User talk:James E. Enstrom
Dear James, Welcome to Sourcewatch. While you are welcome to edit pages in SourceWatch I would draw your attention to a couple of points.
- 1. The basic protocol is that if you make substantive changes and especially deletionc, you post a brief note to the talk page (accessd by clicking the 'discussion' tab). That way other users can make a judgement on whether to let the changes stand. In your case you deleted a substantial amount of referenced material without explanation. Accordingly I have reverted it.
Some of the additional links etc, which are preserved in the pervious version of the article at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom&oldid=157473 I'm happy to have added but have limited time right now.
2. Our policy is of discouraging individuals from editing their own pages. (See below). Again, some of the additions can be merged in but the point of a SourceWatch profile is not to simply allow individuals to treat articles as if it were their own website. Cheers --Bob Burton 23:56, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Policy Section 1.6 Groups/individuals posting articles on themselves
We don't encourage individuals and groups to create SW articles about themselves or people or organizations with which they are affiliated, and we encourage people to register under their own names when editing articles already on SW about themselves or their groups. We also encourage people who edit articles about themselves or people or organizations with which they are affiliated to exercise restraint and to defer to other contributors with regard to editing choices that are matters of interpretation rather than fact. When disputes arise over interpretation, such individuals should try to address them with comments on the talk page rather than the article space itself. Users who are overly aggressive in deleting relevant facts from articles about themselves or others may be blocked from contributing to or editing the site.
Dear James,
I just noticed the James E. Enstrom in his own words article. It seems to me that that material would more appropriately be located on the "discussion" page of the James E. Enstrom article. SourceWatch articles shouldn't contain opinions or be in the first person; that's what discussion pages are for.
Would you have any objections to moving the "own words" material to the "discussion" page?
best, Diane Farsetta 16:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Dear Diane,
If possible, please call me because I need to discuss my April 13 addition.
1) I did not make any major revisions to the existing material, but you can remove my changes if you wish.
2) I do not want to move the new "own words" material to the "discussion" page, although I can make reference to it there. However, you are welcome to edit my addition and let me know what you want to remove. Also, I can shorten my addition. You originally created the "own words" page in the first person for me and it seems fair for me to be able to add to it when necessary. A tremendous amount of disinformation is being put out about me and I deserve a chance to defend myself in one place.
Please call me. Thank you for your considertation.
Thank you very much,
James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H. (310) 825-2048
