Talk:Property Company of Friends/Archives/2015

Reference Improve
Cjdee, This article was created with a score of 80 in quality. Highest among the created articles for the Philippines in its specific timeframe. Currently having the most number of citations to various publications (31 as of the time of this writing) as compared to other articles about Real estate companies in the Philippines. As for the 31, only 1 citation was made by yours with almost exactly the same content of its original citation. If you have more ideas to improve this article's reference, you may freely do so under the bounds of Refimprove instead of tagging it with lacking such.

Failure to respond in a limited time would make me remove the labels you just imposed on the article; as it will be considered abusive.Schadow1 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Cjdee has professed intention to remove some of the citations. As per Wikipedia Etiquette, please read WP:Biased for reference. I am maintaining this tag until such time the aforementioned contributor documents the citations he/she is not comfortable with, then I will provide a response why such references where used. Schadow1 (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Cjdee recent response 02:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC) has provided his/her intention to improve the article. Contributor has not brought up specific citations he personally regarded as "deletion worth" for a dispute dialogue. Removing Refimprove tag for WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Schadow1 (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Over Coverage
As for OverCoverage, this label you have created would have conflicted with RefImprove. Please be more specific concerning your label for clarity. Please note that you have not started a TALK before adding these labels.

Failure to respond in a limited time would make me remove the labels you just imposed on the article; as it will be considered abusive.Schadow1 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Cjdee has not responded about this discussion from the latest response. Removing OC tag. Schadow1 (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Cjdee, you have tagged this article as COI without starting a TALK. I have initiated it instead for the purpose of what you have started.

Declaration of Interest - The article starter is one of the customer of this company.

However, this does not impend from the creation and composition of the article as the article itself was laid out in Neutral_point_of_view due to the fact sources were cited in all parts of the article. Additionally, the article starter have a first-hand knowledge of the article. Instead of being an impediment, this situation gives an advantageous position to gather facts and other information on various sources. However, it is possible Cjdee is solely interested in labeling this article as COI in evidence with his edit with summary, "it seems one of the contributors is a staunch critic of the company and may affect the objectivity in the creation of this page". Thus it may be conclusive, the mentioned editor is concerned about the Controversies part of the article. The article was created and authored in an informative yet inconclusive manner therefore bringing the possible COI versus the quality of the article (which was rated 80, see Tambayan_Philippines) will render the complaint as baseless and useless; in addition to the fact of the actions of the aforementioned user that shows accusative quality due to the absence of informing before hand the writer regarding his/her opinion in the TALK page.

Failure to respond in a limited time would make me remove the labels you just imposed on the article; as it will be considered abusive. Schadow1 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Schadow1 Your profile when searched shows having written content in relation to this company. Therefore raising doubts on your objectivity. You also linked to sources that were written anonymously that does not make it as an apt reference. I am supposed to add more links to balance this piece until I saw your identity, did a Google search, and what I found have raised doubts to the content intention. The tags should remain until decided upon by someone who will understand what I mean and evaluate the conflict of interest issues objectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdee (talk • contribs) 06:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cjdee, as per Wikipedia etiquette, you would need to evaluate the article's contents and objectivity. You would have to prove further that the article moves out of the bounds of Wikipedia's NPV or else attacking the credibility of the author then tagging COI to it irrespective of its quality would tend to direct to ad hominem argumentum instead of improving the article itself. You would also need to follow COI procedures which you failed to do so beforehand. Additionally, your anonymity itself would give an unfair transgression of your action's purpose; making your credibility to be in doubt. Thus it is therefore necessary and important that you focus in proving the article's quality for degrading it to this maintenance tag before doing so or else your claims would go no where and would tend to show harassment qualities. As for anonymous reference query, you would need to point exactly which references you have in question and place it accordingly in a specific discussion so its contents' credibility can be quantified. Schadow1 (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Schadow1 Your disclosure should have been done beforehand. I only saw that when I started adding a link. Then saw you added a paragraph next to it citing issues on marketing practices. However, the link you are referring that I added and you added to the similar reference, as you pointed out, raised issues that you did not even cited - how the company is being attacked by anonymous identities and other links that spoke fairly of this company such as some of its homeowners. Hence it gave me an impression that you are biased in documenting developments about this company. I will help you out writing up this company. I will remove anonymous written references to adhere to what Wikipedia is all about (sharing factual verified information). But until it balances out, I will insist for the bias tag not to be removed by you. Only an objective and no-interest on this company Wikipedia editor should do so and will respect such a decision. (talk) 5 February 2015


 * Cjdee, hint: under the Controversies, it was mentioned these are allegations. Both the allegations and the company's response has been cited which supposedly satisfies your direction. Or you can add more if you have reliable sources. Hint: please respond on specific sections for easy reference. As per Wikipedia, it is unethical to remove citations unless you change it with a better one. You need to discuss on specific sections which citations you are not comfortable with so its quality and its coverage can be discussed. As per Wikipedia, citations need not be unbiased as it is a source of information that cites the content of the Wiki WP:Biased. Schadow1 (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As per Cjdee response, requires an external entity to quote "evaluate the COI objectively". Per Wikipedia rules in handling such request, user must follow WP:COIN before a deliberation can be made whether to tag this article or not as COI. Removing COI on this article until appropriate process has been made and a deliberation has been concluded. Schadow1 (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Schadow1 I will be monitoring your high interest and biased actions on this page. And yes, I will help out in improving this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdee (talk • contribs) 02:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution has been opened for the article en:Property Company of Friends
Dispute Resolution has been opened for this article regarding Multiple Issues for February 5, 2015 Dispute resolution noticeboard Due to reinstatement of Template:Refimprove tag amidst request for discussion. Schadow1 (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution has been closed by TransporterMan due to non-response of Cjdee. See revision Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Board 16:25, 25 February 2015‎ Schadow1 (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)