Talk:CityPlace, Toronto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
[edit] Poor Quality
This article is really poorly written and put together. I'm trying to clean it up at bit. Also there could definitely be a better picture available than the one that is currently there, as the development has grown much larger in the past year. JXJ 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thats right. Please stop removing the resident complaint website. THat is not fair use and an abuse of Wikipedia. Concord Adex keeps editing to remove negative material and in the process they've chopped the page up so bad its useless.
--- Actually I keep erasing it, because the webpage in question only represents the view of one very unhappy resident. The website is highly biased and doesn't give a fair representation to the project. If your unhapply living there, sell you condo and move elsewhere.
You are abusing wikipedia and I have no choice but to file dispute with wikipedia moderators. Wikipedia is for everyone - not just those who want to pump the condo they own.
Just a question, how many people are behind the operation of this external site? Google shows only one incoming link to the site and even that link is poking fun at the quality of the website. I agree with the above in that the website seems very biased and full of advertising, I do not see added value here at all. -CaptainTO 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If you take a look several people have submitted their complaints to the website. There are also over a dozen sites that link to it including several forums and real estate sites. Concord supplies the sales pitch, CityPlace Toronto supplies the other side of the coin. Using your guys logic Concords website should also be stricken from the list since they are biased.
- The difference between Concord's website and the one you reference is that the information on Concord's website is verifiable. The buildings exist (to the most part) and are where they say they are. Although the comments on your website could very well be true, unless it gets covered by a reputable news organization or other reliable published sources they remain unverifiable. Two of the main principles in Wikipedia are verifiability and neutral point of view, I don't believe the external site can meet either. CaptainTO 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well you havent looked then and there are several links to news sites that verify the home invasion and we do have a lawyer that handles the website. We have also been interviewed by all 4 dailies in Toronto and CBC news at 6. Get your facts straight. You are not god, its not up to you to decide whats right and whats wrong. I have started the complaint process with Wikipedia. You are abusing this service by thinking your opinion is the only opinion. Concords sales literature is propoganda - not fact - its all fluff and plenty of it outright lies. Not only are you being unreasonable but unfair in your claimed criteria of "neutral". Sales propganda is not neutral. Trying to censor people who are having real problems and feel they've been ripped off is not neutral. You work for Concord.
-- well based on that logic should a critic of the city of Toronto have a link on the Toronto page?
-- I've never looked at this page before, but was curious about the development (I haven't lived in Toronto for years). I can see it has weathered some battled. I deleted the ridiculous link the St. James Town, which has nothing to do with CityPlace, whatever your opinions about high-rise density might be.
[edit] Continuing reverts to cityplacetoronto.com
Once again, the "official" link has been reverted to http://www.cityplacetoronto.com. Now there is a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that cityplacetoronto.com is not official by overwriting Concord's link. I will be holding off the obviously needed edit for 48 hours, as the user that has been the source of this dispute has gone to RfC me. But anyone else, feel free to revert back and ask for semi-protection. Otherwise, I'll do it myself after 48 hours. Kelvinc 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to speedy-delete the RfC as malformed and obviously made in bad faith. Kelvinc, if you wish to keep the summary you made on the RfC page around, you might want to copy it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, I would've probably forgotten about this article had the fellow laid off for a few days, but this incident gave me a good opportunity to explain just what the heck has been going on:
(First off: consider the irony of the RfC recipient filling out this section before the requester has officially filed the RfC.)
The request in question is due to the actions of unsigned IP 209.29.23.243, who has been adding a link onto the CityPlace (Toronto) article for a website against the developer, Concord Adex, since October 2006 (see history). Every time that the IP edits, there is an element of malice: see [1], [2], [3], [4]. The IP also has now deliberately attempted to hide his work by captioning his link as the official site: see [5], [6]. Subsequently, the IP has appeared to register on en:Wikipedia under the name Lashing: so far, this user's only contributions have been to create this RfC, continuing vandalism on CityPlace (Toronto), and an edit on the income trust article that is consistent with the IP's other vendetta (the IP has also made many subsequently reverted edits on the income trust and Stephen Harper articles, apparently quite infuriated with the tax decision announced by the government in October 2006).
The only part in which I profess to have possibly been overboard was when asking the IP to cease his behaviour that he "please cease accusing people of personal agenda when they are reverting your edits in accordance with Wikipedia policy." Presumably, this line set off the fellow in question and therefore this RfC exists. But I am confident that the IP's actions have long worn out WP:AGF and that reverting these edits are a justified response to a person with personal agenda to use Wikipedia as a platform for advertising his vendettas.
-
- So there you go. It's been more than 48 hours since the RfC was written up, so I feel no longer needed to withhold from reverting further malicious edits. Kelvinc 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
