Talk:Lido Isle, Newport Beach

Comments

Several things are flat out incorrect about this article, and, having grown up on Lido Isle, I speak with some small authority.

1. It's NOT called "Lido Island", except by people who don't know. There is no Staten Isle nor Ellis Isle in New York, nor Vancouver Isle off of western Canada. While the terms 'island' and 'isle' may be interchangeable in casual conversation and on Gilligan reruns, not so in formal place names. This may seem minor, but Lido Isle is, and has always been, its one and only name.
2. The Lido Isle Yacht Club is not a building. The Lido Isle Club House is a building, that is near the physical center of the island, and may be the social center as well, but the LIYC consists of some docks (shared with the Community Association), some boat storage, and a storage shed. Also, membership in the LIYC is only a fraction of the population of the island, so saying that it "is the social center" is, again, flat out wrong.
3. "Exclusive". Don't know what is meant by this, but around here <puts thumbs in suspenders, spits> "exclusive" means either some screening policy about who can own and who can't, or a gated community, and Lido Isle has neither. If going strictly by property values, then, as a rule, Newport Beach is an exclusive city, as is New York city, Miami, large parts of San Francisco, etc etc. "Exclusive" isn't the right term.

(Also, I've made these changes twice now, with explanations, and whoever is re-editing or undoing them ~without~ explaining their actions, without addressing my comments, is being rather antisocial in their approach. Speak up in the cooperative, concensus-minded spirit of Wiki, or leave it alone, please.) (Cuchulainshound (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

Edit- Okay, I've answered some of my own questions. Much of this wiki article has been plagiarized, rather sloppily, from this LA Times article

Not only is that article inaccurate on several salient points, but the plagiarist ("Evrik" has been undoing my edits, for what that's worth) did a rather poor reading of the article itself. So much for basing facts on the web, and what you read in the newspaper reposted on the web. Worth the paper its printed on. ;) (Cuchulainshound (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

• Most of what is cited above is just quibbling over small items. For example, When I lived over by the jetty, or would take my sail boat into the harbor, we always referred to Lido as Lido Island. The Lido Isle Club House is run by the Lido Isle Yacht Club - again quibbling. Exclusive versus secluded, on please. Very exclusive, but again that's quibbling.[1]

As to this comment, "I've made these changes twice now, with explanations, and whoever is re-editing or undoing them ~without~ explaining their actions, without addressing my comments, is being rather antisocial in their approach." I reverted your edit once. Well, that's just not true. When I made the reversion I added a source. I'm sorry if you didn't see that, but you make it seem as if there was some sort of an edit war going on. There wasn't, nor was anyone being anti-social.

Finally, as to your accusation that I am a sloppy plagiarist, after your untrue comments that I'm being anti-social, well that's a clear violation of Wikipedia:Civility. As the original author of the article, I now feel obligated to tag it as {{copyvio}}. Good luck with a new version of the article. --evrik ^(talk) 05:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, when guilty, just attack, huh?

I thought Wiki was about "accuracy" - an improper name is improper. And words have meanings - "exlusive" has one meaning, "secluded, semi-private" has another. Sorry if you can't tell the diff.

Hitting "undo", twice, without comments is anti-social. Your term, not mine, but an accurate one, none the less, and at least one we agree on.

You claim to be the "original author of the page"??? I think my link to the original article, published in the LA times, which was almost ver batim what you claim to have authored, might dispute that. "Copy and Paste" does not make you an author, it makes you a plagiarist. But perhaps I'm "quibbling" over words again. Breaking Wiki rules? I think I'm more following them.

If you want to continue this, bring a mediator, or an apology - apparently our positions on your actions are too far apart for any middle ground short of that.

I'll rewrite the material, since you've brought down the "copyright violation" label on this link. Cuchulainshound (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Commons deletion request

To all who have this on their watchlist - you might want to provide input on commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lovelido. Are the photos this DR is about actually from Lido Isle, or does only the description say that? That may help decide whether they are educational enough for Commons. Thanks for all input. darkweasel94 (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lido Isle, Newport Beach. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928121253/http://www.tcninteractive.com/nb100/story_redcars.htm to http://www.tcninteractive.com/nb100/story_redcars.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070512221024/http://www.lidoisleyachtclub.org/facilities.html to http://www.lidoisleyachtclub.org/facilities.html

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) 11:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)