User talk:ABIJXY

Changes to history of San Francisco
Greetings and Salutations! I hope you don't mind too much, but I found a historical inaccuracy in your latest edit to the history section of the article on San Francisco. What I've done is reverted your last edit, then incorporated your textual changes regarding the Yelamu tribal group in the very next edit.

Everything I've looked at reinforces the current article statement, attributing the founding of Misiòn San Francisco de Asìs to Fr. Palou. Edit Centric (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * S'okay, I still loved the restructuring of the Yelamu sentence, that's why I did the c/p from your previous edit and put it back. No need to "throw the baby out with the bathwater"! :-D Edit Centric (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix
Unless you have a WP:RS the change you made seems wrong. She should be ineligible for all raises until Jan 2011 and a law should be passed documenting such. She may not need an immediate rollback, but she will have to surrender next years cost of living adjustment. There must be a source somewhere documenting that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please cooperate with fellow editors
Hi, ABIJXY! I notice you removed a link from Noe Valley, San Francisco, California without comment except for a jargon reference in the edit summary which would be completely incomprehensible to any newbie editor. I would appreciate it if in the future you would be clearer in your edits and interactions with other editors, particularly when they've left an explicit note on the talk page asking any hit-and-run deleters to provide feedback should they remove the link again.

Keep in mind also that all Wikipedia's "rules" are rules of thumb; links need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and simply repeating a reference to the rule isn't a very convincing argument to a longtime Wikipedian. Please make sure that you give specific details for why you remove information. Thanks! --brion (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be better if you responded to my points. As a 7-year veteran of Wikipedia, I'm familiar with how to find your links already. --brion (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for cutting-and-pasting something I already ready on the link you've shown several times. Would you be interested in responding to my actual statements instead? --brion (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

=
===============================================================================================

Please Work With The Wiki Community
If the California Department Of Finance is not a neutral organization, then why did you leave the 2007 estimate there? "The California Department Of Finance estimates its population at 939,899 as of 2007." Disputed_Statement It seems you have some bias against San Jose or the CA DOF.

That information is/was incorrect and all I did was correct it. The cited 2007 estimate, is not from the CA DOF but rather the U.S. Census bureau. Furthermore you did not include/site a reference link corroborating the statement. I can see from previous comments/messages here, that you have a history of just deleting or reverting other peoples work without engaging them, (or other WP members/editors) or actually performing the research to document your changes. I have left your changes as you made them after deleting/reverting mine. This is the link to my reference (documentation) of the CA DOF current population estimates for California released on April, 30th 2009.

I am not biased to anything I cannot legitimately document. I abide by the concepts of neutrality and accuracy. Although I am new to Wiki as an editor, I have thoroughly read the Wiki pages which state the principles of creating or editing articles/pages. (The following is my belief and opinion. It is not fact necessarily).

Secondly, The California Department Of Finance is a neutral organization. They are responsible for distributing tax dollars to all the cities and counties in California based on the estimated population of those cities. Therefore arguably the single most important thing they do, (and research effort they undertake) is to conduct and release accurate estimates. They are biased to no city or county. They study the issue using known facts and detailed statistical information, then perform and release accurate estimates every year for every city, and county in California. The U.S. Census Bureau does not. The state DOF may be biased (to the state of California) in trying to obtain a larger share of tax dollar return/revenue from the federal government, but they are not biased to individual cities within the state.

Each state's Finance Department (or whatever title they use) is much better suited to estimate the population within their state than the federal government is. This is a logical conclusion based on scope and scale. The Census Bureau actually relies on the individual states for data they use to release their own annual estimates. It is too costly (and too intensive and time consuming) for the Census Bureau to have a Census every year. That is one reason there is a Census taken only every decade. The Census is actually flawed for many reasons such as: Respondents not completing Census surveys; Census takers making mistakes, not going to every household, failing to turn in Census data for a particular area or neighborhood etc. It is my understanding that to rectify these mistakes the Census Bureau actually uses estimated data when releasing the official Census demographic data.

I would appreciate it if you would engage members on discussion or talk pages before making unilateral changes to an article page or ask an editor for their advice on the subject. -Thank you.

Jcheckler (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

List of parks in San Francisco/Draft
It seems you are doing this to improve the List of parks in San Francisco? That's fine (and it looks good), but until it's finished, it should be in your userspace, so it isn't reached from main Wikipedia articles and isn't tagged inappropriately (I found it on uncategorized pages, and I see it is linked on a large number of bot-generated lists). I've gone ahead and moved it to User:ABIJXY/List of parks in San Francisco/Draft. Please continue working with it there and then move it back into the mainspace when it is ready. Thanks. Rigadoun (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Olympic Club
There's an unincorporated area of San Mateo County in between San Francisco and Daly City where the Olympic Club lies. I'm pretty sure that while the Olympic Club extends into San Mateo County, it does not extend into Daly City. In fact, if you drive on Skyline Blvd. going south, you don't reach Daly City until after you've passed the Olympic Club.69.181.41.173 (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If you google "map of Daly City," it confirms what I've just said. None of the Olympic Club is within its city limits.69.181.41.173 (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:16TeamBracket-Finals3reseed
Template:16TeamBracket-Finals3reseed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)