The U.S. Government does not go around creating city seals. The copyright of city seals is owned by their cities. The fair use exemption that we use them under is {logo}. - Will Beback 07:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
I count five reverts in the last twenty-four hours: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. This have better be the last offense. Block will expire in 48 hours. AmiDaniel ( talk) 05:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ocmap.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. I know that they have been ganging up on you the past few weeks. I can see your issue. You have some tough shoes to climb out of with so much opposition, but in the end, I think it will all pay off, because you are the correct party in the matter. -- OC31113 07:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've nominated you as an involved user. Please submit a statement. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. -- Coolcaesar 00:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the link you posted is for a meeting that happened yesterday morning, and doesn't say what decisions were made at that meeting, how do you know that Rossmoor is under the Los Alamitos sphere of influence? Blank Verse 10:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd be glad to help you. To be blunt: I don't understand the naming conventions or rationales for naming the article one way or another. I think that all parties should be treated equally in 3RR violations, however, as blocking for violations of this policy are always preventative rather than punative, it doesn't matter very much now. Is there any component to this dispute other than the title of the article?
If you need help understanding the arbitration proceedures, etc. I can help you but I would prefer not to get personally involved in the dispute proper my taking a stand on the title of the article. Feel free to contact me on AIM (c6o6s6m6o) or email (user the email user function). savidan (talk) (e@) 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, we changed the settings for the Cal userbox to allow you to personalize the text. Please check out the talk page for more info. ~ trialsanderrors 22:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm kind of confused by your edits here [9] and here [10]. On July 17, you claimed that you had never met OC31113 in person, but two days later he is allowing you to let you sign in using his IP address. This is starting to look like a pretty sloppy case of sockpuppetry when looked at with this edit [11]. You certainly seem to have a lot of knowledge about the Southland and especially Orange County and Anaheim, but in the Anaheim Hills conflict community consensus is clearly against you. These tactics aren't going to change that, and they certainly aren't helping your case. Danielross40 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have noted you as an involved party and/or commenter upon the behavior of user:Coolcaesar in the filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I greatly wish that you would comment on his behavior, and add references, links, etc. supporting your particular view to the current evidence already there. Please also explain his attitude/comments/witnessed behavior with detail about your experience in dealing with him. I do greatly appreciate it, and note that your reputation is protected upon comments at arbitration, and cannot be used against you. Thanks for your Time. -- Mr.Executive 07:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 11:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MapSantaAna.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Eric, perhaps I was a tad hasty in my initial judgement of you. I apologize. -- Jquarry 07:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Eric, your editing privileges have been suspended for a month. Please respect the project and stop editing until your block expires. - Will Beback 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Eric: You claimed that you took that image by using the db-self tag, but I easily found it on the Caliber Motors website at [12]. Lying about the source of this image will be just one more thing to add to the evidence in your RFaR.
A suggestion: You need to quit your edit warring and spend more time studying the Wikipedia Policies and guidelines--both to become a better Wikipedia 'citizen', but also to help defend yourself in your RFaR. Blank Verse 09:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this comment:
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Do not do knee-jerk reverts to the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California article (or any other Wikipedia article, for that matter) without checking the edits first [13]. If you had looked at the article's edit history and seen my edit summaries, you would have known that I had also spell-checked the article and added a section for notable residents (from checking the "what links here" link) besides deleting the infobox that Consensus shows in not needed or wanted. If you know of any more notable residents of Anaheim Hills, please add to the list. Blank Verse 05:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about my vote, I moved it from Article space as it is simply not an article. Feel free to move to any other more approriate name within the Wikipedia: namespace. — xaosflux Talk 06:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[copied]
I addressed some of your concerns on the strawpoll for communities. I was still working on it upon your voting, so I apologize for the incompleteness.
Ericsaindon2 07:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[end copied]
I need to understand the underlying issues before I vote on the community merging issue. However, I will say that if you wish for me to be an ally of yours, you will need to stop making changes on articles that are contrary to consensus. Regardless of how right you may be, you need to focus on Talk pages, and building allies with reason and logic. Look at Chicago for inspiration. A vote in January failed. A vote 8 months later succeeded. In the mean time, no revert wars on the actual page. Patience. Focus on building consensus. Reason and logic is on our side, but it takes time for it to sink in. Give it the time that it needs. -- Serge 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The U.S. Government does not go around creating city seals. The copyright of city seals is owned by their cities. The fair use exemption that we use them under is {logo}. - Will Beback 07:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
I count five reverts in the last twenty-four hours: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. This have better be the last offense. Block will expire in 48 hours. AmiDaniel ( talk) 05:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ocmap.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. I know that they have been ganging up on you the past few weeks. I can see your issue. You have some tough shoes to climb out of with so much opposition, but in the end, I think it will all pay off, because you are the correct party in the matter. -- OC31113 07:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've nominated you as an involved user. Please submit a statement. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. -- Coolcaesar 00:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the link you posted is for a meeting that happened yesterday morning, and doesn't say what decisions were made at that meeting, how do you know that Rossmoor is under the Los Alamitos sphere of influence? Blank Verse 10:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd be glad to help you. To be blunt: I don't understand the naming conventions or rationales for naming the article one way or another. I think that all parties should be treated equally in 3RR violations, however, as blocking for violations of this policy are always preventative rather than punative, it doesn't matter very much now. Is there any component to this dispute other than the title of the article?
If you need help understanding the arbitration proceedures, etc. I can help you but I would prefer not to get personally involved in the dispute proper my taking a stand on the title of the article. Feel free to contact me on AIM (c6o6s6m6o) or email (user the email user function). savidan (talk) (e@) 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, we changed the settings for the Cal userbox to allow you to personalize the text. Please check out the talk page for more info. ~ trialsanderrors 22:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm kind of confused by your edits here [9] and here [10]. On July 17, you claimed that you had never met OC31113 in person, but two days later he is allowing you to let you sign in using his IP address. This is starting to look like a pretty sloppy case of sockpuppetry when looked at with this edit [11]. You certainly seem to have a lot of knowledge about the Southland and especially Orange County and Anaheim, but in the Anaheim Hills conflict community consensus is clearly against you. These tactics aren't going to change that, and they certainly aren't helping your case. Danielross40 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have noted you as an involved party and/or commenter upon the behavior of user:Coolcaesar in the filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I greatly wish that you would comment on his behavior, and add references, links, etc. supporting your particular view to the current evidence already there. Please also explain his attitude/comments/witnessed behavior with detail about your experience in dealing with him. I do greatly appreciate it, and note that your reputation is protected upon comments at arbitration, and cannot be used against you. Thanks for your Time. -- Mr.Executive 07:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 11:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MapSantaAna.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Eric, perhaps I was a tad hasty in my initial judgement of you. I apologize. -- Jquarry 07:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Eric, your editing privileges have been suspended for a month. Please respect the project and stop editing until your block expires. - Will Beback 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Eric: You claimed that you took that image by using the db-self tag, but I easily found it on the Caliber Motors website at [12]. Lying about the source of this image will be just one more thing to add to the evidence in your RFaR.
A suggestion: You need to quit your edit warring and spend more time studying the Wikipedia Policies and guidelines--both to become a better Wikipedia 'citizen', but also to help defend yourself in your RFaR. Blank Verse 09:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this comment:
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Do not do knee-jerk reverts to the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California article (or any other Wikipedia article, for that matter) without checking the edits first [13]. If you had looked at the article's edit history and seen my edit summaries, you would have known that I had also spell-checked the article and added a section for notable residents (from checking the "what links here" link) besides deleting the infobox that Consensus shows in not needed or wanted. If you know of any more notable residents of Anaheim Hills, please add to the list. Blank Verse 05:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about my vote, I moved it from Article space as it is simply not an article. Feel free to move to any other more approriate name within the Wikipedia: namespace. — xaosflux Talk 06:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[copied]
I addressed some of your concerns on the strawpoll for communities. I was still working on it upon your voting, so I apologize for the incompleteness.
Ericsaindon2 07:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[end copied]
I need to understand the underlying issues before I vote on the community merging issue. However, I will say that if you wish for me to be an ally of yours, you will need to stop making changes on articles that are contrary to consensus. Regardless of how right you may be, you need to focus on Talk pages, and building allies with reason and logic. Look at Chicago for inspiration. A vote in January failed. A vote 8 months later succeeded. In the mean time, no revert wars on the actual page. Patience. Focus on building consensus. Reason and logic is on our side, but it takes time for it to sink in. Give it the time that it needs. -- Serge 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)