Talk:Lost Liberty Hotel

message: I have revised the text regarding the Clements misreading of the Kelo majority opinion. I have removed the word "evident," although it think it entirely accurate. (In fact, I think the word "deliberate" would be even more appropriate, given the texts involved.) The second paragraph of the Clements press release is quite explicit in declaring that the Kelo majority had decided the one-to-one transfer issue, despite the explicit language of the Kelo majority that it had not addressed that issue.  
In any event, the revision attributes the technical question of the terms of the Kelo decision to the broader policy question concerning the merits of the Clements proposal.  This, I would say, is clearly incorrect.  It is perfectly possible to believe that Clements was incorrect in declaring that Kelo sanctioned a taking of the kind he proposed and at the same time believe that his proposal should be supported as a "test case" to force the unresolved issue into the court system or promote public debate.
Finally, I think that the recently added paragraph declaring that "Clement is entirely serious" raises even greater (N)POV issues, and will shortly delete it myself unless a serious argument can be made.  Whoever inserted the language cannot verify Clements' actual motives, and this would hardly be the first case of a political partisan's extensive promotion of a scheme knowing full well it would never come about.  I believe the lack of skepticism in the entry regarding Clements' motives, and the failure to present the view that the proposal is simply a provocative student, is itself an (N)POV failure, and I hope others will resolve that problem while I limit my own comments to more technical matters.  Judge Magney 18:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (N)POV issues 

message: Magney, what's going on here? Is this just simple maliciousness on your part, or what? It seems like since the vote to get the article deleted failed you've been intent on systematically biasing article content against both Mr. Clements and the proposal itself. Some of your comments are clearly warranted, while some of them are clearly not. What are you after? For my part, I want an article that clearly illustrates the way the proposal electrified a significant segment of the public, and that clearly indicates ways in which the proposal falls short of legality... WITHOUT smearing proponents or critics. --OtisTDog 18:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop posting personal attacks and inflammatory innuendo concerning those who do not share your opinion. And please explain why you want pertinent material excised from the article, in particluar: Clements' failure to submit his proposal to the town's economic development officials, instead faxing inappropriate paperwork to the official responsible for enforcing the fire and building codes; Clements' refusal to submit appropriate paperwork after being contacted, of their own volition, by local officials; and Clements' supporters' inability to gather the handful of signatures required to force the proposal onto an official agenda for consideration.  I believe Clements is a con man who is exploiting simplistic, often inaccurate reports of the Kelo decision to feather his own nest, diverting financial and political support from those who are currently actively resisting abusive eminent domain actions.  Judge Magney 20:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not innuendo: I'm sharing my perception of your goals and asking for your response. The idea is to come to a better understanding so we can end this tug-of-war. RE: Pertinent material -- I don't want it excised; I keep reverting because you keep dragging misinforming rhetoric into the picture with the Hoffman quote. Why don't you try putting some of the new material you referenced (Clement's procedural failures) without bringing back the stuff I'm opposing? I'll do it myself later today if you don't haven't by then. For the record, I'm absolutely not in support of helping Clements get personal publicity here, though obviously he needs to be mentioned in the course of discussing the proposal. I'm also absolutely not in favor of this article providing a misleading reading of Kelo by either overstating or understating its impact. Finally, if you have the time, please do try to specify some objective criteria for notability so we can come to an understanding on that. --OtisTDog 21:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not edit out material you do not object to, whether by reversion or otherwsie. You seem adamant on removing the entirety of a user's edit if you disagree with any part of it. That is a bad faith action in violation of applicable guidelines, and a repetition of the action will result in a request for formal sanction, as will any further violation of the 3RR limit.  The fact that you strongly disagree with the Hoffman comment is not grounds to remove it, especially since it appears to be one of the more frequently cited/discussed comments regarding the sham proposal. Judge Magney 22:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Magney, that's totally untrue. I have, in fact, taken the time to incorporate significant edits that you have previously made, as well as made good faith efforts to discuss things over here (at least, after my initial bull-in-a-china-shop entrance born of unfamiliarity with the way things are done here). With specific reference to the Hoffman quote, the one piece of text I am inflexible about, I have: 1) clearly stated my specific objections to the text both in edit notes and on talk page, 2) repeatedly asked you to provide some positive academic reason for including it (to which you have not yet answered), and 3) indicated clearly that I am open to your arguments on its potential merit. I've also asked you to define the term "notability" on an objective basis so that I could play by your rules in the commentary section. That's good faith. You trying to throw the Hoffman quote back in with other POV-inserting changes, then complaining here that I'm trying to keep out all of your edits is bad faith. I'm prepared to defend this in the face of administrator attention. Are you? --OtisTDog 23:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have the right to be inflexible on anything here. And you are the one who said you completely reverted my edit because it contained one comment you didn't like. If you want to argue with yourself, do it privately. Judge Magney 00:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all I can say about that is its a sword that cuts both ways. Don't you think that it's more reasonable to stop including that quote in your edits given that consensus has not yet been reached? Also, don't you think it's reasonable to answer my repeated questions about why you want to include it, as a step towards resolving the standoff? --OtisTDog 03:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry you feel that way, Magney. The set of interested persons has changed, and thus so has the meaning of consensus. Opposing deletion is not the same as supporting inclusion. You've spent a lot more time avoiding my simple questions about your reasons for wanting to include the Hoffman quote than it would take to answer them honestly. I'm going to keep deleting it until convinced otherwise. Should administrator attention arrive, I hope your failure to answer will be taken as evidence of bad faith. --OtisTDog 21:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of Article 

message: Magney: In edit notes you claim there is no such letter and that I should do some fact checking. I did so, and I haven't located any evidence that the letter is disclaimed by Falia; it has been cited quite frequently without apparent refutation. Do you have a reference that shows otherwise? --OtisTDog 14:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no such claim. I said there is no "published letter" from the "Board of Selectman [sic]". Read what I wrote. Judge Magney 14:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I quote your edit note directly: "Among other things, there is no such letter from the Board of Selectmen." The link demonstrating publication has been tehre for some time. Perhaps the confusion lies in that the letter came from just one member and not the board as a whole. My edit earlier today clarifies this. --OtisTDog 15:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Letter from Joe Falia

message: Magney seems to feel that the current intro is incoherent. I'm not sure whether he's referring to the reworded Kelo summary sentence or the section as a whole. I do not object to the summary sentence being moved down to the "History" section, but it then collides with some previous content there. I'd like to get some input here before I overwrite the seemingly uncontested summary sentence in the "History" section. Anyone have thoughts on how they can be integrated? --OtisTDog 16:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coherence of Intro

message: I think both the disputed revisions need some discussion... I'll suggest something later.Wynler 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
:What exactly is the issue here? Is it still disputed? Dave (talk) 02:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
::No, the current form is good with me.  Something about it doesn't seem quite right.  But it's not a big deal.  I'll bring it up in discussion later if something comes to me.  So this can be considered closed unless there is objectionsWynler 02:37:26, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
:::Current version fine with me. Should I archive this subsection? --OtisTDog 03:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. The text as it stands assumes Clements was acting in good faith (which many would deny). Judge Magney 16:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The faxed request

message: I think that this information is relevant, but needs to be moved to a different section.  Still thinking this one overWynler 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
:The cafe is mentioned in two places.  We don't need it in both. Dave (talk) 01:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
::Agree.  The way it's layed out currently is good with me.  I'd like to see a few more details in the proposed details section.  But it's not a deal breaker.  Moving to resolved.Wynler 03:17:46, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
:::I think the best location is the "details" section. Current version fine. --OtisTDog 03:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Just Dessert's

message: The quote is from Chip Meaney.  So it should read New London's Code Enforcment Officer.Wynler 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
::There were quotations from at least two local officials, but OtisTDog is intent on removing one quotation, without providing an explanation. Judge Magney 23:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the case; at least, not intentionally. I'm pretty sure the second quotation (which makes it legit to use the phrasing Magney wants) has been introduced along with the contested Hoffman quote. As stated in talk above, I intend to incorporate this change (san Hoffman quote) later if Magney hasn't already. --OtisTDog 23:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Local Officals v Local Enforcement Officer

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lost Liberty Hotel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110617012631/http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=57807 to http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=57807
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051112170453/http://news.bostonherald.com:80/national/view.bg?articleid=92151 to http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=92151
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: These were both just political stunts in protest of Kelo v. New London, and were neither developed nor notably in development. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Constitution Park (New Hampshire)]] into [[Lost Liberty Hotel]]