This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject OWS, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OWSWikipedia:WikiProject OWSTemplate:WikiProject OWSOWS articles
Neutrality and NPOV issues with "Schism" section
Several separate issues here, I suppose.
The first is that it appears to me that citations are being created ad hoc in order to justify their inclusion into the inline text on the schism.
My citation-needed, which I put there myself, was a reminder/request for someone who had a video log or record of the minutes of the November 3 and/or November 5 GAs for the point that the "midnight meeting" actions had been reversed by the full GA. The relevancy of whatever Ms. Sully may or may not have done doesn't flow from the preceding section.
My bad. Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday. In any event, Friday was not a scheduled GA as far as I can tell - but that's not NPOV, so I'll drop that objection. --
VegasHombre (
talk)
21:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)reply
On November 5th, a member of the non-profit Board of Directors stated that because of the irresponsible actions of people like Gina Sully that he would refuse to recognize the General Assembly's authority to in any way affect the rules of the Non-Profit due in no small part to the legal requirements and ramifications of administrating a Non-Profit.
In the aftermath of this incident, the owner of the server where the site data was stored, Tod Foley, obtained a new URL, OccupyLV.org without requesting approval of the general assembly.
Is there a reason a website cannot have multiple URLs? Or that it was wrong to acquire a URL, yet it was ok to create an entirely new website, again, "without requesting approval of the general assembly?" --
VegasHombre (
talk)
20:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Is this an issue of
WP:OUTING? I don't see the need to reference Mr. Foley by name here, if his sole conduct was to purchase a domain name, and looking at the whois database, there is no way to even verify that this information is true or not. --
VegasHombre (
talk)
20:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Dr. JTT's edits
No citation for any of the claims made, and at minimum controversial given other editors flipping your version of facts 180 degrees (also with no citation for claims made) over the last few days. Wikipedia is not a forum to air grievances, it is an encyclopedic resource. I will be requesting some form of mediation at this point, as it does not appear any consensus is currently possible between editors who are so diametrically opposed in both their viewpoints and their interpretations of uncited "facts." - it's just a three way edit-war at this point. --
VegasHombre (
talk)
22:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)reply
File:Occupy Las Vegas logo Nov 10, 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is
non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.