developer, Administrators
60,575
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
----
New page for [[America's Power Army]]? Right now it's a redirect from ABEC, and contains ABEC's old info. For clarity I think it should be its own, new page, and contain only its own info (but I'm leery of un-redirecting it, unless you agree)
[[User:Ahaynes|Anna Haynes]] 15:26, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
----
and do we have a preferred spelling for skeptic/sceptic? (IMO we should, or at least have a "preferred spellings" page with common ones- search doesn't work as well, if there are variants. )(yes there will always be variants, but giving guidance to minimize entropy is good. )
[[User:Ahaynes|Anna Haynes]] 18:31, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
----
Qs re naming a page.
1. How should I name a journal's page? eg [[Energy and Environment]]? or Energy and Environment (journal)? or ?
2. and should I have named the [[Plants Need CO2]] page [[plantsneedco2.org]] instead, akin to [[junkscience.com]]? (I'm thinking yes)
(i hate to head down the wrong track...)
[[User:Ahaynes|Anna Haynes]] 17:37, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
----
p.p.s. [[User:Miocene]] has a comment for you below; I don't mean to have buried him.
----
Bob, SourceWatch's Search seems to be case-sensitive (it didn't return the page, when I searched for "plants need co2"). This seems to be bad. Any chance of fixing?
[[User:Ahaynes|Anna Haynes]] 11:48, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
----
Hi Bob, Miocene here. Just noticed your note on the Monsanto article talk page. I'm a bit nervous with a reduction since there are ''so many negative aspects to Monsanto'' that people should know. Your the man on the site of course and it's your call but I'll try to briefly as I can explain the philosophy I've gone by to edit the article.
I've felt from the beginning that all relevant, reliably sourced information should be included so that people have a sort of 'one-stop' outlet of info about Monsanto (there are a lot of webpages that contain unreliable comments about the company that I've had to filter out). As you know, it's taken ''a lot of work'' to distill it, bring it all together, and make it flow, to put the pieces of the puzzle together as it were. I've often spent hours just tracking down one source. And as a whole I think it is a forceful and cogent argument that this is a company that simply cannot be trusted. I've been amazed at all they have done and all the havoc they've been responsible for in their history. Monsanto, though, uses many different avenues to dissiminate distorted information about their history and their products, and they have the ear of government and the MSM. A reliable counter weight, I've believed, is called for, one where people don't have to search all over the net for bits and peices. The main article's rank on SW shows that it is being referenced.
About the cut and pasting, I know that particular article has large sections that have been C&Ped. The reason why I used so much C&P was to preserve valuable comments and information that I've found often disappears from the net or simply gets buried and rarely found. Simply having a link that later becomes non-functionable (often the case) causes the loss of valuable data. So I've quoted. People can usually find an article by copying part of the quote snd searching for the article where it originated. Additionally, when using quotations I've included those I felt stated a particular point succinctly, better than I could. Obviously I'm a believer in using many supporting sources.
About the use of simple linking and not the standard wiki format, I plead guilty. I realize that regulars here have been patient with me on this and appreciate it. I have wikified the links I used in Wikipedia articles myself. The reason why I haven't changed over here is simply because of the ''sheer enormity of the task'' and my lack of time; I didn't want to start and not be able to finish. The time I can devote to the article has been diminishing steadily. I would love for it to be wikified and I kind of hoped that someone would come along and do it for me (though there is a risk in that). I also was sort of privately hoping that someone would come out with a program that could wikify links automatically :-). A lot of people could use something like that. One problem with it though is that I've so many links that it would make the pages way too huge unless they were added to a separate page, which is why I created the "Links to Articles Cited in Monsanto Pages" at the bottom of the articles, though I've not followed through with it.
Having said all that, I know that Sourcewatch has evolved over the years and has certain standards to meet. It's not my baby. So I'll leave it there. Regards. [[User:Miocene|Miocene]] 02:40, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
----
Hi Bob, just created a page with quotation marks around the title by accident ("Stephen Hall"-http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=%22Stephen_Hall%22). I created an alternate one without quotation marks here http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_Hall, so if you could help with sorting out the error, that would be great.--[[User:Atomised|Atomised]] 20:39, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
SW: shift to talk page
He can be contacted at bob AT SourceWatch.org
