Talk:James Flinders - Revision history

Jonathan at 10:28, 7 March 2007

2007-03-07T10:28:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, 7 March 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:

	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)		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)

Dummy User at 10:02, 7 March 2007

2007-03-07T10:02:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:02, 7 March 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:

	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)		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)

Dummy User at 23:24, 6 March 2007

2007-03-06T23:24:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:24, 6 March 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	That seems entirely reasonable [[User:Vanky\|Vanky]] 19:39, 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)

Dummy User at 19:39, 6 March 2007

2007-03-06T19:39:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:39, 6 March 2007
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)

Jonathan at 17:02, 6 March 2007

2007-03-06T17:02:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:02, 6 March 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	We need to be careful to be factual, or at least to clearly mark anything which is opinion (seems fair as long as it is marked - what do people think?) Waiting until after elections might be courteous.(sp?) [[User:Rowan\|Rowan]] 16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)		We need to be careful to be factual, or at least to clearly mark anything which is opinion (seems fair as long as it is marked - what do people think?) Waiting until after elections might be courteous.(sp?) [[User:Rowan\|Rowan]] 16:12, 5 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)

Dummy User at 16:12, 5 March 2007

2007-03-05T16:12:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:12, 5 March 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Thought I'd have a go at this page...2004 people - how can we put why he stopped being SD? I did put a line in that explained why but didn't go into detail, but is it best not to mention it? Or at least until after the elections? [[User:Jonathan\|Jonathan]] 11:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)		Thought I'd have a go at this page...2004 people - how can we put why he stopped being SD? I did put a line in that explained why but didn't go into detail, but is it best not to mention it? Or at least until after the elections? [[User:Jonathan\|Jonathan]] 11:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

			We need to be careful to be factual, or at least to clearly mark anything which is opinion (seems fair as long as it is marked - what do people think?) Waiting until after elections might be courteous.(sp?) [[User:Rowan\|Rowan]] 16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan: New page: Thought I'd have a go at this page...2004 people - how can we put why he stopped being SD? I did put a line in that explained why but didn't go into detail, but is it best not to mention ...

2007-03-05T11:03:19Z

New page: Thought I'd have a go at this page...2004 people - how can we put why he stopped being SD? I did put a line in that explained why but didn't go into detail, but is it best not to mention ...

New page

Thought I'd have a go at this page...2004 people - how can we put why he stopped being SD? I did put a line in that explained why but didn't go into detail, but is it best not to mention it? Or at least until after the elections? [[User:Jonathan|Jonathan]] 11:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)