User talk:Ericsaindon2

Hello. Please leave a message below, and I will get back to you ASAP. I will respond on the talk page you request, so please tell me where to respond. If you have an issue with content I added please put (content) in the title so that I can deal with those concerns in a more timely manner. Thank You

Eric

Ericsaindon2 Archives
These are past comments that users left. Do not leave comments on the archive page for they will not be read Archive 1-March 2006 through June 2006 Archive 2-June 2006 through July 2006

Rossmoor, California (content)

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)[reply]

Having grown up near Rossmoor, and still living not too far from there, I know it as a community that for over 50 years has zealously defended its independence (probably to its detriment IMHO). Although I did not know the full facts in the case, when I saw the addition you made to the article last night, it looked like an oversimplification of the situation, which is why I questioned it by adding the fact template, and then questioned matters again when the link you provided did not back up what you had added. As the material and link that I added last night shows,, as well as the link just included in your message to me, it is a complicated situation. It definitely looks like OCLAFCO wants to force a shotgun wedding with somebody, but it could end up being Seal Beach instead of Los Alamitos.

Also, If I read things correctly on the OCLAFCO website last night, the information that you added to Santa Ana Heights, Newport Beach, California, as well as the page move, is incorrect. OCLAFCO only initiated the first steps for the annexation--i.e. recommending the annexation and recommending a change in the sphere of influence. It could be two years or more before all the other steps required for annexation can take place, and anytime during that interval one or more parties to the annexation can decide to make changes or back down. ^Blank ^Verse 02:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Santa Ana Heights was annexed in 2003 and West Santa Ana Heights is not yet annexed. Your edits [1] was both incomplete and inaccurate and needs to be fixed. Your page move was premature and inaccurate. It also need to be fixed. Still to come for the annexation process, if I'm not mistaken, is a vote of the Newport Beach city council, a poll of the West Santa Ana Heights residents, and probably a vote of the Orange County Supervisors as well. When you update the info, you should also add some history about the residents of Santa Ana Heights turning down the attempt at annexation by the city of Santa Ana.

Your edit to Rossmoor, California was incomplete and misleading. You said that you were going to correct that, but have not done so yet. Also, in your discussion of the relationship between Rossmoor and Los Alamitos, you forgot the Rossmoor Community Services District, which is independent of Los Alamitos. The Zip Code is basically useless as an identifier because the post office uses descriptions and boundaries that are most convenient to themselves. ^Blank ^Verse 16:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were a slight improvement, but they are still poorly written, confusing, and incomplete. For Rossmoor, your edit also added a redundancy. For additional issues that need to be covered, who handles policing and fire protection for Rossmoor? Does Seal Beach have any influence over Rossmoor besides the Rossmoor Shopping Center?

What galls me the most is that you admitted that you didn't understand the unique nature of Rossmoor, but you still thought that you could edit the article. Since you say that you know individuals involved with Rossmoor at OCLAFCO, why don't you have them explain it to you. ^Blank ^Verse 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA request

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)[reply]

It looks like you have worked hard on this article. However, I must say that the note in the infobox makes my original research alarm tingle a little. As for the title, may I suggest that you eliminate even the slightest perception of a 3RR violation by not reverting at all anymore. Have you proposed the move at Wikipedia: Requested moves yet? I did my best to read your lenghty post and the equally lengthy talk page archives. It seems like the most salient issue in this debate is that there is no clear cut policy on how to name sub-city units which are not recognized as independent. Could you point me to the applicable policies which you think are relevant to this page's title (I must admitt I am not familiar with these naming conventions)? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes at Template:User cal

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)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for a month for this edit [2]. Fred Bauder 17:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey vs. Hello

I'm kind of confused by your edits here [3] and here [4]. 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 [5]. 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)[reply]

User:Coolcaesar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration}

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2

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)[reply]

Note: Because you have been blocked, you may post your evidence here and someone will copy it to the evidence page, or you may e-mail your evidence directly to a member of the arbitration committee. Thatcher131 12:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:MapSantaAna.gif (content)

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)[reply]

jquarry

Eric, perhaps I was a tad hasty in my initial judgement of you. I apologize. --Jquarry 07:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]