Talk:Sierra Madre, California

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Demographics[edit]

Someone needs to check the demographics. A few random numbers were changed (and oddly just the number before the decimal points) by someone who's talk page says they were doing unappreciated things. 76.174.56.166 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I don't know, but I am a Sierra Madre Resident, and I find the Downtown Dirt Website to be an extremely misleading reference to the events and people in this town. I have removed it as an external link in the main article for this reason.

If you feel that the remove is invalid, tell me below or on my Talk Page and go ahead and restore the link, just make sure to tell me. I will send a rebuttal to you by some means if I think there is reason to. Feel free to comment on my Talk Page about this issue.

FastLizard4 04:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Dirt link[edit]

Regarding the Downtown Dirt link remove, I just posted this on FastLizard's Talk Page: The Downtown Dirt link should be removed because there isn't any content there anymore. It has all been removed, except for a quote on the main page.

As to the question of biased news sources, should the article only have links to unbiased news sources? In that case, what about the Mt. Wilson Observer link? The Mt. Wilson Observer is essentially "the other side" of issues when compared with Downtown Dirt.

I'm guessing that because of the nature of an encyclopedia, perhaps there should only be links to unbiased sources, but on the other hand, how about including all the links and letting readers have at it and decide for themselves? Judging from the ugly politics in the city lately, it seems like deciding what's correct and not correct to link to here on Wikipedia could start a wiki-war ...

(In any case, no matter what happens, there is still no content on the Downtown Dirt site, so it still makes sense to me to have the link removed. Just my take.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.172.206.17 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I thank whoever made this comment, and I believe it is the appropriate action to take. However, I ask that all users that decide to remove a link from the article explain their reasons on this talk page before doing so. It's true, we don't want a wiki-war.
FastLizard4 01:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cumquat[edit]

Well, I have another question about the external links, and this is not based on the article's Neutrality. The The Cumquat: Hard news Lite appears not to be an encyclopedic source, again, not because of Article Neutrality, but because it doesn't seem like a news source. Most of the topics there are bogus (today, at 4:30 5-17-2007 UTC, the article had a headline reading this: "Pope Visits Sierra Madre; Answers Questions About His Underwear" and other nonsense. Is this considered encyclopedic content? I say no. To avoid starting a wikiwar, reply below. I will not delete this link until I get a reply also favoring the removal of the link. I would appreciate it if you also respond on my Talk Page.
--FastLizard4 04:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some discussion at the help desk, I have been advised to remove the link. However, I welcome you to comment as detailed above. --FastLizard4 05:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I think we need another news source in external links to balance out the views of the Mt. Wilson Observer in the view of NPOV.
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 05:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone/References[edit]

The History and culture is very POV. For example,

Culturally, it is marked by a slow approach to new construction

The people who live there don't do much new construction? There are strict laws concerning building? How is this cultural?

a strong sense of environmental responsibility, social cohesion largely through community volunteering Is there a single town in the world that wouldn't claim this? It could be a quote for a developer. How are the people environmentally responsible? How would you even source such a statement? --ChristopherM 04:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention editors of the Sierra Madre, CA article![edit]

I have made the following changes, please use these as a guideline for editing the article

Grammar:
Changed "Though the canyon..." to "However, the canyon..."

Point of View:
To all editors: Remember to make comments in the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. To learn more about NPOV, click here (note that the text below in RED was deleted).
Deleted "...vegetation, striking vistas of..."
Deleted "...presence leftover from the 1960s, many Canyon residents are newcomers, attracted to the Canyon's off-the-beaten-path, wild, and breathtakingly natural aura."
Deleted "...bungalows or cabins which are slowing being rebuilt and remodeled to accommodate upwardly mobile types. Culturally..."
Remember to cite your references, look for tags in the article that look something like this:
^{[citation needed]}
Remember to put pictures in the most appropriate place (see diff by clicking link below).

To see all of the changes I made, click here.
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 04:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC) -- Please feel free to comment on this page (click here to respond) or on my Talk Page.[reply]

Red and green type, and all caps?! Yikes. One way or another the article is looking pretty good. It had a tag overload. There were many {fact} tags on items that were trivially easy to source. I added a half dozen sources and removed another several tags from assertions that are not in dispute. Lastly, I trimmed the "culture" section. The L.A. Times profiles communities in their Sunday Real Estate section, and I believe they've done Sierra Madre, so that'd be a great source on the character. However until we have a source in hand we should be careful about what we say. Thanks for bringing the article along, folks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Seal sierra madre.png[edit]

Image:Seal sierra madre.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance[edit]

I can think of at least one person from Sierra Madre: Terrance, a regular caller to the Jim Rome sports talk show, and who usually performs on its annual Smack-off contest.24.57.249.250 (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work in Progress[edit]

The tiny town of Sierra Madre is just now trying to put together their history. I am assisting by working on this article from their one source in the city. After is gets a bit more in shape, Then I will do a search for other resources. Working together, with the city committee, this will be a valuable resource to assit in putting up their own story on their own website. PLEASE stop the harassment and be patient as this article is constructed.DocOfSoc (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're receiving information from the city council to write this article then that violates WP:COI and possibly WP:NPOV. You're also suggesting that the city use this article to write about their history on their own website, which is misusing Wikipedia by using the article as little more than a scratchpad for writing drafts for other websites. If anything, do this in your own userspace. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 23:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not receiving any info from the city council. I have not contacted the committee constructing their history. One of my sources is their historical chronology. My only intent is to construct a cohesive article that may be a good source from which they may draw and use as a resource, which I believe is the intent of Wikipedia, in which we all "work together". Sorry if the above post was misunderstood.DocOfSoc (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linky[edit]

First, I do appreciate the work that you are doing. Another editor has just removed that list from this article which I do not agree with, I just left it alone for now. I think the link in the article is Much handier that a ref. Please don't take offense at my undo. It is made with the best of intentions and I hope you will agree. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit them anyway you want then, but I don't think editors are supposed to change the reference format that's already in place just because they find a different format handier. Cmr08 (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it's better" is not a valid reason for any edit that breaks a Wikipedia guideline. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 23:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline might that be? TY. DocOfSoc (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MoS#External links …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 03:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tyvm.namaste....DocOfSoc (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical timeline[edit]

Here it is: [[1]] end date=2009, but ty anyway. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the link to the timeline up to 2009, then why not use this as the source in the article. The one currently being used only goes to 1999. Cmr08 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my profound apology noted on your talk page. So sorry for the misunderstanding (mine) of your valid point. Your reverted note was a well spoken and well deserved " Wiki-Whack" LOL, I just made that up! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say, Happy Editing! ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link provided simply went to the City's homepage. No connection to a timeline. (Indeed, when I searched the City website for "timeline" and "time line", nothing came up.) So I did find a History page on the url and substituted it. I do not know if it will support the many items (e.g., WP:V) that it is cited to.--S. Rich (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]