14
edits
Talk:James Flinders: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Three years on surely we can say something like "due to disagreements over his leadership style he was no confidenced after a month as Station Director" or similar? It's about as factual as you can get [[User:Jonathan|Jonathan]] 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | Three years on surely we can say something like "due to disagreements over his leadership style he was no confidenced after a month as Station Director" or similar? It's about as factual as you can get [[User:Jonathan|Jonathan]] 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
That seems entirely reasonable [[User:Vanky|Vanky]] 19:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Agreed. Whatever the reasons that were given in the EGM is reasonable to put here. We've got enough of us that weren't involved to be impartial and make sure you're only giving facts :-) [[User:Rick|Rick]] 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
OK, how about this... Add basic factual info to the James Flinders page, as suggested. Then later (after elections, and when I have some time) I'll write a separate page about the whole debacle, as one of the few people around who were there. Obviously others can keep an eye on my neutrality (and those that were there add to the info) but we can mark the page as a bit contentious. That seem reasonable? [[User:Rowan|Rowan]] 10:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
I look forward to reading your full page on it but I do worry whether it's really what the wiki should be for...I know it is a long time ago, but it wasn't a particularly nice period and I wonder whether it needs documenting other than the line I suggested. [[User:Jonathan|Jonathan]] 10:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||