User talk:Caadogan

Caadogan (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)==Link spam== Your recent edit to the article for Short Hills, New Jersey has been reverted. It seems that almost every one of your edits has been to add a link to http://www.bunnmoxleyhomes.com, a site that provides community information to help it sell homes, using material that is written in an overly promotional manner. I'm not sure what your connection (if any) is to the firm, but all such links will be removed under the WP:LINKSPAM policy that forbids links added for promotional purposes to promotional sites. Alansohn (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alan, I am responding to your reversion of the article about Dr. James Crisfield, the Superintendent of Millburn Short Hills School System. I don't know your background, or your interest in Short Hills, but if you have read the interview, you will find it is among the very best interviews conducted of Dr. Crisfield.  I am not aware of any other interview with this important town official.  In the article, he outlines his thoughts on local schools - perhaps one of the most important considerations to those interested in the town.  If the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide helpful information, this is a very helpful article.  Frankly just because an article isn't published by the NY Times, doesn't mean it is not valuable.  And, by the way, the NY Times, the Item and other traditional media sources are not shy about including commercial ads.  I would suggest you read the article, understand its importance to the community, before you summarily dismiss it.  Caadogan (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Caadogan (John Navin)
 * Taking a new look at this item from the website written by Cara Moxley, which includes the statement that "And fortunate for our town, she follows in a long line of unheralded but distinguished Township Committee members, including Ralph Batch, Tommy Thomas, Maureen Ogden and, immodestly, my Dad, John Navin." it seems to me that you have a connection to the source that presents a strong possible violation of Wikipedia'a conflict of interest policy. While I agree that The New York Times does include ads in its papers and on its website, it does seem that the Times does a far better job in separating its editorial and news content from its advertising than does http://bunnmoxleyhomes.com, where the content is inextricably linked to the advertising. The useful information that Wikipedia attempts to provide must be written in compliance with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. In an article about Dr. Crisfield, a viable argument might be made that the information included in the interview provides insights unavailable from other sources that might be more balanced, but adding the link as a reference in the article for Short Hills does not meet even that standard. Even in the article for the Millburn Township Public Schools, the sole purpose needed for the link was to establish the identity of the superintendent, not to provide any details regarding his policies. Your connection to Millburn / Short Hills gives you insights into the community that others may not have, but those connections also create obvious concerns regarding neutrality and balance. Please review these policies and understand that an editing pattern in which every edit has added a link to http://bunnmoxleyhomes.com -- and no other source -- presents issues where the site is inherently promotional and where you have a connection to the source. Alansohn (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alan. Wikipedia tries to be spam free, so that when any of us search for information, we do not have to wade through ads, clutter, junk, so in the long run it is best to keep spam out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not certain if you have read the reference. If you had, you would find there is no junk or spam. It is a straightforward interview with the new School Superintendent. Alot of people in our town want this info. Especially when the alternative was old info that referenced a school superintendent that hadn't held the job for three years. I think Wiki should strive to provide that latest, most valuable info to readers. Otherwise it becomes a useless fossil.Caadogan (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read the reference, but I've also reviewed the website. The http://bunnmoxleyhomes.com site is inherently promotional and all of the material added regarding the superintendent could have been readily referenced through a source linking to the district's website. Every single edit you have made to an article so far links to http://bunnmoxleyhomes.com and the combination of your connection to the business owner and the sales-oriented nature of the site makes it entirely inappropriate for use as a reference. Further such additions of links to the website will be removed and may be treated as vandalism. Update the articles using independent, reliable and verifiable sources, all of which are easily available from the district, the township and from the ample media outlets covering the township and its schools. Be proud of your community and your daughter's business, but understand that Wikipedia policy requires that all material added to articles, all references and external links be in compliance with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Alansohn (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically you are suggesting that my interviews with the School Superintendent, local mayors, and other key community leaders fit into the category of "spam." You are devaluing my published community interviews, notwithstanding the fact that no other local media outfit has reported on this. So you are basically taking the somewhat bizarre view - for an internet based information source - that only "established" media outfits can contribute as sources. The result, of course, is that "established" media less and less covers local events, with the result that your information will be outdated - as it was in this case where for three years Wiki listed the wrong School Superintendent. Surely there must be a way to compromise here. It would be helpful to the Wiki readers, our community and the legitimate interests of bloggers.Caadogan (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I continue to agree with AlanSohn. Please understand how tempting it is for all of us to subvert Wikipedia's rules to make exceptions and promote businesses here, but please see the bigger picture -- how useful this encyclopedia is to everybody when we keep all of the promotional stuff out. Caadogan, you yourself probably use Wikipedia and have found it valuable on many times because other people's advertising and promotional stuff was excluded; please see the larger picture.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)