Talk:DHS relies on Wikipedia for asylum information, appeals court rules against use

OR Notes

Cary gave me a statement via IRC Anonymous101^talk 19:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Review

Revision 688249 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Fun with quotes! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 688249 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Fun with quotes! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Huh?

"The appeals court noted when making the decision that Wikipedia admits that articles will often go long periods of time." Go what for long periods of time? Unchanged, unedited, unreviewed, unsourced? Thanks, —Calebrw (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Actually, I was going to fix the sentence, but I similarly couldn't work out what the missing word was meant to be. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 06:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Anonymous101^talk 07:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)