Talk:Alma, Alabama

Edits of November 6, 2019
Now let's review. When I write, "(Place) has not reported on U.S. Census to date", where is that information confirmed ?

It is confirmed by reviewing - individually - all places returned on the census records with figures. This includes counties, cities, towns, villages, census designated places, beats, precincts, census divisions.

Those records are as follows for the state of Alabama. (Note that pre-1840, only the counties and the largest city or cities are returned, and these were repeated post-1850). 1850 (places): 1860: 1870: 1880: 1890: 1900: 1910: 1920: 1930: 1940: 1950: 1960: 1970: 1980: 1990: 2000: 2010:

By reviewing the above records, to confirm or deny if the place has reported on the census records, it can answer the question for a visitor, "Why does this place not have a population listed like the other places ?" Because it has or has not reported.DJ Jones74 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But please provide a source that verifies your statement. A list of sources that you used to form your deduction that no records exist is not helpful, as we do not publish the WP:OR of our editors. John from Idegon (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That is the source. That is not a "deduction." By your absurdist standards, I'd be "guessing" about ANY location being on the census at ANY time. I provided EVERY source available. Checked, double-checked, and more so, to confirm or deny if said locale ever reported a figure on the records. It did not. This is beyond a waste of my time in addressing this nonsense, from a foul-mouthed, obscenity-spewing editor.DJ Jones74 (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with my behavior, the place to report that is WP:ANI. I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to the topic here, which is the contents of the attached article. Please explain your position based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am at a loss for two things. First, how is it of any import that anyone know what you are adding; and second, why hasn't anyone written about it? I think the point you are missing is that secondary sources, and the lack of same, is how we decide the "merits" (for lack of a better term) of any particular bit of content. Look, I'm guessing you have little experience at content disputes, but if you want to resolve this, it will require consensus. Unless you have better sources, ones that you are actually paraphrasing, it isn't gonna happen. Sorry you're not understanding. You can waste other editor's time too by seeking dispute resolution, but hey, that too requires sources that directly support what you are trying to add. John from Idegon (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)