User:Mike
January 23 , 2012 8:05 a.m.
Hi Mike,
Your last two recent additions to SW are nicely done! We appreciate your using the updated stub tag, and a narrative style in the text you add. The references look great, too. Keep it up!
Anne Landman, Editor
March 29, 2011 3:21 PM MDT
Hi Mike,
Please use the following format for references: <ref>Author (either person or organization) [URL (space) Title of Page or article], Publication (e.g., New York Times, book, video, blog, web page etc.), date of publication (or date you accessed it, if citing a Web page); any other unique identifier, e.g., record number, Bates stamp, court ID, etc.)</ref>
Sample (for a web page):
<ref>Forest Trends [http://www.forest-trends.org/staff.php#athiel Staff-Anne Thiel] Biosketch from Organizational web site, accessed March 29, 2011</ref>
Please also be careful not to delete existing information from an article if it is up to date and adequately referenced.
Thanks,
Anne Landman, CMD Editor
Hi Mike,
I removed the following external link from the Weston A. Price Foundation article, as it did not actually mention WAPF (as is required of external articles).
- Felicity Lawrence, Should we worry about soya in our food?, The Guardian, Tuesday 25 July 2006.
I edited down the advertising/promotional material a bit. It is good to do some serious research on this kind of material if you are going to include it, particularly for health claims. There is actually quite a lot on this organization on net.
I also merged Sally Fallon Mellon's page with WAPF, as her bio was quite brief and the WAPF page contains several refs to her, which there is no point in duplicating.
Thanks, Lisa L. December 5, 2010
Need for stub tag and more information
Dear Mike: Can you please add the code, stub inside {{}} to the new articles you are creating in SourceWatch?
When the article stub merely recites a person's own description of himself or herself, it seems like we are endorsing their self-promotional material. This is problematic because SW is not a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia, as you know, but is focused on revealing more about the names behind the news, what their agenda is, and who is footing the bill.
Accordingly, I'd like to ask you to please re-format the new articles to provide a more generic introductory statement about who the person is and what their affiliation, and then a section ==Controversies== that highlights any issues of concern and then ==Background== where one could put information quoting from the subject of the article, along the lines of so and so describes herself as x, y, and, z, with the references to their own website there. These changes will make the new articles more useful to people looking for more information about a person than an official website written by the subject.
Thank you. If you could please let me know that you received my message and if you have any questions or concerns, I would really appreciate it! LLisa Graves
From Anne
November 19, 2010
Hi Mike,
When you start new articles on people, please add at least a little information about the person, linked to an authoritative reference. Please refrain from simply supplying a link to the Wikipedia article on the same person. We strive to have different information from that available in Wikipedia. A link to the person's wikipedia article may be included under "External resources," but please do not make that the main focus of the article.
Thanks,
Anne Landman, CMD Editor
April 14, 2010
Mike, please see and respond to my note below.
Thanks,
Anne Landman, CMD Editor
April 8, 2010 4:35 PM MDT
Hi Mike,
Please see and respond to my note below.
Thanks, Anne Landman, CMD Editor
April 7, 2010 1:47 PM MDT
Hi Mike,
I noticed you have been creating a lot of new pages lately. I wonder, what is the criteria you use to pick people to start pages on? How are they related to our mission?
Thanks in advance for the insight.
Anne Landman, CMD Editor
Hi Mike,
I just want to say "thanks" for your contributions to TobaccoWiki. We really appreciate it. Your changes are nicely done!
Keep up the nice work.
Anne Landman, TobaccoWiki editor
Pulling of Baha'i Related articles
Hi Mike- I wanted to alert you to the pulling of Baha'i related articles, to which you have contributed in the past, and which is of concern. I have pasted my discussion with Lisa Graves below, and have also alerted Bob Burton, as has been involved with these discussions in the past. Be good to check in on this. Thanks --Atomised (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2014 (EDT)
Hi Lisa- It appears that the very well established articles linked to the Baha'i Faith are being pulled pretty much wholesale for editorial review. Rather than any kind of individual edits, these are being systematically taken down and referred to some kind of editorial review. This looks very suspicious and I cannot see how every single article, based on this linkage, can be seemingly simultaneously pulled into an editorial review without some kind of explanation. All these articles have been established (and received page views in the thousands) and backed up with rigorous referencing, which may need updating, but this is no reason to pull entire articles all at once. Please look into this and get back to me asap, as this does not look good. I will be keeping a very close eye on editorial review here, and expect full and absolute transparency in terms of any review process undertaken. Thanks --Atomised (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2014 (EDT)
These articles are under review as we assess what topic areas can be maintained to ensure that they are accurate and up to date. Materials regarding religious beliefs and movements may be better suited to a general wiki than to a specialized one like SourceWatch. We are the process of reviewing these materials. Lisa
Hi Lisa- I assure you these and topic areas can be maintained. The fact that these pages have attracted a very large amount of views testifies to their relevance. Also, the connections of this organization in many, many well documented and referenced areas related to business, academia, information technology, the military industrial complex, intelligence and political involvement absolutely justifies their inclusion in Sourcewatch. This has never appeared to be an issue before, and and I absolutely cannot understand your suggestion that they may be better suited to a general wiki, when there are clear issues of interests, funding, and media and other areas involved. These issues regarding the religious beliefs of the organization are in some ways secondary to very well documented structure, influence and lobbying connections of the organization, and its importance as an area of discussion in relation to Middle East politics. --Atomised (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
