Jump to content

Talk:Maywood, California

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Population Density Contradiction

[edit]

The article for Somerville, MA also claims that city has the densest population outside NY/NJ. Which one is right? Toscaesque (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC) This article is correct according to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States. WinstonKap (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population density corrected! ;-D DocOfSoc (talk) 07
38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Article about Maywood

[edit]

http://www.life.com/image/57641872 WhisperToMe (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A delightful article about the confusing area, including Maywood. Worth reading![1] DocOfSoc (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Illegal' vs. 'Undocumented': When language defines the debate

[edit]

With whatever the intent the word is used, Latinos often take it for granted, rightly or wrongly, that when the phrase "illegal immigrant" is uttered, it is not aimed at Russians, Canadians or Eastern Europeans. Clearly, it is only used to describe people of Latino or Hispanic ancestry and not other groups of individuals from other countries that are undocumented," said Joe Cordero, past chair of the San Diego Chicano Federation. "Furthermore, the term is denigrating as it reduces a human being to a perceived immigration status while implicitly suggesting superiority by the individual assigning the label." [2] 'Nuff said. DocOfSoc (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not enough said. Words and terms have meanings, set down in the dictionary, and in the statute books, if they are a legal term of art. Their meanings are not defined by jackasses like Joe Cordero.
Futhermore, I have heard non-Hispanics referred to as illegal immigrants. Admittedly, most of the time, a person being referred to as an "illegal alien" is Hispanic, but this is because, to state the obvious, most illegal aliens in the united states are Hispanic.
Your reversion is reverted. Hoplophile (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that you know Mr. Cordero, so name calling is and is always inappropriate. This is the place for discussion and not bald statements as directly above. Please stop reverting indiscriminately and redundantly. Your Bias is showing! You are in danger of getting yourself blocked. See below. DocOfSoc (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of the 3RR rule

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The excerpt does not belong in the lead paragraph. Please familiarize yourself with the following policy [3] Please avoid changes that smack of racism to a large portion of any population. Your statement: "Admittedly, most of the time, a person being referred to as an "illegal alien" is Hispanic, but this is because, to state the obvious, most illegal aliens in the united states are Hispanic." is unverified and to the Hispanic population racist and insulting. Please examine where this is coming from, it certainly does not belong in Wikipedia.

Please Remember to edit in "Good Faith." In addition, the info is already contained in the body of the article so is redundant. I see you have not made many edits and in good faith I am assuming you are not familiar with Wiki's policies or pillars. You may want to do so. Happy Editing! Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler

[edit]

[4] There was a Chrysler assembly plant in Maywood. ISP user, see your talk page and above linky. Happy Editing! DocOfSoc (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC) more history [5] Personal knowledge: My Grandfather worked there, I have his employee badge! DocOfSoc (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:City of Commerce did not exist until 1961. DocOfSoc (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Major Government Change to 100% contracted

[edit]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/06/sheriffs-dept-to-patrol-maywood-while-city-employees-now-face-lay-offs.html

I would like input on the article above about the major change in government services to the city before I make changes. Any Thoughts?

SemperDoctus (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC) DocOfSoc (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Major Government Change to 100% contracted

[edit]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/06/sheriffs-dept-to-patrol-maywood-while-city-employees-now-face-lay-offs.html

I would like input on the article above about the major change in government services to the city before I make changes. Any Thoughts? SemperDoctus (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC) DocOfSoc (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem in adding more info about the current chaos in Maywood. Article is too long and would need to be highly edited and reworded. Thanks for you efforts! P.S. Please put new questions in New section at bottom of page. I didn't see your question until tonight! Happy Editing! DocOfSoc (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved question and answer to proper place. I hope that you find this agreeable. TY. DocOfSoc (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor or critic?

[edit]

This entire article seems to be very poorly written, especially those parts that discuss the city's decision to layoff all employees. The article does not even mention the city's insurer's August 2009, notice that the city was in danger of losing coverage if it did not meet specified conditions, or the associated issues of the city's inability to attract a qualified city manager, its failure to address major liability issues involving the police department and apparent political gridlock, all mentioned in the cited 6/25/10 LA Times article. Moreover, the whole "illegal alien" population discussion relates back to a single, unsourced reference in a local TV station report. I have absolutely no stake in this article and only came to it after reading a news report about the global layoffs, so will not follow-up, but please, let's do a little better. Lahaun (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response on "Lahaun's talk page: As a new editor I would suggest you review WP's standards on civility. As a newbie, you need to understand that popping into an article, criticizing, and saying " will not follow-up, but please, let's do a little better" is not the least bit helpful and not up to Wiki standards of courtesy. You apparently did not check into the history of this article and its former "Fairy tale" flavor of some talented editor. "Very Poorly written" ?? Then Fix it. Every article here is a work in progress and Maywood is a prime example. Do not criticize and run. This editor has spent hours just bringing it up to reality and current events, and is still working on it. A vague reference to a LA Times article is not helpful, a link is needed. If you think it needs to be done"Better" then jump right in! We don't need critics, we need editors! Be of Good Faith and do your part in improving Wikipedia. If you need help, I can suggest many excellent mentors or you may go find one yourself. Just: "please, let's do a little better." Happy Editing! DocOfSoc (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


You are right, I was guilty of a seagull tactic, flying into a room, crapping on everyone and flying out. In atonement, I offer a complete rewrite of the introduction, which I have not pasted into the article itself, but simply offer here, because I find myself handicapped in creating good references, which seems to take me hours, and do not want to take that time if you are just going to revert the entire revision. Note the new link to an LA Times article about the previously unsupported reference to the police department's problems.

"Maywood is a working class city in Los Angeles County, California, United States, with a population of about 30,000, 97 percent of which is Hispanic, and an area of about 1.4 square miles. [Is it the third smallest by population or area? Do we care?] THEY CARE! Largely because of the troubled history and reputation of the Maywood Police Department (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/01/local/me-maywood1), the city’s liability and Workers Comp insurer notified the city in August 2009, that it would cancel its coverage effective July 1, 2010, unless the city was able to meet specified conditions. When the city was unable to meet those conditions or find coverage elsewhere, on July 1st, it disbanded its police department, laid off all city employees, except for the city manager, city attorney and elected officials, and contracted with other agencies for provision of all municipal services, a move apparently unprecedented among California cities." [1]

You'll note that I omitted reference to the TV story about a population of 45,000, counting "illegals." I think that discussion is best placed in the body of the article instead of the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahaun (talk • contribs) 01:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Be sure you sign with your four tildes.[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-maywood-20100625,0,3217996.story

Response

[edit]

Yay! Here we go. Teamwork! TY!! Researching DOES take hours, end of story. ;-) I do use at least two browser windows for ease of inputting.I appreciate the thought and work you have put into the above intro. A couple of problems: Due to intense arguments with other editors some info is just better off left intact. I HATE the word illegals, people are not illegal! See history for the recent discussion.Your population demographic is incorrect. (see demographics in article.) (TY for not just popping it in!!) I suggest this compromise:

"Maywood is a working class city inLos Angeles County, California, with a population of over 30,000.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). At 1.4 square miles,[1] Maywood is the third-smallest incorporated city in Los Angeles County. Largely because of the troubled history and reputation of the Maywood Police Department [6], the city’s liability and Workers Comp insurer notified the city in August 2009, that it would cancel its coverage effective July 1, unless the city was able to meet specified conditions. When the city was unable to meet those conditions or find coverage elsewhere, as of July 1st, 2010, it disbanded its police department, laid off all city employees, except for the city manager, city attorney and elected officials, and contracted with other agencies for provision of all municipal services, a move apparently unprecedented among California cities."

Though Maywood officials stopped short of filing for bankruptcy or even giving up the city's municipal status, with a large deficit, the city still faces daunting problems. From now on, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department will patrol the streets, while the neighboring City of Bell, will be compensated to oversee other functions, such as staffing City Hall. [2][7]

What do you think? Be prepared for someone to argue about the "illegals". For currency, I think the second paragraph needs to be included. I like the way you reworded large
parts. Note the format for references. I added some, you can find some LOL. Sorry I did not reply immediately, I didn't see your edit. You may leave a note on my talk page anytime. Questions etc.

Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cityofmaywood.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=73
  2. ^ http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/29/news/economy/city_fires_employees/index.htm

oodles of Pics

[edit]

Thank you MarsRover for organizing pic on this page. Your remark "oodles" pointed out to me that here are just too many pictures. When I started the rewrite on Maywood, it was a lovely fairy tale, totally unrealistic. You have done such a great job in organizing the pics, I hesitate to remove any more. I believe there the street fair pics should be cut in half, numerically speaking;-) Do we need so many pics of Churches etc.? I would appreciate your input and perhaps more editing if you agree. Namaste....DocOfSoc (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article photos are very well done but ten photos for the street fair is too much. For example, only need one pic of the ferris wheel. Usually fairs don't have the same rides every year so these images don't tell you much, IMO. I agree we can have just one row of five pics for the fair section.
The churches and schools are perhaps more meaningful. What would be most useful is a full section about the most notable fact about this city.. the firing of all the city employees. --MarsRover (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are literally and figuratively on the same page! ;-)
I will again write the paragraph suggested and you can edit away! BTW, did you take speech at Cal Poly? Regards...DocOfSoc (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mayhem: Will edit more, later. Suggestions on pix:
Remove "future" fantasy library pic; Maywood Riverfront Park pic, it's JUST trees! LOL
The Church pix are nice, but they are not alphabetized...in the mood? ;-) TYTY!! DocOfSoc (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job with the section. I just tweaked it a bit. --MarsRover (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TY! In the pic of city hall please take out the title for now defunct Police station. I obviously don't know how to combine the same references, could you explain?
I like the alliteration but I knew someone would change My Mayhem in Maywood LOL BTW, I grew up near there and they tend to paint a much rosier picture than the actuality. Have you been there? I am still trying to figure out how they claim four new shopping complexes on one corner! One on each corner? I may have to drive over and see. I still live close by. Have a good one, Namaste....DocOfSoc (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maywood stats [[8]] DocOfSoc (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOREAU36, your assistance is requested

[edit]
  1. 21:51, 31 July 2010 Moreau36 (→Demographics: corrected entire section, which was incorrectly changed throughout many edits.) (undo)
  2. 21:49, 31 July 2010 Moreau36 (→Demographics: removed dubious statement & added population history with corresponding source also, the income numbers are from the 2000 census ; see other city articles for more info) (undo)
Dear Moreau36, THanks a bunch for the above edits.
To what "dubious remark are you referring? Yes, the demographics are a mess, every source says something different. But ALL must be referenced which you failed to do. The source you are using is a mirror from Wikipedia, which is A)Not allowed and B) just as inaccurate as the other sources. It is late and in the interest of Wikilove, I will close here. Looking forward to your reply and your assistance in finding and citing the proper demographic data. Namaste....DocOfSoc (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By looking at most of the other (thousands of) city articles. The demographic numbers were "bot-generated" from the 2000 census information a few years ago. It's a waste of tome to tag "[citation needed]" on every article in relation. Take the time to browse every city's demographic section (large or small) nationwide. The result is that you'll see the same format as the one here. As far as the dubious statement. There is a separate section on the "undocumented" population, thus it shouldn't be mentioned more than once. --Moreau36--Discuss 15:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "undocumented population" issue is left over from a discussion with another editor, and as the article evolves with all its issues, it may indeed be mentioned more than once. IMO "dubious" is a word better left for the discussion page rather than remarks. If you had read the history, you would have seen I have put in an enormous amount of time researching and editing this article. I have read dozens of articles and found the demographics for Maywood highly inconsistent rather than the bot generated to which you refer. Waste of time or not, Wiki requires reliable references or item can be deleted. I am not telling you anything you don't know, so I don't know from whence you are coming. May we assume good faith and go forward from here? This is a complicated tiny town and helpful input is much appreciated. I have been around long enough to witness most of its evolution from neighboring town, oops, city ;-) Happy editing!

Namaste....DocOfSoc (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No More huge Unilateral decisions

[edit]

Ucla, I am truly astounded that you would decide without discussion to arbitrarily decide to delete most of the pictures. I brought this article from a stub to B status by carefully removing some and arranging the pics n this article. Please discuss here before making any drastic changes. Yes it does need work since I last looked at it, but you are not to decide to decimate the article of the very charming little town, without discussion . — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the changes made before today, do make it look cluttered. I would appreciate if we could return to our amicable working relationship and would appreciate your help sorting the pictures rather than removing them. It is the montage created in the info box that duplicates pic from the article. The Church pics need to be in two columns,. This is a small city very proud of its many churches. I would really appreciate your help. Teamwork is always best. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read above you will see that Marsrover and I discussed the picture issue previously. Looking forward to working with you again. I apologize for being a bit harsh above, I was really shocked! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am in the process of updating article and rearranged/removed some images. The main problem is the gallery of churches (I personally don't like galleries). I randomly removed half the church pics because I do not know how to create a third column with pics in a gallery. If you could create a third column and replace the church images, that would be great. Having discussed this previously the consensus was that leaving out any particular church might be offensive. Thanks — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Maywood, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Maywood, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maywood, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maywood, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Maywood, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maywood,_California&oldid=1202231231"