Talk:East Palo Alto, California

Back in the later 1980s to early 1990s I frequented the area as a delivery driver. I can attest to the high crime rate by observation and talking with residents. So sad that micro-cultures within the USA create such chaotic conditions. My observations of reality conflict with the knee-jerk spewing of how wonderful "diversity" is. I suppose those proclaiming the wonders of diversity do not live in the midst of that diversity.Obbop 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you would suppose wrong. I lived there around that same time, during the infamous "murder year" (1992) and thereabouts when all the bullets were flying. While the city was virtually like a war zone then, at the same time there were amazing things to be seen. Ever taken a walk around the Weeks neighborhood? The one with the large lots, streets lined with huge trees, all looking very much like Woodside? There were folks there then (probably still are now) with small urban farms, complete with animals and garden plots. So yes, there was a lot of "diversity" and the good things it brings with it on display, even while the thugs were shooting at each other. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia policy

It is a violation of Wikipedia policy and protocol to remove tags someone has placed in an article until either a citation is offered or the situation is otherwise resolved. I am so, so ready to take this to Requests for Comment, and that will be my next step. I can guarantee you that your point of view will not stand at that point. Rephrase the sentence if it is important to you, without the ridiculous and unprovable "Many assume..." Moncrief 05:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, taking your edit comment as commentary (the fact that you lived in the area for some time), you must know that people in Menlo Park and Palo Alto do know that EPA is a separate city; that's because they're close by. It's a very common mistake among those who aren't in the vicinity to think that EPA is part of Palo Alto, so I'm removing the tag. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You are REMOVING THE TAG WITHOUT PROOF (beyond your own insistence that "many" believe this to be true), which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Who are these "many" who believe this? You offer no description, no facts, and no proof. I am going to attempt a compromise in the article. If that doesn't satisfy you, it gleefully goes to Requests for Comment, where I'll point out that you removed the fact tag before resolution of the issue. You'll have a bunch of new users here poring over and editing the article as well. That you think the tag is not needed is not resolution. I'm another member of this community and I think it's needed, so please, in the future, wait until it comes to resolution before you act unilaterally and remove a tag without offering any proof or attempting a compromise. That is just bad Wikipedia etiquette, plain and simple. Moncrief 16:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where in that 192-page PDF document does it state that people "widely assume" that EPA is part of the city of Palo Alto? Your readers need guidance. The least you could do is put a page number on the reference. I also don't see any proof in your first reference that people "still widely assume" that EPA is part of the city of Palo Alto. You don't seem to be able to compromise well (you seem to be one who thinks being "right" is more important than have a factual article that is the best it can be); my change was more factual and less reliant on anecdotal evidence. I will sit with this for a while, and await your response on where in that PDF document I can find any proof of your assertion. I also don't know why you put the footnotes at the end of that sentence, when there's nothing in the article that corresponds to the second clause in the sentence. Moncrief 19:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I see the reference now to page 14 in that PDF document, which is actually "proof" of this assertion. Thanks for finding that. Moncrief 19:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to be charitable in this case, as you've behaved mostly as an ass; however, on principle I'll apologize for the inclusion of a rather large PDF that one has to wade through to get the relevant citation. Hopefully the page # will help people locate it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)