Talk:Edgewood, New Mexico

Edits of 9/15/08 restored

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Request for Third Opinion

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

altitude

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)

Opinion Edits by Edgeweedian and Others

You will note that I have again removed the unverifiable and subjective information that has been placed in the Edgewood article. Again, this content appears to violate the WP:NPOV policy. It may be worth your while to read that policy, and also WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V, which provide information on what is and what is not appropriate to Wikipedia article space.

As it states in the latter policy: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." You certainly have the right to your opinions, and it's very obvious that you disapprove of some of the policy decisions made by your local government. However, the Wikipedia policies are very clear on this issue, and I think it would be best for you to seek the appropriate venue in which to express your discontent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 October 2007

Request for Third Opinion

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)

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)

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)

Content Issues

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)

Edgeweedian: "You will note that I have again removed the unverifiable and subjective information that has been placed in the Edgewood article."

I will grant you the comment of the Wal-Mart being an eyesore is subjective but it’s not a modern art masterpiece either but I changed it anyway as to not offend. The sad thing is most of the dissenters to Wal-Mart will be good little sheeple and support the newest made in China store to a great success.

As far as the other information being inaccurate, you are wrong. Just like the book title, this is an inconvenient truth as I have lived here for 15 years and the reality may not be favorable but it is none the less true. My sources were facts and figures from the local newspaper that you also cited in your opinion/entry. If I recall correctly at the time of the initial vote there were about 160 eligible voters and the measure won with about 80 votes cast (not in favor but total) and then promptly incorporated other lands. Granted those numbers may not be dead on but close enough to matter here.

"You certainly have the right to your opinions, and it's very obvious that you disapprove of some of the policy decisions made by your local government."

Part of the problem was that so few people had the vote and effect on so many people. I live but 2 miles from Edgewood (I have a POBox in Edgewood, as do many people) but I have zero representation and cannot vote on policies, as I do not live in the effected area. I just have see and pass the blight on my way to work. So my question to you is how is your opinion more important than mine is? Since this is just that, an opinion.

Edgeweedian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgeweedian (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 {{fact}} tag for potentially challenged statements, that need to be sourced. Take care, HG | Talk 22:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Weckerleje: There is much upon which we agree. The issue of Wal-Mart being an eyesore remains to be resolved, but I'm not particularly impressed by what I see so far. Admittedly, though, it is in a very early stage of construction. I have often, and very publicly (to the point of bringing my own Open Meetings Act complaint - a successful one - against the Town government) disagreed with the municipality's approach to planning, zoning, and development. I'm a big proponent of open space preservation, wildlife corridor incorporation, and other progressive planning approaches that have not yet been incorporated successfully into public policy to my satisfaction. Like you, I live just outside the Town boundaries and cannot directly impact Town policy - at least not yet.

What we disagree upon is the role of Wikipedia in all this. This is, for all intents and purposes, an encyclopedia. I see this as a place to list the basic facts about the Town, its location, and other attributes. It's not a place for us to air our dissatisfaction with the local government's decisions. Again, I'd like to suggest that you explore the Wikipedia guidelines and policies on what does and does not belong in "article space." Of course, we're free to discuss these issues here on the Talk page, and at this point I'm sure local people are watching.

As to the accuracy of information (I'm not sure which information I said was inaccurate; can you point me in the right direction?) - It's not accuracy, but independent verifiability that is required at Wikipedia. I will say this, though: I take exception to people making personal attacks against those with whom they disagree, whether they are doing it for strategic/tactical purposes or because they simply assume that the opposition must have a sinister motive. The former is simply contemptible, and the latter ignores human nature. I've gotten to know many people on both sides of the issues we're talking about here, and understand both sides of the argument. I've seen no evidence of corruption, dishonesty, or ill intent on the part of the Town's current elected officials; they, and many of their predecessors, are simply doing what they think is right. Similarly, the folks on the opposite side of the discussion seem dedicated to their own beliefs. In either case, I may disagree on what is right, but I respect their opinions.:I haven't expressed any opinions here on local issues. My opinions are no more important than yours, regardless of where they may differ - or not. There's a lot of room for conversation, but not necessarily in Wikipedia article space. Talk space here is fine, but the "real world" might be a good place to share ideas and discuss solutions. You know who I am, and I'm in the book; how about lunch, my treat, whether or not we've disagreed in the past on local issues? I'll wait until tomorrow to revise the article, in hope that you'll give it some thought.Weckerleje 12:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

W's comment moved here by HG | Talk 04:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Edits to History and Development - 10--18-07

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)

Edits of 2.26/10 explained

For the reviewers and editors: It had been a year and a half since I had visited the Edgewood page, and I noted that much of the information on the page had been removed. I looked through the history, and it seemed apparent, at least to me, that competing interests and/or conflicting parties were attempting to remove each others' edits, and to edit information regarding community features and/or events to which they are opposed. I have attempted to return some of this content. However, because one of the edits was made by Nyttend, who has weighed in on "promotional" content, I would like to explain specifically why I have returned the content. In a small town such as Edgewood, attractions such as the local zoo (Wildlife West Nature Park) and events are a large part of the community character. Nor are such entries without precedent; the Albuquerque entry, for example, both mentions and links to its zoo, not to mention malls, manufacturers, and other features. I am asking that editors exercise some consistency in this regard. I have tried to write the language so as not to promote, but to inform. If anyone takes issue, I would ask that they not simply delete the information, but provide some input as to how it can be worded and incorporated in such a manner as to conform with editors' expectations for quality and content while providing a good feel for what Edgewood is like. Thanks in advance for your consideration.

For the folks who may perhaps have been involved in what might be termed "Wiki wars:" I understand that emotions run high in situations where people disagree. However, there are right and wrong places, and methods, of addressing differences, and using Wikipedia to sabotage each other is not appropriate behavior. Please don't; there are better ways to resolve your differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC) --Weckerleje (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I just read the guidelines again and realize that I may be in a conflict of interest with Wildlife West Nature Park's link, as I took it over a while back. I think it would be unfortunate to remove it. This is not a private business, as EdgewoodNMTown suggested when they removed the link; it is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. I am asking that others examine the initial deletion and make a determination as to whether the link should have been removed in the first place. Thank you.--Weckerleje (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

However, you've failed to provide any sources. Because our articles must be based on reliable sources, and those properly cited, unsourced material doesn't belong in an article. Could you find sources for this type of information? Your local newspaper is likely to be a reliable source, so it might be a good place to start looking. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Nyttend, and please see also my apology for giving you a hard time on your Talk page. Here's the problem I face. I took over the best reference for at least one of these local features - the Wildlife West Nature Park site - some time back. They're a struggling nonprofit. It's an important part of the community, perhaps one of its defining elements, and it is certainly as worthy of mention in its context as the Rio Grande Zoo is in the Albuquerque article. Can you explain why the Wildlife West link is inappropriate for Edgewood, but the Rio Grande Zoo link is appropriate for Albuquerque? If I read what you're writing correctly, I'd have to find newspaper articles rather than post a link to their Events page - which will always be more current than the newspapers. Is there any way to provide the Events link rather than newspapers?

I can understand how this particular article may have become a source of frustration. Looking back at the edits of the last year or so, it looks as if somebody became overenthusiastic about promoting the Chamber of Commerce, and it appears that some competing factions were working against each other at several points. While we may disagree to some extent on what should be in the article, I do appreciate your effort in trying to keep things from getting out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 14:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, I don't see any links to the zoo at Albuquerque, New Mexico. Did you mean a different city, or did I make some sort of mistake? Until I understand, I can't respond sensibly to you. Anyway, the problem with depending on sources that the zoo publishes is that it's a self-published source — in general, we require material about a subject to be based on something published by another party. It might well be quite appropriate to use the zoo's website as a source for an article about wildlife in southern Santa Fe County, but when we're writing about the zoo itself, we really need to go with what someone else has written. The same goes for tons of other different topics. I'll respond more fully once I understand the bit about Albuquerque. Nyttend (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for hanging in there with me. The link is to the Rio Grand Zoo's Wikipedia page, which then provides a link to the Zoo's web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nyttend, I'm trying to better understand what should and should not be posted in the way of links. The Chamber of Commerce has a link to its site on the page. Like Wildlife West, this is a local nonprofit, and not part of the Town government. The link is not to an independent reference, and it was initially posted by the Chamber's webmaster (at the time, me). Should it also not be there?Weckerleje (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, should there be a link to the Town web site and the library, given that the library link just auto-forwards to a page on the Town web site?Weckerleje (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Chambers of commerce are widely linked; we generally see them as an acceptable link, since they generally provide useful information about the entire community, and since they're not an individual company or organisation, unlike the zoo. I've fixed the link to the library. We already link to the town website; it's at the top of the section. Nyttend (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 {{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) 07:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)