Http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User talk:Bob Burton/archive

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

FSC

Hi Bob,

Noticed your work on FSC in Tasmania. I've noticed their net presence in US on development of material on (SFI) Sustainable Forestry Initiative which appears to be a industry front. Is FSC a front also? If so, the development of these organizations are global? What is the background of FSC in Tasmania?

Thanx, James - https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:James_Horn

Plimer

Bob, this report blows the lid off [1] I don't have time to weave it into Ian Plimer, so over to you. :¬ ) Scribe 15:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


lobbyists with British Prime Minister Tony Blair were released to a member of Parliament earlier this year. For the details of the ruling by the Information Tribunal overturning the decision of the Cabinet Office not to release the information please see http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/foi/reading_room/topic/prime_minister.aspx See also “Tony Blair meeting details made public”, The Guardian, 8 January 2009 at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/08/blair-meetings and http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/table/2009/jan/08/blair-meetings-june-2005.

COP15

Emissions from fuel used for international aviation and maritime transport

(18.55 - 20.00)

CCS in the CDM

see also http://www.corporateeurope.org/climate-and-energy/content/2009/12/eu-money-ccs-lobby-copenhagen and http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49650

HFC22/23


Test

Bob, it looks like References don't show up *unless* you're logged in to SourceWatch. At least, that's what I see on the Anthony Watts page. Anna Haynes 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

David Bartlett 2sml.jpg

Test again

Edits to check


August links

Andy's posts

September links

October links

November

December

FOI and diaries

Healthcare links

Tas links

Tas Energy

EPI page

Bob,

I've updated the EPI page with references. Could you make it into a full length entry now?

Thanks, Elliott ===================================]

Thanks

Thanks for the quick response on the 912 article. User:AStarSpangledGirl is likely User:Indy77, who by her own admission is [2] Hypegnosis 19:09, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Questions/Comments for Bob, most recent at top

0. Bob, it used to be (last month?) that when I was submitting an edit, there was a combobox with the text for common edits, to choose from, e.g. "create redirect page". It's no longer there. I miss it. Is there a way I can bring it back? Anna Haynes 22:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Can you please delete Global Warming Art for me? (I added it, but it doesn't belong in SW, so I've put the info on a page elsewhere on the web.) Anna Haynes 06:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Is it ok if I add pages for journalists & editors involved in promulgating climate change disinformation? (I'm assuming yes, since they're serving PR interests, but if I'm wrong, please let me know) Anna Haynes 06:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Bob, is there a way to indicate that I'm editing a page (or to find out that you are), so you & I don't helpfully fix it at the same time? Anna Haynes 21:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (Western Journalism Center) p.s. the ideal fix for this would be a 'chat' side channel for communicating on stuff like this. Anna Haynes 21:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


Qs already answered

Say I have a statement from someone, pointing out that they were misrepresented by a think tank; I'd like to have a file on SourceWatch containing the statement, and on the think tank's SW page, I'd quote from the statement and use that file as the reference. Is there an example of where this has been done well, that I can look at to see how it's structured? (e.g. the statement shouldn't be editable like normal SW pages are; and are there (should there be) standardized naming practices/patterns?) Anna Haynes 07:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


Bob, I'm wondering if there's a less value-laden alternative to the "nuclear spin" badge, since some sharp people (who AFAIK are independent - e.g. Jim Hansen (in Storms of My Grandchildren) and Steve Kirsch) who are raising the alarm on climate change are saying that fast nuclear reactors need to be part of the solution.

Note to Bob - the American Enterprise Institute "people" section could probably use a pair of editorial eyes - I updated it from their website, but wasn't clear on how to handle the waves of "alumni", the migrants from 1 classification to another, etc. So I erred on the side of transparency, not on the side of orderliness. Anna Haynes 07:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of orderliness, what's the standard practice - do I delete the Qs below (which you've already answered on my Talk page) or do you? Anna Haynes 07:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Bob, how do I get my User page and my Talk page to have one of those handy "table of contents" boxes? Anna Haynes 19:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI Bob, I made a Firefox bookmarklet to create and populate a reference string for a webpage. It's primitive though; are the cognoscenti using something better, and if so, what/where is it? Anna Haynes 06:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Bob, what's the preferred SourceWatch term for "someone in the media who works to hinder action on climate change"? e.g. for Kimberley Strassel (update: I've started using nihilist. Anna Haynes 06:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC) )


I've spent a fair amount of time finding out that person X is _not_ related to person Y with same surname, who you might think were related - e.g. John M. Broder and David S. Broder. (update: I've made an off-site place to put this info. Anna Haynes 06:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC) )

1) I should include this info as a Note, correct? (like it was done for the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine page) 2) Often I get this information via email; what's the proper way to reference this?(I searched for "email" on Help:References but nothing came up)

Is there a template/stub, for pages on people? or a high-quality "person" page that we could extract one from? I'd like to add some people, but I don't want to do it badly.


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) 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. ) 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...) 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? 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. Miocene 02:40, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

Hi Bob, just created a page with quotation marks around the title by accident ("Stephen Hall"-https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=%22Stephen_Hall%22). I created an alternate one without quotation marks here https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_Hall, so if you could help with sorting out the error, that would be great.--Atomised 20:39, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Test

Edits to check


August links

Andy's posts

September links

October links

November

COP15

Healthcare links

Tas links

Tas Energy

EPI page

Bob,

I've updated the EPI page with references. Could you make it into a full length entry now?

Thanks, Elliott ===================================]

Thanks

Thanks for the quick response on the 912 article. User:AStarSpangledGirl is likely User:Indy77, who by her own admission is [3] Hypegnosis 19:09, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Questions

Bob, what's the preferred SourceWatch term for "someone in the media who works to hinder action on climate change"? e.g. for Kimberley Strassel

BTW, I turned her old stub page (Kim Strassel) into a one-liner linking to the new page; how do I do a proper redirect, instead? or do I ask you to do it? ---

I've spent a fair amount of time finding out that person X is _not_ related to person Y with same surname, who you might think were related - e.g. John M. Broder and David S. Broder. 1) I should include this info as a Note, correct? (like it was done for the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine page) 2) Often I get this information via email; what's the proper way to reference this?(I searched for "email" on Help:References but nothing came up)

Is there a template/stub, for pages on people? or a high-quality "person" page that we could extract one from? I'd like to add some people, but I don't want to do it badly.


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) 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. ) 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...) 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? 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. Miocene 02:40, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

Hi Bob, just created a page with quotation marks around the title by accident ("Stephen Hall"-https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=%22Stephen_Hall%22). I created an alternate one without quotation marks here https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_Hall, so if you could help with sorting out the error, that would be great.--Atomised 20:39, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

c

Hi Bob. Thanks for the welcome :) - sorry for the delay, just picked up your message. Happy to help out where I can in maintaining this very valuable resource. All the best. DavidCognito 12:57, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

- - - -

Bob, Just sent you an email. Looking forward to hearing from you. AI

Thanks (Climate Digger)

Hi Bob. Thanks for the welcome :) - sorry for the delay, just picked up your message. Happy to help out where I can in maintaining this very valuable resource. All the best. DavidCognito 12:57, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

- - - -

Bob, Just sent you an email. Looking forward to hearing from you. AI

Thanks (Climate Digger)

Thanks for the welcome. I will now leave the articles I have been working on for 24 hours to give you time to 'polish' them up as you see fit. One thing I couldn't figure out was how to do categories - They look right but don't display. ClimateDigger 15:50, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Another point - why do I get SW: added to all my submission summarys? ClimateDigger 15:52, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Test

David Bartlett 2sml.jpg

Edits to check


August links

Andy's posts

September links

October links

November

Healthcare links

Tas links

Tas Energy

EPI page

Bob,

I've updated the EPI page with references. Could you make it into a full length entry now?

Thanks, Elliott ===================================]

Thanks

Thanks for the quick response on the 912 article. User:AStarSpangledGirl is likely User:Indy77, who by her own admission is [4] Hypegnosis 19:09, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Questions

Bob, what's the preferred SourceWatch term for "someone in the media who works to hinder action on climate change"? e.g. for Kimberley Strassel

BTW, I turned her old stub page (Kim Strassel) into a one-liner linking to the new page; how do I do a proper redirect, instead? or do I ask you to do it? ---

I've spent a fair amount of time finding out that person X is _not_ related to person Y with same surname, who you might think were related - e.g. John M. Broder and David S. Broder. 1) I should include this info as a Note, correct? (like it was done for the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine page) 2) Often I get this information via email; what's the proper way to reference this?(I searched for "email" on Help:References but nothing came up)

Is there a template/stub, for pages on people? or a high-quality "person" page that we could extract one from? I'd like to add some people, but I don't want to do it badly.


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) 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. ) 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...) 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? 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. Miocene 02:40, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

Hi Bob, just created a page with quotation marks around the title by accident ("Stephen Hall"-https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=%22Stephen_Hall%22). I created an alternate one without quotation marks here https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_Hall, so if you could help with sorting out the error, that would be great.--Atomised 20:39, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Test

David Bartlett 2sml.jpg

Edits to check


August links

Andy's posts

September links

October links

November

Healthcare links

Tas links

Tas Energy

EPI page

Bob,

I've updated the EPI page with references. Could you make it into a full length entry now?

Thanks, Elliott ===================================]

Thanks

Thanks for the quick response on the 912 article. User:AStarSpangledGirl is likely User:Indy77, who by her own admission is [5] Hypegnosis 19:09, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Questions

Bob, what's the preferred SourceWatch term for "someone in the media who works to hinder action on climate change"? e.g. for Kimberley Strassel

BTW, I turned her old stub page (Kim Strassel) into a one-liner linking to the new page; how do I do a proper redirect, instead? or do I ask you to do it? ---

I've spent a fair amount of time finding out that person X is _not_ related to person Y with same surname, who you might think were related - e.g. John M. Broder and David S. Broder. 1) I should include this info as a Note, correct? (like it was done for the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine page) 2) Often I get this information via email; what's the proper way to reference this?(I searched for "email" on Help:References but nothing came up)

Is there a template/stub, for pages on people? or a high-quality "person" page that we could extract one from? I'd like to add some people, but I don't want to do it badly.


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) 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. ) 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...) 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? 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. Miocene 02:40, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

Hi Bob, just created a page with quotation marks around the title by accident ("Stephen Hall"-https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=%22Stephen_Hall%22). I created an alternate one without quotation marks here https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_Hall, so if you could help with sorting out the error, that would be great.--Atomised 20:39, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

c

Hi Bob. Thanks for the welcome :) - sorry for the delay, just picked up your message. Happy to help out where I can in maintaining this very valuable resource. All the best. DavidCognito 12:57, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

- - - -

Bob, Just sent you an email. Looking forward to hearing from you. AI

Thanks

Bob - Thanks for the welcome. I corrected the Kevin Rosser page as he is misidentified in the China Daily News article as a terrorism analyst and has not worked for the Control Risks Group for several years. All the best, Abdo

9 Nov 2009 Hi Bob. I was checking SW edits and found this person placed a huge logo of their organization atop an article about the org. I parked it on the talk page until I could discuss with you whether it is appropriate, and if so, whether we should locate it elsewhere on the page, or what we might do with it: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:National_Initiative_For_Democracy
Thanks,
Anne

Thanks for the Welcome

I am extremly glad to see this site has very high standards towards referencing!--Environmentman 17:03, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Can I change my name or start another account?--Environmentman 02:07, 11 November 2009 (EST)

PBS Edits

Hi Bob.

Why did you remove the list of corporate sponsors from the PBS page? I realize you're the editor of SourceWatch, and I wouldn't want to engage in an edit war with such a high-level gatekeeper. I just wonder why you don't think your readers ought to know which corporations fund PBS programming.

I also wonder why SourceWatch, which is supposedly based on democratic participation, engages in censoring user contributions that do not violate SW policies. Why do I keep getting banned just for asking questions or making comments on discussion pages? (Clearly, if I were a vandal or wanted to engage in an edit war, I could keep shifting IP addresses and generating new accounts and wreak havoc.) It's unfortunate that an organization dedicated to exposing PR spin and propaganda squelches dissent through heavy-handed editing, spin, and propaganda.

I don't expect this post to remain nor do I expect a response. Don't worry; I'm not here to vandalize articles, and I won't return again. It's just very frustrating to have spent so much time and effort editing the PBS article to show its corporate contributors just to have it capriciously and quietly blown off like chaff in the wind. --SWcensorship 20:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php%3Ftitle%3DUser_talk:Bob_Burton/archive&oldid=718935"