Talk:Kessler, Dallas

Splitting proposal

Once information is on here about both neighborhoods individually, this really needs to be split. drumguy8800 C T 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would propose that the main discussion of Kessler be limited to K Park and West Kessler. This is the heart of the zone. The others could receive some peripheral mention, but they hardly merit an independent dicussion.--Jarrodfusanpo 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Common usage for the area is "Kessler Park." I'd keep anything south of I-30, east of Bishop, north of Davis and east of Hampton together as Kessler Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.97.100 (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kessler, Dallas/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Beyond needing to be split, this article has almost no content whatsoever. map would be good along with physical boundaries. drumguy8800 C T 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kessler, Dallas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004144736/http://ooccl.com/neighborhoods.htm to http://www.ooccl.com/neighborhoods.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Added New Content

Added new content about the neighborhood including parks, landmarks, healthcare, etc., which are some of the common areas to cover on similar neighborhood pages.

Also added a separate section for the principal Kessler Park neighborhood, echoing a previous comment: "I would propose that the main discussion of Kessler be limited to K Park and West Kessler. This is the heart of the zone. The others could receive some peripheral mention, but they hardly merit an independent dicussion.--Jarrodfusanpo 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)" MagellanAquarium (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This is plainly promotional text, cited to questionable sources. We should be avoiding primary sources like government documents, and we definitely should not be using marketing junk like '5 best neighborhoods to buy a home'. - MrOllie (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Is there a reason why government documents should be avoided since the area is a historic and conservation district, which I think is an important piece of information. How can it be talked about without linking to the actual government docs? MagellanAquarium (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. You are continuing to edit war about this, so I've made a report at the 3RR noticeboard. MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

So if I make any edit to the page is an editing war? Can't you see that I've removed all the links and references questioned by other people? Wikipedia is a an open-sourced community. MagellanAquarium (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

When you reptetively add the same content or delete the same maintenance template as you have been, it is edit warring, yes. You were warned about this yesterday and you have had ample time to familiarize yourself with the policy in this area. MrOllie (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that I don't have any right to contribute to this page even if the content I contributed is completely well referenced? I removed the template because I added more references and content, isn't that a way to increase notability? You keep deleting and denying all the content I create and reposting the notability template of course I need to go back and add more content. The page originally didn't have a maintenance template, why is it fair to add it anyway? MagellanAquarium (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, please explain your recent reversion of my content. All the content was well-referenced without any issues pointed in the past. What's the issue now? I would suggest you to read the content before your revert it and simply say it's the same issue again because it can't be the same issue if it's newly written and complied content. MagellanAquarium (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the same problematic content as before, and a new set of extremely weak sources. '10best.com' and local alternative weeklies are not reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

please review my content again because the one problematic source best10 was deleted long time ago, which shows that you didn't read but simply deleted all the content. All the resources secondary sources that match the wiki guideline. Topics like parks and recreation, architecture are not controversial and the tone is neutral. Please revert the change back since it is disruptive in nature. MagellanAquarium (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This is you adding that citation on the 24th. Perhaps you're the one who should be reading over the content again. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

10best.com belongs to usa today and the page only contains basic info of the golf course. what's wrong with the source? If you have an issue with one particular publication you can point that out instead of deleting the entire content. MagellanAquarium (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliability isn't inherited. Being owned by the same company as a newspaper doesn't make 10best a reliable source. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory. We should not have lists of nonnotable parks or local businesses like golf courses. All of your additions fall into this promotional / directory style. MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all, if your issue is the parks being mentioned, please do your due diligence that all the parks I mentioned are PUBLIC parks that belongs to the city. They are not business and there is no promotion. Second, most of the neighborhood/city pages contain content like parks in the neighborhood. Why is that not ok? It might be not be important to you but that doesn't mean it can't be on the wiki page. Third, I added content more than just parks. The notable residents I referenced all have their own wiki pages. The architecture section I added referenced another wiki page and the area is part of the US national register of historic places. Should all of the content be deleted just because your personal opinion of what matters? MagellanAquarium (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)