Talk:Harmony, Florida

Archives

Seems Odd to Me

Sorry if I am not doing this right. I don't know anything about editing Wikipedia - my first time. Just learned about this and can't understand all the fuss. I live in next town over and know some of the probelms in Harmony. I know of Schiro from his newspaper articles about school issues and what I have read in his blog. I don't know logiharmonyone. After reading all this nonsense it seems a little one sided. The one thing that stands out for me is why the offical website for the article is the one from the development company? What about residents site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewfromsc (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wading through the mess that is this Talk page. :( Wikipedia needs editors, it would be great if you would choose to contribute, within Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I myself am not sure that expanding about Harmony is needed. I myself think development of other topics in Wikipedia is more helpful, such as developing articles about historic sites indexed at National Register of Historic Places listings in Osceola County, Florida. :)

Anyhow, the current article has several URLs within References, including one going to the "Harmony CDD", which looks like a residents' group to me, it has a board of directors and elections and so on. You're right there is just one External link, going to the developer's website i guess. I would have no problem adding the Harmony CDD as an external link also. Or is there a different resident's group that has some official authority, to link to? What do you suggest adding? --do ncr am 23:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows whats official. I just know what I have seen. I think the CDD site has been out there for awhile. It looks like it is run by the development company also. But I have also seen the harmonyflcommons site for many years now. I remember it referenced in some of the newspaper articles. I would think both should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewfromsc (talk • contribs) 19:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the sentiment Viewfromsc, I disagree about the Harmony CDD site. It's not a residents' site at all. It is owned and operated by the same CDD management company that the developer hired to run the CDD in 2000. The fact that it is linked to from the developer's site proves the point. HarmonyFLcommons.com is the only truly independent residents' site that I know of. And to doncram's point, I'm not sure what he would consider "official" since a site like that typically comes about from several residents getting together to just get it done, which is what happened in that case.

FYI Viewfromsc, you can eliminate that annoying "Preceding unsigned comment added by" prefix on your name by using 4 tildes at the end of each post (as it says in the "remember to sign your posts" note at the top of the page editor). --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edit 3

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I would like to suggest that the following external link be added:

HarmonyFLcommons.com - Independent Site for Residents

The commons site has been around since 2006. We know that it can't compare in content to the "official" site. But it is helpful to residents none-the-less. It is maintained by residents for residents. The official site is owned, operated and maintained exclusively by the developer with no say whatsoever by Harmony residents.

Anyone looking for information about Harmony deserves more than just a sales brochure. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need permission to add links myself or am I considered a COI person also since I live in Saint Cloud which is just down the road from Harmony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewfromsc (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading other request for edit discussions I will try to make an argument for including the proposed link. Besides obviously being a website for Harmony residents, it has also been referred to in at least three newspaper articles, the Orlando Sentinel article already referenced plus two others:

http://www.aroundosceola.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8430

and

http://www.aroundosceola.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8545

Is that enough to make it worthy of inclusion? Are there any arguments against doing so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewfromsc (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Is anyone home? What's going on here? Does no one else have an opinion anymore? -GeorgeSchiro (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is blog-like and not worthy of inclusion. The site can be reached already by an interested reader going to the Orlando Sentinel article which mentions it. The two additional references to it, above, are not independent. They are links from opinion pieces by George Schiro, with the link provided as acknowledgment that the opinion pieces had previously been posted in the blog. I acknowledge I am not familiar with "Around Osceola dot Com", as to whether that is an independent newspaper that carries news and accepts occasional opinion pieces, or what. However, the two references are NOT news articles or anything else significant mentioning the blog independently. So, someone else may come to a different opinion, but I see little/no merit to the argument presented here, personally. --do ncr am 04:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback Doncram. What does "blog-like" mean? There is only 1 link to a newsgroup and 33 links to non-newsgroups/non-blogs (not to mention the dozens of links in the business directory). So while Viewfromsc referred to it as a "blog", it isn't. It is an independently moderated newsgroup with several public officials participating. Therefore the commons website has quite a bit more than just a link to a newsgroup. Wouldn't that make it more "site-like" than "blog-like"? The "official" site links to an actual blog site. Does that make it "blog-like" as well? If so, why does it deserve inclusion while the commons site does not? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very web savvy as you can tell. I don't really know the differnec betwen a blog and a newsgroup or what's considered proper for a wikipedia article. What I do know is that the links I cited - articles that I first read in print - reference the Osceola Gazette newspaper, the primary printed news source for Osceola County. It really is a printed newspaper that's been around a lot longer than the "Around Osceola" website. It is second only to the Orlando Sentinel in readership in this area. The Gazette often covers local stories ignored by the Sentinel. If you go to the bottom of the "Around Osceola dot com" home page you will see "Osceola News-Gazette". If you look it up in wikipedia you will see that "Around Osceola dot com" is the official website of the "Osceola News-Gazette" newspaper. It's been around several decades at least and is an independent newspaper that carries news and opinion pieces. Other than letters to the editor the opinion pieces are editorials and op-eds usually from local and state politicians. Shiro's op-eds are the first I've seen from someone not considered a public figure. I beg to differ Doncram. You said that "the two references are NOT news articles". But according to wikipedia op-ed pieces are newspaper articles. Or do you distinguish "news" from "newspaper"? I am not sure what you consider "significant". It seems to me that a well-established and longstanding newspaper accepting op-ed submissions and editing them and preparing them for print publication at least proves that it considers any links contained to be a valid source. Note also that the articles referenced have nothing to do with Harmony in particular which implies that the Osceola Gazette feels that the link to the resident's website is not just a blog about Harmony, but it has independent value to greater Osceola County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewfromsc (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had interpreted your statement that the website had been linked from two "newspaper articles" to mean that it was covered in two news stories in a reputable news source. And I expected/hoped they would be independent mentions, which they turned out not to be.

Let me say, this Wikipedia article and its Talk page should not be the focus of much interest by anyone. This is not the place to further any agenda of complaining about Harmony management/owners or anyone else. If someone has legal complaints or political points to make, make them elsewhere, not here. This Talk page is about improving the encyclopedia. An encyclopedia does not provide original research or breaking news. It should not provide any news or anything else not already covered / known / verified / accepted elsewhere.

Thanks for providing more about the Osceola Gazette's "Around Osceola" website. It could be considered a decent source for some usage in Wikipedia (though obviously less reputable than more major newspapers), at least about innocuous matters. However, the two links from the website were not from news articles. And the mention of the website was obligatory, since Schiro's essay had already been published at the website, and Around Osceola could have been criticized if they did not disclose that the essay had already been published elsewhere. It was not in any way an endorsement of the website, the mentions were not independent, and the mentioning source itself is not a paragon of news, so my view is that the linkings do not add credence to the view that the blog website is worth linking from Wikipedia.

However, I am not closing this "edit request" myself and leave it to some other editor to consider the discussion here, discussions further above, and Wikipedia's content guideline Wikipedia:External links, and then come to some judgment. Sincerely, --do ncr am 15:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand now how the colons work. You seem to be accusing me of having an agenda of complaining about Harmony or something Mr. Doncram. That doesn't seem right. I haven't complained about anything and I don't even live there. I know that some good things go on there and some not so good things go on there. What I care about is fair play. Since I live in Osceola County I am aware of Harmony and much of what has been going on there for years mainly through friends who have worked there as well as from Shiro's blog. I have seen many publicly known people post there so its not just a Harmony thing. You seem to think it is ok that a major development company has a website about Harmony in wikipedia but its not ok that residents have a website in wikipedia about the same place. That's just plainly unfair to me. Do you prefer the development company's website becuase they can spend thousands of dollars on it while residents have very little to spend? This seems like your opinion that large newspapers are credible while small newspapers are not. I just don't understand where you are coming from Mr. Doncram. Why is one external website reference acceptable while the other one is not? You call the residents site a blog site even though it obviously isn't. Anyone can see that. It has limited content for sure, but what do you expect from a place where only a few hundred people live? Viewfromsc (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you haven't closed this request Doncram. Hopefully you are willing to engage in a rational discussion about it. I would ask that you please elaborate on your analysis for classifying the requested external site as somehow not within the guidelines about Wikipedia:External links. My reading of the guidelines informs me that it does satisfy them on several points:

"Some acceptable links include those that contain ... other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

In the "Important points to remember" section: "4. In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site."

A link to the "Harmony Businesses" page could be included, as well as a link to the "Harmony HOA Documents" page. But in accord with the above guideline it is more appropriate to include a single link that references both.

The suggested link meets every criterion of the "What to link" section of the guideline.

The suggested link meets criterion 4 of the "Links to be considered" section of the guideline (ie. "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.").

The suggested link does not meet any of the criteria of the "Links normally to be avoided" section of the guideline. The only possible exception might be "11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites ..." as suggested by Doncram. Yet this 1 out of 20 exception is dubious in my opinion since the commons site obviously is not a "blog" nor is it "blog-like" as commented by Viewfromsc. Doncram has yet to demonstrate that the site is "blog-like" in any way.

The suggested link meets the "Longevity of links" criterion.

Any insights that you have to refute any of the above would be appreciated Doncram. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand how page ownership works in Wikipedia. You seem to own the Harmony page Mr. Doncram. So I guess I need your permission to edit it. Their seems to be no objection to Schiro's list of reasons to include the link. Should I add the link myself and if I do will you leave it or just remove it again Mr. Doncram? I thank you in advance for any help you can offer with this. Viewfromsc (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia the jargon is that "ownership" is bad, see wp:OWN. I don't own this article and don't want to. I replied with more info directly to User talk:Viewfromsc. I and other non-involved persons would be free to make such an edit, i guess. George Schiro and probably you, Viewfromsc, are involved / have a wp:COI, and should not. So indeed if you made the edit, I or someone else would probably revert it.

About the proposed external link, it appears to me not to be a major website for residents. According to http://harmonyflcommons.com/ConcernedCitizensforGoodGovernance.aspx, it is a site of the "Concerned Citizens for Good Governance", but it does not identify any such persons. If it was a resident's association that everyone had to pay dues for and belong to, and had interest in voting in elections and had some governance activity, it could perhaps be worth mentioning, as an official residences group as opposed to the management official website. But as far as I can see this has no membership, no governance, no say, no readership. It appears to be a protest site, that provides a venue for complaints about management and also a service of sharing announcements about some school scholarships and so on (but there is no clear value in that service, as I can't see any readership). It appears to be an amateur, blog-like forum for one or a few persons.

If one or a few persons want to keep on arguing that this has encyclopedic merit, then I suggest you could try to find other encyclopedic articles that have similar links. There is Wikipedia jargon saying that wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument, but I will grant that for me, it is kinda convincing. Here, I don't think that coverage in Wikipedia of other communities in other states includes similar external links. If you provided evidence to me that there is such coverage, I could possibly be swayed. (Or maybe I would want to remove those links in the other articles you point to.) But if you can't find anything comparable, then I am definitely against including link here to such a website. But, again, i am choosing not to be the person who closes this edit request. I am leaving that for another uninvolved editor, probably an administrator, to make the call after reviewing this discussion. --do ncr am 11:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it appears to me not to be a major website for residents"

How is that relevant? What is "major" in this context? Is the developer's website "major"? Would any small development website for residents be considered "major" Doncram? Can you cite any examples of small development residents' websites that are considered acceptable by you and also what you would consider "major"?

Oddly, while you identify yourself with the pseudonym "doncram", you suggest that others should list their names on a public website. Like the choice you made Doncram, I assume that these folks don't want to be harassed by the developer or anyone else. Does it make sense that such is now used as a ding against them or their website? And what you refer to as a "protest" website is actually an alternative source of relevant information not provided by the developer.

Finally Doncram, you suggest that someone should spend potentially many hours hunting down similar examples. Yet you then add the caveat that you will likely ignore said research and, as you have done here, do some expunging within the provided examples. That seems a bit heavy-handed to me Doncram. Wouldn't it make more sense to offer a reasonable and mutually agreeable solution to the problem with this article? Anyway, I think that this is still worthy of further discussion, perhaps with disinterested third parties. But for now I will make an alternative edit request and see how that goes while still keeping this one open. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not request or suggest that anyone list their names on a website. I see no independent evidence that the website which you wish to promote actually does represent any substantial community. The more i consider this and return to respond, the more it seems to me the website is promotional of fringe interests, and it would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia article to mention or link to it in any way. It is being promoted by 2 accounts, both wp:SPA single purpose accounts. --do ncr am 16:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again Mr. Doncram. You seem to be accusing me of something again. While I wasn't sure earlier on, I am sure now. I read the COI page in detail and I know that the term does not in any way apply to me. I would appreciate it you would stop it Mr. Doncram. I think you are doing what others were admonished for previously. Please stop commentying on me as an editor or as a potential editor and save your comments for my edits. Is that fair enough? Viewfromsc (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are trying to suggest. Your account is, objectively, a single-purpose account (wp:SPA). I am commenting about the requested edit: I oppose the implementation of the edit. --do ncr am 16:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request declined the external link does not add any value to the article, the main part of the website promotes local business which is not the role of wikipedia. If it was a community website that provides additional information to the reader of the article then it may be acceptable but I dont see it in that particulary website. MilborneOne (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edit 4

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I would like to suggest that the following external link be added:

HarmonyFLcommons.com - Residential Owners Association Documents

These documents are required reading for every new Harmony home buyer. They must be read and signed before moving in. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a straight forward request to me. I will let this be my first edit. If Mr. Doncram wants to reverse my edit, that's his prerogative I guess. I would like to know what his reasons would be though. I will wait to read them and if they make sense I will not proceed. Viewfromsc (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do oppose the addition of that link, as I think the purpose of adding it seems to be promotional, i.e. to direct traffic to a fringe unofficial website. Evidence of promotion is that the link is being promoted by two wp:SPA accounts. And per wp:EL "one should generally avoid providing external links to.... 1.Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I don't think HOA documents would be linked to, from a featured article. I think they are not relevant to general Wikipedia readers, and especially not as provided from an unofficial site. It is asserted above that every new Harmony home buyer must read them; I expect that a home buyer is provided printed copies or links to some official site, and they do not need the unofficial website. General readers are not served by the proposed link. Again, I leave the decision to an uninvolved administrator who may consider the relevant policies and guidelines, plus this discussion. --do ncr am 17:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram uses phrases like "blog-like", "no membership, no governance, no say, no readership", "protest site", "blog-like forum for one or a few persons", "seems to be promotional", "fringe unofficial website", yet he offers nothing more than his subjective judgement. He sees a little community website and draws all of the conclusions above. He sees the website of a multi-billion dollar real-estate company promoting millions of dollars of real-estate and declares that to be the "official" website of the community. Can anyone else see a certain lack of balance here?

"Evidence of promotion is that the link is being promoted by two wp:SPA accounts."

Two wp:SPA accounts may also mean that two people who happen to be new to Wikipedia yet familiar with the geographical area of the article both agree that basic fairness should be expressed through Wikipedia. All available information should be presented. I disagree that HOA documents are irrelevant. If you agree that CDD documents are relevant, how can you claim that HOA documents are not relevant Doncram? The given site is the only one providing this information. If you disagree Doncram, it is your obligation to find a better source. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look up in the article what you might mean by CDD. There is a footnote linking to a Harmony CDD webpage in the article, which supports the assertion in the article that some district was formed in 2000. I don't particularly think "CDD documents" need to be linked from any article about a community, but here the footnote supports a kind of start date being mentioned in the article. I am not really clear what HOA or CDD documents are, don't think links to either are important to provide to general readers of the Wikipedia, who probably only need to be told that Harmony is a master-planned community in Florida.

About "fairness", Wikipedia is not a soapbox for everyone to express their opinions, and it is not meant to present "all available information" about a topic. It is meant to be an encyclopedia presenting generally accepted knowledge, preferably supported by secondary or tertiary sources, that provides general readers with encylopedic treatments of topics. Encyclopedic does not mean dumping all info available of any type; it should reflect, not lead, real-world coverage of a topic. Some primary sources can be used, with care, but not to promote a position. And this is not a place where original research or opinions are wanted.

If there is a documented controversy that is important to cover--which I think you want to assert about Harmony--then an article can, with sources explain the positions held by all sides. But for Harmony, it is not established by secondary sources or otherwise that there is any important controversy that needs to be understood by the world. If you want to establish that there is important controversy about management issues in Harmony, you need to do establish that in the real world and to obtain reliable sources coverage in the real world, and wait for Wikipedia editors to decide that such coverage merits any mention. Wikipedia is not the place to stage a protest or to assert any position. I hope this helps. I am probably not going to reply much more as I think this has all pretty much been explained. --do ncr am 10:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not the place to stage a protest or to assert any position."

Yes, we have gotten your position on this over and over again Doncram. I was hoping that you would finally offer something new. It is my view that you are missing the point. You are also wrong about the inclusion of HOA documents. What is the value of Wikipedia if not to provide valuable information to its readers? You keep reiterating Wikipedia's purpose without once stating what the readers need or value. If people are considering a move to Harmony, they need to know what's in the HOA documents before making an informed decision about the most important financial investment of their lives. The HOA documents were taken down from the developer's website because the developer does not want potential home buyers to know about the new $1000 fines that can be imposed on any homeowner for leaving a garbage can too long at the curb (for example). The developer does not provide such information until closing now. Why are you seeming to side with a multi-billion dollar company to suppress such information Doncram?

At this point it is my view that you have become so personally involved with this article that your judgement has been impaired Doncram. It is my opinion that you are now a "biased editor" in accord with the Biased editing section of the WP:COI guideline. On that basis, could you please explain how I can get someone else with fresh eyes to consider this request? What is the standard Wikipedia procedure for that? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the wikipedia article should be to serve general readers, who might only need to know that Harmony is a community in Florida. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia or this article to serve the narrow target of prospective homebuyers. You are free to try to address that segment in some other forum, such as your own webpages. Wikipedia is not the place for you or anyone to right great wrongs. See wp:SOAP, including: "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."

I think i have been quite patient and have been trying to help you understand what Wikipedia is and is not. I don't believe that I am "biased" about this article, but I have already chosen to leave the decision about this requested edit to another editor. It is requested already through the requested edit system; eventually someone will come by and make a decision. As was done for another requested edit previously; I think you do already understand how this is done. --do ncr am 13:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the requested edit system is the only avenue we have to resolve a dispute like this Doncram? You may be right, but that surprises me. I will see what else I can find. I just figured that with your extensive Wikipedia experience and your willingness to help newbies you would have other ideas to offer as well. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay getting back to this. What follows is from Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions in the Consensus guidelines. Would any of these other choices make more sense at this point? Which one? And I do appreciate your patience with this Doncram.

   When talk page discussions fail – generally because two 
   editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see 
   eye to eye on an issue – Wikipedia has several 
   established processes to attract outside editors to 
   offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, 
   good-faith deadlocks, because uninvolved editors can 
   bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved 
   editors see middle ground that they cannot see for 
   themselves. The main resources for this are as follows:

Third opinions

       3O is reserved for cases where exactly two editors 
       are in dispute. A neutral third party will give 
       non-binding advice on the dispute.

Noticeboards

       Most policy and guideline pages, and many Wikipedia 
       projects, have noticeboards for interested editors. 
       Posting neutrally worded notice of the dispute on 
       applicable noticeboards will make the dispute more 
       visible to other editors who may have worthwhile 
       opinions.

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

       For disputes involving more than two parties, 
       mediators or clerks help the parties come to 
       consensus by suggesting analysis, critiques, 
       compromises, or mediation.

Requests for comment

       Placement of a formal neutrally worded notice on 
       the article talk page inviting others to 
       participate which is transcluded onto RfC 
       noticeboards.

Village pump

       Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here 
       also may bring in additional editors who may help.

--GeorgeSchiro (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we have kind of a consensus but I would like to wait to be sure of doing the right thing. Can you kindly give us some direction on one of the other approaches Mr. Doncram? Viewfromsc (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the edit request as the proposed external link does not add to the value of what is an encyclopedia entry on a community. MilborneOne (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Your analysis is equivalent to the claim that a constitution "does not add to the value of" an encyclopedia entry on an insignificant nation. As an example, consider one of the smallest countries on Earth: San_Marino. It has a link on its Wikipedia page to the Constitution_of_San_Marino. Do you propose removing that link? If not, then please allow a link to comparable founding documents for the community of Harmony. Once declined, can a request be reactivated? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow it looks like anyone lurking in the grassy knoll can kill a discussion just like that, well the guidlines say be bold so here goes. Viewfromsc (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is obvious that neither Mr. Doncram nor Mr. MilborneOne actually read any of the documents they passed judgement on. I will proceed with this edit anyway and then maybe we can try one of the other ways of dispute resolution if they still disagree. Viewfromsc (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edit 5

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I would like to suggest that the following external link be changed from:

Official site

to:

Developer site

Since Harmony is a place, not a business, it makes no sense at all to declare the developer's marketing site as "official" in any way other than to sell houses. It is the official sales site of Harmony Development Company for selling houses in Harmony, nothing more. Harmony residents have no say whatever in the site's content or its presentation. Therefore it does not officially or otherwise represent the people who live there. -GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Site Terms. It says "This Website, and the information and materials displayed herein, are solely intended to provide general information about proposed plans of Birchwood Acres Limited Partnership, LLLP, Harmony Development Co., LLC, and their parent, affiliated and subsidiary companies. These proposed plans are conceptual in nature and are subject to change or cancellation (in whole or in part) at any time without notice, in the sole and absolute discretion of Birchwood Acres Limited Partnership, LLLP, Harmony Development Co., LLC, or their parent, affiliated or subsidiary companies. ..." I think this makes it clear that the link in question points to the Harmony developer's business website, not to a site for Harmony residents. I agree that the term "Developer site" is more accurate and more descriptive. Request accepted. Viewfromsc (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harmony, Florida. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]