User talk:Lissoy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Lissoy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 


Nice edits on War Eagle. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 23:20, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Thanks for you edits to Template:Alabama. They were really helpful. Ttownfeen 02:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Auburn-Opelika Metro Area

If you'll check the census bureaus webpage and search for how much each county included in each metro area has grown. You'll notice that the Huntsville-Decatur Metro Area, has grown by around 51,000, while the Auburn-Opelika Metro area has grown by 29,000-30,000. --AlabamaGuy2007 14:19, January 10, 2005 (UTC)

(Moved the above from user page to talk page--Lissoy 00:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC) )

[edit] Pop Growth

I hope that you realize that if a city or metro area grows at the exact same population change every year, then the percent of change goes down. Percent growth rates are a quite ineffective way to compare two rates of growth that two areas experience when the areas are at such a difference in population. That's like saying that (for example) a car that is half the size of another car is accelerating at a higher rate than the one twice it's size, when, in fact, they are both accelerating at the same rate. What part of that doesn't make sense? Pretty much all of it. Just like saying that an area increasing by 29,000 is getting bigger faster than an area increasing by 51,000. - AlabamaGuy2007

Whatever you or I think is an appropriate way of determining population growth is irrelevant; under our No original research policy, we are prohibited from using "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"." (Emphasis mine.) The accepted practice amongst demographers when analyzing growth is to use rate of growth, not raw population growth. From Donald J. Bogue, Principles of Demography ISBN 0-471086-20-7:
     Population growth is measured either between census years or annually based on annual  
population estimates/projections. Absolute amount of population change is the difference 
between population counts in the earlier and later censuses. This is moved by four 
components: fertility, mortality, in-migration and out-migration. Population changes with  
the balance between births and deaths or the "natural increase" and the balance between in-
migration and out-migration or "net migration".
     Estimates of absolute growth however are meaningless if not expressed relative to the 
initial population size. This is achieved by computing the intercensal percent change. It 
must be remembered though that intercensal percent change can be compared overtime or 
between locations only if the intervals between census years are the same.
     Where the interval between censuses varies, population growth must be expressed in 
terms of percent change per year or annual rate following the annual compounding/geometric 
growth formula, which assumes that population grows exponentially within an infinitesimal 
period of time.
While you raise some valid points for why percent change may not be the best system, it is the one generally used and is the one expected by the reader when he or she reads "fastest growing". As such, I don't think current Wikipedia policies justify not using relative growth when we describe changes in populations.
If you have any cites from demographers who take your position, I'd love to read them. --Lissoy 02:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Haha, I do thank you for saying that I "raised some valid points". I do not have any cites from demographers who take my position, though I still believe "my way is the highway", I must agree that you are correct that the percent change is the standard we must use.

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Auburn-Samford-Hall.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Auburn-Samford-Hall.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 08:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent revision re: Golf

It is strictly your opinion that the focus is totally on Auburn. If you want to be factual, the article states that Auburn and Opelika are "twin cities" and the tag line is "Alabama's Auburn-Opelika is No. 1." It mentions both Mayors in the same sentence. Of the 4 specific courses mentioned, 2 are in Opelika, 1 in Auburn and 1 jointly owned by both cities. In the inset depicting the Top 20 and the Bottom 20 it plainly says Auburn-Opelika. What is your bias against Opelika? - Birddog69

No, it wasn't my opinion, I was just plain wrong on that one. I pulled up an article about the Golf Digest article, and not the original article when I made the comment on why I made the change. I'll go back and fix the paragraph to point to the Auburn Metropolitan Area, which better describes the area receiving the award. My mistake, and good catch. Thanks. - Lissoy 20:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to correct your mistake but why not be factual and call it what it really is...the Auburn-Opelika Metropolitan Area? Again what is your obsession with dissin' Opelika? - Birddog69

[edit] More Golf Revision

I appreciate all of your info on Opelika. While you removed some of my corrections previously, please label Grand National properly. I work for a sister company to RTJ, and it's Robert Trent Jones Grand National. It's not "Robert Trent Jones's Grand National - Auburn-Opelika."

Thank you again for your effort and work. --Brockp24

[edit] Opelika--Population loss

Under the History section of Opelika's page you document Opelika's population loss. Then you say some of the loss is attributed to flight from crime. Who says that? You say the crime rate is the second highest in the State. But according to your own cite, that is not true. Then you go on to say that Opelika's violent crime rate is higher than all large American cities except Detroit and Camden, New Jersey. Aren't Washington DC, Memphis, Orlando, Baltimore, Tampa, St. Louis, Miami, and Atlanta considered by most large American cities? All of these mentioned have a higher violent crime rate than Opelika yet you appear to try to word your entries to make Opelika look the worst way possible. Come on!! What is your problem with Opelika? Why is everything that you've written is in the context of trying to make Opelika look bad? 24.236.119.207 23:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Birddog69

As is noted in the reference, the comparison figures that I cite in the article are taken from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports over a five year period (2000-2004). I felt it would be more accurate to use figures from several years instead of just one, to make sure that any crime trends were long-term and not brief spikes. The additional Wikipedia article was more of a secondary source, and only covered the year 2004. 2004 was a good year for Opelika in comparison with the previous decade, and as a result, Opelika didn't compare as poorly as it did over the long term. Over the five year period, Prichard had the highest violent crime rate in Alabama, and Opelika had the second highest. I chose 2000-2004 since it was the most recent period that was available at the time.
The reason it is included in the article is because it provides an explanation for an otherwise unlikely event--Opelika is in the middle of a very rapidly growing region, but has shown little to no growth over the past quarter century, and has shown negative growth over the last five years. A reasonable reader who has come to learn about Opelika wouldn't be served well by just stating that there has been a decline without touching on some of the major reasons why. Comparisons with the crime rates of cities that the reader likely has some familiarity gives crime in Opelika some context with which the reader can come to understand the city and how (and why) it is changing.
Addressing your general point, my intent isn't to defame Opelika, just to tell its story accurately. Wikipedia isn't meant for civic boosterism--it's an encyclopedia. Our goal is to create a factually accurate description of the topic so that a reader will get a feel for the way the topic actually is--not as we want it to be, not as we want others to see it, but as it is. This can be a challenge for those writers who love their topics. The way Wikipedia gets around this is by having the existing text challenged, just as you are doing, which forces the writers to dig deeper into their sources until the facts that remain are indisputible.
On a general point that you've made, I do tend--and I think justifiably--give more "naming weight" to Auburn when talking about the area. I do this because Auburn is not only the largest city in the region, it is substantially the largest. As such, it acts as the primary identifier for the area. In the same way that we more often say on a trip to Homewood "I am going to Birmingham", than "I am going to Birmingham-Hoover" (the name of the metro), or certainly than "I am going to Birmingham-Hoover-Vestavia-Bessemer-Homewood", one should also expect to call the Auburn-Opelika Metropolitan Statistical Area "Auburn" as a general term. If the two cities were the same size, or near it, it would make sense to identify the region jointly, but as Auburn is well over twice Opelika's size and widening the gap by 1,500 people yearly, I simply can't justify keeping the nomenclature we used back when the cities were close in size.
I would like to thank you for your contributions. It is a good thing to have articles challenged by knowledgeable people--it holds us to a much higher standard. I'm glad to have someone else who is actually interested in this topic join the process. I encourage you to keep editing the Opelika article, and when you make changes, add cites. Welcome to Wikipedia! -- Lissoy 03:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northeast Opelika Industrial Park

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I love a spirited debate. I would like to point out some inaccuracies in your cite relative to the cost of purchase and the development of the Northeast Opelika Industrial Park.

There were two bond issues commonly called the 1998A & 1998B issues which actually totaled $10,280,000. These funds were used to purchase the 1900 acre site. The $6 million cited to build the wastewater treatment plant was for all of East Opelika of which the park is part. The eastside plant was built for planned growth of all of Opelika. YOur implication is that the money was spent strictly for the park. The $10.3 million special bond issue was simply a refinancing of the original 1998A&B bond issues so there was no additional expenditure for the park. In fact, it saved the City some $200,000 annually in interest payments. The electrical substation is owned by Tallapoosa River Electric Cooperative. Opelika Light and Power does not serve the park and did not spend money for the substation. Moreover, the water and sewer line extensions were done by the Opelika Water Works Board and the City of Opelika respectively, not Opelika Light and Power. A more accurate number for the cost for land purchase and development from all Federal, State and local dollars is approximately $32-35 million after reducing your $50 million figure by the duplicate bond issue of $10.3 million and the $6 million for the sewer. I just wanted to point these out because I know you want to be accurate. Birddog69

[edit] Map

I'm interested in making a image similar to Image:AL-Auburn-location-in-Lee-County.png. How did you make the picture of Lee County with the city boundries delineated, or where did you find it? --Ttownfeen 20:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State Route 267 (Alabama)

Hi--enjoyed seeing all the stuff you've contributed on the Auburn area. I lived there from 1969-1985 (moved to Champaign, Illinois to start 11th grade). I put something on the Talk page of Route 267 regarding the completion date--you can reply there. Thanks for all your thorough work here!--Bhuck 11:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 15:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime

Hello Lissoy,

First of all, your latest revision states that you were changing something that I had revised i.e. a phrase relating to gang activity in Opelika. If you'll notice, I did not delete that phrase, someone else did. However, it got me to thinking.....in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia and that all content must be verifiable, how have you determined that gang activity is prevalent in Opelika? Where is the cite or is that just your opinion? Birddog69

Sorry I wasn't clear on the edit summary--I meant that I was reverting back to your previous version, not reverting your version. As to your other question, I'll have to get back to you in a bit as I'm out of town and my notes are at home. I can give you a quote from a Plainsman article earlier this month: "But one of the main issues plaguing the town was the prevalent gangs (sic) and violent crimes (sic) that were beginning to take over." (Hightower, Stephanie. "Auburn's sister city keeps busy, full of life", The Auburn Plainsman Welcome Back 2006 Issue.). Obviously that's not my original source for the statement--I'll try to get you the original sources early next week. --Lissoy 01:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again,

The irony of Ms. Hightower's quote is that she got her information on Opelika crime from the Wikipedia article. Birddog69

Hello again Lissoy,

I noticed your recent edit of the Crime section changing gang activity to gang-like activity as well as "prevalent" to "widespread". I still have a problem with your edit and sources. In your source for past gang problems the only mention of Opelika is in a table of cities that have reported an incident of gang activity from 1978-1998. 43 Alabama cities are listed including Auburn, Hoover, Huntsville, and Fairhope. By using this cite, would it be fair to say that Auburn has a gang problem? The specific case that you cite was taken from a book on juvenile violence and the reference was a juvenile who was involved in a bungled robbery attempt with the referenced motive being "financial gain and to eliminate witnesses" Again no mention of a gang involved. As to Councilman Fuller's August 2004 remarks, You will recall that he was in a hotly contested Mayorial race and if he said gang activity is widespread (which I doubt he said) I hardly think that political rhetoric is a citable source for an encyclopedia. Let's take out references to gang activity. Birddog69

[edit] Suburban Opelika

Lissoy, I noticed you changed my edit back on the status of Opelika. The county seat of Lee County is one of two central cities in the Auburn-Opelika Metropolitan Area; it is therefore not a suburb. I don't claim to know anything substantial about Opelika, other than what I've learned from your article. But while the specific definition of a suburb can be debated, all definitions are based on the concept of a central city around which the "suburb" exists. One central city will not be suburb of another. If that was true, St. Paul would be a suburb of Minneapolis. As long as the federal government has defined Opelika as one of the central cities in the metro, it should not be a suburb. I think we need to revert back to my minor edit. I apologize for not putting this discussion on the talk page originally. I thought I had, but I must have forgot to save. Goeverywhere 01:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but reliance on the Census Bureau to define suburbia creates major descriptive flaws. The CB's minimum requirements for "central cityhood" is merely having one-third the population of the largest city in the MSA. Thus, in certain cases, the addition of a single new resident to a suburban municipality can make that municipality suddenly cease to be a suburb without any substantive change in the community's character. For more concrete examples, the cities of Hoover, Alabama and West Des Moines, Iowa are clearly suburbs of Birmingham and Des Moines, respectively, by nature of their characteristics--neither would exist if not for their central cities--yet both are technically "central cities" in their metro areas. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Needles, California is in the San Bernadino Metro, but is clearly not a suburb (as it is nearly 250 miles from the central city, across a mountain range and a desert)--though under a pure CB definition would be one. I think in many cases--certainly not all, though--suburbs can be larger than one-third the population of the largest cities, and non-suburbs can be smaller than one-third the population. MSA designations are administrative tools, designed for statistical simplicity and federal fund allocation, not sociological analyses of the nature of communities. Whether or not a city is actually a suburb depends more on its characteristics as a community than on its population, and, I think, shouldn't be mandated one way or the other without consideration of these characteristics. --Lissoy 02:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Good points, and I appreciate your answer. As I've said, I don't know the nature of Auburn-Opelika and will therefore defer to your good work on the article. Opelika is the county seat, though, and I've always thought of Auburn and Opelika as twin cities more than anything else. I agree with the notion that if the city wouldn't exist without the central city, it's probably a suburb. As the county seat, Opelika would still be an important city in the county, even if Auburn did not exist; thus, I hesitate to say it is Auburn's suburb. Your call... thanks. Goeverywhere 03:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New to Wikipedia

Hi, Lissoy. I am new to Wikipedia and am interested in contributing to the Opelika article as my first project. Since it is your article, I was wondering if you would mind walking through some of my ideas with me. If you don't mind working with me, would it be easier to correspond through a user page or email? Thanks.--Clm4 02:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'd be happy to work with you. I've set up subpage of my talk page that we can use if you'd like at User talk:Lissoy/Opelika. Keep in mind, though, that the Opelika article is no more my article than it is yours: I have spent a lot of time in researching it and helping to put it together as it is currently and so I maintain a strong intrest in its quality and accuracy, but it isn't my article. Always feel free to add useful and relevant content to it or any other article on Wikipedia--be bold! I look forward to working with you. Welcome to Wikipedia! -- Lissoy 01:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for setting up the subpage. Have you had a chance to review it? I would appreciate any discussion or feedback you have before I post the changes to the Opelika article. Some of the revisions are quite a bit different from the current article and I had hoped to discuss them with you. If I don't hear from you, I will go ahead and make the changes. Thanks again. --Clm4 02:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/User_talk%7ELissoy_bff2.html"