Talk:SoLé Mia

message: The Biscayne Landing article has been edited with the most current information on the community, under the direction of its developers, Boca Developers, and the former executive director of the North Miami Community Redevelopment Agency and current director of the “Redevelopment and Revitalization of Southeast Florida” Project Frank Schnidman.  For more information on the project, please visit http://www.cuesfau.org/cra/.  
Because Biscayne Landing is still under construction, with its first towers to be completed soon, this article will be regularly edited to reflect the latest changes to the master-planned community. --Johnpdavid 22:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wikipedia is not meant to be used to advertise development projects, please do not remove sourced edits that point out negative aspects of this project.--RandomStuff 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Johnpdavid - Again, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sales brochure.  I have suggested multiple times how you can make edits within wikipedia guidelines if you feel the article is POV.  Using a sock-puppet account and your alternate ip address was not among my suggestions.  Please do not just copy/paste pr material into the article and remove any valid/sourced portions that do not favor your marketing standpoint.  Regardless of the account name/ip address you use, please source any new information, do not remove pertinent sourced material, and do not include non-encyclopeadic marketing snippets in the article.  Your contributions to make this article NPOV are welcome, but again, please keep your contributions within wikipedia guidelines.   Thanks. RandomStuff 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolving Real Estate Project 

message: This article has been updated to make the POV brochure text from the developers NPOV.--RandomStuff 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: My edits to the page where sincere attempts at npov, and sources where cited.  This is more about the community risks of Munisport, your project is unfortunately affected since it is being constructed prior to cleanup of the site.  Munisport has a long history of (illegal) pollution and dumping, and according to some reputable sources the site has never been properly cleaned.  There have been many documented instances of political/financial considerations in re-classifying polluted sites and fudging results, this site included.  If you were to sue me for libel/slander, you know  full well that there are reams of documents that would be entered into discovery and the public record showing, among other things:
* Initial reccomended cleanup of Munisport never completed
* city or developers could have cleaned up property by removing all toxic waste for approx. $25-30 mil, but chose not to take this route
* delisting was contested, with documetation that the testing was never thorough enough for a site with the contaminants documented to have gone into Munisport
If you were to be foolish enough to pursue your threatened action against me, your legal team could be presented with filing cabinets full of documentation of everything that has gone wrong with the Munisport site prior to Biscayne Landings project, from illegal and unsupervised dumping to testing irregularities.
If, on the other hand, your claim is that the article and citations are correct and the only violation you claim is "Copyright Infringement," a few pointers:
# You posted your rendering on wikipedia under Creative Commons License Public Domain, you cannot revoke this license.
# You contributed to the article, as did John Paul David, read wikipedia licensing re: posting/copyright.
I think it would be more constructive to work on an NPOV factually accurate (non-PR) article, rather than to resort to threats of litigation.  Your behavior is contrary to wikipedia community standards.  --RandomStuff 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with the legal threats part, I think you need to prove that this is indeed the same user and that "Johnpdavid" had rights to even use the image in the first place. But yes, no legal threats on Wikipedia. Sasquatch  t|c 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JohnPDavid works for the pr agency for Boca Developers - , I erroniously mistook this account to be a sock puppet account for johnpdavid due to shared ip addresses between identical postings, but it appears by the email address above that this account belongs to a different Boca Developement employee.  According to Johnpdavid's initial postings, he was working under direction of Boca Developement when he posted the image under creative commons public domain.  So it looks like Boca Developement first posted/cc licensed the photo to wikipedia through their pr firm, then retracted the license when they were unhappy with the contents of the article.  If this is a legal issue, the ip address johnpdavid posted the image from is in the logs, and as an agent of Boca Developers he has the right to publish the image and enter it into CC public domain.  There is legal precident that once an image is entered into CC public domain by an agent of the owner of the rights, said rights cannot be revoked.  While wikipedia may decide to cave on this one, the law and  past decisions are clear, and again, ip address logs of wikipedia will show that johnpdavid is who he says he is, a pr agent for Boca Developers.  So the real legal action perhaps should be against johnpdavid for giving away the copyright of his clients' image while representing him?  --RandomStuff 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not convinced... I'd rather just leave the image out. Someone else can go and visit the site and just take a photo anyways should they need to... I mean... I don't feel the image is necessary to the article (if people wanted to see how the project looks like they can just click the links) and we just avoid all issues pertaining to what status the copyright is in. Sasquatch  t|c 18:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, too much fuss over something so easily duplicated.  User removed the image because I pointed out that it showed the sewage treatment plant to the north of the developement (also visible on google maps satelite view.)  --RandomStuff 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ummm, I'm pretty sure you can't stop us from writing about the company. Copyright only protects against others using the name for commercial use (e.g. I opened up my own company called "Biscayne Landing"). However, we are guaranteed under the right to free speech to talk about your company all we want. This is a frivolous argument, if the article is clearly about your company you cannot prevent us from mentioning it. Using the name would clearly fall under fair use anyways. Take this matter somewhere else and stop threatening legal action. Sasquatch  t|c 18:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *laughs hysterically* Names have never, ever been copyrightable. Trademarkable I'll grant you, but it has absolutely nothing to do with reporting on factually correct material. Nice try.--SarekOfVulcan 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Threats

message: If your first edit was reverting to someone else's version, does that count as one of the 3? If so, I now have one too many. :-(--SarekOfVulcan 20:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think when combatting vandalism and blanking of pages, and nobody has issued a warning, you are ok.    Otherwise, I am worse off than you in the RR count department.  --RandomStuff 23:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR? 

message: #This article fails to claim notability that would warrant inclusion in wikipedia. If we were to include articles on every local housing development, we would have millions of useless pages.
#It reads to something close to a brochure, or at least as original research. This needs to be fix to meet encyclopedic standards.
#This project has not been built yet, as such it describes events in the future. Until it is finished it must note this.
#It completely fails to be reliably and verifiably sourced.
--Cerejota 07:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this article might be notable if you consider it is built on a controversial former superfund site, which some say has not been fully remediated.  Check some of the older edits, they seem well sourced.  Possible problem is POV, though.  If this does make notability due to being on a former superfund landfill, it should also contain info on what remediation is being done currently to ensure it is safe.  Older versions of this fluctuate between a "hit" piece and pr spin, would be nice if there was a happy medium.  --Zeke pbuh 18:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  crystall ball, notability, factual accuracy, and neutrality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Biscayne Landing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110207030508/http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplfls/munprtfl.htm to http://www.epa.gov/Region4/waste/npl/nplfls/munprtfl.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Biscayne Landing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121019163430/http://www.epa.gov/region04/waste/reuse/fl/munisportreusesuc.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/region04/waste/reuse/fl/munisportreusesuc.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biscayne Landing. 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/20140223005438/http://www.foreclosuredataonline.com/blog/foreclosure/biscayne-landing-foreclosure/ to http://www.foreclosuredataonline.com/blog/foreclosure/biscayne-landing-foreclosure/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified