Talk:Community association

message: Community association should not be a redirect; it's not synonymous with homeowners association. This was an effective deletion without a review. Can we have a discussion about this, please? Deirdre 07:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and restored this page; nobody responded to my complaint above, and I've since discovered more about community associations of various types. Deirdre 23:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: An administrator removed the link to www.cdigab.com.
The link should be reinstated, as CIDGAB.com is not a commercial site. It does not attempt to sell or encourgae the sale of any product of any kind, with the exception of sponsorship ads to any comapny much the same way google sells adwords. If anything, the site is very similar to a wikipedia specifically for the Community Associations Industry. Please add commentary to get this external link reinstated or provide a clear policy backed reason for it to be excluded.
Thank you:
Edenrage (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Edenrage previously added a link to athomenet.com and cidgab.com. There is clear evidence that they are promoting a site they have interest in (see WP:COI, WP:SPAM) - The users IP address is associated with AtHomeNet and cidgab.com is run by AtHomeNet. Furthermore I do not see any reason to link to cidgab.com based on our WP:EL guidelines. /wangi (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Please, leave it be. The site is devoid of useful content. It has a few (very targeted) banner ads, a few links a bunch of affiliate links of books on Amazon and a forum which is dead (1 thread!) & not available to the general reader. It is of no use to a reader of this article, even if we do disregard your clear conflict of interest and spamming. The contrast with the two sites which are linked is marked. /wangi (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The cidgab.com domain is registered by AtHomeNet. The site itself has no information  of substance that I can find. A Google search for references and links to it turns up only 295 hits, most of which are unrelated. It features an Amazon affiliate store set up by AtHomeNet. While I can't determine the context of the links you point out above, I can point out that they are, in order: a news article, and thus a reliable source; an archive of a news article with no indication of advertising presence; a corporate website, and thus appropriate in articles about that corporation; another reliable source (the Columbia Journalism Review); a corporate site, and thus appropriate in articles about the corporation; and a link that I wouldn't particularly use outside of an article on the company in question. In context, all are useful. cidgab.com does not offer any valuable information, and with the relationship to a company that sells websites for this industry, its appropriateness under WP:EL is very, very slim. I'm going to try and make this my last comment on this discussion, because all it's doing is making me beat my head on my desk, but I highly suggest that you drop the campaign now before you are blocked. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I shouldn't do this, because I'm mad now, but I'm going to call you on oa couple of comments. That "Books" page is an Amazon affiliate store; as noted here, the affiliate - clearly identified as "athomenetcommuni" in the URL link to the Amazon store - receives "up to 15 percent" on any purchases. So that's wrong. As for the newspaper link, if we didn't have newspapers as reliable sources, we'd have about ten articles. Newspaper = reliable source. If Gametap is a division of Time Warner, then it makes sense to have a link there in the article on the corporate ownership. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of an external link to www.Cidgab.com