Talk:Anaheim Hills/Archive 3

Demographic data
Will, I dont know how to leave you a message on your normal talk page so I had to put it in your archives. Now look, can you please move the article to Anaheim Hills, California. I mean, I have not put the box back upon the page, and will not until it is verified. I have kept my end of the compromise, so can you keep yours please, and move it to Anaheim Hills, California.
 * Eric, You did put the box back up on the page- it's there right now. Please stop pushing this Anaheim Hills thing. Anaheim Hills is not a "major city"- it's not a city at all. And we never agreed on a compromise, you rejected it. If you want to agree to it now then please re-read it and tell me what you are agreeing to. I'd hope it would include not adding Anaheim Hills to lists of cities. -Will Beback 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The source used to support the demographic data does not seem to agree with the data in the article.
 * Added together, it only accounts for a populaiton of about 25,000. Unless we can find a verifiable source, the demographic info needs to be removed. -Will Beback 17:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Anaheim Hills, 92808-Population=21,013; 53997-21013=32,984; 92807 population-41,129; Neighborhood average density south of 91 freeway-2,699 homes per square mile (home count divided by square miles) with 12.22 square miles. 2699 x 12.22=32,984. 32984 (92807) + 21013 (92808)=53997


 * What does "53997-21013" represent in this original equation?-Will Beback 09:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops, wrong number, I thought there was something wrong with it. The number is supposed to be 20,683. I was trying to do the equation from memory, but I used the wrong numbers. I will show it again. I used the wrong density for the area south of the 91 freeway doing it from memory. Here it is with the correct density.


 * Anaheim Hills, 92808-Population=20,863; 53997-20863=33,134; 92807 population-41,129; Neighborhood average density south of 91 freeway-2,711.5 homes per square mile (home count divided by square miles) with 12.22 square miles. 2711.5 x 12.22=33,134. 33134(92807) + 20863 (92808)=53997

Let's see if we can make sense of this, step by step (BTW - we are talking 2000 Census, right?):

Zip Code 92808 20,863 Zip Code 92807 41,129 Total 61,992

Where does the "53997-20863=33,134;" fit in? -Will Beback 06:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 33,134 is the population south of the 91 freeway in 92807. The density is 2711.5 residents per square mile on this side of the freeway, and the land area is 12.22 square miles on this side of the freeway, which includes undeveloped parts of the zip code. Using Google Earth, you can measure the area from any point you want, and then it is simply just taking the density on this side of the freeway (census tracts added and averaged) getting you a total of 2711.5 pp square mile. Multiply that together and you get 33,134--69.232.62.33 07:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's really not our job to be recompiling data. Adding, subtracting, or multiplying to achieve a novel outcome is original research. I think we'd better find a source who can directly say what the demographics and physical of the area are. -Will Beback 10:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you want me to publish a book or something? I mean we both know that Anaheim Hills is defined with boundaries, and doing simple math can give you the population USING Census data. --69.232.62.33 23:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What official has defined these boundaries? Where is the link to the Census data? All I have seen is a link to a private data service, the data on which does not match the data that has been included. In addition to the text in the article, there is a copyrighted map and an inappropriate city infobox. The same unsourced data copied three times is still unsourced. Yes, if you published a book then we could use that. In the meantime there appears to be no demographic data for "Anaheim Hills", only demographic data for unexplained set of census blocks and zip codes that EricSaindon thinks are Anaheim Hills. -Will Beback 00:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Community, State Setup-Mislead by Aministrators
It seems like the authors of the following neighborhoods and towns' pages (not cities) liked the community, state format too.The so called "rules" stated by the admins stated communities had to be setup community, city, state, and towns had to be setup town, county, state. I am angered that the administrators brainwashed us into thinking that community, city, state was the only format to use. In fact, nearly 1,000 communities in the United States use the community, state setup. So, all of those polls in the past were swayed and unverified opinions of the administrators who told us that only cities were allowed to have city, state. I have listed several hundered communities that use the community, state format, far louder than 3 administrators who gave us inaccurate information about the community format. You should be ashamed.

La Jolla, Boulevard, Campo, Cuyamaca, Dulzura, Santa Ysabel, Midway City, Ballston, Virginia, Clarendon, Virginia, Courthouse, Virginia, Fairlington, Virginia, Shirlington, Virginia, Virginia Square, Virginia, Oakhurst, Georgia, Downtown Berkeley, California, East Boston, Massachusetts, Charlestown, Massachusetts, Dorchester, Massachusetts, Hyde Park, Massachusetts, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, Mandela, Massachusetts, Mattapan, Massachusetts, Readville, Massachusetts, South Boston, Massachusetts, West Roxbury, Massachusetts, California, Ohio, Bond Hill, Ohio, Clifton Heights, Ohio, Beedles Station, Ohio, Bidwell, Ohio, Blue Ball, Ohio, Evanston, Ohio, Fort Ancient, Ohio, Greentree Corner, Ohio, Level, Ohio, Middletown Junction, Ohio, New Burlington, Ohio, Rinard Mills, Ohio, Pleasant Grove, Texas, Downtown Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Hawaii Kai, Hawaii, He'eia, Hawaii, Kailua, Hawaii, Kapolei, Hawaii, Mililani, Hawai'i, North Ko'olaupoko, Hawai'i, Salt Lake, Hawaii, Waimanalo Beach, Hawaii, Waipio, Hawaii, Ashville, Kentucky, Avoca, Kentucky, Ballardsville, Kentucky, Beckley, Kentucky, Beechland Beach, Kentucky, Berrytown, Kentucky, Bethany, Kentucky, Boston, Kentucky, Clark Station, Kentucky, Eastwood, Kentucky, English Station, Kentucky, Fairmount, Kentucky, Fisherville, Kentucky, Freys Hill, Kentucky, Greenwood, Kentucky, Griffytown, Kentucky, Harrods Creek, Kentucky, Hopewell, Kentucky, Hunters Trace, Kentucky, Johnsontown, Kentucky, Juniper Beach, Kentucky, Knopp, Kentucky, Kosmosdale, Kentucky, Lake Dreamland, Kentucky, Lake Louisvilla, Kentucky, Lakeland, Kentucky, Long Run, Kentucky, Longview, Kentucky, Meadowlawn, Kentucky, Medora, Kentucky, O'Bannon, Kentucky, Orell, Kentucky, Parkwood, Kentucky, Penile, Kentucky, Petersburg, Kentucky, Plainview, Kentucky, Prairie Village, Kentucky, Riverside Gardens, Kentucky, Routt, Kentucky, Rubbertown, Kentucky, Seatonville, Kentucky, Smyrna, Kentucky, South Park, Kentucky, Springdale, Kentucky, Sylvania, Kentucky, Thixton, Kentucky, Transylvania Beach, Kentucky, Tucker Station, Kentucky, Valley Downs, Kentucky, Valley Gardens, Kentucky, Valley Village, Kentucky, Waverly Hills, Kentucky, Whitner, Kentucky, Worthington (Jefferson), Kentucky, Downtown Memphis, Tennessee, Bay View, Wisconsin, Granville, Wisconsin, Milwaukee (town), Wisconsin, Algiers, Louisiana, Carrollton, Louisiana, Little Germany, New York, Downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Manchester, Virginia, Mission Valley, California, East Syracuse, New York, Fayetteville, New York, Solvay, New York, Spenard, Alaska, Eagle River, Alaska, Eklutna, Alaska, Auburn, Rhode Island, New Tampa, Florida, West Tampa, Florida, Pinecraft, Florida

"The non-labeled below are all in the state of Massachusetts"

Abington, Acton, Acushnet, Adams, Alford, Amherst, Andover, Aquinnah, Arlington, Ashburnham, Ashby, Ashfield, Ashland, Athol, Auburn, Avon, Ayer, Barre, Becket, Bedford, Belchertown, Bellingham, Belmont, Berkley, Berlin, Bernardston, Billerica, Blackstone, Blandford, Bolton, Bourne, Boxboro, Boxford, Boylston, Braintree, Brewster, Bridgewater, Brimfield , Brookfield, Brookline, Buckland, Burlington, Canton, Carlisle, Carver, Charlemont, Charlton, Chatham, Chelmsford, Cheshire, Chester, Chesterfield, Chilmark, Clarksburg, Clinton, Cohasset, Colrain, Concord, Conway, Cummington, Dalton, Danvers, Dartmouth, Dedham, Deerfield, Dennis, Dighton, Douglas, Dover, Dracut, Dudley, Dunstable, Duxbury, East Bridgewater, East Brookfield, East Longmeadow, Eastham, Easton, Edgartown, Egremont, Erving, Essex, Fairhaven, Falmouth, Florida, Foxborough, Framingham, Freetown, Georgetown, Gill, Goshen, Gosnold, Grafton, Granby, Granville, Great Barrington, Groton, Groveland, Hadley, Halifax, Hamilton, Hampden, Hancock, Hanover, Hanson, Hardwick, Harvard, Harwich, Hatfield, Hawley, Heath, Hingham, Hinsdale, Holbrook, Holden, Holland, Holliston, Hopedale, Hopkinton, Hubbardston, Hudson, Hull, Huntington, Ipswich, Kingston, Lakeville, Lancaster, Lanesborough, Lee, Leicester, Lenox, Leverett, Lexington, Leyden, Lincoln, Littleton, Longmeadow, Ludlow, Lunenburg, Lynnfield, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Mansfield, Marblehead, Marion, Marshfield, Mashpee, Mattapoisett, Maynard, Medfield, Medway, Mendon, Merrimac, Middleborough, Middlefield, Middleton, Milford, Millbury, Millis, Millville, Milton, Monroe, Monson, Montague, Monterey, Montgomery, Mount Washington, Nahant, Nantucket, Natick, Needham, New Ashford, New Braintree, New Marlborough, New Salem, Newbury, Norfolk, North Andover, North Attleborough, North Brookfield, North Reading, Northborough, Northbridge, Northfield, Norton, Norwell, Norwood, Oak Bluffs, Oakham, Orange, Orleans, Otis, Oxford, Palmer, Paxton, Pelham, Pembroke, Pepperell, Peru, Petersham, Phillipston, Plainfield, Plainville, Plymouth, Plympton, Princeton, Provincetown, Randolph, Raynham, Reading, Rehoboth, Richmond, Rochester, Rockland, Rockport, Rowe, Rowley, Royalston, Russell, Rutland, Salisbury, Sandisfield, Sandwich, Saugus, Savoy, Scituate, Seekonk, Sharon, Sheffield, Shelburne, Sherborn, Shirley, Shrewsbury, Shutesbury, Somerset, South Hadley, Southampton, Southborough, Spencer, Southwick, Sterling, Stockbridge, Stoneham, Stoughton, Stow, Sturbridge, Sudbury, Sunderland, Sutton, Swampscott, Swansea, Templeton, Tewksbury, Tisbury, Tolland, Topsfield, Townsend, Truro, Tyngsborough, Tyringham, Upton, Uxbridge, Wakefield, Wales, Walpole, Ware, Warren, Wareham, Warwick, Washington, Wayland, Webster, Wellesley, Wellfleet, Wendell, Wenham, West Boylston, West Bridgewater, West Brookfield, West Newbury, West Stockbridge, West Tisbury, Westborough, Westford, Westhampton, Westminster, Weston, Westport, Westwood, Whately, Whitman, Wilbraham, Williamsburg, Williamstown, Wilmington, Winchendon, Winchester, Windsor, Winthrop, Worthington, Wrentham, Yarmouth


 * There's always work to be done. Wikipedia is not consistent (though we try to be). As it happens, many of your examples are incorrect. Towns in Massachusetts are different from towns or city neighborhoods in California. -Will Beback 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then next time dont say that is the way it has to be, and then giving me an Rfc for trying to defend my point, just because you made up some rule and tryed to manipulate people saying that it was that way or the highway. It turns out that is not the way it has to be, and is not stated anywhere in Wikipedia. The whole thing was a setup, and you people should be ashamed for misleading us, and giving me an Rfc, even though I was right in my point in that there is no definite way it has to be done. I want Anaheim Hills, California to be unprotected, because frankly it has no reason to be protected, because all of that crap you have been feeding us has been bull. You can give no reason for not stopping the page from being moved, or for unblocking the page, because quite frankly, when people voted, they were given wrong information by people they trusted. --Ericsaindon2 00:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is "us"? Please get a username, or use the username you already have. -Will Beback 23:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for signing in. Regarding your Massachusetts list, after spot-checking some I couldn't find any neighborhoods of incorporated cities. What is the relevance of that list? -Will Beback 00:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The point of it was not to show you neighborhoods within cities, although many of them are within cities of Kentucky or Ohio for example. It was to show you that a community has no distinct way to be represented. Many towns choose community, closest town, state, or community, state, or community, or community, county, state, or community(city), or community (state). There are several ways to represent the community, and it is based on a page by page basis. Now, I would understand if you put "Anaheim" if I were talking about a community of like 30 houses in Anaheim, like Peralta Hills, but we are not. It is a community larger than 14 incorporated OC cities, and has Anaheim in its name. Now, take Downtown for example. Many, for example, like Downtown Berkeley says Downtown Berkeley, California, not Downtown Berkeley, Berkeley, California. Like for Anaheim Hills. You know it is in some way associated with the City of Anaheim-or you are stupid. Now, if you read the first paragraph of the article, you will understand the relationship. If you dont read the first paragraph, than the information probably doesnt matter that much to you anyway. The title is not meant to give you all the details, and is less cluttered than community, city, state.
 * Now, I have a proposal. To end the community controversy, if the community has an entire zip code (1 or more) only for itself, it can drop the community, city, state title and use community, state, but it must mention the city it is part of in the first 2 sentences of the article and state that it is just a community. If the community does not have its own zip code in the city it is within, than it must keep the community, city, state title. This will allow the larger communities to have more independence, yet will still require the introduction to state the city it is part of. On the other hand, it will still allow us to recognize communities that might be small within cities. --Ericsaindon2 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are way out of your league. New England townships are a unique beast; they are radically different from cities and counties everywhere else in America.  Please see the Local Government Law handbook which I cited in the Special district article. You can get it at nearly all law libraries, and I know for a fact that every county in California is required by law to maintain a public law library that anyone can access.  Take a bus to Santa Ana or downtown L.A. sometime and have a look.
 * As for weird exceptions like Downtown Berkeley and Waimanalo Beach, that's because we have several other oddball editors, like you, who refuse to recognize the overwhelming community consensus and go around making a huge mess on Wikipedia. You might want to consider having a psych evaluation for possible oppositional defiant disorder. --Coolcaesar 02:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I just realized that for some of the Virginia city articles, the titles are correct. Virginia is a weird exception in that nearly all its small towns do not incorporate because they would then become independent cities and would exit county jurisdiction (which implies they would have to take over all county responsibilities). Virginia has a strange law where a county cannot share concurrent jurisdiction with a city. So that takes care of another group.--Coolcaesar 02:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you miss my entire point here? I wasnt trying to show what I have been saying all along. I was pointing out that there are no cut and dry rules about this, and it is done in many different ways. And, why are you harassing me? --69.232.62.33 05:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'm saying that the rules are cut and dry, and the examples you have shown are either total aberrations or are justifiable in light of the organization of local government in certain states. Going with ZIP Code boundaries makes zero sense because they often do not match city or neighborhood boundaries; they match only where the USPS wants to build a post office to economically serve a certain number of people.  As pointed out above, Los Altos Hills, California and Los Altos, California share two ZIP Codes.  North LAH and LA has 94022 and South LAH and LA has 94024.  Which means that people in Los Altos Hills often receive mail addressed to the exact same address in Los Altos because all bulk mailers are required by federal law to correct their outbound addresses against the USPS database, which allows only one city name per ZIP Code, and the USPS sided with Los Altos which is the bigger of the two communities.  There are many other infamous examples but I'm too drowsy to look them up. If I sound pejorative, it's because you're apparently a teenager who doesn't understand law very well and doesn't know when to defer to the adults on an issue. --Coolcaesar 06:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not a teenager for your information. I am just newer to the website, and am very informed about government. I have been involved in LAFCO Orange County for many years, as well as several annexations of land to cities and incorporations. I am sure I know a little better than you how to properly identify a community, and the way you do it is incorrect. A community is represented, just like a city, in its name. The exceptions would be county islands where you typically name them by island, county, state. Also housing tracts would need to be represented by tract, city, state. A community is defined as it was by its pioneer city with a given name. Communities continue to grow with that given name and the set developmental boundaries. Almost all communities have schools, parks, shopping centers, which include their name within them. Usually housing tracts are within the communities, and should not be confused. The community, at build out, either decides to detach, or benefit from its founder city. Communities are often referred to community, state. Communities ALWAYS have set boundaries, otherwise it is just a tract, neighborhood or perhaps of no reference at all. ALL significant communities have post office(s) within them serving that community. But most cities dont have communities within them, and are uniformally referred to as the city name. Just to give you a little policy. And, I dont have the disorder you were talking about, I am just being questioned by some person who knows nothing about me and continues to harass me, and I am passionate about the identifications of places in California. --69.232.62.33 07:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Eric, your age doesn't matter but your maturity does. We've already established that the community of Anaheim Hills is not recognized by the USPS, the Census Bureau, the City of Anaheim, or any other government agency. No one has asserted that Anaheim Hills has a secesion movement, or even a neighborhood council, so such recognition is not even speculative. It is just a commercial alliance of developments. I think we all agree that Anaheim Hills exists as an informal neighborhood, but it is not an official place and so we should not draw exact borders or calculate demographic information for it. -Will Beback 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well stated. Also, I was reading the California Constitution today.  Cities and counties are in the state constitution and the Government Code.  Communities are not.  Cities may create landscape maintenance districts, streetlight maintenance districts, and Mello-Roos districts for particular zones within city boundaries, but those special districts are dedicated to a specific purpose and do not serve as the nexus of communities.  Also, Eric has again for the second time failed to understand that ZIP Codes and post offices correspond to what the USPS considers to be the optimal placement of facilities to match the population distribution, which very often has nothing to do with city or neighborhood boundaries.  --Coolcaesar 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Move protected
I've move-protected this article yet again as it seems quite clear that the move-warring is showing no signs of stopping. I find it quite unfortunate to have to leave this article protected for over a month, but it seems to be the only way to prevent this from continuing. Note, as always, that my protecting the article at its current location is not an endorsement of the page title (in fact, I refuse to take any side in this dispute, so please stop asking me too). I hope you will all be able to resolve your dispute through mature discussion. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing a halt to the latest round of move-warring. --Coolcaesar 03:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stopping the warring. It seems like some users are so retarded and so dependent on the admins that they are still staying loyal to the abusive admins on this page. --Ericsaindon2 05:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ericsaindon2 blocked
has been blocked for 3RR on this page yet again. Some talk has ben circulating on the IRC channels about pursuing a WP:RfAR as this has truly gotten out of hand. A month of edit-warring and move-warring is simply too much. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the block. I agree that Ericsaindon2 is definitely out of control and this issue needs to go to arbitration.  --Coolcaesar 19:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming
The naming convention for this page should be Anaheim Hills, California. Anaheim Hills, California is the most commonly referenced name for the area. I was reading through the naming conventions, and have found no justifications for the statements about the community, city, state convention that had to be used. The only rule that I found was that the name had to be precise, and the most common form of the name. Following the "black and white" rules of WIkipedia, the most commonly used name, and the most precise name is Anaheim Hills, California. Using Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California is not the most common or the most precise name for the article, breaking the main naming rules of Wikipedia. As I said, the statements above about the community, city, state convention has no evidence to back it up, and is the assumed desire of particular users, and in no way the typical naming convention. Some users do not want to accept the fact that they were wrong, and have taken their actions regarding the naming convention too far. I think it is time that we put this silly issue behind us, and just move it to Anaheim Hills, California where it belongs. That is what the Wikipedia rules state, and that is where the page needs to rest. The Wikipedia rules, like keeping the name precise and at a commonly used level has worked very well...if the rules havent been manipulated by the users and admins who insist that it MUST remain at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. Just move it to Anaheim Hills, California, follow the Wikipedia Guidelines, admit all your wrong doings (for every user on this page has a wrong doing in one form or another) and lets just try to handle this in a civil way. --69.232.62.33 08:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your argument completely fails to respond to any of the arguments raised above by myself or Will and essentially accuses everyone else of being wrong without saying why they are wrong and you are right. You therefore implicitly concede their truth because you have no effective counterarguments.  Also, your repeated sockpuppeting, violations of the 3RR, vandalism, and childish threats are all in violation of Wikipedia policy. They can and will be construed against you in arbitration (if and when that happens) as evidence of bad faith on your part. Keep in mind that all changes to the encyclopedia are recorded.  --Coolcaesar 09:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you just stopped for a minute, and took time to use your brain (I sense a challenge already), you might understand Eric's point. He is stating that the admins on this page have mislead the users about the naming convention. Why should he have to prove it when it is on the same page just 6 or 7 paragraphs above? What you should have to prove is your naming convention that you have somehow found in some underground portal that is only accessable by Wiki Admins. That has yet to surface, yet has been the curlprit of deciept on this page. Just listen to what he has to say, and apologize instead of trying to prolong the problem, and instigate a new fight. He was wrong as well, and nowhere in there does it state that nothing was his fault whatsoever. He has admitted his faults several times throughout this page, but the admins, and you have failed to, and that is what the issue is at this point. He has shown his genuine character, now it is your turn to do the same, if you have a genuine character (referring not only to you, but the admins as well) --OC31113 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Eric &mdash; and I know it is you because most of OC31113's very small number of contributions are related to Anaheim Hills and they all share your puerile writing style &mdash; sockpuppeting is against Wikipedia policy. If you have a legitimate argument to raise, wait a few days and then raise it under your own account name when the block is removed.
 * As for the naming convention, it is very clearly outlined at Naming convention (city names). We have been over this issue again and again and again. There is no secret Wiki cabal behind the policy; see the numerous debates and polls at Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles, California and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names).  The last time this issue was heavily thrashed around was in February and the consensus was to retain [neighborhood, city, state] and [city, state] as the naming conventions for the United States.
 * And you still have not responded on the merits to the ZIP Code sharing problem, because you have no effective argument. In the meantime, I just ran a search on Google for information that issue and came up with two sources for my position in less than 30 seconds.  See the Contra Costa Times article at  (Discovery Bay wants its own ZIP Code so it will no longer be confused with Byron) and the Direct Marketing magazine article at (towns that sit on state lines sometimes share ZIP codes which is very confusing).  Again, ZIP Codes are not reliable indicators of the boundary of a community.  If you really took your own argument seriously, you would have researched this.
 * Also, as Will Reback pointed out above, no government entity officially recognizes Anaheim Hills. It is essentially a marketing scheme for an array of neighborhoods, no more.  Even the neighborhoods of Los Angeles have more of a claim to existence; practically all of them have officially recognized neighborhood councils that can relay local concerns to the city government.  In contrast, many other "Hills" communities in California exist as real cities with charters and all the other official things required by the California Constitution: El Dorado Hills, California; Los Altos Hills, California; Laguna Hills, California; and so on.


 * I am glad you signed your name so we all know who it is. First of all the link your provided provides no proof of your statement. It says that you should use Community, County, State for purposes where the community is unincorporated. That is all it states! It also says that cities can use the city, state setup. So I am not sure where the information you were referencing is. Perhaps if you provided us with the special top secret CIA rules of Wikipedia, I will believe you, but your claims are not stated anywhere on the UNITED STATES portion of the page. And the zip code things are not legitimate, so I think that is why he has not responded. As for a solution to community issues, I dont have one, but will get back to you if I think of one. And, for your lack of research again, I will prove your stupidity by telling you that Anaheim Hills has two community councils. The Canyon Hills Community Council and the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition (I dont know how dumb you can possibly be for it is stated in the first sentences of the article). And Will Beback NEVER stated that nobody recognized Anaheim Hills as an entity. I dont think he would ever say something so stupid because he is quite smart, and when he cannot prove it he doesnt state it (but I do believe you would). Anaheim Hills has TWO councils that focus only on Anaheim Hills. I have yet to find a district in LA that has 2 councils! And, the city of Anaheim itself recognizes Anaheim Hills as a major community in its city limits, plastered all over there website. Anaheim Hills even has a representative that focuses on Anaheim Hills on the city council. I have yet to find a community that has that special designation. It is as close to incorporation as a community gets without being a city. Plus, Anaheim Hills is not just a collection of neighborhoods. It is far more than your simplified version. 93 builders have constructed 118 neighborhoods in Anaheim Hills since 1970, a far cry from your explanation of a few neighborhoods. Anaheim Hills brings in over $100,000,000 dollars in revenues and taxes each year, which is more than 60% of incorporated cities in Orange County bring in each year. Anaheim Hills has Orange Counties largest business district, the Canyon Buisiness Plaza, which has over 5 million square feet in commercial and industrial use space, and over 1,000 retail shops encompassed in 19 shopping plazas. As well as half of an entire school district caters to Anaheim Hills residents, which Anaheim Hills boasts 21 schools. That is completely different from your explanation of a collaboration of a few housing tracts. So, you really need to put things as they are, and not as you see them based on a conclusion you made up. And yes, the only conclusion you managed to make was that there are cities in California with the word "Hills" in their name. WOW! Genius alert! --OC31113 06:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * User:OC31113, thanks for stepping in. I do understand your complaint Coolcaesar, but that would only be if I had not read the article. I can tell that OC31113 is probably from Anaheim Hills, because he seems to know the aspects of the community well, where as you dont. You see, this is a passionate community, about its independence from Anaheim, and only giving credit to Anaheim where it is absolutely needed. We dont exactly have the best relationship with the city, so including the city in the title is a slap in the face to us. If it is stated in the article, the conflicting title is purely unnecessary. I know you are passionate about venting your anger about the way you feel naming articles should occur, but there are some articles where you just need to set policy aside and look at what it is really about. That is probably why Wikipedia doesnt have a strict Community Naming Policy (or any community naming policy for that matter), becuase they know that exceptions are all over the place, and this is one of them. If people dont want there article to include their city in the title, than why should we be forced to? As long as it is noted within the first sentence that it is not a "stand alone" city, that is all that matters. For example, a newspaper heading just tells you the main points. If the newspaper title gave you all the deatils, then what would be the point of the article? You see my point? A title, or heading is not meant to give you all the details, that is what the article is for. If a community is too small, than it probably needs the city to accompany it which is the case with most communities (communities that have no community councils). But this is not one of those small communities. Its name can stand alone. I believe that the community, state format should be applied to all the communities right now that are large enough, and have a community council representing them. Communities like Hollywood, Sherman Oaks, La Jolla, and this one most importantly. --Ericsaindon2 10:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very funny, Eric, but we are not fooled. If you are the adult you claim to be, you should be aware of Abraham Lincoln's famous quote about how you cannot fool all of the people all of the time (just Google the phrase if you've never seen it).  There are several stylistic similarities that give away the fact that you are sockpuppeting and having a conversation with yourself, starting with your inability to punctuate "doesn't" and your tendency to use "there" where most people use "their."  "There" is used to point to a place (as in "go there") and "their" indicates possession (as in "their car was stolen").
 * It takes years of practice to write convincingly in two distinct voices (it's taught in law school) and you're just not able to pull it off. Please cut out that nonsense.  That's the kind of silliness teenagers do and if you're an adult, you should know better.  If you actually had the integrity to admit what you are doing (although I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word), I think everyone would trust you more. --Coolcaesar 16:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is ok, I really dont have my self worth wrapped up in your trust. As for my username, it was blocked. My IP was blocked, all of it was blocked. So how in the hell did you expect me to get on here. You cannot just simply make a new screen name, and a new IP address. --Ericsaindon2 16:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And again....I prove you wrong, and again you go off topic. You are one person that it would be hard to pull off a sockpuppet-because for someone to sound as profound as yourself (not), that would be a task. As for my point...can you just read my comments please. I prove you wrong, and I defy what you inaccurately say, and then you go off topic about something else I do. I am not here to irritate, but just stay on topic, and deal with personal issues on my talk page. As for me proving you wrong....--Ericsaindon2 17:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You were supposed to withdraw from the debate and wait out the block. How hard is that? Trying to return to a debate when you have already been blocked for repeatedly acting in bad faith is itself evidence of bad faith.  This entire segment of the talk page is just going to be one more piece of evidence against you.  And it's all in the Wikipedia database already.  Forever.
 * You don't understand that Wikipedia works on community consensus, so you either have to try to alter that consensus by making your case in a credible and fair fashion or go along with it. It's called playing fair and most kids learn how to do that by the time they are five years old.  Instead, you burned your bridges and got yourself blocked several times. Not too bright.
 * You remind me of the joke (usually credited to Ronald Reagan) about the earnest little boy who said "there must be a pony in here somewhere!" And yes, I think your argument is just as valuable as the pile that the boy was going through.  If you don't get the point, look up the joke.
 * Turning to your crazy argument, it is completely without merit. I just checked the Anaheim Municipal Code.  The Los Angeles Municipal Code creates the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and gives it the ability to certify neighborhood councils as legitimate organizations.  Anaheim does not have any similar sections.  The closest thing is Section 1.04.510, which covers only the Anaheim Housing and Community Development Commission, but the only explicitly mentioned neighborhood councils are for West, East, Central and South Anaheim.   The only mentions of Anaheim Hills in the Code are in the names of particular annexations and subdivisions (for example, the Summit at Anaheim Hills).  But there is no official designation of an entire geographical area as Anaheim Hills.
 * In turn, the two private organizations that you mention have no official standing because they have been delegated none. They do not even appear in the Anaheim muni code.  I invite you to show me one particular code section that delegates power to them, but it looks like you will find none.  Therefore, when they appear at government functions, those organizations are in the same position as any nonprofit organization or private corporation that wishes to express its views before the City Council. Unlike a neighborhood council, they do not act in a representative capacity for the areas they serve; they act in a representative capacity only for the particular persons who have donated money to them and chosen to associate with them.
 * There is not even a Specific Plan that is titled "Anaheim Hills." The closest thing is the "Canyon Area Specific Plan" or "Planning Area B" Therefore, I would support a move to Canyon Area, Anaheim, California, or Planning Area B, Anaheim, California.  In contrast, many neighborhoods in California do have specific plans which mention them by name and describe their precise boundaries and zoning requirements.  For example, see the Loyola Corners Specific Plan at .  Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.42.020 even shows a map of Loyola Corners to define its exact boundaries! See also the City of Pasadena's Zoning Code, which outlines several specific plan districts.  The point is that Anaheim's City Council could easily designate an area called "Anaheim Hills" if it wants to, but for whatever reason, it has chosen not to.  Get the point?
 * In fact, with the law so overwhelmingly against your position, I suspect that you are simply trolling rather than making an argument in good faith. Trolling (that is, deliberately picking fights by raising meritless arguments) is also against Wikipedia policy and would justify a permanent ban.  --Coolcaesar 18:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok.....that was very insightful. You managed to do all the things you just told me not to do in one summary. Well anyways, I have provided you with some of the links and pictures proving my already proven point just one step further.

-The Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition -The Canyon Hills Community Council -Community Coupon Magazine issued by association Image deleted-Map of private company that maps Orange County, Anaheim Hills is labeled as a place of significance on the map -A letter to our Citizens Coalition by the City of Anaheim -General Plan Volume III-included is one of our city councils -Anaheim Hills and Canyon Hills Citizens Coalition listed on the Anaheims Organizational chart -Our Fire Station as Described on the Anaheim City Page -Description of the Canyon Hills Library-stated as it is located in ANAHEIM HILLS -The Cities Directory of phone numbers. Note that ALL the facilities in Anaheim Hills state that they are in Anaheim Hills in parethasis-not Canyon, none of that stuff -The Description of the Nature Center, note that it has the address as Anaheim Hills, California on the city website! -The Wildfire and Brush awareness group hired out by the city of Anaheim. Notice the constant reference of Anaheim Hills, not Anaheim.
 * It took me about a minute to stop laughing. Your scatterbrained collection of examples of so-called "proof" merely indicates a name in common use, nothing more.  It would probably be sufficient evidence for a trademark (for example, if someone wanted to use "Anaheim Hills" in the context of a private business).  But in no way does your "proof" establish official recognition of a neighborhood by the relevant government body, which is the City of Anaheim.
 * Turning to your items:
 * (1) The Web sites are simply Web sites of private organizations on private Web servers. If they were hosted by the City of Anaheim instead, that would be strong evidence; but they are not.
 * (2) Private associations and companies issue coupon books all the time. As private entities, they can call a neighborhood whatever they like, and as long as it is not misleading it is within their First Amendment free speech rights.
 * (3) Private map companies issue maps all the time that indicate informal neighborhood names that are used by people on the ground. So what.  They are not required by law to issue maps that use only official neighborhood names.  In this case, you are trying to treat Anaheim Hills as if it is officially established (through the use of an infobox in the article and so on) when it is not, as I have already established. The Wikipedia article should merely indicate that Anaheim Hills is an informal term used by some people for the eastern portion of the City of Anaheim.
 * (4) The letters to/from the city of Anaheim are merely an exchange of communications with a private body over General Plan issues, nothing more. I see nothing in those letters that constitutes an explicit or implicit grant of authority.  There is no language saying "I hereby delegate power to you."  I see private citizens exercising their constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances, and not a private conversation between government officials.  In fact, if it was between city officials, the letter probably would not have been published online (usually only official communications with the public are published), and there would have been no need for the letter, since city officials by definition would have access to the city intranet and would not need to demand access to the Draft EIR in the first place!
 * (5) You misrepresented a motley list of "Clubs and Organizations" as an organizational chart. It is not. An organizational chart would show the Mayor and City Council at top and then the various city departments underneath, with lines in between to represent lines of authority.  You clearly have never seen a proper org chart for a corporation or government agency.  That page is simply a laundry list of a variety of private nonprofit organizations, including the two groups you are so fond of.  Also, you neglected to mention the City's own "Neighborhood Districts" page, whose map clearly indicates that Anaheim has four official districts: West, East, Central, and South.  The people who actually have official responsibility for the neighborhoods (apart from the City Council itself) is the Neighborhood Services Team.  The Team's "About Us" page clearly indicates that they are the official "single point of contact" for people in the neighborhoods who need to deal with the city government.
 * (6) As for your various other references to the library, fire station, and phone directory, the mention of Anaheim Hills in all of those contexts appears to be an informal location designation to distinguish those facilities from the rest of Anaheim, since the city is so large on the east-west axis. Informal usages do not override the municipal code.
 * The fact remains that the Anaheim Municipal Code is the primary body of law for the City of Anaheim, and it makes no mention of Anaheim Hills as a specific district with defined boundaries and zoning policies. As I have demonstrated with the links above, California cities do have the power to amend their muni codes to create a specific plan for a particular area and can give that area a name. But Anaheim has never done so. Essentially, Anaheim Hills is a term used for marketing purposes to link specific services, agencies, and companies to an approximate region of Anaheim, but it carries no weight as a legal designation.  Even in the few sections where it is mentioned in the Code, it is merely as part of the name of an annexation or a subdivision; it never stands alone.
 * I suggest that if you care about the issue so deeply, you should write to the City Council and ask them to designate a specific plan or a neighborhood council for Anaheim Hills, but judging from how severe the city's problems are, they have better things to do and they will probably write you off as a crackpot.
 * Again, the evidence is overwhelming that the Anaheim Municipal Code simply does not designate Anaheim Hills as a distinct neighborhood with defined boundaries, and it does not empower either of the two private nonprofits in that area to speak on behalf of that community. If you cannot accept that, then I cannot help you, and it looks like you will have to be banned from editing this article and possibly Wikipedia completely for acting in bad faith.
 * My personal suspicion is that you are an Anaheim Hills resident attempting to promote Anaheim Hills as a separate community in order to support a secession movement. While that goal may be laudable (since Anaheim as a whole is completely screwed up), Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  See WP:NOT.  Wikipedia is purely descriptive, not prescriptive.  If you cannot accept that, then you will not be allowed to contribute to this project.  --Coolcaesar 00:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, those, for the most part are from the Anaheim Website. Hints THE LOGO IN THE CORNER OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS. Secondly, if a city declares, and references Anaheim Hills everytime that they have a document, issue, or plan I know that it provides sufficient evidence that the name is a real and referencable place. Next, The Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition is an authoritative figure in the Government. They conduct meetings, and through the Anaheim Hills Representative on the City Council Member Board, they conclude, and improve the community. They are the reason Anaheim Hills built a police station, and looks the way it does, because they have AUTHORITY. God knows if the Bingo Club of Anaheim Hills walked in to city hall, they wouldnt get anywhere with their goals, because only the people with Powers achieve in this world, and that is what the Citizens Coalition is. Next, the City of Anaheim formed the governmental organization in 1986, and opened it to the public in 1987 in order to balance the contrasting resources and needs of the city (Anaheim being poverty stricken and crime filled, whereas Anaheim Hills had none of those issues). Next, I can tell you the Anaheim Hills borders with confidence. It is a very defined border, and has been since the creation of the community. In 1971 when Texaco Industries bought Nohl Farm, that area was designated as Anaheim Hills. The Nohl Farm included all the areas south of the 91 freeway, to what is now the Orange City Border. This area was a master planned community, and was built as such. Because of this, Anaheim Hills has defined its borders since the date that it was formed by the location of the Nohl Farm prior to 1971. The other areas in the 92807 zip code were not part of Anaheim Hills because they were not part of the farm, and therefore were not included in the masterplanned community. (Usually when you create a master planned community, you dont start including other areas surrounding the developments unless they are part of the plan). In this case, those residents were not. And if I might add, the Municipal Code gave no authority to Anaheim Hills for a reason. In 1992 and prior, we were plastered all over their charters and codes with many rights you describe within communities. But, in 1993, we put the city at unease on that budget year. They realized that Anaheim Hills had reached a point where it could succeed from the city because the community brought in $89 million annualy in sales tax, property tax, and other profits, but only spent $87 million for mainenence, community services, etc. So all those powers were taken away from us, and our name was not referenced in their municipal code, but is still referenced in documents because documents have no authority if Anaheim Hills is just simply mentioned. But, the most common and most used name is Anaheim Hills, California. We do virtually everything independently-which is probably why we are not mentioned more in the municipal code. Like I said, there are some situations where it is better to just let the bad blood that we have with eachother simmer down, and keep our name at Anaheim Hills, California, or just simply Anaheim Hills. As for the demographics. I dont know how much more proof I can give you for these statistics. The Anaheim demographics do not represent Anaheim Hills at all, and we are virtually stuck with no basis of our community because nobody has taken 9 hours to sit down and do a neighborhood by neighborhood calculation of the Anaheim Hills demographics. That is probably why Census provided the neighborhood by neighborhood statistics in the first place. And, who is to say the Arboration Committee would listen to you. I dont know where on the website it states that 'if user:Coolcaesar doesnt agree with your point of view, you are blocked from using and editing Wikipedia'. If it does state that, I would like to know where. Maybe it is with the rest of the mysteriously hidden rules you claim exist about naming a community. I am not here to quarell with you, but just let some things be. Anaheim Hills does not like Anaheim in its name, and we have to live here everyday. If an encyclopedia doesnt include a residents view, then what is the point. Because if the title states Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, that in itself is misleading in a way to people who read this article. For example, the George Bush page. It states George W. Bush, because that is what we refer to him as. We dont refer to him as George Walker Bush. You see. Now you would probably argue that, well his technical name on his official governmental document states George Walker Bush. Yet, the page is called George W. Bush. Because we use his familiar name, not the technical name. We dont use Magnoliophyta when referring to a flowering plant, because the common name is flowering plant, although the government states it in an official document as Magnoliophyta. Now, the word flowering plant is probably never referred to in the official governmental plan directory, but just because it isnt listed there doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. You get my point? --69.232.62.33 07:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, that is pretty funny Coolcaesar, how could you miss those city seals in the corner. If these examples are not identified by the city, then I am afraid you are the only one in the world that can designate a governmental document, because even city written documents do not satisfy you. I dont know about you. It seems like you might have OCD Coolcaesar. And, it is always good to think before you speak. You keep contradicting yourself, and going off topic that I dont know what this arguement between you two is about anymore. Now can you guys just apologize, and act like men instead of little girls. I mean, this issue is so minor, and probably doesnt even mean that much to you Coolcaesar, yet you are spending so much time on it. Just let it go...for the sake of sanity. Plus, the infobox is nice. I dont see a problem with it. He has shown you the step by step additions on how he calculated the information, which is proof in itself. You must not trust anyone in this world, because no government document, no hard evidence mathematical equations seem to satisfy you. Just change the name back to the way it sat for almost 2 years and move on. --OC31113 07:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, that is pretty funny Coolcaesar, how could you miss those city seals in the corner. If these examples are not identified by the city, then I am afraid you are the only one in the world that can designate a governmental document, because even city written documents do not satisfy you. I dont know about you. It seems like you might have OCD Coolcaesar. And, it is always good to think before you speak. You keep contradicting yourself, and going off topic that I dont know what this arguement between you two is about anymore. Now can you guys just apologize, and act like men instead of little girls. I mean, this issue is so minor, and probably doesnt even mean that much to you Coolcaesar, yet you are spending so much time on it. Just let it go...for the sake of sanity. Plus, the infobox is nice. I dont see a problem with it. He has shown you the step by step additions on how he calculated the information, which is proof in itself. You must not trust anyone in this world, because no government document, no hard evidence mathematical equations seem to satisfy you. Just change the name back to the way it sat for almost 2 years and move on. --OC31113 07:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Eric, lawyers have a term for people like you: you just hanged yourself with your own words. You have now conceded three things which severely damage your own position and your personal credibility and which will definitely turn the Arbitration Committee against you: (1) Even if Anaheim did have a separate designation for Anaheim Hills in the past, you concede that it purged Anaheim Hills from the muni code in 1993. That was THIRTEEN years ago. This is 2006. (2) You and OC31113 and the anonymous IP are one and the same. You admitted so much above. That is sockpuppeting in violation of Wikipedia policy. That alone can get you banned. (3) Your refusal to accede to the consensus of the community, which contradicts your repeated requests to others to back down on a "minor issue," together implies that you are trying to wear down opponents through a war of attrition rather than presenting a reasonable argument, and you already conceded that you have none! Wikiwarring is evidence of acting in bad faith in violation of Wikipedia policy and will get you banned.

Plus, the substance of your argument is self-contradictory. If the Citizens Coalition truly had real power, they could have (1) gained official recognition as a neighborhood council and rendered the Neighborhood Services Team redundant; and (2) they could have maintained Anaheim Hills' recognition in the city code. THAT is real power. As I already pointed out, Los Altos and Pasadena recognized specific neighborhoods because groups of citizens got together and made a convincing argument to the City Council. And there is nothing on the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition's Web site that indicates that they were formed by the City.

Furthermore, the issue is not whether certain unelected government employees recognize, through Web pages and letters and so on, that there is a place informally known as Anaheim Hills. Government employees can say and write all kinds of crazy things, but they cannot bind their employer legally when they exceed the scope of the authority delegated to them. That is, the Anaheim employees who created the City Web site (with its logos and art and so on) were not hired for the express purpose of recognizing neighborhoods, while the employees in the Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment were hired for that purpose. California law is already very clear that government officials lack the power to bind the government when they act beyond the scope of their legal authority: See People v. Hy-Lond Enterprises, 93 Cal. App. 3d 734 (1979) (district attorney could not bind state and exceeded scope of authority in approving settlement). Therefore, for this reason and the others stated above, the Web site is irrelevant.

The real issue is whether the City Council of Anaheim, the duly elected representative body of the city, officially recognizes that there is a place called Anaheim Hills with defined boundaries and a unique character. The answer is no. This is the actual situation at the moment. Just because you think you know the defined boundaries is irrelevant. You cannot cite any official law defining those boundaries. See Verifiability. The only official boundaries are those of the four districts: West, East, Central, and South.

A view that Anaheim Hills deserves to be a separate city or should be discussed like one is a personal opinion and "original research." If you want to put that on Wikipedia without appropriate citations and in the wrong writing style, you will be in violation of Neutral point of view and No original research. These are both core Wikipedia policies and the Wikimedia Foundation has made it clear many times that NPOV is non-negotiable. If you persist in ignoring NPOV and NOR, you will be banned like many other users who failed to respect those policies.

Everyone who works on Wikipedia has personal positions which they wish they could insert into articles. I have many such viewpoints. But in order to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia, we allow only neutral, factual restatements of viewpoints which have been already published somewhere else. That's intellectual integrity.

Also, you are clearly unable to distinguish between the two separate issues here: (1) whether the area informally known as Anaheim Hills should be treated as a city-like entity in Wikipedia (with a city-style name and infobox) even though the City of Anaheim refuses to grant it any official recognition; and (2) whether your own actions in support of your position comply with Wikipedia policy.

As I just pointed out, the answer to both questions is NO. As to the first question, Anaheim Hills should be treated like any other neighborhood, such as Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, and as to the second, it is your immature behavior, not the substance of your views, which will get you banned by ArbCom.

You need to distinguish between issues of substance ("I want the article to look like this") and issues of procedure ("how do I insert the desired content in a way that is supported by the consensus of the Wikipedia community"). This is a basic distinction taught in sixth grade civics classes throughout California.

Finally, if you're wondering why I'm spending my spare time on this, it's because I enjoy protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia against those who would seek to vandalize it. --Coolcaesar 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you didnt read my reasons. So I will put them here again
 * First of all, those, for the most part are from the Anaheim Website. Hints THE LOGO IN THE CORNER OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS. Secondly, if a city declares, and references Anaheim Hills everytime that they have a document, issue, or plan I know that it provides sufficient evidence that the name is a real and referencable place. Next, The Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition is an authoritative figure in the Government. They conduct meetings, and through the Anaheim Hills Representative on the City Council Member Board, they conclude, and improve the community. They are the reason Anaheim Hills built a police station, and looks the way it does, because they have AUTHORITY. God knows if the Bingo Club of Anaheim Hills walked in to city hall, they wouldnt get anywhere with their goals, because only the people with Powers achieve in this world, and that is what the Citizens Coalition is. Next, the City of Anaheim formed the governmental organization in 1986, and opened it to the public in 1987 in order to balance the contrasting resources and needs of the city (Anaheim being poverty stricken and crime filled, whereas Anaheim Hills had none of those issues). Next, I can tell you the Anaheim Hills borders with confidence. It is a very defined border, and has been since the creation of the community. In 1971 when Texaco Industries bought Nohl Farm, that area was designated as Anaheim Hills. The Nohl Farm included all the areas south of the 91 freeway, to what is now the Orange City Border. This area was a master planned community, and was built as such. Because of this, Anaheim Hills has defined its borders since the date that it was formed by the location of the Nohl Farm prior to 1971. The other areas in the 92807 zip code were not part of Anaheim Hills because they were not part of the farm, and therefore were not included in the masterplanned community. (Usually when you create a master planned community, you dont start including other areas surrounding the developments unless they are part of the plan). In this case, those residents were not. And if I might add, the Municipal Code gave no authority to Anaheim Hills for a reason. In 1992 and prior, we were plastered all over their charters and codes with many rights you describe within communities. But, in 1993, we put the city at unease on that budget year. They realized that Anaheim Hills had reached a point where it could succeed from the city because the community brought in $89 million annualy in sales tax, property tax, and other profits, but only spent $87 million for mainenence, community services, etc. So all those powers were taken away from us, and our name was not referenced in their municipal code, but is still referenced in documents because documents have no authority if Anaheim Hills is just simply mentioned. But, the most common and most used name is Anaheim Hills, California. We do virtually everything independently-which is probably why we are not mentioned more in the municipal code. Like I said, there are some situations where it is better to just let the bad blood that we have with eachother simmer down, and keep our name at Anaheim Hills, California, or just simply Anaheim Hills. As for the demographics. I dont know how much more proof I can give you for these statistics. The Anaheim demographics do not represent Anaheim Hills at all, and we are virtually stuck with no basis of our community because nobody has taken 9 hours to sit down and do a neighborhood by neighborhood calculation of the Anaheim Hills demographics. That is probably why Census provided the neighborhood by neighborhood statistics in the first place. And, who is to say the Arboration Committee would listen to you. I dont know where on the website it states that 'if user:Coolcaesar doesnt agree with your point of view, you are blocked from using and editing Wikipedia'. If it does state that, I would like to know where. Maybe it is with the rest of the mysteriously hidden rules you claim exist about naming a community. I am not here to quarell with you, but just let some things be. Anaheim Hills does not like Anaheim in its name, and we have to live here everyday. If an encyclopedia doesnt include a residents view, then what is the point. Because if the title states Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, that in itself is misleading in a way to people who read this article. For example, the George Bush page. It states George W. Bush, because that is what we refer to him as. We dont refer to him as George Walker Bush. You see. Now you would probably argue that, well his technical name on his official governmental document states George Walker Bush. Yet, the page is called George W. Bush. Because we use his familiar name, not the technical name. We dont use Magnoliophyta when referring to a flowering plant, because the common name is flowering plant, although the government states it in an official document as Magnoliophyta. Now, the word flowering plant is probably never referred to in the official governmental plan directory, but just because it isnt listed there doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. You get my point?--69.232.62.33 19:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Read my response above again. I have rebutted (indeed, refuted) all of your arguments already, one by one.  It looks like you are simply incapable of understanding the legal concept of agency, which is the controlling issue here; that is, whether a principal-agent relationship exists between the City of Anaheim and the two independent nonprofits.  Agency is the legal glue that holds together all legal entities in America that are larger than one person; agency keeps our civilization running.  Go to a law library and look it up.  And it's not very hard (as opposed to, say, the Internal Revenue Code); I've taught it to children as young as nine on several occasions.
 * If you are unable to understand that your points have been thoroughly rebutted, then I truly feel sorry for you. At this point I think we are talking past each other and the only solution is arbitration.--Coolcaesar 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, thats nice, you are going to send yourself to arbitration. And you have not rebutted my statements, you simply degraded them with no reason for it other than you were mad and angry. That is exactly what you told me not to do, but is what you are doing. I have proved my point, and you have yet to disprove it. My main objective is that Anaheim Hills is the common name, like flowering plant and George W. Bush, and nearly every page in Wikipedia. Go terrorize those so called vandals. I dont care what you say, because you just argue, but dont actually defeat my point, you just say why you personally dont like it. Maybe a little research will do you good, and maybe after you do that, you will have some facts to back up your point, but as of yet, all I hear is talk from you. --69.232.62.33 21:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * SHOW ME. Where is the language in the letter or the muni code or anywhere else that expressly says, "We, the City of Anaheim, delegate power to the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition to represent the interests of Anaheim Hills?"
 * JUST SHOW ME. Give me ONE GOOD QUOTE.  How hard is that?  I've already researched the Anaheim Municipal Code.  I'm the one who posted links to the codes of Pasadena and Los Altos.  And I'm already familiar with the California Government Code and the California Constitution, since I'm an attorney.  How about you?  All you posted was a collection of miscellaneous garbage.
 * Speaking hypothetically, let's say you were assaulted and severely beaten by the leaders of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition at a meeting and you named the City of Anaheim as a defendant. Would you succeed? No.  Every judge in this state would smirk with pleasure as they dismissed your ridiculous case.  Because the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition is not a part of the City of Anaheim!  Your collection of miscellaneous garbage (which you call "proof") would not constitute sufficient evidence for respondeat superior liability, let alone anything else.
 * As I've pointed out, you can't find anything because there is NONE. You're just angry, bitter, and sore because I pointed out that you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to this issue.  Now you have nothing left, so all you can do is call me names.  That's psychological projection. That's what eight year olds do.  --Coolcaesar 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected, again
Well, I have had to fully protect this article again, obviously I am not endorsing this version (or any version for that matter), I just happened to come across the continued edit war and locked it down. I don't really think there is much more to say beyond the typical edit warring is bad, using sock puppets are bad, let's just be friends, etc. I sincerely hope that both sides can come to an agreement, but at this rate, things are only deteriorating. Obviously the previously discussion hasn't really solved the issue, so I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that a mediator of some sort is necessary. Is it time to bring in the ArbCom? I don't know, that is up to everyone here to decide, but let's just be mature. No more personal attacks on each other on talk pages. Everyone has been around here long enough and knows Wikipedia policies, so ignorance isn't an excuse. In a few days and if an agreement is reached, feel free to ask an admin or post on WP:RPP to unlock the page, but I am afraid I am not overly optimistic that this will happen in the very near future. Full protection for a few days until this issue can be investigated further won't hurt anything. I haven't been following the situation all that closely, but I think a check user is really necessary to determine how widespread the sockpuppetry is and then we can move forward from there. I hate to protect and then ditch, but I probably won't be around WP all that much over the coming weeks, but there are plenty of other capable admins who can help if necessary. Thanks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a request for arbitration against Ericsaindon2. See Requests for arbitration. I invite everyone who cares about this article and Wikipedia to please file a statement. --Coolcaesar 00:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A very American problem
I'm not going to read all of this, but I would just say that this is a very American problem. Apart from the 32 London boroughs and the City of London hardly any of the hundreds of districts in Category:Districts of London have any official existence. In England and much of the rest of the world that simply isn't seen as a problem or a reason not to have an article. As for disambiguating comma formats, we simply don't bother with them unless there is something to disambiguate, and it's really rather bizarre to me that in another country this is a formatting issue that can cause rows. Honbicot 20:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is - so what? Over there in England you've had hundreds of years to work out what communities should be called and how they should be governed, whilst the area known as Anaheim Hills did not exist just 35 years ago. The British do seem to have a much looser concept of naming things geographically - a typical address can contain a village name, town name, city name, and/or county name and who can tell what is what? Even if we post a letter to you we are faced with a myriad of choices for the country name - "England", "Great Britain", "United Kingdom", etc. Anyway, the debate is not whether or not there should be an article about Anaheim Hills - only about whether it should be titled suggestive of an incorporated municipality (which it is not) or titled as a subentity of such (which it is). Particularly when there is an/are editor(s) who wish to - contrary to fact - present Anaheim Hills as an independent city, making this distinction is important. There has been much discussion about this elsewhere, and although the commas are not elegant, they are the de facto convention for articles on the components/subentities of American cities. Anaheimat 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * People, relax. This issue has gone on long enough on the Anaheim Hills page, as exemplified by the nearly 50 pages of printed Talk pages. Let the arbitration committe deal with it. If you support, or dont support the naming convention, go to the above link referring to the arbitration case, because I was sent to arbitration for defending the Anaheim Hills name. I could really use support there, so please leave a comment there stating your point of view. :) --Ericsaindon2 22:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Installing Peace
In an effort to bring peace back to the Anaheim Hills page so users can go on to do other edits, I suggest that a peaceful agreement be made.
 * I am proposing that


 * The users currently involved in this page (you all know who you are) will not engage in edit wars and getting 3rr's over and over again-including myself
 * All of the users who were involved on this page express their apologies and wrong doings on this talk page, and to the people they may have offended in trying to prove a point-including myself
 * The name can remain at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California until either a mediator is brought in to solve the naming issue, or we show some fresh faces on this page in another strawpoll that has a much larger number of voters, and maybe people that are not involved in the dispute, but do have a viewpoint on the issue of the name. I would like to see about 20-30 votes so we can get a broader scope of views, maybe by posting it on a message board on Wikipedia, or circulating it to other pages similar to Anaheim Hills, like La Jolla that have similar issues

Please feel free to comment below on this proposed compromise, and add anything you would like within comments below. Please do not add anything to my list above, because I dont want it to sound like I stated it if it is an issue I oppose. Let us try to, in a civil manner, come together to solve this issue once and foreall. I think a large scale straw poll is needed in this case, because all 10 of us on this page all know everyone elses opinions, but those are the only opinions we have, and a decision will not come out of this if we dont get some new opinions. We need a large community partake so that we can move on. :)--Ericsaindon2 07:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * TWO straw polls on EACH of the naming and infobox issues - the reasons for the edit wars - have already been conducted, with unmistakably clear outcomes. Nothing of substance has changed about the arguments made for and against each issue since. Thus, additional straw polls are not needed (and neither are "new opinions"), and indeed these will only prolong the dispute. Peace will be "installed" (?) or, rather, achieved, when Ericsaindon2 and his numerous sock puppets simply decide to abide by the results of both of the previous polls. The only apology that is warranted is from Ericsaindon2, who has acted in bad faith by disregarding the results of these previous polls - some of which were set up by him in the first place! We have every reason to believe that, regardless of the outcome of any additional straw polls, Ericsaindon2 will continue to wage edit wars if the votes do not turn out to his satisfaction and he gets his way. Let us not start this cycle yet again by appeasing him and legitimizing further straw polls. We anxiously await Ericsaindon2's recognition and acceptance of the previous polls - if he is truly interested in "installing peace", he will do this. Denvoran 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Eric, thanks for seeking peace. No editor should engage in 3RR violations or edit warring. If you want folks to review their wrong-doing and apologize then you might get the ball rolling. If you think that 20 people will come vote on the name of this article then you don't know Wikipedia very well. Requests for comment on the topic have already been posted, as have notices of past strawpolls. As you say the views of most of the editors on this page are well known. WP:CON is an important policy, it'd be good if we cold follow it too. -Will Beback 17:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ericsaindon2, I am pleased that you seek an end to this page's turmoil. However, I disagree that this is a situation where many people are at fault. I have only seen you break 3RR on this page. I have also reviewed my comments from the past few months regarding this issue and I see nothing for which I can apologize. The article's name will remain at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California not because of a compromise but because that is clearly the consensus. I actually personally believe that a single name "Anaheim Hills" would be best of all but I defer to the practical standard. A mediator is not necessary because the majority of us are respectful editors, mindful of the Wikipedia processes, and those of the minority opinion concede matters to the majority peacefully. If you truly are interested in a resolution, then my best advice is to stop moving the page and stop forcing the infobox, but please by all means we encourage you to continue making constructive edits to Anaheim Hills as you have already. You will be amazed at how quickly you re-earn the respect of your previously adversarial wiki-editors just by dropping this whole matter cold turkey, editing constructively and conducting yourself professionally. Soltras 21:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok....then nevermind in this effort. --Ericsaindon2 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise from June 3
There really has not been alot of agreement or discussion at all on this page. I am attempting to revisit a compromise addressed by Will Beback from over a month ago. The description about the compromise at the time is listed below. --Ericsaindon2 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to promote peace and reconciliation, I propose that we move the article back to "Anaheim Hills, California". Though the practice of naming articles according to the scheme of "neighborhood, city, state" is very common and practical, it is not a policy. On occasion, some editors have objected strenuously to having their neighborhood article named in that way. While consistency is important in an encyclopedia, the exigencies of collaborative editing are such that sometimes it's virtualy necessary for common practice to give way to individual preference.

This case is slightly different than some because many recent edits sought to portray the district incorrectly as an independent place. Those edits sensitized other editors to claims of independence. However I think we've moved past that stage and there is no longer any question that Anaheim Hills is a part of Anaheim. The article now properly reflects that fact in the text.

If moving the article back to just "Anaheim Hills" will bring peace to the article, and if editors can agree to remove contentious boxes, and unverifiable data, then I think it is worth making an exception to normal practice. This is all too minor to fight about. -Will Beback 09:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I Agree --Ericsaindon2 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Last week Ericsaindon2 proposes further straw polls to solve the ongoing disputes regarding this article. Not getting his way with that, he summarily abandons that effort and now reaches for this "compromise" (which Will Beback only proposed because Ericsaindon2 wouldn't abide by the original straw polls). Ericsaindon2 continues to demonstrate bad faith by acting in complete disregard of the opinions expressed by other editors. We already stated our preferences - twice - and in rehashing this issue we would legitimize Ericsaindon2's disruptive behavior. Ericsaindon2 clearly understands the {subentity, city, state} convention - he has applied it himself numerous times to other articles - but as yet he has never explained why he feels the Anaheim Hills community should be titled differently. Instead, he has only edit-warred and argued that "there is no policy" when he himself has applied and followed that policy when it suited him. Again, if Ericsaindon2 is truly interested in "peace", he will simply accept the title name "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California" and cease his jurisdictional jihad. Gellersen 15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He is currently blocked for a month because of behavior on the ArbCom page. I suggest this page gets unprotected so we can make edits to finally conform with consensus. Soltras 07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have also removed the move protection.  If the sock puppeting returns, naturally Eric will be blocked for avoiding his block, but if it gets bad enough again the page might need protecting once more.  If anyone notices that Eric is using sockpuppets again, please report it immedietely on one of the admin forums to prevent the situation from escalating once more.  --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bringing the article into compliance with NPOV and NOR
Now that Ericsaindon2 has been blocked for now, I wish to raise several aspects of the article which need to be dealt with in order to bring it into compliance with the NPOV and NOR policies:


 * Clumsy grammar and poor style throughout the article ("bring an economy to Anaheim", "The economy of Anaheim Hills is small in comparison to that of the rest of the city of Anaheim, with such attractions as Disneyland and two professional sports teams drawing substantial income", "the entire hillside, nearly 60 acres in size completely collapsed costing a total estimated damage")
 * The only official districts in Anaheim are West, East, Central, and South. There is no official Anaheim Hills district or neighborhood.  The official liaison with the districts is the Neighborhood Services Team of the City of Anaheim.
 * The Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition and the Canyon Hills Community Association are not government advisory boards as conclusively established above. They are private nonprofit associations.
 * Eastwood Insurance is notable because it advertises heavily throughout California, but the other companies in the Economy section are not: Lasco Bathware, Fremont, and DR Horton Southern California. These need to be removed.
 * The entire boundaries section is original research. The article should simply note that Anaheim Hills is a generic descriptor for the eastern hilly side of Anaheim and leave it at that.
 * Although there appears to have been a Anaheim Hills Planned Community Association, it is not clear whether this association still exists as it does not have a Web site. Furthermore, it is probably not a public entity since it is not in the Anaheim muni code; rather, what probably happened is that the developer established the PCA as a private association and then forced all downstream buyers in the new Anaheim Hills subdivisions to support the association through covenants in the deeds.

Let me know what you think. If anyone has the time or energy, feel free to remedy these issues with the article (I'm busy with the arbitration against Ericsaindon2). --Coolcaesar 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have contacted LAFCO for the annexation papers of Anaheim Hills California for the official boundaries. They stated that it will be in my email within two weeks, so please do not modify any content relating to borders or demographics for a few weeks, at least until I get the annexation papers that discusses the official borders from the 1973 annexation. I will work on the page upon recieving them, and correcting and verifying sources-for I believe everything in this page is correct, it is just not all properly source. So give me a little time. Thank You. --69.227.173.154 05:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
Can we agree on the infobox on the page as a compromise? This one has no city references and does not look like a cities, but rather the one on several community pages. If you revert, it will be reverted back unless you give explanantion. --69.232.50.77 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop editing while your account is blocked. -Will Beback 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of my inhibitions about the infobox as I expressed |here in May endure. Count the link as my explanation for reverting. Soltras 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected
As I see User:Ericsaindon2 is now revert-warring on this page using multiple IP addresses in a rather wide range to evade his block, I've gone ahead and semiprotected the article for now. Let me know if there are any objections to this. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The recent edits and vandalism
I am going to revert my edits on the page. Please do not just revert them back, but rather discuss it here. I have made the edits with all of Wikipedia's rules in mind, and have verified them all. They are legitamate, and should remain on the page. I will seek an admin to get involved if I see that people are reverting the edits just because of the user that initially made the edits. These high quality edits deserve a spot on this page. They do not break any Wikipedia rules, and have had no community discussion for why they should not be there, so it is just vandalism at this point by the users who feel attacking other users that they dont like is the way Wikipedia works. If the community decides they dont want the edits here (7+ members) than I will accept that, but it is way too soon to start reverting just because you reel like it. Dont be a vandal! --69.227.160.83 07:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We are not fooled, Ericsaindon2. Your distinctive style of bad grammar and spelling ("legitamate"/"legitimate" and "than"/"then") and your persistence in the exact same edits are sufficient to identify you.  You are supposed to refrain from editing the page until the arbitration against you is complete.  Your bad faith attempts to insert edits for which the consensus is strongly against you will be construed as evidence against you in your arbitration.  --Coolcaesar 15:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible solution?
Let's just name the page "The Los Angeles Hills of Anaheim." (I'm sorry, that was unproductive of me.)-Randomglitter 06:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny, but no. Just anything but Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. Even The Los Angeles Hills of Anaheim would be better than the way it is. It is funny how we are like mocking the city of Anaheim. One party wants one name, the other doesnt like the name, and there is no rule book to turn to because the rule is too vague. Only in Anaheim...

Introduction to Page Peace
I know this page is at a turmolious point, and I think it is time to introduce a compromise that would satisfy the masses involved. Perhaps these solutions could be introduced.


 * A rule be added to the Wikipedia rules stating that (Community, City, State) be only used on communities that do not have a community council that is valid to represent them (whether recognized by the city itself or not). This would answer the community aspect of the problem.


 * No community infoboxes or modified forms thereof are to be added to the page unless a Wikiproject is introduced specifically for communities modified the purpose.


 * The name be changed to Anaheim Hills or Anaheim Hills, California


 * Upon the terminus of user:Ericsaindon2 and his block, he will have two weeks to provide sources for all unverified information, or else it may be disregarded from the article.

These simple measures would bring peace back to the article that has seen turmoil for nearly 6 months. OC31113 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)