I'll be living in Alameda before the year is over. Your Alameda measure a page isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a campaign flyer, and doesn't belong here. Your edits to the Alameda, California article don't add any substantive content to the article. If you want to write an encyclopedic - descriptive, neutral, and free of personal attacks - article about Measure A, feel free. But the "article" you wrote is no such thing. Argyriou 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I actually live in Alameda is not relevant to whether I have any right to edit the article. If there was a real article on Alameda Measure A, I'd have left that link in the article, though I'd still have deleted the other links to your campaign propaganda websites from the Alameda article. The Measure A article is so piss-poor that it doesn't even state what exactly Measure A does. There's a biased history of the movement behind Measure A, and some content-free buzzwords about what it is supposed to accomplish, but nothing which states what exactly it restricts or allows, or how it does so. Instead, there's an attack on Helen Sause, and propaganda about "evil developers" threatening Measure A.

It's clear that you are far too emotionally wrapped up in this issue to write anything remotely objective about it, and you're getting awfully close to making personal attacks against me - if you cross that line, I will ask the Wikipedia administrators to take action against you. Argyriou 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Alameda Measure A article is a better start than the older Alameda measure a article, beginning with the title. However, it still needs much improvement. An article about Measure A should be an overview of the whole measure, beginning with its enactment, with current controversies at the end of the article. The article should:

• Begin with an introduction which briefly summarizes the law.
• Explains the historical context in which the law was passed.
• Discusses changes made or attempted before the current controversy, if any.
• Discuss the controversy by explaining:
  • What's new that makes people want to change Measure A (Alameda Point development)
  • Summarizes, fairly, the arguments made on each side of the issue.

Some of those changes can be made by shuffling existing text around, but your descriptions of the advocates for relaxing measure A restrictions is still incredibly unfair and biased, and needs serious re-work. Argyriou 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me who made the statement about "a vocal minority" - that's been there for while. As for being a work in progress, it would be much less work if you'd started with a descriptive article rather than a campaign flyer. Argyriou 00:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David,

I assume that your last comment on my talk page (03:54, 19 August 2006) refers to the material you removed in your most recent changes to the Measure A article (04:06, 19 August 2006). I was not the one who introduced that text; it was inserted in a revision made by User:Argyriou (06:56, 18 August 2006).

Regardless of who's making the revisions, though, I agree that "we all have to play by the same rules." I recognize that the Wikipedia is not a forum for a debate or campaigning. I have publicly acknowledged the dramatic improvements in the Alameda Measure A article since its first incarnation. If you look carefully at the changes I have made, you will find that they have been restricted to matters of fact (like the definitions of affordable housing and inclusionary zoning) and to the re-statement of views attributed to HOMES and "Measure A opponents." I have not made any changes to the claims of Measure A supporters.

Your latest revision removed all justification for HOMES' position from the "opponents" section, yet you left similar language in the "proponents" section intact. In order to restore balance to the article, I propose the following two options, either of which would be acceptable to me:

1. Remove all arguments and claims from the "proponents" and "opponents" sections. Only verifiable facts about the groups and individuals would be allowed, with no repetition of arguments or claims about the merits of retaining or modifying Measure A.
2. Retain arguments and claims in the "proponents" and "opponents" sections, as long as they are clearly indicated as such (with phrases like "opponents argue" or "proponents claim"). The language you deleted would be restored, thus presenting a justification of HOMES' position. This would balance out the current language that justifies Measure A proponents' position with talk of saving Alameda from becoming "Manhattan by the bay."

To avoid a senseless tug-of-war over the content of the Measure A article, please let me know which option you prefer.

MichaelJKrueger 00:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not waste your time and ours by putting incorrect tags on image uploads. You used {{db-noncom}} on some very poor quality scans and you put {{PD-USGov}} on city / state documents. -- RHaworth 04:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pdc_income_categories.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find multiple sources not from the local Bay Area press which reference the measure as the topic of the source, and not just passing mention, then I would consider changing my position. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pdc_income_households.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Alameda Measure A. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to contest my closure of the Alameda article you should bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. No reason to overtax the mediation system. ~ trialsanderrors 05:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Calton seems to generate a lot of this sentiment? Mowster 05:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grasping at straws to save your pet article, are we?

Free advice: it doesn't work. Been there, done that, have a closetful of t-shirts. --Calton | Talk 05:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]