Talk:Edgewood, New Mexico

message: I restored the links I previously added to the Edgewood page this morning, but had forgotten to log in.  These links provide a "look and feel" for the community, and also (at least in part) address the request for photos.  They do not violate any Wikipedia standards of which I am aware.  Please do not remove them again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ELNO says that we should avoid, among other things, links that are placed primarily to promote websites: and the usage here serves that purpose.  Nyttend (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither the intent nor the effect of these edits is to promote or a web site.  The pages to which these links lead are on a nonprofit economic development site for the region, and provide information and images associated with the community in question. There is no commercial content involved.  Please respect the right of contributors to place links to relevant to local communities that are the subject of the article.--Weckerleje (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter whether there's commercial content: you're promoting the websites themselves.  I do respect and acknowledge that right, but this is different. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am NOT promoting the websites themselves.  I providing a link to photographic content associated with the communities, and it is not appropriate for you to continue to vandalize the article in this manner.  This makes three "undos" in one day for you, and it is being reported.--Weckerleje (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in far more detail in response to you at WP:EAR, you are indeed spamming; all the links you've added are to websites designed by a single webpage design firm and you admit to running just such a company. The evidence is fairly overwhelming. 3RR does not apply. Please desist.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in far more detail in response to your response, I disagree completely, and found your response at EAR extremely offensive (ditto for this one).  I am accepting the judgment of the more polite responders, however, and have decided not to even "suggest" the links as recommended.  Wikipedia can, and apparently would prefer to, do without them.  However, I will address one continuing issue by which you appear troubled.  I do not "admit" to running just a company, I stated it openly - and I further disclose (for those who are not able to leap to the conclusion) without any qualms of conscience that I developed the content in question for the nonprofit organizations involved and own the company that hosts them.  Your insistence on reading something sinister into this is, in my opinion, unnecessarily combative - far more so than the other respondents.  Please consider the possibility that others may disagree with you without being enemies, and please also consider that your overly-aggressive language may not be appropriate in all situations.--Weckerleje (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding multiple links to sites you are invested in was on its face inappropriate. Pushing to keep them in was even more so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  While I yield to the community on this issue, I disagree with it.  The overall tone of this is to assume the worst about those posting information.  You seem more interested in making value judgments here than in the general idea of providing useful and interesting information. As far as I am concerned, the value and appropriateness of the material, and not the simple fact that the author is making it available, should be the driving factor in deciding whether it should be allowed.  In short, the question should be asked: If someone else had posted the links, would they be appropriate?  If the answer to that is "yes," then I believe the links should remain. I do not agree with those who would limit access to information in the interest of some vague goal of "preventing self-promotion."  This is similar to knowingly blocking legitimate e-mail in the interest of "fighting" spam.  I've been overruled on this issue here at Wikipedia, and accept that, but your statements of opinion here do nothing to change mine - nor am I likely to change yours.  Further debate would seem to be of limited value.--Weckerleje (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of 9/15/08 restored 

message: Please see above, "Edits of 9/15/08 restored."  I would appreciate any third opinions.--Weckerleje (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Third Opinion

message: the altitude of edgewood is about 6700 feet.
::The elevation of Edgewood actually varies fairly substantially, from slightly below 6,000 feet probably to well above 7,000 feet in the far northwest part of the incorporated area.Weckerleje 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  altitude 

message: We are unable to reach consensus, as Edgweedian appears unwilling to engage in discussion, choosing rather to simply re-introduce the disputed text.  Please see comments above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 October 2007
Comment. Hi Weckerleje, I applaud your patience in trying to deal with this situation. I'll try to offer some advice on how to proceed. (Let me preface by saying that, technically, I think Third Opinion is for cases when the parties are in conversation. For your future reference....) 
First, I think it's good to keep trying to contact Edgeweedian. As a new user, much like yourself, Edgeweedian will probably come around and eventually talk this through with you and become a useful contributor to Wikipedia. You might began by posting calm and polite messages at User talk:Edgeweedian, asking for dialogue on your disagreement over the article content. From what I hear, many new users start off on a bad foot, yet gradually become productive after (much?) patient prodding and education about the Wikipedia project. (See WP:BITE and its "See also" links.)
Second, this probably is not what we call vandalism. Instead, it's more like a stubborn effort to continue pushing one's own point of view, without regard to others editors/collaborators. This can lead to what we call "edit warring", when users revert each other repeatedly. Looks like Edgeweedian, at least, reverted the article section 3 times within a 24 hr period. According to the 3 revert rule, it is possible that Edgeweedian could be blocked from editing, beginning with up to a 24 hour block. You may wish to warn Edgeweedian, who might appreciate the favor, I don't know. Or, you might report Edgeweedian to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and request a block. (Technically, you may have violated 3RR, too. If so, you should undo your reverts, even if that leaves the article unsatisfactory in your eyes, temporarily. Your edits are saved in History and can always be retrieved later.)
Third, you might try the following idea. Edgeweedian's text raises some questions about Walmart, town politics, etc. Is there any validity to these questions, even if it's a minority or controversial viewpoint? Are there any newspaper or other sources that have reported on such controversies? If so, why not yourself write a few sentences that speak to Edgeweedian's concerns? Maybe you don't want to do so in the lead paragraph, but maybe in a section on Government or History of the town? If you choose this route, it might strengthen the article, report verifiable information, and possibly draw Edgeweedian into conversation by demonstrating your willingness to listen and respond flexibly. Just an idea, can't say if it would work. Hope these thoughts are helpful. Please reply to my Talk page if you any of these ideas make sense, or if you'd like further info/advice. Good luck. HG | Talk 03:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings. To illustrate my third point, I've made some small edits in the article and mentioned Wal-Mart. Perhaps this will provide a middle ground for a conversation between you all. (And thanks for signing your edits!} Best wishes, HG | Talk 03:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  This is all proving to be an education.  I added some detail to the Wal-Mart issue; there were actually two lawsuits.  I left your footnote, but the link doesn't seem to go anywhere.  I was advised early on that Edgeweedian's edits (and similar ones) probably don't qualify as vandalism.  Interestingly, the real vandalism was traced to a local high school, and it turned out that the perpetrators were vandalizing articles all over Wikipedia - blanking pages, adding racist and sexually explicit comments, and so on.  I reported the issue to the school, and the problem seems to have been resolved.Weckerleje 12:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Third Opinion 

message: Despite requests to the contrary, certain parties appear insistent on using this venue to advance opinions, rather than allow this article to be simply a description of the community and its setting. The posts in question contained information that cannot be independently verified, and therefore do not belong in Wikipedia article space.
These opinions were apparently posted by someone who clearly feels he or she has an axe to grind with the local government. Such opinions are also occasionally seen in local newspapers. In any community, there will be disagreement regarding issues such as development. Content of this nature appears to violate the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, and should not be posted here. It would be best to address such concerns to the Town government or local newspapers - and they would probably carry more weight if they were not presented anonymously or through proxies.  Wikipedia is not a blog or a newspaper editorial site - it is an encyclopedia, and articles should contain only verifiable information.Weckerleje 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to see that you're discussing your disagreement. While I think it's a constructive start, I'd suggest trying to avoid putting competing opinions in the article. If necessary, go through each paragraph line by line. For any line that's contested, ask for a reliable source to back it up. Make sure the source is written up in a neutral and fair way. If necessary, use the reliable sources -- not your own knowledge/opinion -- to neutrally describe any controversy among residents (et al.). If a controversial opinion isn't mentioned in a reliable source, then I'm afraid it won't pass muster for the encyclopedia entry. You can also float draft edits here (i.e., in new sections at the bottom of this page), to make discussion easier. Hope this is useful. HG | Talk 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I've made a few changes along the lines of what I think my be helpful. I tried to use more neutral phrasing for what had been called "Opinion 1" and I used the  tag for potentially challenged statements, that need to be sourced. Take care, HG | Talk 22:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: W's comment moved here by HG | Talk 04:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved whole section to bottom of page. This isn't usually done but folks are still learning the WP:TALK conventions here. Continue your dialogue below, add subsections as needed. Pls sign your comments, indent responses, avoid interrupting or editing each other's remarks, etc. Thanks! HG | Talk 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Issues 

message: I've revised the text here to be more in conformance with the NPOV requirements.  As presented, the text seemed very subjective, and included claims for which no references were cited.  To ensure that Edgeweedian's interest in local annexations were included in the revisions, I detailed the most visible aspects of the Town's annexation history.  To provide a sense of perspective, I added the distance to the Wal-Mart from the I-40 interchange.  The characterization of the Wal-Mart site as "open prairie" was somewhat incorrect; while the property was vacant, this was actually fenced property zoned for "mixed use." Nearby land uses include commercial, residential, and agricultural uses.Weckerleje 14:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to History and Development - 10--18-07 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Edgewood, New Mexico. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified