Talk:Occupy Las Vegas

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.

I'm honestly at a loss at how to approach this further. --VegasHombre (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Line by Line discussion

• On November 4th, Gina Sully blew up at a GA meeting and demanded that OccupyLasVegas split.
  • Factually, there was no GA meeting on November 4th; that was a Friday, and GA meetings were scheduled as Tuesday, Thursday, Sunday. --VegasHombre (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • There is no context for the demand that the group split. --VegasHombre (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "blew up" seems to be stating an opinion about her conduct, whenever it happened - and if it happened. --VegasHombre (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gina Sully spoke for two straight hours in which she gave bad legal advise and took credit for work a functionally autistic man had done.
  • Relevance to the reference to a "functionally autistic man?" --VegasHombre (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Is Ms. Sully an attorney at law? What was the context of her legal advice? --VegasHombre (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Is speaking for "two straight hours" some sort of endurance record or something? --VegasHombre (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• 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.
  • "irresponsible actions" - that's an opinion. Even if the previous statements were true about Ms. Sully, I'm not seeing how this is NPOV. --VegasHombre (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)

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)

File:Occupy Las Vegas logo Nov 10, 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Occupy Las Vegas logo Nov 10, 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 March 2012 What should I do? 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. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Occupy Las Vegas logo Nov 10, 2011.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)