Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:17, 24 April 2013

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Notes for NDAA 2012 updates

After appeal, White House requests stay, was denied (HuffPost article)

Bloomberg announcement of stay request

Copy of stay requested by White House

Copy of Forrest's denial of stay

WSJ article: DOJ Says Ruling on Indefinite Detention Law Is ‘Unprecedented’

From the HuffPo article:

Forrest had ruled on behalf of a group of journalists and activists who said they feared the government could grab them under section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. That section affirms the administration's right to detain any "person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces," including U.S. citizens.

Forrest found that the definitions of "substantially supported" and "associated forces" were so vague that a reporter or activist could not be sure they would not be covered under the provision if they worked with a group deemed to be associated with terrorists, or perhaps circulated the message of an associated individual by printing an interview.

The judged ruled that such a circumstance violated the First Amendment right to free speech, as well as the Fifth Amendment right to due process that holds that a person must be able to understand what actions would break the law.

Forrest also argued that in passing the law, Congress had dramatically expanded the categories of people that can be detained, although the legislation itself and the administration asserted that the provision was doing nothing more than reasserting the White House's authority originally granted under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force that lawmakers passed after the 9/11 attacks. petrarchan47tc 23:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

From Reuters: "Plaintiffs said the U.S. court filing was the government's latest attempt to undo the judge's rulings.

"The Obama administration is doubling down in their effort to chill civil liberties, reporter activities and activists in the United States by hyper aggressively trying to overturn an opinion by a federal judge," Carl Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said on Friday." petrarchan47tc 01:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC) "

As requested I updated the NDAA 2012 article with the above mentioned sources. Due to the content expansion in the last days at the NDAA 2012 article I created a new article dealing with the lawsuit against the NDAA detention powers and updated afterwards the NDAA 2012 article. Question: Can you update the the new article and the NDAA 2012 article after Judge Forrest issued her 2012-09-19 ruling mentioned in the HuffPost article?--P3Y229 14:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sept 17 update

NDAA lawyer speculates: "they've been detaining people all along under the NDAA, in which case they're in contempt" SOURCE

"At around 9 a.m. Monday, September 17, the White House filed an emergency stay in federal appeals court in an effort to have the Second Circuit strip away Judge Forrest’s ruling from the week earlier...According to Hedges, the government called Judge Forrest’s most recent ruling an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope,” and Executive Branch attorneys worked into the weekend to find a way to file their stay....Attorney Carl Mayer, a counsel for Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, confirmed to RT early Monday that the stay was in fact filed with the Second Circuit....“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” Carl Mayer says in a separate statement posted on Mr. Hedge’s blog.

Monday morning, Hedges once more responded to the White House’s relentless attempts to reauthorize powers granted under the NDAA, asking, “If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?”

“The decision to vigorously fight Forrest’s ruling is a further example of the Obama White House’s steady and relentless assault against civil liberties, an assault that is more severe than that carried out by George W. Bush,” writes Hedges.

“Obama has refused to restore habeas corpus. He supports the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution has traditionally been illegal — warrantless wire tapping, eavesdropping and monitoring directed against US citizens. He has used the Espionage Act six times against whistle-blowers who have exposed government crimes, including war crimes, to the public. He interprets the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving him the authority to assassinate US citizens, as he did the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. And now he wants the right to use the armed forces to throw U.S. citizens into military prisons, where they will have no right to a trial and no defined length of detention.” SOURCE

Mayer Comments: Obama Administration Files Emergency Motions to Overturn Federal Judge’s Injunction of NDAA in Hedges v. Obama.

Administration Asks Appeals Court for Stay on Indefinite Detention Ban, Triggers Constitutional Showdown - Chris Hedges petrarchan47tc 20:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Within the next 16 hours I won't be apple to include your updates in the Hedges v. Obama article. If it's urgent please do it yourself.--P3Y229 21:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all urgent, but I wanted to alert you and to get the references listed. petrarchan47tc 21:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Politico "A single federal appeals court judge put a temporary hold Monday night on a district court judge's ruling blocking enforcement of indefinite detention provisions in a defense bill passed by Congress and signed into law last year by President Barack Obama.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier issued a one-page order staying the district court judge's injunction until a three-judge appeals court panel can take up the issue on September 28." petrarchan47tc 04:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's done: I updated the NDAA 2012 article and Hedges v. Obama article. In addition to your sources I added some other ones. Can you please proofread Hedges v. Obama beginning with "Judge Forrest denied on September 14, 2012 the government's request for an immediate stay of her injunction" til the end of the article and correct mistakes you notice?--P3Y229 20:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely - least I can do, though unfortunately, I may not be able to get to it until next week. petrarchan47tc 21:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks in advance.

Interview with Plaintiff's Attorney who says all media got it wrong regarding the Sept 28 hearing, which is not to go over the merits of the case, but only the stay: video petrarchan47tc 18:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I included the video as a source. See please also my recent post at my talk page. --P3Y229 21:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Updates on NDAA case 9.28.12

Your Updates on NDAA case 9.28.12 at the Hedges v. Obama talkpage have been partially included at the Hedges v. Obama page. I ecluded the "Update on the NDAA with Chris Hedges 9.28.12 video" and "Reddit AMA w/Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg et al on Hedges v. Obama suit against NDAA 9.27.12" because I had included them already earlier into the article. --P3Y229 22:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest on Hedges case

Thanks for providing me with the sources for Hedges v. Obama. I added them to the Hedges v. Obama article. --P3Y229 21:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your work is most appreciated. petrarchan47tc 20:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Service Award

A (quasi-military) award for you. Post on your user page as you wish! And continue to contribute!!

--S. Rich (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

BP stock history

Hi Petrarchan, following your request for my input on a "stock history" for BP, I've prepared a new subsection for the article's Corporate affairs section that provides details of the major events in the company's stock history. I've requested that editors review the draft, which is in my user pages here: User:Arturo at BP/Stock history. I hope this provides the information you and Beagel were thinking of. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent as usual, Arturo. Many thanks. petrarchan47tc 21:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

BP alternative energy draft

Hi Petrarchan47, I'm hoping I can get your help reviewing a new request I posted on the BP talk page. I've prepared a revision for the existing BP Alternative Energy section which is outdated. The full request on the article's talk page explains the changes I've made and the draft is in my user space here: User:Arturo at BP/Alternative Energy

Also, you'll see have another short request below the one for the BP Alternative Energy draft. I'm looking for an editor to remove the now outdated information about the planned ethanol plant in Florida from the United States operations section. I'd appreciate help with either request. I'll be watching the talk page and will respond there to any comments. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my Talk page, I hope you are better soon. By the way, there are a couple of other sections I have been working on new drafts for and will be asking for reviews of soon. If you are feeling up to it, your opinion would be valued. In the meantime, I wish you well. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your collaboration

Pulling together the heap of info into a well-formed article is tedious, a labor of love. Thanks for your recent help on Cannabis (drug) 99.6.146.246 (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan47, many thanks to you, you've written the text, searched and added the references, which is the most important part. Thanks for letting me know about the new discussion. --KDesk (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Decorah bald eagle parents.png

Thanks for uploading File:Decorah bald eagle parents.png, which you've sourced to Ustream.tv. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Misplaced Pages's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Decorah eagles playing in nest May 2012.png

Thanks for uploading File:Decorah eagles playing in nest May 2012.png, which you've sourced to Ustream.tv. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Misplaced Pages's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Decorah eaglets, 2011.png

Thanks for uploading File:Decorah eaglets, 2011.png, which you've sourced to Ustream.tv. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Misplaced Pages's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Decorah eaglets being fed by parents, Spring 2012.png

Thanks for uploading File:Decorah eaglets being fed by parents, Spring 2012.png, which you've sourced to Ustream.tv. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Misplaced Pages's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Dr Lester Grinspoon.png

Thanks for uploading File:Dr Lester Grinspoon.png, which you've sourced to screenshot from YouTube. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Misplaced Pages's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify my intent...

I hope that you did not misunderstand my intent when I asked for assist with splitting a section of the Gulf spill article. I certainly had no backroom discussions in mind, but merely thought that we could decide who would do what in a collaboration on working with that section. Best, gandy Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No need for clarification, but thanks :) petrarchan47tc 02:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for all your hard work on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. You may not get much appreciation here, but it means a lot to people that care about a healthy environment for themselves and even more so for the children. Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't know if you still watch the BP spill article or the talk page. I just thought I'd let you know that I'm going to take a little vacation from the article as well. It is just too frustrating to have an editor return and say we've ruined the article and then proceed to make changes without even a pretense of first attempting to find consensus. I don't like being angry. I would have never stayed with a paying job that involved working with someone like that (though one feels more that they are working under her/him) and I certainly am not going to do it for free. I am retired and I'd like to enjoy my Misplaced Pages job like I used to enjoy my "real" jobs. For now, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lester Grinspoon Again

Hi , I didn't know if this was the best way to contact you is there an email address for wikipedia users ?

I noticed you were interested in Lester Grinspoon so I wanted to send this to you :

Pictures of Lester Grinspoon --> https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=isch&q=lester+grinspoon Google Images Result

Grinspoon on Erowid : http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/grinspoon_lester/grinspoon_lester.shtml

Erowid seems to be well connected , maybe you can find out more there about getting permission to insert an image of Grinspoon .

MalcolmX86 (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Caretaker of the Hedges v. Obama respectively Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan site

Hi Petrarchan47

Due to serious health problems I won't be able to take care of the Hedges v. Obama and Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan site in the future. Could you please take care of both sites in my absence which will last at least four months? Thanks in advance. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

BP

Hi Petra, I don't know whether you still watch this page, but I'm writing to ask whether you would ever consider returning to the BP page to give editors the benefit of your expertise there. My understanding is that you came to feel undermined in your efforts to uphold neutrality. If you're truly burned out, then please ignore this note, because real life matters more than Misplaced Pages. But if you could ever consider returning, this would be good time to explain your concerns about the editing of that article and BP's input. There is discussion on the BP talk page, and on the talk page of the COI guideline (see this section) to try to make sure company drafts are no longer ported over word-for-word into articles in this way.

The difficulty in discussing what has happened, and what should happen now, is that the editors most familiar with the situation are really fed up, or have left. So if you can see your way to helping, it would be much appreciated, bearing in mind that you have to put yourself first. Best wishes, SlimVirgin 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am absolutely willing to help. I do not see how I can add much to your guidelines discussion. But for the story of the past 9 months at the BP page, I do have a lot to offer and would like to share all of it. The question is what would be the best way to extract this information? I'm unfortunately too close to it and too emotional about it to write up a nice, clean summary for you. (Moved to your talk page... ) petrarchan47tc 23:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, just to let you know that I've replied here. SlimVirgin 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it, CNET News has picked this up. SlimVirgin 01:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That's what's up! petrarchan47tc 01:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for all your work on Misplaced Pages. Your story should be an inspiration to us all. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• swoons* petrarchan47tc 01:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

About 40% of Misplaced Pages's article on BP (British Petroleum) was written by a BP employee, and the the source of this text is not disclosed to our readers? BP was also the source of the horrific Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It recently pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and to lying to its own investors, but those facts are not included in the article, nor is there anything in the article about BP misleading our readers.

If you'd like to know why independent editors are leaving Misplaced Pages, please read User talk:Slim Virgin#Re: BP <Retired>

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Let's work on clarifying procedure for these situations, so it's more transparent and better reviewed. Ocaasi 19:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Spin-checking BP's Tar Sands Entry

As it reads today:

"In Canada, BP is involved in the use of in-situ drilling technologies such as Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage to extract oil from Canada's oil sand reserves"

note: tar sands is a much more recognized, albeit controversial, term; it would help educate the reader to add "oil sands, tar sands or, more technically, bituminous sands" (from Oil sands).

Refs

1) A PDF on the BP website.

, BP quotes a low carbon footprint figure of just 5-15% of extra emissions per barrel for tar sands oil when compared to conventional crude. However, a more reliable figure is the peer-reviewed Stanford University figure of 23% extra greenhouse gas emissions per barrel. This is the official number that has been accepted as correct by the EU. BP tries to defend its actions by saying that rather than open-cast mining it will be using Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAG-D) to extract oil from the Canadian tar sands. In its 2011 Sustainability Review they state that SAG-D has a smaller physical footprint than open-cast mining, and point out that it does not create tailings ponds. However, it fails to mention that this extraction method still causes great damage to the local environment, by fragmenting habitats along seismic lines, drawing heavily on local aquifers and polluting the groundwater. It also carries the significant risk of steam blowouts, which could cause death or serious injury to staff, community members and wildlife. Because SAG-D requires the burning of large amounts of natural gas, it has a significantly higher carbon footprint than conventional oil (text comes from here)

2) bare bones Reuters article

3) BP webpage - In situ drilling: Approximately 80% of oil sands recoverable resource is located more than 70 metres, or 200 feet, below the surface and to extract these resources, in situ techniques such as steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) are used. BP plans to use in situ technology to recover the resource. A key method of in situ recovery is steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD).

note: the allusion to other possible methods being used by stating "key" and "such as", while not a major problem, causes cognitive dissonance for me. Is there another method being used, and what is it?

"Members of the Cree Nation have criticized BP's involvement in the Canadian oil sands for the impacts that oil extraction is said to have on the local environment."

4) Guardian article

notes

Is the Cree Nation alone? The reader is led to believe so. From the same Guardian article: The tar sands are seen by many (referring to other than Cree Nation) as a particularly dangerous project providing enough carbon to be released in total to tip the world into unstoppable climate change. (See my list below for more.)

"is said to" = weasle words. There is no debate about it that I have come across.

"However, proponents of in situ drilling state that using recycled groundwater makes it the more environmentally friendly option compared to oil sands mining."

5) NYT

notes:

It appears the proponents referred to in the given ref are "U.S. and Canadian oil companies".

This use of "however" causes cognitive dissonance for me because this is an encyclopedia, not an argument. I feel like I'm being swayed, rather than given information.

According to Greenpeace: The evidence from government and industry’s own reports shows that in situ extraction doesn’t solve the basic problems of the tar sands...Melting the bitumen out of the ground rather than digging it out actually creates more greenhouse gas emissions and fragments more wildlife habitat than open-pit mining, while creating toxic waste we don’t know how to treat or safely store.

From the ref: ...steam-assisted gravity drainage or SAGD, produces two times as much water as it does oil. Companies such as Conoco and Suncor tout water recycling rates upward of 90 percent at in situ facilities, but environmentalists counter that industry use of saline groundwater remains insufficiently monitored.

80% of Canada's oil sand is underground, so choosing "in situ" is out of necessity.

Not mentioned:

• "Nasa scientist James Hansen says if the oil sands were exploited as projected it would be "game over for the climate" " Guardian

• "Oil giant BP today signalled it would press on with a controversial Canadian tar sands project despite facing a showdown with environmental campaigners and shareholders." Independent

• "There will be continued pressure on BP for making the decision to get involved in the tar sands, given that it said it was going to be 'beyond petroleum'," she continued, referring to the company's much-criticised branding strategy." Greenpeace rep quotation

• "The board of U.K. oil giant BP successfully defeated an AGM resolution Thursday from activist shareholders who wanted a full investigation into the company’s plans to launch a major oil sands project in Alberta, Canada" WSJ: BP Defeats Oil Sands Critics, But Controversy Won’t Die

• "Some scientists and environmentalists, however, claim that the SAGD method poisons underground aquifers....A peer review analysis of the report was then carried out by the National Resources Defense Council, which found a 30% increase in cancers in Fort Chipewyan. Leukemia and lymphomas had increased threefold and bile duct cancers seven fold." Daily Mail UK

petrarchan47tc 01:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Accidents" vs "incidents"

You are indeed correct that what's in that section are non-neutral events, some in which BP was found to be culpable. That's why I have a problem with "accidents." I think that tends to lessen the severity of what happened. The word "incident" is more neutral in the sense of being less exculpatorty. I'd urge you to rethink your position on this. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand your perspective now. I just found the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BP/Archive_8#New_structure_for_Environmental_record_and_Accidents.2Fsafety_record and now I understand why "incidents" might also minimize what happened. However, I think "accidents" is worse than "incidents." I'm starting a new discussion on the talk page and I hope you can participate. Coretheapple (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Your request

I have received your mail. While I understand your problem and request, I'll refrain from interfering here, for a number of reasons. Nasically, I have too much on my plate already, and one of the main articles in the dispute has recently been significantly edited by an editor I'm already in a dispute with (for unrelated issues). I don't want to taint my possible actions by people shouting WP:INVOLVED. I would urge you to look for help at prokect talk pages, noticeboards like WP:RSN, article content WP:RFCs, and if there are severe conduct problems, WP:AN or WP:ANI.

I'm sorry that I can't be of more use, but I'm afraid that I'll not be helping you in this case. Good luck though. Fram (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

		The Friendship Barnstar
		It is a pleasure to meet you. An editor like you is the very heartbeat of Misplaced Pages. Thanks for your strength of conviction and your continuing involvement.```Buster Seven Talk 13:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to safeguard Wikepedia's reputation and safeguard our readers desire to have impartially edited articles. There is alot going on and a lot being said about a lot of different things. It's hard to keep up and to keep track. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Driving The Bus

If you have the time, Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Paid operatives. I collected some stuff that was an off-shoot of involvement with a paid political operative that was editing the Gingrich Campaign article.

The Bus is symbolic of allcorporate and political articles.

• Paid operatives/advocates should never drive the Bus, and should never be allowed, by other editors, to have their hands on the steering wheel of the Bus.
• Paid operatives/advocates are passengers on the Bus...just like the other editors. They have no special seating assignment, no reduced fare, no GPS control of where the Bus is headed, no special permission to be a spokesman for the Bus Company.
• Paid operatives/advocates should only ask the opinions of the Bus drivers (other editors). They should never pick out an editor with similar opinions and ask special favors of them.
• Paid operatives/advocats should never direct the drivers of the Bus where to go, how to get there ("there" may look different for different factions on the Bus), and what to say when they get there unless the direction/objective/language is agreed upon via the general consensus of the passengers.
• ```Buster Seven Talk 00:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Request

I noticed at User_talk:Slim_Virgin#Re:_BP_.3CRetired.3E you have the phrase " Seconds after updating it, Rangoon11 stepped in and reverted my work," while later conceding this was in error. With over 2000 edits, you are hardly a newbie, yet even editors who have been around for awhile are unaware that convention is to use strike-through on the original comment, so that later readers, such as myself, won't be initially misled. Will you consider it?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. petrarchan47tc 18:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Un-retire?

I am a WP Wanderer. I am involved with the BP article because I saw you conversation w/ Slim Virgin regarding the Paid editor situation. I am also one of the original members of the WER project and its sub-project Editor of the Week. Your plight and the fact that it caused you to retire has been on my mind since. When an editor like you retires, WP and the community lose so much. Not just the work you do is missed but your attitude, your way of being, the congenial way you work with fellow editors. I'm not sure but I think you got involved with a 'ruff crowd' a bit too early in your WP career. The same thing happened to me. I was a rookie and I was doing battle with veterans at the Sara Palin page during the 2008 Election period. We were lucky. There was a group of editors that, while they obviously supported Palin, at least could be fair and relatively impartial. Looks like your experience at BP was different. It was just you and Gandydancer.

I wonder if you might consider renewing you enthusiasm for Misplaced Pages editing. It doesnt have to be at articles like BP or Chevron. That would be nice and you are more than welcome. A restructuring is taking place that you might find very intertesting. But, it can be in any one of a thousand ways. Your voice needs to be heard. Others will try to drown it out with their chatter and their divisiveness but your voice needs to be heard. I hope I am not to presumptuous in this request. As I said, your forced retirement bothered me. I support whatever you decide. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Buster7, for the heart you put into this project as well as the kind words of support for me. Briefly, I am willing to help with the BP page on one condition: that we can also give the BP oil spill page the same treatment. FYI, BP is this very week in court defending itself against possible charges of gross negligence. BP has in the past used this Wiki article in trial! (Link to this is at top of the article's talk page) Recently scrubbed from the article are two Al Jazeera refs which talk about human health effects from the spill. Beagle and Martin Hogbin (who has never worked on the article previously) removed the mention of people dying as well as perfectly good, supportive RS. This is just one example of what is happening at that article and its spin-off articles. When I try to remedy what has been scrubbed, the result is that more (pro-BP) editors come in and together will delete other stuff for dubious reasons. It's a very immature game and those seeking information about the largest environmental disaster in US history are the ones loosing out. I am no longer effective as an editor there as Beagle has declared war against me, as is evidenced by her edits, comments and arguments. I don't call other editors for help in arguing my (guideline-supported) points because I don't know any. But the team on the 'other side' has a seemingly endless supply of folks to argue and fight for the pro-BP, pro-Big Oil, and pro-Official Government versions.

After seeing the reaction of the Wiki community and the Jimbo talk page to the news that BP's article contained words straight from BP's PR dept, I can tell you that I no longer have faith in this project overall. And that breaks my heart to say to you. Until I witnessed the reaction from the Higher Ups, I was under the impression that Misplaced Pages, regardless of who founded it, did not belong to and was not swayed by any particular Ego. I thought it belonged to me, and to you and to millions of individuals who want unadulterated information, sans commercials, not normally found in corporate-funded mainstream media.

I thought that surely if there was someone, or a group of someones, in charge of making sure Wiki was running as intended, they would immediately act on behalf of NPOV, Truth, Science if shown that these things are being hurt by (in this case) corporate influence. I further thought that 'nobody' editors like me would be supported by this same group. But what I witnessed was ridiculous, over-the-top displays of adoration and support for all-things-BP. I saw broken promises to "analyze" the added content for spin, missing info, etc., as well as the editors who approved of and submitted content. In one case we have Silver Seren - the sole 'reviewer' and submitter of the last BP PR draft. Was his editing behaviour appropriate? I think an analysis remains in order. I would look at the fact that Silver never showed any interest in the article itself prior to this addition and has not been seen at the BP talk page since the initial frenzy.

Wiki rules allow for this type of activity, and the High Ups apparently see nothing wrong with this, but rather with those who call attention to it. The only follow-up to the promised analysis was to badmouth one of the whistle-blowers as "sufficiently biased" whose work doesn't deserve a second look. IMO, this reaction has the emotional maturity level of a dysfunctional 9 year-old. Unless and until Misplaced Pages is truly handed over to 'us', the little people, I'm afraid I just don't see how it can be free of the ingrained and deeply-rooted corruption I am witnessing. I mentioned in my SlimVirgin response that it felt as if Misplaced Pages didn't have my back when I was pointing out corporate spin. I was told in no uncertain terms, by the aforementioned talk page activity, that I was exactly right (unless I'm BP).

So yes, I'm willing to point out things on both the BP and BP oil spill pages in the same way a COI editor is encouraged to do: show inaccuracies, spin, and supply supportive refs, and missing facts. Hopefully I would have some fraction of the support and love from the community for my efforts that is shown to a BP employee, but I sure don't expect it. As for returning to help Misplaced Pages as an enthusiastic editor, no. Not until things have changed. Misplaced Pages is most absolutely and massively slanted towards special interests. Spin is allowed in their favor, but not the other direction (and shouldn't be allowed at all). So this means all our hard work is wasted time, as Gandy recently noted - we can spend hundreds of hours on an article and it can be scrubbed/changed/spun in an instant. That fact that this behaviour was given a very public thumbs-up recently has only compounded the problem (at least at the BP oil spill page).

Picture this: the tar sands ("Canadian oil sands") section written by a Greenpeace PR team, presented at the BP talk page and approved/added word-for-word to the BP article. Imagine if their first reference is to a 12-page brochure on the Greenpeace website about tar sands. Imagine this brochure quotes science that has the greenhouse gas emissions (tar sands' biggest problem) estimated at 56% instead of the accepted science from Stanford of a 23% increase. Imagine if this was pointed out to the Higher Ups, posted to Jimbo's talk page and the result was an overwhelming "Oh well". This is conversely the exact thing that happened. Presently the tar sands section is straight from BP PR and uses as its first ref. a nice shiny PDF from BP's website about tar sands which quotes a greenhouse gas emissions figure nearly 20% less than what is accepted by the scientific community. I showed this and that the BP version is indeed sanitized to the point of being useless and less informative than the previous (non-BP) version. If it's BP doing it, the community trips over itself defending the company and practices that allowed this. But what if it had been an environmental group instead? I can imagine the response would be dramatically different. Such a realization should stop us in our tracks and make us question: what is going on behind the scenes? Misplaced Pages purports to be interested in NPOV but when this claim is held up to the light, what emerges is a disturbing amount of personal attacks and obfuscation. Sometimes what used to feel like a community of exceedingly sharp minds (Misplaced Pages) feels more like MySpace. I just don't see how that can change until the High Ups who behave like this acknowledge their limitations & step down for the good of the Project. petrarchan47tc 02:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Like Welcome back. ```Buster Seven Talk

Totally understand your feelings on the subject, Petrarchan. I'm a relative novice here but can tell you that the futility of editing that page in the face of hard-core volunteer BP p.r. reps is a total turnoff. It is definitely a structural issue, built in to the marrow of Misplaced Pages that is simply not going to change. It's a shame that the public doesn't know how irretrievably screwed up Misplaced Pages is. Coretheapple (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks P. Well, I am not sure how to proceed here, frankly. There seem to be some well-intentioned administrators and veteran users, but they have apparently recognized the issues to be irredeemable and have given up. In theory, Misplaced Pages processes are actually quite good. The neutrality rules make good sense, and they have a sound rule on biographies. What concerns me is the self-image that this is an "encyclopedia" in the Brittanica sense, which Misplaced Pages isn't. Brittanica commissions experts to author articles, while Misplaced Pages is crowdsourced, and it is the very antithesis of crowdsourcing when some members of the crowd are subjects of the article or are volunteer PR people. I don't think Wales fully comprehends this. He makes his living off the reputation of Misplaced Pages, apparently, yet he seems to have no interest in protecting its reputation. That's really all Misplaced Pages has; without that it loses everything. I think that in certain subject areas he just isn't very bright. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair. I find it impossible to engage the illusion that this (lack of) response has no relation whatsoever to BP being one of the most profitable and powerful companies in the world.

I used to think of Misplaced Pages like Britannica (which was my best friend growing up). I have always been in love with the idea of an encyclopedia, which is why this realization is truly, truly painful to me. petrarchan47tc 22:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought about that, and I think that's probably an aspect of the situation. But I also think that he is a superficial person, vain and easily manipulated. I think that's what happened in the BP case, even if there haven't been communications outside of transparent Misplaced Pages channels. Its S.O.P. in the PR industry to get in touch with the chief when there is a problem, as I'm sure has happened in this case. Perhaps even an in-person visit. If not, then it just may be that he is merely self-deluded, engrained in his ways, and arrogantly assuming that Misplaced Pages's volunteers are capable of handling a PR onslaught. I know that his minions and sycophants have their heads rammed so far up their derrieres that it's almost funny. Coretheapple (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bingo on all counts. "Almost" being the operative word. It would be amusing if this person weren't influential - but that is not the case. I said his response to the Violet Blue piece had all the emotional maturity of a dysfunctional 9 year-old, and I meant that very seriously. It would be funny except, in this case, it's dangerous because it is quickly leading to the death of our beloved Misplaced Pages. petrarchan47tc 23:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Violet Blue's article was objective and fair. I didn't understand the attacks on her from Wales and his surrogates, such as an administrator who kept tossing non sequiturs at me. He implied that this was all a conspiracy of people with dark motives who had previously attacked Misplaced Pages, and mentioned a particular publication that hasn't even written about BP! Bizarre. Did you see that? I asked him about it and he didn't reply. Coretheapple (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read every word. < Guy > . This is what I meant about corruption. There is no logical explanation for the response from the High Ups other than: something is amiss. Equally if not more disturbing was the reaction from the community. The first few days on Jimbo's page (after the first CNET article by Violet Blue) was absolute insanity with throngs of people screaming in defense of BP and all who supported the drafts, whilst trying to discredit and demean the whistle-blowers (for lack of a better word). petrarchan47tc 23:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You know, I misspoke. The behaviour looks identical to what you see in relationships where money has exchanged hands (inexplicable things taking place, looking the other way, claiming "nothing to see here" when that's CLEARLY false). But I don't think something like that happened here. The fact that it's such an influential, powerful company can alone explain this behaviour (especially given the personality traits you mentioned). The thing is, there really shouldn't be one Voice for this encyclopedia and I wasn't aware that there was until this episode. If there a Voice, it had better be a pretty clean one. Few could fill that role. It turns out even Mother Theresa had corruption in her. petrarchan47tc 00:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You two are the future of Misplaced Pages (if you can withstand the onslaught). Articles like BP are troubling in that they require so much time and effort by the volunteers to maintain any equilibrium. As you both point out, Jimbo seems to ignore the challenge faced by his unpaid workers. I am committed to do what I can to be a part of the solution and I look toward you and others for fair play and guidance. I busy myself with other tasks but the evolution of how paid editors are granted unhealthy freedoms is important to the Body Misplaced Pages. I may not repeat this elsewhere, but I am sure that Arturo is not the only editor receiving a paycheck for editing the article. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)....Core, Do you have a diff for the non sequitors? I need something interesting to read later. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I find it impossible to believe anyone would create and guard business or industry articles all day, every day (as some here do), for fun only. On another note, Buster, why do you stick around? What do you hope can be accomplished? petrarchan47tc 02:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've wondered that myself. Buster, I'll try to root out some diffs. They're buried somewhere in the archives/talk page history. Coretheapple (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I stick around WP for many fun reasons that are very different than editing BP. But I assume you're asking about BP. One reason is to protect our reader from paid editing. As a rookie I came upon the Sara Palin article looking for info on who the hell she was. I read that "She and Todd got married......." but I knew they had eloped. So I innocently changed it to share what I knew to be fact. The Palinist's were outraged and a week-long debate and edit war erupted. Eventually other more important issues surfaced and the editing ensemble moved on. But I was amazed at the furor of some editors to keep out facts that might hurt their candidate. Years later a similar amazement occurred when a block of editors refused to admit that Callista was Newt Gingrich's third wife in her WP article; twisting and turning and throwing WP BLP rules around to get their way. To the best of my knowledge elope and third are still in the articles. Of course there have been other incidents of COI control that I have fought: the Newt Gingrich Campaign article was a battle every step of the way. Thinking about answering your question I realize that it may have been the bully-boy tactics that were used that really strengthened my resolve to do what I could to combat paid editors. Subtle attacks, little digs, ignoring requests, needing to always be on the defensive when all I wanted to was present the reader the facts. So, I stick around to make sure the reader is not misled into thinking Sara had a wedding with flowers and 5 hand maidens and a church full of people. (Which would be the logical assumption that the Palinists wanted the reader to have). I stick around to make sure that the innocent reader knows that Newt has had 3 wives and they might wonder (and investigate) what happened to the first 2. I stick around the BP article because I want the reader to have an article that's fair and balanced, that doesn't sugarcoat the worst corporate disaster of modern times, that hasn't been victim to the word manipulators on their payroll. And, I stick around because there are editors like you two....and dozens of others that I edit with at more easy-going projects. I may not inject myself into every thread but I read them all and do the best I can to understand the dynamics at work. I stick around because I think paid editing is contrary to the basic premise of Misplaced Pages; the idea that "anyone can edit". Corporations/companies/religions/campaigns come here to abuse their capacity to manipulate the "masses" and I don't like it. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said "I wonder that myself" I was referring to P saying "I find it impossible to believe anyone would create and guard business or industry articles all day, every day (as some here do), for fun only." Total opacity on my part! Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I also find it hard to believe...and to swallow! ```Buster Seven Talk 06:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)BTW, Petra, I am studying up on the spill itself, taking notes, doing research... and I promise to join the editors at the DWH article soon. After all, that was a condition of your return and I am thrilled that you did. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am more than thrilled to hear this. Not sure if you noticed, but I've been leaving good summary articles here. Normally, I have found that it is difficult to get news about the oil spill effects - unless it's about financial aspects or super old news. But, tomorrow is the 3 year anniversary, and at this time each year, fantastic articles come out - ones perfectly suited for Wiki. petrarchan47tc 03:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

But on the issue you address: yes, why indeed. I'm not sure it is an optimal use of one's time. However, I think that your comment "I stick around because I think paid editing is contrary to the basic premise of Misplaced Pages; the idea that 'anyone can edit'. Corporations/companies/religions/campaigns come here to abuse their capacity to manipulate the 'masses' and I don't like it." - that, I think, is the only really good argument I've heard recently for editing Misplaced Pages. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

@BP:talk#Judge, jury and executioner

I bring the following here because I do NOT want to go "Off-road" at the BP article. There is a delicious flow of give and take, point/counterpoint, that will lead, in my estimation, to a better article for Our Reader and the last thing I want to do is stop the flow. Someone said (paraphrased) "As far as I know, Arturo is the only paid employee.......". And that was actually my point. As Far as any of us know, Artro is the not the only sanctioned BP supporter at the article. We don't know any different and, most likely, never will. But it is illogical to assume that a multi-Billion dollar entity like BP would trust it's Misplaced Pages input and its position at the many search engines to one good natured individual. To me it's a foregone conclusion that Arturo is NOT a lone paid editor. One individual just doesn't make sense. My claim of "more than one" is just as valid as others who claim "only one". As far as I know, my claim is more realistic and reality based. Of course, in the interest of Keeping Calm and Carrying On I'll try to keep my opinions to myself. TRY being the operative word. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't make sense, and I recall something about a "team" being involved in Misplaced Pages. Hence your concern is well-taken. Coretheapple (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And when we're asked to believe the unbelievable, it's best not to. petrarchan47tc 21:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If it looks like crap and smells like crap and feels like crap, you don't taste it to verify what you know. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm rather looking forward to the next week or so, as I'm just consumed with work and will not be looking in much on Misplaced Pages. It's not the work I'm looking forward to but the "not looking in" part, as it's just too frustrating. Guys, we need to recruit more mature editors for Misplaced Pages. I sometimes sense that teenagers are ruling the roost here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm the same. Busy work/travel till Wed. Teen-agers and old geezers. What a pairing! I'm sure I'll stop in to visit. Ive started to take notes for my notes. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Buster, you asked earlier about an exchange I alluded to that I found to be strange. Take a look at and look for an exchange that I have with "Guy" where he talks about a publication called "The Register" that he indicated was behind the paid-editor controversy. I found no articles in The Register or by the writer he mentions on BP. Then later there are some threatening-type comments he made about a "small band of griefers" being involved in the BP thing. Again, had no idea what he is talking about. Unless I'm missing something big, concern over BP and paid editing is entirely exterior to Misplaced Pages and there doesn't seem to be any subculture of dissenters that is grumbling about it. In fact, I've been examining a new article called List of Misplaced Pages controversies, and I'm impressed by the extent to which Misplaced Pages people are totally out to lunch on the concept of "controversy." They have no idea what it is, and wouldn't recognize a real controversy when they see one if it bit them on the butt. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking the writing's on the wall, y'all. The only reasonable response to Paid Advocacy on Misplaced Pages is an equal counter-force, which means a pro and a team of Wiki supporters willing to go all out, night and day. There is no way a ragtag group of volunteers can hold up against the endless insanity of 20-years old's who just love PR on Wiki, and spend their free time enthusiastically defending the practice. petrarchan47tc 04:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there some validity to your suggestion that certain editors are not old enough to drink (in some states :~)? Core...Thanks for the link. I'll check it out when time allows. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The last editor who recently stopped by to suggest we do a RfC (and mentioned he'd go ask a trusted Admin) was 20, according to user boxes. petrarchan47tc 23:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Gulf production percentage correction

Reuters corrected the number in their story on BP Gulf production as a percentage of the total.

Reuters Arturo at BP (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it. petrarchan47tc 21:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Petra. If this is one of the requests that Arturo made on 4/18/2013 @ ==Texas City info improvement requested== can you please tag it as done. It really helps to know which requests are open and which are done...and facilitates monitoring of all BP requests. Thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not; he made the request here only. I left a note on his talk to leave content-based requests at BP talk rather than here, good to keep it all in one place. petrarchan47tc 00:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding BP talk:#Updates - from independent editors....Hey Petra, would you have a problem if I put each of your links into its own seperate sub-thread? This way any conversation about each stays seperate and easier for everyone to follow. BTW, thanks for supporting my idea. I think it has already helped to keep things orderly and manageable and, even if only slightly, reduce the stress not just at BP but at any article that has to deal with Representative Editor. I'm gonna put together a few paragraphs and present the idea at Jimbo's page. I hope it gets some wings!!!```Buster Seven Talk 22:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good - note that my links only go to previous talk page sections for each needed addition. BTW, what do you think of the difference between how we collectively react to BP suggestions vs independent ones? What I think Jimbo needs to know is that there is nothing npov about the talk page activity at BP. It really does seem there is a boss there and we all answer to him. Suggestions by others are ignored. The thought of suggesting or adding less than positive content can produce ulcers and name-calling; I believe that we ignore those additions and topics because we don't want the grief. This is 100% wrong, is the result of a rep breathing down our backs, and my patience with this unspoken agreement, sanctioned by Jimbo et al, is growing very thin. petrarchan47tc 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A by product of sub-threading is the capacity to observe, without overlapping and jumbled discussion, who is responding. I'll do the request for a date change or a # of sush-snd-such change, but I.m reluctant to do the 'can we change the wording" changes. I think that is the area that a corporate rep can manipulate. (And...Arturo, if you are reading this, I am not inferring that you do that. One of my goals is to create a better working relationship with you for ALL BP editors. The BP article talk page has the potential to be the example for WP's future paid editor guidelines). Petra, I would point out that Arturo made a request about a week ago and, as far as I know, not one request has been implemented.

The list from independent editors can't really be compared to Arturo's; it's not as simple as adding an update. All the (indie) sections require discussion on what to say before being added. A section would be marked "done" for Arturo if his requests are added. For the indie list, sections require discussion about content, weight and wording. If there was a counter-force equal to Arturo, the writing would be done for us, and we would only have to agree and add or tweak it. Our job is harder and we are using our free time, which might be another factor contributing to an unbalanced article when PR reps are active on the page. If you are suggesting Arturo's additions receive more attention because they're easier to deal with, at least the non-contentious ones, I would agree that's probably happening and probably quite natural. petrarchan47tc 03:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There may be an unspoken agreement but no one has acted upon it. Don't forget to have some fun so that your patience stays balanced... :~)...```Buster Seven Talk 00:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't unspoken, it was a comment from Core on the talk page asking that we halt implementation of Arturo's suggested requests. Being busy with other interests, I happily obliged. Did you miss that comment? Honestly, my time and energy is limited right now, and that is contributing to my lack of participation on all areas of the BP talk page. If you're making content-specific comments (re change of wording), please be more specific or even leave them at the section in question. If you're speaking of the AE section, the change is wording is not at all controversial in RS (ample refs at talk page). That change in wording should be no more controversial at this encyclopedia. If it is, this is an example of the NPOV problem I wrote of earlier. My addition of the list today was not to imply it needs hurried attention, but to save it from archives, and to request we treat needed additions with equal weight - which is not being done. petrarchan47tc 00:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Petra...you mentioned unspoken agreement here "...and my patience with this unspoken agreement, sanctioned by Jimbo et al, is growing very thin." That is the unspoken agreement comment I am referring to. As to the other comment from Core I don't think that would be the right thing to do. As uncomfortable as we might be with implementing Arturo's request I don't think that in good conscience we can just ignore them and pretend they don't exist. But don't fret. Your involement should not be more than you feel comfortable with. No one expects you to carry the load. You do waht you do, I do what I do, Core does what he does. I'll look at Arturo's requests again, but I doubt that I will make any of the changes he asks for. Not because they are not valid, but just because I choose not to. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Buster, Core said above that he was gone until Wednesday, I took his "wait" to implement as a "wait til I get back", which meant less than a week - certainly there is no indication in my history showing I don't want to help Arturo update and correct the page. This very thread shows once I'm aware of a needed update, I do it within minutes.

As for that unspoken agreement, yes - we did enter an agreement,, it turns out, to deal directly with BP and the dynamics of that if we are to edit this particular page. I'm not ok with that. I think it should be done in a way that doesn't use volunteer time, like yours, but rather that all suggestions and comments from the company should go through an OTRS ticket system, including a totally dispassionate, very npov administrative team set up to deal with the CIO needs and to help indies deal with the CREWE-type onslaught. Also, there is a strong emotional pull to please and to refrain from displeasing the company and its rep. I don't feel this at any other page, not even close. This, and the nightmare editing experience at BP that ensues from simply trying to elevate whitewashing is directly related to a company rep having direct communication with independent editors. We should not have to feel the need to apologize or mention our editing is not personal - we shouldn't be in that situation in the first place, when our goal is to simply update an encyclopedia. In cases this this, where the subject is being sued and is in quite a bit of trouble, there should be oversight equal to what BP is offering in their defense, but from an admin team aware of potential problems. It is too much to ask of us. It's too much pressure, it isn't fair, and within no time we indies are caught up in our own battles and hurt feelings, rendering ourselves useless. petrarchan47tc 19:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

We did agree that a counter-weight is needed. This section pointing out ignored requests by independent editors, asking for equal consideration, seems like an example of what such a counter-force would do. What we are missing is the group of organized, communicating editors like CREWE. I would point out too, that some of those sections have waited far longer than a week, even though arguments against have ceased, indicating green light. I'm sick of being the bad guy there, and don't want to add negative content to the article. And it pisses me off that this is the case. My editing experience shouldn't be different there than any other page - but it is, I am limited to adding only positive or neutral content or deal with a nightmare on the talk page.petrarchan47tc 01:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You might want to look at

http://www.digiday.com/agencies/wikipedias-dubious-ad-company-entries/ which is from an industry publication targeting the digital media PR firms of the world, saying how there are problems with these folks of WP. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated. petrarchan47tc 00:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)