![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Blank Verse 17:20, 10 September 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hey it's like a little reunion here. Soltras 19:41, 21 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(talk) 01:50, 12 January 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Blank Verse 17:20, 10 September 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hey it's like a little reunion here. Soltras 19:41, 21 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(talk) 01:50, 12 January 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)