User talk:Fedallah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Re: Racism regarding Waterford / Pontiac and Stats
Hi Fedallah. I would also like to see a trend of more than a couple years following crime in Pontiac and/or Waterford. I was wrong with the inherently racist comment. Thanks for adding that in your reply. If you didn't know Pontiac's mix compared to Waterford, then it wouldn't be part of the issue. So it just comes down to the use of "surge" as a factor in the Mall's demise.
I used to work in the arcade during the expansion years (and the Burger King) and I saw kids of every color hanging around. I cleaned up more vandalism from the white kids, particularly in the BK bathrooms and the back dining room (pre food court). The black kids would just get in fistfights for the most part and a lot of that was Pontiac Northern vs. Pontiac Central stuff. I'm not sure who did most of the shoplifting... It's hard to steal a Pac Man unit so I couldn't judge firsthand! LOL. And this was all back before gangs (or gang wannabees) were even heard from; I'm sure that got ugly into the 1990s.
Good luck with the updates. Keep up the good work :)
[edit] Racism regarding Waterford / Pontiac
To say that the Summit Place Mall is dead because of a "Crime Surge" in Pontiac as a contributing factor is nonsense. And I find the connection between Pontiac being a city with a minority majority creating this "crime wave" in white(r) Waterford not only offensive, but ridiculous. I don't believe your citation substantiates a trend either, as it only shows stats for one year.
From the City's website... "Pontiac's commitment to safety resulted in the lowest crime rate in 30 years." I believe that was in 2004, when there were still plenty of stores open inside the mall as well as on the outlot.
On the Pontiac Police website they have a system called CLEMIS that tracks crime. In Oakland Pointe (right across from the mall) there were two incidences of misdemeanor shoplifting between October 7 and 21, 2005. With a good 20 storefronts in that parcel I just couldn't see that justified as a crime surge.
In any event, the mall is an undebateable as an eyesore and unfortunate dump. Had they not expanded it, I'm sure it would have held its' own and turned into something more boutique like Laurel Park Place in Farmington/Northville following the opening of Great Lakes Crossing. Bigger is not always better.
[edit] Howdy
I've been noticing your edits--I grew in Waterford, though I've lived in Ann Arbor for a long time now. It's fascinating to see someone editing Four Towns, Summit Place Mall, etc. So I thought I'd drop a line just to say hi. · rodii · 21:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for MiG Alley comments
Thanks, Fedlallah, for the comments on my work on MiG Alley. The numbers are buried in several of the articles I cite. I still need to footnote. Tnx.
[edit] Cold War
No I did not expres my 'opinion', I just gave the quote of the Pentagon Papers, Section 1, pp. 242-69, The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 5, "Origins of the Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-1960". Bryad gis his opinion, I note you posted wiothout proof. If you were to post 'In the 1950's France was defending Algeria', yeah, that's an opinion, even if you provide a quote(say from a French writer who's pro-war). You're the one who's inserting opinion, not me. User:Green01 3:23, Dec. 1 2006 (UTC).
- I'm moving this discussion to the article talk page, where it is relevant. Fedallah 04:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Style guideline
Can you point to the style guideline you refer to here? I can't think of what you're referring to. - Taxman Talk 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Indeed it does say that. However it violates common sense in this case. Charles has a good point. The reason a disambiguation pages exists for U of M is there is some ambiguity. What's best for the reader is more important than rules. Also, it doesn't help to call people's edits "utter tripe". We can disagree and discuss without attempting to insult. - Taxman Talk 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Charles? Who is Charles? The only user whose viewpoint I opppose on the subject is Michael Hardy; I will assume that is who you are referring to. In any case, I agree on the charge of the personal attack, which was irrational and necessary, but the issue still remains. I'm sure you've read Hardy's edit summary, which states the following:
- "Link to the U of M disambiguation page. There's enough confusion about this coming out of Ann Arbor without Wikipedia's adding to it by depriving the reader of this information."
- Now, I'm not sure who Hardy has talked to or what he has heard from people, but what I take umbrage with is statements like the above edit summary, which show a desire to inject his own thoughts and experiences into what should be a factually balanced, NPOV article. I would understand if multiple users were making edits and posting comments in the same vein as his, there would be some consensus. But it's just him. Furthermore, I don't see the point of linking to a disambiguation page that already contains a link to the article - it's entirely redundant. If I type U of M into the search box I will get a disambig, and the disambig is good - it works and does its job well. Here I'm actually quite fond of Hardy's work. I like it. If I type in Michigan an article on the state itself will load, which is fine also. But if I type in University of Michigan or click a link to it on the U of M page I clearly knew what I was looking for, and knew what I wanted. There is no need for a disambiguation link for U of M on the University of Michigan page because there is logically no ambiguity whatsoever at that point. Fedallah 01:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- For whatever reason I thought of Michael Hardy and wrote Charles (Sorry Michael). His statements in the edit summary were nothing more than a desire to clarify the issue. Disambiguation pages are there for a reason. For that reason you will often find a message at the top of the article that says For other uses of the term X see X (Disambiguation). While it's not appropriate to have that on the University of Michigan article itself, it is appropriate to apply the same concept to the mention in that article of U of M, something that otherwise might redirect to the University of Michigan article. It doesn't, because it is ambiguous. Therefore the disambiguation page, with an unobtrusive link to it seems reasonable. - Taxman Talk 02:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
Indeed, my edit summary was POV. But the NPOV rule applies to articles and not to edit summaries. The article should inform the reader. Putting in a link makes information available. It is relevant to the reader to know that if one says "U of M", intending the University of Michigan, one can sometimes be misunderstood as referring to something else. Michael Hardy 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Utter tripe"?
You wrote that a link to U of M from the University of Michigan article is
- Utter tripe. It goes against wiki style guidelines, and there's no consensus for it. If you want to make an op/ed issue out of it, get a blog.
So simply including a link to the U of M disambiguation page is "utter tripe"?
Or is it the content of that page--a simple list of about a dozen universities conventionally called the "U of M"--that constitutes "utter tripe"?
And how does a link to U of M constitute an op/ed issue?
And what style guideline is violated by linking to U of M?
You complain that "There's no consensus for it". Are you saying there is disagreement about the content of the page titled U of M? That page simply lists universities that are called that. Michael Hardy 01:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have stated multiple times that I approve of your work on the U of M disambiguation page. What I do not approve of is linking to it in the University of Michigan article, particularly for the reasons you cite in your own edit summary. Do read my conversation with the admin, it's directly above yours on this page. I think it will answer all your questions, but if it doesn't, let me know. Fedallah 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
