"An Advisory Role==

LoverofArt:  Dbiel has agreed with my reference from within Wikipedia itself that not all citations must be external.  Rather than edit material to make it work, you remove independent, credible citations, then criticize their absence.  Your machinations are transparent to anyone who has been paying attention.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbiel/ScratchPad/NCCC_accomplishments for numerous reliable external sources of information about NCCC that could be incorporated into this article.

I regret that detailed explanations are too much for you and try your patience.  That's your issue.  If you really want to edit complex material, get used to it, or get out.

What I take ""personally"" is anyone - and in this case that means you  who uses scurrilous and unethical practices to demean something like NCCC that has been of great value to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans and will be badly needed in the future.

You should hang your head in shame and back out of this process.  Find something to do where you cannot injure something of value.

Those who reflexively defend your efforts out of misguided sympathy are not doing a whole lot better.  I want no part of any editorial ""team"" that includes you, unless you are confined to an advisory role.  You committed plagiarism at the NCCC site, manufactured inaccurate and defamatory quotes, falsely described book content in a defamatory manner.

Unlike you, I am making statements here based on facts, not resorting to ugly name-calling as you so often have.  (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Civilian_Community_Corps/Archive_1)

Any editor who wants to write down and communicate specific edits that make content better suited for Wikipedia, rather than simply delete that content, has my regard.  So far, I have seen almost none of that from anyone  just vague references to one Wikipedia tenet or another followed by an ultimatum that content will be deleted, which occurs in spite of a good-faith response.

(The point about St. Martin's Press, which you profess not to understand, below, is that you abused their good reputation by using it while falsely stating that St. Martin's Press published a book with an entire chapter of criticism of NCCC.  A trifecta - you do a disservice to St. Martin's Press, to Wikipedia, and to NCCC (not to mention misleading the public). 

=="