Talk:Aurora, Cayuga County, New York

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

New York (state) High‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Charles Edward Emery

I have a reference indicating the above-named person was born in Aurora, New York, but which doesn't specify which Aurora, New York. Does anyone have any information whether this is his birthplace, or the other Aurora, New York? Badbilltucker 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

While this is a matter of historical record, the presentation here has seemed partial to one side in the controversy and too opinionated for this reference purpose. It will be edited. Phmalo 13:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war over lake path section and picture

@Laholland and Greeneyedsallie: I've left warnings for both of you and pinged you here in an attempt to stop the edit war on this article. The two of you both appear to have some misunderstandings. Laholland, nobody is attempting to trespass on your private property, and Greeneyedsallie, nobody is attacking this page. What we have here is a disagreement over the facts presented in the article. I'd like for you both to use this section to discuss the matter and try to come to a consensus regarding what should or shouldn't be in the article, without the use of personal attacks. Novusuna ^talk 23:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if you cannot come to an agreement on your own, you may seek help from other editors at the dispute resolution noticeboard. You could also ask for a third opinion, or, if all else fails, request formal mediation. Novusuna ^talk 23:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Path

The edits that I performed revert information about the village's geography back to its longstanding status quo which includes a description of the village's waterfront trail, which has existed as long as anyone in the village can remember, is in the village's oral history, and exists in physical reality on the ground in the village of Aurora. A user going by the name Laholland keeps removing a photo of this trail, reference to it, and in that reference, a link to a copy of a denied permit to block the trail. To the best of my knowledge this is the only permit on file to block this north/south trail with an east/west barrier. Two property owners have attempted to block this trail with a fence and a trip chain. I am not aware of any permits for these blockages -- only the denied permit cited on the page. Since people have used this trail for over 100 years, and apparently still use it (evidenced in photo), and since it is the main geographic feature of this village, it is inappropriate to remove this reference. The description is accurate in portraying this trail as passing through private property as a prescriptive easement. Both Laholland and I agree that this trail passes through private property. The text also links to the Wiki description of a prescriptive easement to clarify this legal term for anyone who might not understand it.

Laholland has been removing a beautiful photo of this village and a longstanding description of a key geographic feature. This user might be connected to one of the two parties attempting to transform this public trail into an exclusive private holding. If that is the case, this dispute should be taken to the courts and not played out in the form of damage to this Wikipedia page. Making a photo of this trail go away, will not make this trail go away, not will it make people and visitors to this village stop using this trail. To my knowledge, there has been no police enforcement of this supposed claim to bar the public from any portion of this hiking trail. I suggest that the user Laholland can add information about this private claim under the changes since 2000 section, or in a disputes section. I would support and respect this compromise that airs Laholland's claims while not damaging existing sections of this page. I am sorry, Laholland that I saw your edits as an attack on this page. Perhaps we can work together to create a more comprehensive page that accurately portrays the geography and political controversies in this village. This is still a beautiful delightful village to visit.--Greeneyedsallie (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeneyedsallie (talk • contribs) 23:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no lake path or hiking trail along the lake in Aurora New York.

The anonymous poster calling herself Greeneyedsallie has been sued for trespass upon our property. She has a restraining order against her forbidding her from coming on to our property. We own 498 feet of the lakefront property in Aurora New York, and I can state unequivocally that there is no lake path. We do not have a trail or path through our property. Nor do our friends and neighbors. We have fenced off our property in an attempt to keep Greedeyedsallie and her friends off our property. We have a Village of Aurora building permit and CPP approval for the fence. Any one who questions my claims can look at - on line - the village, town, and county maps and tax maps. There is no trail - only trespassers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laholland (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an anonymous poster. I am Greeneyedsallie. You are also incorrect in your other speculation regarding my non-Wiki identity. But please respect the culture here and don't continue to speculate. I accept you as Laholland. Now let's move forward and see how we can work out our difference here and collaboratively edit this page so that it is inclusive of your claim. Is my proposal that instead of removing longstanding components of the Aurora page, including photos of the Lake Path, you instead add additional information discussing and documenting your claims sufficient? This would be constructive of the page rather than destructive. --Greeneyedsallie (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

could I please have WP:RS from both of you to support your statements? Happy_Attack_Dog (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Happy Attack Dog for helping us with this issue. This link is to documentation of a denied permit request to build a fence that would block the lake path due to the existence of a public right of way. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aurora_Lake_Path_ROW.jpg --Greeneyedsallie (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greedeyedsleeze, plain and simple,

you are a dishonest person, aka a liar.

And you are lying about who you are.

That document you posted was from a sick man who confused trees with a fence. And those trees

did not have anything to do with the area that you are going on and on and on and on about.

Anyone who can read will see that document you posted has nothing to do with your false claims that there is a "lake trail"'.

This is why wikpeedia is not accepted by anyone - including judges, Greedeyedsleeze - as a source of correct information.

Private property GES, stay out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laholland (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

look, Laholland, This is a violation of WP:NPA. Please read that page before commenting or else I will have to warn you. Happy_Attack_Dog (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Well, this could have gone better...I had other business to attend to for the past few hours, and I had been hoping this process would go better than it has... Novusuna ^talk 04:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Authorities:

Your Wikipedia page for Aurora, NY contains false information. Someone name Greeneyedsallie is encouraging trespass on private property. A reader of your page could be charged with trespassing based on her dishonest reporting of Aurora, NY.

Please tell me what you need from me to (permanently) correct the malicious and inaccurate information that affects numerous land owners and could send trespassers to court. Thank you. L Holland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laholland (talk • contribs) 13:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I am not contesting that this public trail passes through private property. In Central New York, many trails, sidewalks (including sections of sidewalks in Aurora, NY), public waterways and county, state and local roads and highways (i.e. nearby Levana Road), pass through private property. That is not the question at hand. The question pertains to the existence of this village's signature Lake Trail, which I have enjoyed on my visits to Aurora. It is a four mile long trail. There is one physical attempt to block it, apparently affecting two properties. To my knowledge, no one has ever been arrested, ticketed, or charged with a crime, much less convicted or sanctioned for using this popular trail. Land grabs against public trail easements are not unusual. The normal means of settling competing claims pitting a property owner against the public, is in the courts. Removing photos of such trails from places like Wikipedia have no legal or physical bearing on these trails. Above, I proposed what I believe is a fair and equitable solution to this matter, adding Laholland's allegations to this page. Possibly he or she can add a section labeled "Lake Path Controversy." Other visitors to this village would then be aware of the private claim to the small section of the trail that Laholland describes, equipping them with the information to decide whether to walk on, or walk around, this section of the trail. I would be open to participating in mediation regarding this page. --Greeneyedsallie (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laholland: If you can provide a reference to a reliable (i.e. something like a newspaper, not like a blog} published source, which states that the public does not the right to use this trail, then a stateement to this effect could be added to the article.

Greeneyedsallie: Thank you for your civil approach to resolving this dispute. Incidentally, when you take part in a discussion like this, it helps if you indent your contributions by one level, relative to the contribution you are responding to. You do this by preceding each paragraph by an appropriate number of colons. Maproom (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom Thank you for the kind words. Unfortunately Laholland just performed the same edit once more. I don't really have a dog in this race, am not often in this village, so I don't have the time to be all that vigilant in watching this page. Please suggest how I should proceed to flag this page for moderator attention. Also, if it is not appropriate to respond to an edit war, will anyone remove this last edit, which came after we were both advised to stop. Also, if you look at the edit history, it seems to indicate that this user has made this same edit under two other identities. Perhaps this page could benefit from moderation. There seems to be a property dispute regarding this village's lake trail. I don't understand why it has migrated to Wikipedia as it has, but it seems to be impacting this page. Thank you for your attention to this issue. It's fascinating to watch the Wiki wheels in motion.--Greeneyedsallie (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prudence

Since there is a clear and obvious dispute regarding Greeneyedsallie’s claim that there is a walking path/hiking trail though the village of Aurora, I believe that all references to a walking path/hiking trail should be removed from the Wikipedia page concerning Aurora, NY. There is more to this village than a falsely alleged walking/hiking path.

As a 35 year resident of the village of Aurora, I know that a walking path, as claimed by Greeeneyedsallie, does not exist.

Until she can offer Wikipedia definitive proof substantiating her claim, such as a deed on any lakefront property that mentions this imaginary easement, it is only prudent and fair that Wikipedia include no reference to it. Otherwise, Wikipedia will be encouraging trespassing on private property, not just on my family's land, but throughout the village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laholland (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onus

GreenEyedSalli is making the claim, so the onus should be on her to prove it exists, not on me to prove the nonexistence of a hiking trail through my property. What if GreenEyedSallie claimed that was a herd of unicorns running free in Aurora? The same logic would apply to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laholland (talk • contribs) 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Look: no hiking path. Private property. https://imate.cayugacounty.us/IMO/quickstream.aspx?file=Tax Maps/aurora/181_16.PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laholland (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playing with words.

GES says: "To my knowledge, no one has ever been arrested, ticketed, or charged with a crime, much less convicted or sanctioned for using this popular trail." First, there is no "popular trail" and there are no unicorns. That is why no one gets arrested, ticketed, or charged with a crime, and why no one sees any unicorns. Secondly, "To my knowledge"? So what? That proves nothing. You are not omniscient. We are suing our neighbors for trespassing on our property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laholland (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I require sources

look, in order to have a normal conversation, we need reliable backup website sources that support what you are saying, no pictures. thank you, Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 13:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aurora, Cayuga County, New York. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120712082037/https://www.aurorany.org:80/Happyland.html to https://www.aurorany.org/happyland.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aurora, Cayuga County, New York. 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) 16:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]