Revision as of 21:25, 6 June 2007 editNagle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,106 edits →Organization structure← Previous edit |
Revision as of 21:35, 6 June 2007 edit undoJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →Organization structureNext edit → |
Line 4: |
Line 4: |
|
I've been trying to clarify the structure of this organization, and all the information about it is now properly cited to source documents. All requests for citations have now been dealt with. Are there any substantive objections to the information at this point? --] 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
I've been trying to clarify the structure of this organization, and all the information about it is now properly cited to source documents. All requests for citations have now been dealt with. Are there any substantive objections to the information at this point? --] 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
:We have a citation problem raised by {{user|Jayjg}} again. If the exact details of the organizational structure aren't cited in detail, he complains of "original research" and removes them. If the details are properly cited, he complains they are "trivia" and removes them. --] 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
:We have a citation problem raised by {{user|Jayjg}} again. If the exact details of the organizational structure aren't cited in detail, he complains of "original research" and removes them. If the details are properly cited, he complains they are "trivia" and removes them. --] 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Database searches are ephemeral, and ]. Cite a real source. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC) |
I've been trying to clarify the structure of this organization, and all the information about it is now properly cited to source documents. All requests for citations have now been dealt with. Are there any substantive objections to the information at this point? --John Nagle 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)