Talk:Hotel development proposal could displace Buffalo, NY business owners

Original

I have some quotes from various business owners on voice record. I hgave to listen to them as its about a 20 minute interview of the owners. I will add them as I listen to them all. Also I am currently awaiting to speak with other organizations aka Forever Elmwood Association, and Greaterbuffalo.org (i think thats the site). i have to visit these places personally so please give me time. I imagine that not too long from now Imminent Domain is going to play a role in this as my home is also affected. I am continuing reporting. Be patient. Jason Safoutin 19:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I have more recorded interviews than I thought. Its going to take sometime to go through all of it and quote specifically a little more. Until then, I will add new quotes to a new article. I am also going to attend the meeting mentioned in the article and will be taking notes and recording that also. I will also get as many pictures as I can as well. I am planning on interviewing Skunk tail owner and the HOD tattoo owner. I did not speak to him so I will do that tomorrow If I have time. I will obtain the documents I mentoned when I have them. They are public record but they ran otu at the library. Jason Safoutin 02:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is TOTALL POV so thats why its on the talk page. Stop the Elmwood Village Hotel development petition. If you are reading this and live in the area please sign it :) Jason Safoutin 04:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mondo Video

Isn't that anonymous source quote by Faust a bit, over the top? -Edbrown05 06:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Like hear-say, who cares. -Edbrown05 06:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No because I know the name of the source and he wishes that I do not reveal the name and such. Jason Safoutin 06:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps, Faust believes... and no quotes. -Edbrown05

it is quoted. I have it on tape. Jason Safoutin 06:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

okay, but it's rumor. -Edbrown05 06:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

<grin @ edbrown05> We *do* have ethics here... We are obligated to respect the request for anonymity of sources. But we also need to realize this strongly reduces their value for quoting in the article. It's a judgement call. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 06:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, where is this walk going to lead? :) Edbrown05 06:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Over to the cabinet where I have some sippable beverages to put me to sleep. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 06:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok you got me :) Although I know the souce and the name, I will agree to remove te quote. But, I will add some others in its place. Please comment here if they are not appropriate. Jason Safoutin 06:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the quote completely and added nothing more. i moved a little around to fit with the flow. Other than that, thanks for poining that out Edbrown05 :) Jason Safoutin 07:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll never forget my Dad refering to the 'historical' society as the 'histerical' society. Couldn't resist noting that. -Edbrown05 07:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Newsworthy ?

Can anybody tell me what make this story newswotrhy outside Buffalo, NY. I tag it notnews if it dont get a mayor edit or very good explanation. International 14:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with local stories. We do not only want but in fact encourage them.--Eloquence 16:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember that I read something about new interpretation of the law that make it possible to overrun individuals and buisnesses fore some reason. Think there is a political quarrel on high level. As that whould change some u.s. values and stuff that as example my make this story an interesting article if not for the world atleast for the u.s. readers. As it is now its to local even if it is original.International 16:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

International, the law your refer to is Immeniment Domain (spelling). It allowa the government to take away homes people own in order to "better" the community oir something to that nature. Jason Safoutin 21:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The article says that the only owner affected has reportedly signed a contract with the developer, i.e. the owner has given his consent, so I don't see how eminent domain would apply in this case. See w:eminent domain for a definition. -- Avenue 22:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not news

Get it off the air. Neutralizer 20:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me a reason. Jason Safoutin 20:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see what's wrong with it? Jon Harald Søby 20:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Cats

Is Category: Local Only really necessary? Just wondering...would like opinion other than the one of the user who put the category there. Jason Safoutin 21:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't do anything -- yet. I think it will eventually prevent stories from appearing on the front page (when our daily article count increases significantly)... --Chiacomo ^(talk) 21:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

So wouldn't that cat be non beneficial? Jason Safoutin 21:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If it satisifes another editor, why worry? --Chiacomo ^(talk) 21:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Im not. Its just I have been here for 2 months nearly and thats the first time I evcer heard of or seen that cat. Jason Safoutin 21:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC) And its not used often becuase there is only about a handfull or two in there. Jason Safoutin 21:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: categories, and the notion of highly local stories, I have tried to summarize current practice at Wikinews:Local stories.--Eloquence 03:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)