Difference between revisions of "Talk:Dewberry Hotel"

From Cvillepedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Possible confict of Interest in editing: new section)
(Possible confict of Interest in editing: get the pseudonym right)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
== Possible confict of Interest in editing ==
 
== Possible confict of Interest in editing ==
  
Somebody logging in under the sobriquet LeeDannielson35 has adjusted the text to be kinder to, to the point of fawning over,  Lee Danielson.  In particular, the text now exonerates Danielson from misrepresenting the costs of building the hotel. It now suggests that an arbitrator blamed an LLC (limited liabilty company) but not Danielson.  That is highly unlikely.  People misrepresent things even if their companies end up paying the judgment.  No way easily to check what the aribtrator actually decided because the cite supplied on that sentence links to no page.  I will look it up.  If a newspaper article says "Daneilson misrepresented" then that is what the text will say. [[User:Polonius|Polonius]] ([[User talk:Polonius|talk]]) 13:43, 5 October 2016 (CDT)
+
Somebody logging in under the sobriquet LDannielson47 has adjusted the text to be kinder to, to the point of fawning over,  Lee Danielson.  In particular, the text now exonerates Danielson from misrepresenting the costs of building the hotel. It now suggests that an arbitrator blamed an LLC (limited liabilty company) but not Danielson.  That is highly unlikely.  People misrepresent things even if their companies end up paying the judgment.  No way easily to check what the aribtrator actually decided because the cite supplied on that sentence links to no page.  I will look it up.  If a newspaper article says "Daneilson misrepresented" then that is what the text will say. [[User:Polonius|Polonius]] ([[User talk:Polonius|talk]]) 13:43, 5 October 2016 (CDT)

Revision as of 13:44, 5 October 2016

Spot blight

The current text is: "That is expected to be open between December 2015 and February 2016. [22] However, the project may not open until spring 2016."[23] The sentences are anachronistic, but can we replace them with something saying the new hotel is open, and if so, whether there is now a date for construction to resume on the Landmark? Polonius (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2016 (CDT)

Yes - sometimes I just add new sources quickly without taking a deeper look. Thanks for the catch!--Seantubbs (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2016 (CDT)

Possible confict of Interest in editing

Somebody logging in under the sobriquet LDannielson47 has adjusted the text to be kinder to, to the point of fawning over, Lee Danielson. In particular, the text now exonerates Danielson from misrepresenting the costs of building the hotel. It now suggests that an arbitrator blamed an LLC (limited liabilty company) but not Danielson. That is highly unlikely. People misrepresent things even if their companies end up paying the judgment. No way easily to check what the aribtrator actually decided because the cite supplied on that sentence links to no page. I will look it up. If a newspaper article says "Daneilson misrepresented" then that is what the text will say. Polonius (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2016 (CDT)