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where you or Coolcaesar have lived. All that matters is what we can verifiably summarize using reliable sources. We haven't found reliable sources for the borders or demographics of this community. -Will Beback 21:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Without citations much of the text has to go (and, Eric, with respect, what you keep typing in all caps isn't verifiable information; you saying that it's true isn't enough, you have to be able to offer some sort of proof). I stand by my earlier statement that the line about what Anaheim Hills would be if it were an independant city has to go. The bottom line is that Anaheim Hills IS NOT a city. We could all draw some random lines in Manahatten and say the same thing, but it would be just as meaningless and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. JCO312 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First, Ericsaindon2's comment regarding Atherton facing the water is just plain wrong. I just checked my Microsoft Streets & Trips map software, which is based on the Microsoft MapPoint engine that underlies all Microsoft map systems. Atherton does not touch the bay; it is completely isolated from the bay by Redwood City and Menlo Park. Second, I am currently in the Bay Area, though so far I've lived in at least 10 different places all over the state. Of course, as an attorney, I drive around a lot. --Coolcaesar 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been talked about for enough at this point, can someone remove the text on this page that totally lacks citation. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to know how to do so with full page protection. JCO312 03:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait until the pag protection is removed. At that time we should perhaps remove most of the unsourced info in the article. -Will Beback 04:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Due to the recent turmoil on community pages, a large community straw poll is being conducted. Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll is now open for voting. Despite resolutions made on this page, many others are facing turmoil similar to what this page is, or once did face. In an effor to solve the issue, I invite all Wikipedians to vote there by September 18th on this page following the procedures and ballot instuctions explained there. Thank You. Ericsaindon2 06:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

With Ericsaindon2 now banned for a year hy the Arbitration Committee [2], is it necessary for this article to remain fully protected? Considering he and his socks were the main cause of conflict, I think it might be okay to switch to semi-protection at least. Danielross40 04:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering that part of the problem was Eric's editing while he was supposed to be banned for a month, I would say that it is best to wait a little longer, and then go to semi-protection instead of fully unprotecting the article after that. ^BlankVerse 11:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Eleven minutes after this page was unprotected, Eric Saindon was editing it as 69.232.53.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see my note on the IPs talk page). The page should be semi-protected. ^BlankVerse 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That does not appear to the Eric Saindon - it looks to me to be someone who is actually reverting Eric's edits. Cowman109^Talk 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It certainly was Eric Saindon, as the same IP address posted a plea on Jimbo Wales' talk page as EricSaindon. That being said, the edits made corrected one of the major problems I had, so perhaps semi-protection isn't needed. On the other hand, if the block is going to mean anything, perhaps it should. JCO312 17:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

Where are these numbers coming from? I've tried to look through the census website, but, as is noted in the article itself, the census bureau doesn't actually recognize this as a distinct place. Is it worth removing the entire section, since it's uncited and can't really be totally accurate? JCO312 00:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the enforcement of a arbcom ban, I think that the comment that was posted sheds light on the problem with this section. Basically, the commentor said that he added up the numbers himself, which seems to be original research to me. This is particularly true since the boundaries for this community are not recognized as far as I can tell. JCO312 05:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, although not officially recognized by any governmental organization, still has a distinct history and some pretty recognizable boundaries which are likely to match census tract boundaries. It is not, for example, like trying to find where the boundaries for Stanton, California are without looking for the city limit signs or looking at your Thomas Guide. On the other hand, as it stands, the data violates both No original research and Verifiability, because to get and verify the data someone would have to do the same research that User:Ericsaindon2 did. If links to the census pages used, and a list of the sensus tracts counted, were provided Eric, I think that might possibly satisfy both WP:NOR and WP:V, but others may disagree with me. I personally think that even with the links and lists of census tracts that the data would still be borderline on both of those two major Wikipedia content-governing {policies, and we should only use data that has been enumerated by a reputable third party, such as a governmental organization, chamber of commerce, or civic group. ^BlankVerse 06:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I tried to do some cleanup yesterday, but the article still needs plenty of work. First off I broke up the H-U-G-E paragraphs in the article into smaller, more cohesive and more easily read paragraphs. I then tried to break up some of the excessively long run-on sentences, but I probably missed a few. I also did some minor removal of the PR/real estate agent-style fluff from the piece, but there is plenty more of that to excise.

One big problem that I have is the comparison of the community of Anaheim Hills with a number of wealthy beach cities, which I think is comparing apples and oranges. For example, if you normalized the data to only compare similar-sized lots, I am sure the coastal cities would rate much higher for their median home value.

Next: The Communities section, which IMHO are really just very large subdivisions. Then there's stuff at the beginning of the Economy section that I don't think can be verified, and therefore should be deleted.

I've taken a break from editing the article because if I continue, I'll probably use the weed-whacker approach with wholesale deletions of questionable paragraphs and sections. At the moment, the article probably should have a warning tag at the top warning about the accuracy of some sections in the article. ^BlankVerse 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the demographics section as it's unsourced, original research and therefore unverifiable. JCO312 19:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I will observe the ban if you just leave this page alone. It is not hurting anyone, and I will go away, and come back in a year if you just stop deleting this entire page. It can wait a year, it is only one minor page. 69.232.38.2 04:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but are banned from Wikipedia. You don't get to dictate how this article is written, and you don't get to add any information to any pages. AniMate 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 has ignored previous blocks and has outright lied on more than one occasion. Even if such a deal were appropriate he can't be trusted to abide by it. -Will Beback 04:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --Coolcaesar 04:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that if Ericsaindon2 continues to ignore the ban, that it be worth going back to the ArbComm and asking for the ban to be made permanent. ^BlankVerse 12:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not oppopsed to that idea either, thought the prospect of coming back as an editor in good standing seems to be the only thing keeping Ericsaindon2 from editing this article round the clock... but he's still probably the most active contributor to it as well (and that's a bad thing). I seem to remember some talk back in September about the weed-whacker approach to editing this article. I think it might be time for a mass reversion, removing any and all unsourced claims, and rewriting this as an article that doesn't have Eric's fingerprints all over it. AniMate 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AniMate. If that happens, though, the page will almost certainly have to be at least semi-protected. I can't imagine, given his history, that Ericsaindon2 will sit back and watch that happen, ban or no. JCO312 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I say lets go for it, we can change the article to a streamlined, NPOV, and verifiable version. Thus far, we've been able to revert any changes he tries to insert, and if he escalates his campaign, we should then go back to the ArbCom and look for an indefinite ban. AniMate 22:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've already started editing, by removing some of the unverified facts from the intro. I'm more than willing to go through the rest of the article, removing unverified information, though I'll have to put it off until later tonight. If any editors who are NOT banned have a problem with what I've done, feel more than free to revert. AniMate 22:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The things that Ericsaindon2 put in here seem to have some truth. As I was going through that website that was on here, (Incorporate Anaheim Hills), it seems to verify much of what Ericsaindon2 was talking about. I was able to verify the validitity of the information after I emailed the email address, and they stated that they made calls to the Census Bureau, as well as other printed materials to determine these numbers. They stated that although their website was through the freewebs course, that they were in the process of registering the IncorporateAH.com domain. The 38 page plan can be seen on the website before it was removed from here, and I will add the information that was added prior to its removal (based on this website, not based on what Ericsaindon2 had here before). Architect King 04:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, can someone do a IP check to make sure Architect King isn't Ericsaindon2? While I am aware of the assume good faith policy, Architect King has a similar pattern of bad grammar---including hyphen-dropping, improper capitalization, and confusingly vague sentence subjects (what email address? what course?). Furthermore, every editor on this page who has supported Ericsaindon2's point of view has turned out to be one of his sockpuppets. And to Architect King: If you're not Ericsaindon2, I recommend reviewing all three archives for this Talk page as well as the arbitration proceedings against him to see how I and Will Beback and BlankVerse exhaustively repudiated every single one of his points. If you can come up with sufficient rebuttal evidence, feel free to mention it, but as the three of us (and several other allies) were quite thorough, I doubt there will be little you can add. As for your own assertions of what some unknown person behind that "Incorporate Anaheim Hills" told you, they constitute simply conclusory hearsay unless you can substantiate them with further evidence. --Coolcaesar 06:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I stated the website on the article. Freewebs.com/anaheimhills. There are 4 or so links just by itself on the website. Anaheimwatch@aol.com is the email address for the organization, as stated on the title page of the website. I did not think I would have to state that if it was right there on the website, but apparently I am not among the brightest people. And no, I do not support Ericsaidon2, he added a lot of fluff to the article which was unnecesary. I was pointing out that there were however some truths to his population claim. When you go to www.freewebs.com/anaheimhills, click on Documents and Proposals and click on the 38 page plan, demographic information is listed right there, like midway down the document. His demographic information before ws badly off, but his population information was close to accurate (I think that getting 53,997 compared to 54,000 is a little too specific for the area like EricSaidon2 stated, since it is nearly impossible to get that accurate without a demographic Census evaluation). Architect King 09:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As I went through the arcives just now, for I am rather unfamiliar with the situation here, your truths are a little misguided. He did have people that were for him in some respects. For example, Serge was for his naming style. But yes, for the most part, I see that he was proved wrong several times. Although some of the things he stated (demographic information, weather charts, etc.) could be proven, but would break the NPOV rule, so therefore most of it is just fluff. Other things like the seal he "created" and the persistent adding of biased crap was a total waste of your time to deal with (which is why I am glad I was still editing the articles in other states at that time). However, I was merely pointing out that there is indeed a source that does state the Anaheim Hills demographics with credibility. I am very familiar with the group that is doing this, for they have been in the OC Register on numerous occasions, and have thousands of members. The leader of the group, Lindsay, attended my church in Westlake Village, and often keeps me up to date on the things going on in the group. I stumbled across this page in an effort to add her group to this page, for their significance is on the rise. I just moved to Irvine, so my edits in Orange County will probably be more numerous. However, I do not support most of what Ericsaidon2 did to this page, as well as to you fine editors. Architect King 09:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly sockpuppetry. Performing a google search for "Incorporate Anaheim Hills" shows 4 out of 23 results [3]. True, all 4 links lead to the OC Register, not articles mind you, but to their message boards. Here's my favorite thread [4]. Not too hard to figure out that Eric1018 is our good pal Ericsaindon2. AniMate 22:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sure someone as dedicated as Ericsaidon would post here. I look here on occasion, but do not have an account. I mainly look here to see the Anaheimwatch posts about this proposition. By looking at things, it does look like Ericsaidon is friends with others on the website, but is far too outspoken. Architect King 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And it is not a well known group yet. I do not even affiliate myself with the area, all I was doing was adding some information that I knew about to the Anaheim Hills page. That is all, I am done with this page, for that is all I can contribute. Architect King 05:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The information your trying to add is unreliable. I read the "report" of this supposed 2,500 member group. Much like EricSaindon, they don't have any citations for their information. Also like EricSaindon, the edits have some grammar and spelling problems. In any event, I don't think that a "freeweb" website with an AOL email address doesn't rise to the level of credible information that can be used to justify the edits you've proposed. JCO312 05:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you try to actually investigate it so that you can rebut it? You have not emailed the group to ask for information, or anything. All you have said is that you dont like it, and it must all be wrong. Maybe, an email to the group, and further reading of the website will help you make these decisions, rather than just saying, I dont like the information so it must be false. I will not revert it unless you email the person, and do some real research to rebut it. Until then, you cannot complain to me about its reliability, because you have no evidence. I have a better rebuttal to its accuracy, becuase I know the people that did this, and did investigate before adding it. All you have is that you dont like it, to go off of. Architect King 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether I "like it" or not. I did read it. It's a paragraph from a virtually unknown group (see Animates post above) that has no citations whatsoever in the original text. You said that after emailing them they told you that they had collected the data from the census bureau. I'm not sure why you want me to confirm that, because even if it's true, it's exactly the same thing that Ericsaindon2 said about his edits. But one person saying "I talked to the census bureau" is nothing more than original research. All you've done is made it original research plus hearsay. The bottom line is that you're adding information from an unreliable source, as you've been told by multiple editors, and yet you still add it back. JCO312 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Eric...er, Architect king, you need to re-read Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources, taking note of the sections titled Requesting sources, Beware false authority, and Using online sources to start. Then you should re-read Wikipedia's official policiy on original research. You're very passionate about Anaheim Hills, but that passion has lead you to violate Wikipedia's rules over, and over, and over again. Stop editing the article, respect your ban, and after the year is up you might be able to come back and be productive. It should be clear to any reasonable person, that the other editors on this article aren't going to let you get away with adding unverified info... and a freewebs page that is supposedly part of a huge movement yet doesn't boast any named members or a single signature in the guestbook certainly isn't going to make it either. AniMate 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Architect King is banned as a confirmed sock

Just a quick reminder: per WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits, everyone is free to revert any edit by banned user, Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That now includes Architect King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been successfully checkuser'ed. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(applause) Ericsaindon2 cannot escape the prison of his bad grammar. Until he masters the basics of formal written English, we will be able to recognize and neutralize his original research no matter which username he presents it under. Really, if he wanted to make the case for formal recognition of Anaheim Hills, there are good venues for that like American City and County magazine, but I doubt they would publish a submission by an amateur. In any case, as ArbCom understood, Wikipedia is not the place for publication of such original research, especially when it is so clumsily structured and poorly written. --Coolcaesar 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Boundaries

The borders of Anaheim Hills are not officially defined by Census, but are noted under the Canyon and Hill Area General Plan, and the Homeowners association that comprises Anaheim Hills. To the west, Anaheim Hills is bordered by the California State Route 55 and the 92806 zip code border. The eastern border is the Riverside County line, and the Gypsum Canyon Open Space. To the north, Anaheim Hills is bordered by the California State Route 91, and to the south the community is bordered by the Orange, California city border. The community's boundaries are not strictly defined by zip codes, but rather the roads and city borders that surround it serve as the customary borders.

I find this paragraph troubling. The only online reference to a Canyon and Hill Area General Plan I can find is (not surprisingly) this article, and I'm not sure a Homeowners association is a notable enough source for an encyclopedia. I'm almost assuredly going to be removing the geography section, since this neighborhood doesn't have any official borders, so such a precise definition of area appears to be original research by Ericsaindon2. I'm giving everyone a heads up and twenty-four hours, so anyone (who ISN'T banned) can raise some objections. I'd like to merge the two sections into something shorter with only verifiable information included. AniMate 08:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the article should be fixed now that Ericsaindon2 is out of the picture (thanks to my vigorous efforts at getting his case before ArbCom). However, I'm too busy to do it myself because I've been busy explaining WP:NOR to another user in Talk:Lawyer and now another dude who keeps inserting vanity cruft and original research into State Bar of California wants to go to mediation. Feel free to fix the article! --Coolcaesar 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the last version of this article that wasn't full of Eric's POV existed on March 31, 2006(!), and even that version has POV/NOR issues to some degree. The diff should give an idea of how much damage was done to this article in the last 8 months... Incidentally, the issue with the boundaries was brought up as soon as it was added and became an immediate revert war as soon as Eric learned to revert. This is covered in the extensive archives of this talk page. It seems like everybody who was involved at the time doesn't have to motivation to clean it up (I sure don't and I can hardly believe I'm posting to this discussion again). Mike Dillon 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We're all a bit tired of Anaheim Hills. I endorse reverting back, but Mike missed some edits on March 16 that are obviously Eric's. This February version appears cleaner [5], though it may still need some work, and we should try to find any useful edits since then. -Will Beback · † · 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey it's like a little reunion here. Soltras 19:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, joy. It looks like I'm the only one up to editing the article, and while I haven't been editing it as long as some of you, even I'm sick of it. If a mass reversion is in order, I'd be willing to go back and start editing from the February article. Sigh. AniMate 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I was part of the 20 member group who wrote the Anaheim Hills document on the Incorporate Anaheim Hills web site. I know its validity, because we were in contact with highly reliable groups for over 2 months putting the document together, using census, LAFCO, the county, the OC Supervisors, etc., and everything on there is of total accuracy. Dont you think if we were just randomizing information that we would have over 4,000 active members? We are talking about incorporating a city, which means we need the most accurate information avaliable. I am sure that you do not check the validity of every piece of information on every one of your links that takes you somewhere on Wikipedia, but you are putting this like under high watch. Almost none of your links on this entire site states one source. 68.111.174.76 15:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this Eric again? I don't know his patterns as well as you all do. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you are not aware, this article is indeed under "high watch" because it was the target of a persistent, many-month campaign by a now-banned editor to introduce extensive unsourced and unverifiable assertions. It now requires extra scrutiny to prevent this from happening again. The material you have added back is also unsourced and likely unverifiable. If your group is the source of the boundary judgements (which it isn't because I watched User:Ericsaindon2 make them up), that does not qualify as a neutral point of view.

If this is Ericsaindon2, please respect your ban. Mike Dillon 15:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not Eric. Look at my IP, Erics all start with 69.232, mine are 68.111. And, I know the accuacy of this information, and a man named Eric is in our group as one of the 4,000 members, but played no part in writing it. There were 21 writers, and we all spent months researching data, etc, to make this document and web site valid. We are working with the county of Orange, the city of Anaheim, the OC Register, LAFCO, as well as many other, very reliable groups, who compiled some of this data, and likely used similar math to what Eric did when he did this, but I can vouch ours as more accurate, because Census gave us the # of homeowners and all their race info/etc. for each street in Anaheim Hills. We did not get their names, but did get street by street evaluations. And I respect the scrutiny on this page, but I am adding very much-so reliable information for Anaheim Hills. Remember, every piece of info was Original Research at one point, and as long as it was not actually done by a user on this website, it should be satisfactory right? I am sure thousands of sources have to work the information just like we had to. 68.111.174.76 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not going to have a revert war here, right? Discuss edits here first or I'll semi-protect it. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I DID DISCUSS FIRST, BUT NOBODY ELSE IS DOING SO!!!!68.111.174.76 15:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you discussed AFTER you made the changes. Discuss BEFORE instead. And refrain from using CAPS. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can you kindly revert it back to the way I edited it, and we will have a discussion about my edits. So far, I am the only one doing the talking, while you are just engaging in an edit war without explaining yourself at all. At least I am talking about it, or making an attemt before reverting.68.111.174.76 16:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is the expert on this issue here? All I'm trying to do is prevent an edit war but I don't know the full history here. What is the problem with 68.111.174.76's edits? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

They fit the pattern of editing by Ericsaindon2 that caused months of edit warring on this article and led to Eric's ban. In the absence of quoted Wikipedia:Reliable sources, we have the same verifiability problems with the boundaries, demographics, etc. that we had during the original round of problems. If Anaheim Hills had any formal or legal existence at all, this stuff could be verifiable, but until that is the case it cannot have these unsourced assertions in light of the previous problems. Mike Dillon 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So basically the freewebs.com/anaheimhills page has been deemed unreliable? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not even remotely a "secondary source" per WP:RS. It is an advocacy group with the express purpose of creating a definition of Anaheim Hills. That possibly makes it a primary source in some way, but it was created in July 2006 (as noted in the attempted additions to the article) and it not widely known or considered an authority. Mike Dillon 16:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is widely known in Anaheim Hills. I know we are working on branching out from freewebs within the month to just have incorporateah.com as our address. We have a 1/4 page add coming out in the Register in 3 weeks. I do not know what more you possibly need. Like I said, every thing is original research at one point, becuase people actually have to investigate and publish their ideas. Almost all web sites found as sources on this site were created with original research, and rarely do they state every source because the source they use are not offered on the web (like the Census data we used from the Census Bureau). It can save a lot of turmoil if you will just accept the information, and allow us to grow as a group. Yes we are new at this point, but even if you had heard about us, the information on our website is going to be exactly the same as it is now, does that then make it deemed reliable? 68.111.174.76 17:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the link I mentioned to see what "reliable source" means in the context of Wikipedia. In particular, look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites. Mike Dillon 17:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll note that the Anaheim Hills cityhood webpage is entirely anonymous. For all we know it could be the work of one person. I suggest that we wait until this group gets coverage in the local media before reoporting on it. The OC Register is an excellent newspaper, and I'm sure they'll cover any legitimate cityhood movement. -Will Beback · † · 20:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Will. It certainly doesn't matter if someone pays for an advertisement in the Register, as mentioned above, but an article would make the "Incorporate Anaheim Hills" movement worth mentioning. Mike Dillon 21:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The only mentions of "Incorporate Anaheim Hills" that I can find on the web are the spam on the OC Register's forum. [6] -Will Beback · † · 20:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I downloaded the "Anaheim Hills Detachment" document and had a look at the document metadata. It was created in June 2006 by someone called "karen" and last edited on October 29, 2006 (also by "karen"). The metadata indicates around 19.5 hours of total editing. Googling for "karen anaheim hills incorporation", the first hit I got was for "Anaheim Hills Real Estate Agent Karen Fenn, CA - 10/30/06". I'm not sure if it's related, but I wouldn't be surprised. Mike Dillon 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And the relevance of this little factoid is? It proves nothing (if indeed it was to prove something). As you can see, the document was not created by Eric in any way. Wow, I did not realize though that we worked on the physical document for almost a full day. Most of the effort was copy-and-paste for each part we did. And yes, June sounds about right, although we started in April, we did not begin the process of compiling it until June on one hard drive. 68.111.174.76 05:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And Mr. Beback, why do you insist on calling me Eric? Did I magically switch to a whole new system or something. You have no proof, and seem a bit paranoid. Do you not see that our IP's are different in every way, and that is the only thing you can base this on. Try and find some proof, it will be hard to come by when it does not exist because we are not the same. Go irritate someone else for a while. 68.111.174.76 05:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is that only one editor has ever shown this much interest in the topic. -Will Beback · † · 08:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know what Eric's IP addresses are? From what I remember, I can tell you for a fact that he was using IP's in at least 3 ranges. That being said, I actually don't think you are Eric. Mike Dillon 15:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it sounds like you are from the same organization and meatpuppets are almost as frowned on as sockpuppets. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mike, don't be fooled. It's Eric. He and all of his various sockpuppets have a distinct writing style that includes a rather odd use of conjunctions. When I first stumbled accross this page I noticed it immediately, since it's a weird way for a native English speaker to express ones self, and this last IP fits the pattern. If you look at the IP's last contribution [7] on Wknight94's page, you'll notice that he uses the word for where most people would use the words since or because. He's done this consistently, and it always struck me as an odd way to construct sentences. You can see it on this very discussion page, here [8] as Ericsaindon2 and here [9] as Architect King. When he comes back, he may not display that characteristic in his writing, but it's still going to be ridiculously easy to spot him. He's going to be the only person out of a small group of intersted editors that is going to be pushing really shoddy original research... or reverting the article 11 times in less than an hour [10]. AniMate 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, now there's some forensics for ya!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why he would go to the trouble of editing a document in Microsoft Word as "karen", especially months before the ban. I guess he could have forged the MS Word metadata, but Ericsaindon2 was not that technically sophisticated in my experience. I'm pretty familiar with Eric's writing style, having dealt with this article for a few solid months at the height of his campaign.

To be clear, I'm not saying he isn't somehow involved in push for the "Incorporate Anaheim Hills" material to be included, I just see nothing definitive to show that. It doesn't really matter as far as the issues are concerned, since they are driven by WP:V, not whether or not Eric is violating a ban. You're right that the revert pattern indicates someone who is pretty familiar with Wikipedia and simply choosing not to log in, but the IP address is coming out of San Diego, per an ARIN whois search. Mike Dillon 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is a Cox.net IP address and it looks like the DHCP lease has expired and someone with a more legitimate interest in editing Wikipedia has received the same IP, judging by the non-Anaheim Hills contribs. Mike Dillon 22:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I take that back; it may be the same person, since the edits all seem to have a "small places incorporate too" agenda. Mike Dillon 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's him. His Architect King sock edited other items before switching to Anaheim Hills, as did other IPs and socks to give his Anaheim Hills edits the appearance of legitimacy. I don't doubt that there's a group of people involved in the movement to incorporate Anaheim Hills, but I'm pretty sure only one of them obsessively tries to edit Wikipedia. Eric is unreasonable, as he's proven time and time again. The IP edit is just as unreasonable, and I hope if this "movement" is legitimate, not everyone involved is as unreasonable as he is. The biggest indicator that this is him, is the fact that the IP isn't trying to add new information into the article, he's using it as a justification to reintroduce all of Eric's contributions other editors have objected to. The only difference is they've added a link to a biased website.

Besides, the IP only edited for a little over two hours, and San Diego is an easy drive from Anaheim Hills.AniMate 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that it's him, but I'm aware that it could be (I still think it doesn't matter). Especially since this was over the Thanksgiving weekend when people generally travel to visit nearby relatives. I hope Eric wasn't spending Thanksgiving out-of-town edit warring on Wikipedia instead of spending time with his family ;) Mike Dillon 23:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it really doesn't matter at all. The website isn't verifiable, and there are enough of us watching the page to revert any more bad edits. Besides, the page is semi-protectected. I'm just irritated that he continues to edit war and ignore the ArbCom ruling. AniMate 00:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just remember it's not good to leave pages semi-protected. If there are so many people watching closely, then semi-protection shouldn't be necessary. We'll leave it like this for the time being but I would've preferred to simply block the lone IP if that was the only one causing trouble. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and removed the semi-protection. -Will Beback · † · 03:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure at first, but after going through all of the IP's other edits, there are other clues that it was Eric Saindon 2, so his block should be rest (yet again!). ^BlankVerse 15:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem confused....The reason you had edits from San Diego is because the writers of the group went to La Jolla to visit an [www.independentlajolla.com] Independent La Jolla meeting down in the San Diego area. If you were on the email list, they told us all, but regular group members (like myself) were not invited. But, I am not a Cox cable user, and was actually in Needles, California visiting my family for a week, so I did not watch what was going on here. And it is funny how you play me off as writing so stupidly, but I come up with this large masterplan to destroy Wikipedia's credibility by singlehandedly putting together a document of 38 pages, just to ruin the credibility of one page on Wikipedia. Sorry, but I have no control over the Incorporate Anaheim Hills website, documents, meetings, etc. Just FYI. 69.237.25.20 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A "large [master plan] (2 words, not one) to destroy Wikipedia's credibility ..."? That's a little much, don't you think? In any event, it doesn't really seem to matter who wrote the document, whether it was EricSaindon2, or "Karen," or some other random person, the issue is simply whether the document itself is reliable. I agree with those editors who have argued that it is not. JCO312 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, think what you want. I do not seem to mind either way about your feelings about its credibility. I know you all are smart enough to know that it would be totally beyond my limits to single-handedly formulate a 4000 person email list, a full website, and a document that is in excess of 35 pages all since I have been with Wikipedia. It just is not possible. Right now, I tell you, it is a 21 man effort, and I am not one of them. There are the advisors, and then there are the supporters, and I am just a supporter. I cannot paint that out any clearer for you. 69.237.25.20 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's exactly the same kind of information that you were trying to add before, and just like the information you tried to put it, there are no sources whatsoever. It's an organization that's entirely self promoted (meaning that there aren't any confirming authorities about it). JCO312 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the stuff to Wikipedia based on the document, that is where you get the resemblence. 69.237.25.20 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This conflict has been going on for awhile now. Why didn't you point out this document until AFTER you were banned? Certainly there was no link to this 4000 member strong group or any of the documents during your ArbCom case. You were so desperate to get that info in, I find it strange you didn't link to this "unbiased" document earier. AniMate 04:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That IP has been blocked for trolling and/or being EricSaindon. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not do that at the time because I knew you would not find it reliable. Although the group is moving along, I did not want to bring them to your attention until after they had a story in the paper, but I overestimated their time limit, and an incorporation attempt takes a lot longer than I expected it to this point for this group. I guess I thought they would be a little further along before my ban began in October since they started in April (although it was not oficially announced until June), but I was wrong. I had a better chance at using their information, and then trying to prove it for myself, but it all turned out to be Original Research when I did it myself. Thats the story. I apologize for not bringing it forward earlier, and they are still moving very slow, especially for having 4,000 eager members. That is what this whole time here was about, trying to give Anaheim Hills a name for itself, and this group seemed like a great opportunity for me especially to use their resources to put things in Wikipedia before I joined one of the 4,000 member lists. And this situation circled around all this data from their website, and my efforts to prove their data correct. I apologize to everyone here for doing this, I am truly sorry Will, Mike, Coolceasar, Knight, Soltras, Zzyzx, BlankVerse, Serge, P2PcGamer, SCEdhart, Gellersen, JC, etc. I should have just told you from the beginning, and you could have assessed it for yourself, but I always kept waiting for something that never happened during my time prior to my ban at Wikipedia. Again, I am truly sorry, and I am at fault. Also, I would just like to say, Mr. Executive was one of my accounts, as was Architect King, ES92808. And, I would also like to say that the San Diego account that posted here a few days ago was not me, and I really do not know who that was. I am not lying anymore. 69.232.49.52 05:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This ip blocked as well. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

where are the demograohics

can someone out up the demographics please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.211.84 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Since Anaheim Hills isn't an officially recognized entity, there are no official demographics. We'd have to find government designated borders to define the demographics, and since there are none, any demographics would be original research. As it is the much of this article could already be considered original research. AniMate 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think HE'S BAAAAACCCCK.....

Can an admin run a check on User:Eric outdoors? He is a very new user (first edit was 2 Jan 2007) and his peculiar grammar and spelling look very familiar. --Coolcaesar 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless EricSaindon2 has suddenly taken a weird interest in Wisconsin, I'd guess it's just a coincidence. JCO312 17:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 indefinitely banned

After his latest round of inserting original research, I reported him to AN/I [[11]]. An administrator named Sam Blanning banned him indefinitely for repeated block evasion, and looks to be willing to block IPs/socks as needed. Any activity that pops up with him should be reported to the noticeboard, rather than to administrators who have edited this article or here on this talk page. AniMate 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the last part referring to? I've edited this page just to revert the obvious socks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

By all means continue to revert obvious socks, but rather than complaining about them here, report them to the AN/I. That way they should be banned immediately, and we won't have to worry about reverting them over and over and over again. AniMate 03:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is way too much dialogue on this talk page about individuals who have been banned. Much more than I've seen on any talk page so far. It's like all the forces of a Foucauldian enforcement regime are zeroed in on one irresponsible contributer. I understand the importance of pointing out incorrect additions and unwarranted reverts, but why do we need to include extensive information on our reports to noticeboards and administrators? 140.247.252.137 19:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Intro

This is the IP that commented earlier. I think that the edit was right, in stating the information about the canyon and the hills. The map he linked to shows the boundaries he described of what is known as "the Canyon". That is the area bordered north of the 91 freeway, which he stated in the article, with "the business area and small residential area north of the 91 freeway"-this citation is correct, because the Canyon is an epicenter for Anaheim, and is located here, and is proved by the boundaries in the map he linked. The hills are indeed south of the 91, and the city gives the Canyon its own designation. And also, the east Anaheim note in the paragraph was also proved by a citation. Although he should not have added it, it further embelishes the vague opening paragraph, considering the city itself does not put The Canyon (bordered in the link he provided) in the same category as Anaheim Hills. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DP121 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

One major flaw in your "logic" in regards to the map. It doesn't mention Anaheim Hills at all. AniMate 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well stated. --Coolcaesar 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

When a place calls something by 2 names like "Canyon and Hill", usually they are referring to two distinct areas that are too small to stand alone for representation, and are thus combined. This map [12] shows the boundaries of the "Canyon" as being the business and small residential area north of the 91 freeway. This area is called the "Anaheim Canyon", which is the name of the Metrolink Station here, as well as the business area in the area north of the 91 freeway. That makes up the Canyon portion of the "Canyon and Hill" area. The hill area is Anaheim Hills, like the canyon is Anaheim Canyon. The Hills are all the areas NOT included in the Anaheim Canyon (outlined in the link above), as defined by the City of Anaheim in the Canyon and Hill Plan. It is not complicated.

The entire Canyon and Hill Plan (minus) The Canyon Plan (equals) the hills part of the plan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DP121 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

We'd need a reference that the area that Anaheim refers to as the "hills" part of the "Canyon and Hill Plan" is what others refer to as "Anaheim Hills", for this to be relevant. As there is no definition of Anaheim Hills other than on your web site, this is problematic, at best. — Arthur Rubin |

(talk) 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the entire Canyon and Hill Plan is part of the Anaheim Hills community is drawing conclusions as well. Nowhere does it state Anaheim Hills in the Canyon and Hills Plan, yet in the intro you address the community by the boundaries of the Canyon and hill plan. So, my statement is no more "incorrect" or "speculative" than the existing intro that states the borders extend to Yorba Linda. It is clear that the Canyon part of the "Canyon and Hill" plan is outlined by the city of Anaheim. The hill part of the plan would be the remaining area that is not part of the canyon part of the plan. Why is that so hard to believe or grasp? The city defines a canyon and hill plan. The "canyon" part of that plan is defined, so wouldnt it make the most sense that all the remaining areas not \part of the canyon plan would be part of the hill plan? I mean, canyon+hill=Anaheim canyon and Anaheim hills, canyon+hill does not equal Anaheim hills. They would have called it the Hill Plan if it was all Anaheim Hills right? There is a reason it is called the Canyon AND Hill Plan, and that is because they are two sepratate areas, whereas one area is defined (the Canyon) and one is assumed to be all the remaining areas under the Canyon and Hill plan. ITS NOT A HARD CONCEPT. 69.232.32.157 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, where do either of the maps you're trying to link to mention Anaheim Hills by name. You're drawing conclusions, which is original research. Find something official that actually and officially states that the boundaries you've defined are in fact the boundaries, and it can go in the article. As it stands, you shouldn't even be editing this article anyway. It's not really hard to spot you, Eric, as the likelihood of another editor focusing solely on Anaheim Hills and wanting to add your original research is pretty slim. You're banned indefinitely. Leave the project. AniMate 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Brady Yoon?

I'd just like to inquire as to the grounds of placing Brady Yoon in the [Residents] section of this page. Although he is somewhat known in this region (particularly at his middle/high schools), from what I can tell, he is not well known at a national level or even state level, I believe, with perhaps a few exceptions. It is true that his name was included in the article of Time For Kids, but other students mentioned like Jonathan Cohen or Erik Zyman-Carrasco don't show up in Wikipedia. I can see that he would be notable if he was the champion of the National Spelling Bee, but he was not. As for his Science Olympiad exploits, he has placed 1st nationwide in many events, but generally Science Olympiad success will be credited to the school/entire team. So I'm thinking that he might need to be removed. Perhaps in the future he might get back on the list, though :) --Havocrazy 03:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Slice and Dice

I'm thinking of doing some major editing to the article. I've been doing some research and ran across this website. If you don't want to look (I recommend that you do), you'll see that many of Ericsaindon2's edits and "facts" are cribbed from this highly, HIGHLY pov real estate assessment of the community. I did some fact checking, and discovered that some of the claims from this site can't be verified. Shocking, I know. What is disturbing is that some of this information is still in the article. The commerce section is the biggest red flag for me. Of the four businesses listed, the only one I could find that actually claimed to have offices in Anaheim Hills, was Eastwood Insurance. Fremont and Lasco have offices listed in Anaheim, and mapquesting them shows they are clearly not in Anaheim Hills (even if you use Eric's borders). DR Horton's website doesn't have ANY listings for Anaheim at all.

I have some questions about the climate section as well. I've been looking for a source for these numbers, and haven't been able to confirm any of these stats. True I haven't been searching terribly hard, as weather bores me to tears, but I'd like to be able to source that if possible.

Then there is the history section. The only place website I can find that supports these claims is here. I'm not sure if this is a source I trust or not. It's sponsored by a real estate agent named Meghan Shigo, which makes me nervous, but the info seems valid.

The education section has some problems as well. El Rancho Charter School hasn't won 9 Science Olympiads from any thing I've been able to find. It had won 5 as of 2002, and clearly could've won 9... but I want a source. However, the claims about being one of only 3 middle schools from Orange County to win the California Distinguished School award is a flat out lie.

I'm proposing we go through the article with a chainsaw, and eliminate anything that cannot be verified from reliable sources. My intention is to have every single sentence or paragraph cited. No more original research. No more blatant falsehoods. The controversy over this article is absolutely ridiculous, and the fact that we've been trying to protect a version with so many mistakes makes it that much more troubling. If you have any objections, please let me know. I'm planning on editing it either tonight or tomorrow afternoon, depending on how many panels I finish tonight.

I've also got some research for work that's going to take me to the library, so maybe I'll be find something that verifies the history there if I have time. AniMate 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the history section, I found another less glowing history of Anaheim Hills here. Many of the details are similar to our article and the other article I found online, and I think in finding a middle ground between the two, we can have a working history section. I'd start editing it now, but it's a little late. As you can see, I've already taken some of the problematic edits I pointed out earlier. AniMate 07:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I don't know much about the others, but I was able to find sources for 8 of the 9 national Science Olympiad competitions that El Rancho has been to; see the article for the sources; hopefully it will get to 10 this year :). It looks like the article you found will cover the first five, and the next four are sourced. Anyways, back on the main subject at hand, I agree that a revision is needed. I can't contribute much because I'm quite uninformed on this; I could take a picture for the request: is there anything specifically needed?

For climate, if no sources can be found after exhaustive searching, it might be simpler to put a little of Anaheim's climate data; they're very likely quite similar or almost the same, although Anaheim Hills might be influenced a bit by different terrain and hills, but I think it could suffice temporarily? I don't know if there are any Wikipedia policies discussing this, though. I'll see what I can try to dig up on this, if I have time.

Finally, for the only three middle schools/distinguished schools thing, whoever put that in seems to have been looking at this website, so that is true only for 2005 and the Orange Unified School District. A list of all OUSD schools that have received the California Distinguished School award is here, but not all are in Anaheim Hills; this needs to be sorted by hand or something. --Havocrazy 07:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section on climate as Eric admitted it was original research on my talk page. He said he went to a local weatherman who told him he got the weather info for Anaheim Hills from Corona, California.

He tried to justify the history section by saying Meghan Shigo was the Chief Real Estate Editor for Anaheim in the United Way Airline Magazine. That's right. The United Way Airline Magazine. Not the United Airlines Magazine (Hemispheres) or the United Way Magazine (doesn't exist). These claims are that much more amusing as the article was actually written by a man named Stephen. I also have to laugh at the idea that a supposed national magazine has a Chief Real Estate Editor SPECIFICALLY for Anaheim. Regardless, I'm still going to do some library research on this. I think a lot of the names are right, but the details are far too glowing. From the surface research I've done, there was a lot of resistance to the sale of the land and it had previously been protected as a nature preserve.

Apparently, Eric is "doing this out of the stress that this will save you when you go to clean out this page." And here I thought he was trying to push his POV. I suppose I should say thanks, and if he keeps helping my stress he'll give me more reason to remove the POV that still pervades the article. AniMate 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to clean out some of Eric's garbage. I wish I could help, but I am too busy (I am swamped with work right now). --Coolcaesar 05:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Per the ArbCom decision, it's really not necessary to try to debate Eric's claims--if he or any of his socks adds anything anywhere, it's probably best to just remove the content with an appropriate edit summary and request that the account be blocked. The less attention he's given, the more likely he is to simply go away. Apropos, while I too am quite busy with RL lately, I'll be more than glad to assist with cleaning up "Eric's garbage", blocking accounts, protecting, etc.--whatever's neeeded. Simply let me know by e-mail, posting to my talk page, or contacting me on irc.freenode (Nick: AmiDaniel), and I'll try to respond as swiftly as possible. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you about not debating Eric's claims and being busy in RL (notice how late it is). At this point, I'm just trying to figure out what is actually true and/or verifiable. Right now, that's not much, but... I'll keep researching. Thanks for helping AmiDaniel. AniMate 09:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Original or extra crispy?

I noticed the coverage of the huge Anaheim Hills fire on TV today. All the TV journalists were careful to refer to "the hills above Anaheim" or "the unincorporated area known as Anaheim Hills." Even TV journalists understand that Anaheim Hills is not a city! --Coolcaesar 08:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not too many famous people...

I've always wondered who lives in Anaheim Hills, especially the really rich parts of it. As in demographics. I'm surprised that there are relatively few notable people... and are those notable people current residents or people that were born here?

Brady Yoon 69.235.223.127 05:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2... yet again

Since this page has been unprotected (and several times before that), a number of newish accounts and IP addresses have been attempting to reinsert material introduced by Ericsaindon2. With the exception of one IP, all of these people claim they are not Ericsaindon2, who has since posted that they should be allowed to edit the article and reintroduce the material since they are not him. Problem is, it is still original research. It still does not belong in the article. I find it hard to believe that several residents of Anaheim Hills have all come here independent of Ericsaindon2 to reinsert his original research, and any attempts to do so will and should be considered vandalism.

This sockpuppetry and block evasion is amateurish, at best, and totally transparent. The only way this article is going to grow and be refined, is if you stop trying to edit it Eric. No one else wants to edit it right now, as you have exhausted all of our patience by your edit warring. If you leave the article in peace, people will forget the controversy and the article can and will flourish.

You are passionate about Anaheim Hills and your community, which is to be applauded, but this is not the vehicle for you to express your beliefs in. Please stop editing the encyclopedia, and find another vehicle to channel your feelings about Anaheim Hills into. AniMate 02:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(removed edits from banned user)

I don't really care who the edits are from, because, as AniMate pointed out they are original research as deemed by the WP:ARBCOM. The reintroduction of this material will be reverted on sight. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing edits that are admittedly from Ericsaindon2, and have requested semi-protection again. I hate to have the article protected again, but he has to accept that his edits aren't good and he will not be allowed to edit here. Hopefully, he'll get the picture. AniMate 05:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the semi-protection. I'd rather let an impartial admin do it because I feel we need an outside opinion on it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's semi-protected now. AniMate 06:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What was the arbcom ruling on this page? - Denny 06:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You can see the ruling here. AniMate 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not seem to understand what is wrong with the edits from yesterday. All of it was validated with sources, and was considerably constructive. I would like to hear why they cannot stay.69.236.27.158 04:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Eric, that's just another one of your bad faith lies, which only further decreases your credibility among the Wikipedia community. Less than a fourth of the assertions in those edits were actually supported with citations. For an example of a properly researched article, see my work at Lawyer, where over 95% of the assertions are supported by a reliable source. Even worse, as before, you have a tendency to make assertions that are not actually supported by the source cited. For example, the Anaheim Hills fire station Web page does not describe the boundaries of Anaheim Hills, and in any case, a fire captain's decision on how to administer his territory (an executive branch decision) usually does not affect the city council's representation or organization of the community (a legislative branch decision). --Coolcaesar 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 and Anaheim Hills

Turns out that Ericsaindon2 took out the redirect in place at the original Anaheim Hills article and has been editing it for over a week. I've watch listed most of the redirects, but I guess we're going to need more eyes on them. He's a persistent little vandal, I'll give him that. AniMate 22:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. -Will Beback · † · 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He's used so many IPs lately, it's pretty hard to track down all of his edits... and there are alot to track down. AniMate 22:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Communities mentioned aren't representative

The individual communities mentioned within Anaheim Hills (Viewpointe, Copa de Oro, etc) aren't representative of the communities of Anaheim Hills as a whole. The communities listed are mainly the ones with very expensive homes; other budget homes or middle-income homes are not mentioned. The only exceptional community is probably Peralta Hills, as it extremely large, and one of the first to be developed.

-Brady J. Yoon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.203.60 (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Mountain Park

I used to live in Anaheim Hills and may have a picture of the area Mountain Park will be built on.24.9.123.130 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That'd be swell. •:• Will Beback •:• 03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations Required

Do not remove {{fact}} notes regarding material without a reference unless you're adding a reference. I'm sick of these hostile edits; one more and I'll request another (longer) protection. —  X  S  G  08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

How about you go work on deleting the other 105 Orange County articles that have MUCH fewer citations than this one does. In fact, this one has more citations than any city or community article in the entire county. Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, etc. all need major cleaning up. This one is fine. I have monitored this particular article, and it always comes under more scrutiny than any other article in Orange County, and it is the article with the most sources! I am going to go ahead and delete ALL the notable residents on the Newport Beach since NOT ONE of them is cited if you continue deleting things from this article because each word is not sourced. 75.43.204.194 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Other articles not meeting Wikipedia's reference standards is no rationale for allowing this one to get away with it. Plus, you're a pain in my ass so I'm unable to assume good faith for your edits and therefore will hold them up to a higher level of scrutiny. You brought it on yourself. And now, since you've done it again, I'm requesting protection, as promised. —  X  S  G  08:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I went on and put the Newport Beach article under the same scrutiny of this article. Cheers. 75.43.204.194 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bully for you. I'd better go check those edits, now. —  X  S  G  08:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Will you look at that... your additions of the {{fact}} tag were incorrectly dated (you made the edit in June, noy May). You might want to go back and fix that. —  X  S  G  08:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's true that many, many settlesments have unsourced "notable resident" sections. But that doesn't mean references are never necessary. WP:V is a core policy and the presence of non-compliant material isn't an excuse (WP:other stuff exists). If someone challenges an unsourced entry then it's fair to tag it and, eventually, remove it if no source can be found. It's even allowed (though considdred less polite) to remove it immediately. So lets' let the tags remain and try to find sources for the material. •:• Will Beback •:• 08:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh Jeez, don't tell me it's Ericsaindon2 back again... didn't he get banned forever? Flipping hell, this religious war over Anaheim Hills has been going for over 2 years now. --JQ (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting the revert...

Ericsaindon2 placed his version of the Anaheim Hills page at 07:17, May 17, 2008. Not recognizing this as Ericsandon2, I modified the results heavily, stripping away all of the peacocking and POV, and adding many {{fact}} tags for anything that needed a reference or had a questionable source. It's now June 23, 2008, and there have been many substantive edits between then and now. Enough was cut from the article that the user (who turns out to be Ericsaindon2) has desired to add a great deal of the content back (all of which was reverted). I believe it's too late to revert back to the article as it was on May 17 and if there is questionable material, please strike it and bring it up for discussion here. I think the article as it is now is encyclopedic and useful, and we're in the process of dealing with uncited material. —  X  S  G  20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you take responsibility for the material then that's fine. •:• Will Beback •:• 20:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I'm proud of my contributions to Wikipedia, and, having lived here, this is one of the pages I like to monitor and contribute to. I'll take responsibility for the material. Confirming the notables section is what will take the most time. I'll comment the unconfirmed notables out and add them as they get confirmed as opposed to the other way around. —  X  S  G  20:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)