| Revision as of 21:56, 31 July 2013 editPetrarchan47 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,771 edits →Disambiguation link notification for July 31← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:33, 31 July 2013 edit undoSpectraValor (talk | contribs)583 edits →Foie gras: Your possibly legitimate Wiki-activism against paid editing should take the form of presenting evidence in the right channels, not edit warring. Thank you.Next edit → | ||
| Line 266: | Line 266: | ||
| Well (some reading later), that study is a one-off piece of primary research (and one can prove pretty much any fringe view in medicine with one of these), its authors have a clear conflict of interest, and there appears to be no follow-up work or review by peer-reviewed secondaries. Which all rather goes to show that the folks who wrote ] know what they are doing by excluding this kind of thing as a basis for human health information. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 08:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | Well (some reading later), that study is a one-off piece of primary research (and one can prove pretty much any fringe view in medicine with one of these), its authors have a clear conflict of interest, and there appears to be no follow-up work or review by peer-reviewed secondaries. Which all rather goes to show that the folks who wrote ] know what they are doing by excluding this kind of thing as a basis for human health information. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 08:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Yes, I am sure diseased liver is not unhealthy to eat, the article must be corrected ASAP. </ sarcasm > Seriously though, you did the right thing by taking it the noticeboard. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | :Yes, I am sure diseased liver is not unhealthy to eat, the article must be corrected ASAP. </ sarcasm > Seriously though, you did the right thing by taking it the noticeboard. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ==Reversion warning== | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:33, 31 July 2013
en:User:Meaghan/Sunshine
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
Happiness...
...is Petrarchan47 taking a leadership position on this paid editor thing. Very glad you're doing so. Just wanted to say so. Coretheapple (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're a star - I am a big fan of yours, btw. Thanks for making my day. petrarchan47tc 00:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why thank you! you're very kind. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just read Core's latest post at Slim's talk page. That's got to be one of the best posts I've ever read here. Brilliant assessment of the situation. So good that it went right to the top of my user page. You are both wise in mind and good of heart. <3 <3 Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just read Core's latest post at Slim's talk page. That's got to be one of the best posts I've ever read here. Brilliant assessment of the situation. So good that it went right to the top of my user page. You are both wise in mind and good of heart. <3 <3 Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why thank you! you're very kind. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| For defending the Misplaced Pages project from corporate interests and striving to maintain it as a source of impartial information. SeventhHell (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC) |
- Why thank you! How nice :) petrarchan47tc 20:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well-earned! Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- You all have just made my weekend. It is relatively rare to be complimented rather than WP:YELLEDAT on Wiki ;) Perhaps there is some relation between "defending the Misplaced Pages project from corporate interests" and angering people. Binksternet would surely know! petrarchan47tc 23:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Like ```Buster Seven Talk 22:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- You all have just made my weekend. It is relatively rare to be complimented rather than WP:YELLEDAT on Wiki ;) Perhaps there is some relation between "defending the Misplaced Pages project from corporate interests" and angering people. Binksternet would surely know! petrarchan47tc 23:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well-earned! Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
|
Editor of the Week | |
| Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for anything from fixing typos to maintaining some of our most controversial articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Misplaced Pages Editor Retention Project) |
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
- I nominate Editor Petrarchan47. As a member of the Typo Team and a "recent changes" patroller as well as an important editor at articles like BP and Deepwater Horizon oil spill, this editor is involved with the big and the small of WikiWorld. Defending our reader from the influences of COI editing of all types is high on her list of things to focus on. Recently returned from a temporary retirement, she is busy improving articles. An editor since May of 2011, 60% of her almost 3000 edits are in article space.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 13:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your persistence of purpose and your friendship have been very rewarding. You are THE example of determination. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
| The Buddist symbol for rainbow body |
| Petrarchan47 |
| Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 2, 2013 |
| A dillegent and hard-working editor that holds the reader in high esteem, Editor Petrarchan47's main focus has been the articles BP and Deepwater Horizon oil spill and her efforts to maintain equilibrium for all editors at these and at similar articles is commendable. |
| Recognized for |
| Defending Misplaced Pages from corporate interests |
| Submit a nomination |
- What a nice compliment! It is good to see you get some credit for the many hours you have put into making Misplaced Pages more informative and accurate. Gandydancer (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Lest I go all Sally Field on you, let me just say, I am completely speechless. Random acts of kindness make the world go 'round. This is very kind. Thank you!!! petrarchan47tc 20:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Petra, congratulations! It's really great that you got some recognition and it's well-deserved. SlimVirgin 20:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey! Congratulations for your award!!! A truly well-deserved achievement!!! Well done, and thank you for all you do on Misplaced Pages!
- Thank you so very much for your kind words, and for this project - it's a wonderful way to keep editors' spirits bright :) petrarchan47tc 00:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats for the award and especially for high-quality work on wiki!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just noticed this, so belated congratulations! You've done some really spectacular work in the faith of sometimes crude opposition. Bravo. Coretheapple (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your hard work! It's really appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Health consequences article
As you may know I've been working on this article and Core has offered to help. I'm still in the process of gathering information...and my thoughts. I was thinking that it should have a substantial section on Corexit since every source I've read so far mentions its use as one of the important unknowns. The GAP report contains a great deal of information and looking at its wikipedia article, it should certainly be considered a good RS source. Reading the report has been on my list of things to do but right now I am going through old news reports to see if there is anything that would be good for the article. However you are very familiar with Corexit already and would perhaps be willing to work on that section? Gandydancer (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- The request makes sense, it seems like it would be faster and easier for me to do the section, but due to some good luck, I am too busy in my offline life to make any commitments here. I can dip my toe in once and a while, but not more. However, I did all the work already, in the "Corexit for dummies" section. Don't be intimidated by the GAP report, the review article from which I quoted heavily did all the work for us (see linked section - be sure to uncollapse, especially the bottom part, which is specific to health concerns) The only thing needed is to distill the info and plug it into related articles (4 come to mind - for one of them, you will have to get a court order to add this info, and good luck finding an honest judge!).
- Maybe it makes more sense with our busy lives to work on this together and let it happen organically. petrarchan47tc 00:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The section move to archives, so I'll repeat it here:
Corexit
Here is most of the Corexit story. It is a pre-draft draft that needs a lot of work. None of this is in my own words, but I wanted to get this out of my files and onto this page in case someone wanted to help build this section, which probably fits better under the "Environmental record" or perhaps "Safety and health violations" than under the Gulf spill, since we are only allotted 2 paragraphs. petrarchan47tc 23:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Easy ways to brush up on the Corexit story (with focus on the recent GAP report and Newsweek investigation):
| “ | BP's use of COREXIT during the DWH oil spill
Conclusions from the report strongly suggest that the dispersant Corexit was widely applied in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion because it caused the false impression that the oil disappeared. In reality, the oil/Corexit mixture became less visible, yet much more toxic than the oil alone. Nonetheless, indications are that both BP and the government were pleased with what Corexit accomplished. EPA whistleblower Hugh Kaufman: "EPA....is taking the position that they really don’t know how dangerous Corexit is, even though if you read the label, it tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic — it’s an economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public." From the GAP report, "evidence suggests that the cleanup effort has been more destructive to human health and the environment than the spill itself." BP lied about the size of the oil disaster and the danger posed to its workers, the public and the environment. Lying to Congress about the amount of oil was one of 14felonies to which BP pleaded guilty last year in a legal settlement with US DOJ, which included a 4.5 Billion fine, the largest ever levied against a corp in the US. BP hid the amount of oil from cameras by using oil dispersant Corexit. BP lied about how safe Corexit was for workers, residents and the environment. An anonymous whistle-blower provided evidence revealed in a Newsweek investigation that BP was warned in advance about the safety risks of Corexit. // whistleblowers revealed to the independent Government Accountability Project (GAP) that Nalco had given elaborate instructions to BP about using Corexit and avoiding contact with human clean-up workers — instructions that were clearly ignored during the spring of 2010. BP used at least 1.84 million gallons, the largest use of such chemicals in U.S. history. BP sprayed Corexit directly at the wellhead spewing oil from the bottom of the gulf, even though no one had ever tried spraying it below the water's surface before. BP also used more of the dispersant than had been used in any previous oil spill, 1.8 million gallons, to try to break up the oil. 58% was sprayed from planes, sometimes hitting cleanup workers in the face. Workers were denied safety gear and (their jobs threatened for wearing respirators). Soon after the Deepwater explosion, BP stockpiled 1/3rd of the world's supply of Corexit In May 2010, the EPA told BP to identify less toxic alternatives from a list of government-approved dispersants. If BP could not identify an alternative, it had to offer concrete reasons why not. The company replied that less-toxic dispersants were not available in the quantities needed. BP continued spraying Corexit on the Gulf, at an average ratio of one gallon per 91 gallons of oil, into the summer of 2010. After the spill, a study revealed that oil mixed with Corexit is 52 times more toxic than oil alone. Wilma Subra, a chemist whose work on environmental pollution had won her a “genius grant” from the MacArthur Foundation, told state and federal authorities that she was especially concerned about how dangerous the mixture of crude and Corexit was: “The short-term health symptoms include acute respiratory problems, skin rashes, cardiovascular impacts, gastrointestinal impacts, and short-term loss of memory,” she told GAP investigators. “Long-term impacts include cancer, decreased lung function, liver damage, and kidney damage.” In a survey of health impacts for people along the coast, Orr found The most common ailments were headaches (87 percent of respondents), dizziness and cough (72 percent), fatigue and eye-nose-and-throat irritation (63 percent), followed by nausea, diarrhea, confusion and depression. Environmental health consultant Wilma Subra, who evaluated the survey data, said oil and dispersant had aerosolized and travelled up to 100 miles inland, potentially exposing tens of thousands of people to the hairspray-like mist. “Now we are seeing the reproductive effects,” Subra said, including high rates of miscarriages, preemies, infant respiratory problems, and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism. “The workers that BP hired should have been trained and protected adequately,” Subra said. “It was inappropriate to expose them to toxic chemicals as they did their job.” She told federal officials the workers needed respirators, but was rebuffed. “They said I would be killing the workers because of the heat,” she said. “There are suits with piped-in cooling. Cleanups happen all the time in hot weather.” NOAA scientists/divers getting very sick, told there was no danger. Gulf waters disintegrated the rubber on diving suits. "Hertsgaard goes on to explain that although BP has set aside roughly $8 billion for medical expenses related to the spill, the illnesses these people are suffering from are not covered under that settlement". The Corexit broke the oil droplets down into smaller drops, creating the plume, Hollander said. Then the smaller oil droplets bonded with clay and other materials carried into the gulf by the Mississippi, sinking into the sediment where they killed the foraminifera (base of food chain). |
” |
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/04/22/what-bp-doesn-t-want-you-to-know-about-the-2010-gulf-spill.html Newsweek investigation/Hertsgaard
http://www.livescience.com/25159-oil-dispersant-increases-toxicity.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/27/coast_guard_grounds_ships_involved_in
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/17/corexit-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-lessons-bp-oil.html
http://www.fox8live.com/story/22019611/finding-oil-in-the-marsh-3-years-after-the-bp-spill
http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/public-health/corexit
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/30/us-oil-spill-carcinogens-idUSTRE68T6FS20100930
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/20/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_of_covering
- I think you should consider a separate article "The use of Corexit in the DWH spill" or something like that for this information. I think a section "Use of Corexit dispersant" with say two paras is all the health article can handle. Some editors may argue even that is too much, however in all the reading I've done as I've worked on the article it is always mentioned that the unprecedented use of Corexit should be considered as a possible (or real) health hazard. But the hazards remain mostly an unknown and I think that when one considers the article as a whole it would not be reasonable to provide extensive information. Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm working two jobs at the moment, no can do... petrarchan47tc 23:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think you should consider a separate article "The use of Corexit in the DWH spill" or something like that for this information. I think a section "Use of Corexit dispersant" with say two paras is all the health article can handle. Some editors may argue even that is too much, however in all the reading I've done as I've worked on the article it is always mentioned that the unprecedented use of Corexit should be considered as a possible (or real) health hazard. But the hazards remain mostly an unknown and I think that when one considers the article as a whole it would not be reasonable to provide extensive information. Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Specifics from the GAP report
Select Report Findings
Existing Health Problems
- Eventually coined "BP Syndrome" or "Gulf Coast Syndrome," all GAP witnesses experienced spill-related health problems. Some of these effects include: blood in urine; heart palpitations; kidney damage; liver damage; migraines; multiple chemical sensitivity; neurological damage resulting in memory loss; rapid weight loss; respiratory system and nervous system damage; seizures; skin irritation, burning and lesions; and temporary paralysis.
- Interviewees are also extremely concerned about recognized long-term health effects from chemical exposure (from those specific chemicals found in Corexit/oil mixtures), which may not have manifested yet. These include reproductive damage (such as genetic mutations), endocrine disruption, and cancer.
- Blood test results from a majority of GAP interviewees showed alarmingly high levels of chemical exposure – to Corexit and oil – that correlated with experienced health effects. These chemicals include known carcinogens.
The Failure to Protect Cleanup Workers
- Contrary to warnings in BP's own internal manual, BP and the government misrepresented known risks by asserting that Corexit was low in toxicity.
- Despite the fact that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has developed a highly-lauded safety training program for cleanup workers, the workers interviewed reported that they either did not receive any training or did not receive the federally required training.
- Federally required worker resource manuals detailing Corexit health hazards (according to a confidential whistleblower) were not delivered or were removed from BP worksites early in the cleanup, as health problems began.
- A FOIA request found that government agency regulations prohibited diving during the spill due to health risks. Yet, divers contracted by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and interviewed by GAP dove after assurances that it was safe and additional protective equipment was unnecessary.
- BP and the federal government, through their own medical monitoring programs, each publicly denied that any significant chemical exposure to humans was occurring. Of the workers GAP interviewed, 87% reported contact with Corexit while on the job and blood test results revealed high levels of chemical exposure.
- BP and the federal government believed that allowing workers to wear respirators would not create a positive public image. The federal government permitted BP's retaliation against workers who insisted on wearing this protection. Nearly half of the cleanup workers interviewed by GAP reported that they were threatened with termination when they tried to wear respirators or additional safety equipment on the job. Many received early termination notices after raising safety concerns on the job.
- All workers interviewed reported that they were provided minimal or no personal protective equipment on the job.
Ecological Problems & Food Safety Issues
- A majority of GAP witnesses reported that they found evidence of oil or oil debris after BP and the Coast Guard announced that cleanup operations were complete.
- BP and the federal government reported that Corexit was last used in July 2010. A majority of GAP witnesses cited indications that Corexit was used after that time.
- The oil-Corexit mixture coated the Gulf seafloor and permeated the Gulf's rich ecological web. GAP witnesses have revealed underwater footage of an oil-covered barren seafloor, documenting widespread damage to coral reefs.
- The FDA grossly misrepresented the results of its analysis of Gulf seafood safety. Of GAP's witnesses, a majority expressed concern over the quality of government seafood testing, and reported seeing new seafood deformities firsthand. A majority of fishermen reported that their catch has decreased significantly since the spill.
Inadequate Compensation
- BP's Gulf Coast Claims Fund (GCCF) denied all health claims during its 18 months of existence. Although a significant precedent, the subsequent medical class action suit excluded countless sick individuals, bypassed the worst health effects resulting from exposure to dispersant and oil, offered grossly inadequate maximum awards compared to medical costs, and did not include medical treatment.
- But how do we boil this all down to one para?
With only one para from and international panel of experts, the article can't give more copy to a whistle blower group. But more of this info could be used in a separate Corexit article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- But how do we boil this all down to one para?
BP/Gov't position, etc
"Time and again, those working to clean up the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill were assured that Corexit....was as safe as "dishwasher soap"."
"In a statement issued by BP, the oil company said: "Use of dispersants during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was co-ordinated with and approved by federal agencies including the US Coast Guard and EPA. Based on extensive monitoring conducted by BP and the federal agencies, BP is not aware of any data showing worker or public exposures to dispersants that would pose a health or safety concern."
"According to a new report released by the Government Accountability Project, nearly half of workers reported that their employers told them Corexit did not pose a health risk."
"And nearly all those interviewed, reported receiving minimal or no protective equipment despite warnings clearly spelled out in the manual provided by Corexit's manufacturer."
"Now three years on, many cleanup workers are reporting serious health problems including seizures, temporary paralysis and memory loss."
Foie gras
Hi! you reverted an edit I made on this article removing claims about human health which were not WP:MEDRS compliant, citing no consensus - which is not a valid reason for a revert. It's important we do not included material about human health in articles which is not super-solid. Alexbrn 05:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I know that there has been a lot of heated debate at that article, and to remove a large chunk of consensed material is not going to go over well. I've alerted others who were part of the debate, and will leave it to them. petrarchan47tc 06:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, but if you yourself don't have any content-based reason for this, I'd appreciate it if you could self-revert so we could let consensus form in the usual way. Alexbrn 06:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is the usual way. I'm not up for a heated debate right now. You need to have consensus to remove this material. Also, at the MAM article, you have just attributed the protest, partially, to a reaction to Monsanto's statements without any source for this. I would self-revert if I were you, until you do have a source making this connection. I have already reverted you twice so cannot correct it myself. petrarchan47tc 06:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think you can revert me again if you want (3RR? it's so easy to overstep by mistake) Anyway, on MaM isn't the problem that comments from 16 May can't be a reaction to the March? I'm not sure either of our versions are quite right yet ... ? Alexbrn 06:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- You've been here six years - you know the problem is that you can't make claims without a source. Do you have a source connecting the protests to a reaction against these statements? If not, you know what to do. petrarchan47tc 06:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have addressed that I think - see the Talk page. Anyhow, back to foie gras: you've reverted me again - the cheek! ;-) Seriously, I have done a library search and there appears to be no high-quality secondary material on the topic of foie gras in relation to human health. It is very important that Misplaced Pages does not carry bogus health information and so this material really needs to come out. Do you yourself have any objection? Alexbrn 07:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have added two easily found sources (which I did at the same time that I reverted you, you may not have noticed?). They are from PNAS and Science News. I used "Google Scholar". petrarchan47tc 07:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC) I may have added this from PUBMED, but it may have already been there, I can't recall at this point. Either way, I think we're safe. petrarchan47tc 07:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- But these are based on (in medical terms) primary sources, and so are exactly the kind of material we should not be using for biomedical content, as is explained in detail in WP:MEDRS. We need at least a good meta-review or a statement by some large health organization. Alexbrn 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm, like I said, I'm not up for a heated debate on this, I will leave it to others. See if this might help you to build a satisfactory review of the human health concerns, and I'll check back with you later. Meanwhile, do continue to search for the exact type of sourcing you need, you will find it. G'nite. petrarchan47tc 07:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sweet dreams :-) Alexbrn 07:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm, like I said, I'm not up for a heated debate on this, I will leave it to others. See if this might help you to build a satisfactory review of the human health concerns, and I'll check back with you later. Meanwhile, do continue to search for the exact type of sourcing you need, you will find it. G'nite. petrarchan47tc 07:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- But these are based on (in medical terms) primary sources, and so are exactly the kind of material we should not be using for biomedical content, as is explained in detail in WP:MEDRS. We need at least a good meta-review or a statement by some large health organization. Alexbrn 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have added two easily found sources (which I did at the same time that I reverted you, you may not have noticed?). They are from PNAS and Science News. I used "Google Scholar". petrarchan47tc 07:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC) I may have added this from PUBMED, but it may have already been there, I can't recall at this point. Either way, I think we're safe. petrarchan47tc 07:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have addressed that I think - see the Talk page. Anyhow, back to foie gras: you've reverted me again - the cheek! ;-) Seriously, I have done a library search and there appears to be no high-quality secondary material on the topic of foie gras in relation to human health. It is very important that Misplaced Pages does not carry bogus health information and so this material really needs to come out. Do you yourself have any objection? Alexbrn 07:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- You've been here six years - you know the problem is that you can't make claims without a source. Do you have a source connecting the protests to a reaction against these statements? If not, you know what to do. petrarchan47tc 06:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think you can revert me again if you want (3RR? it's so easy to overstep by mistake) Anyway, on MaM isn't the problem that comments from 16 May can't be a reaction to the March? I'm not sure either of our versions are quite right yet ... ? Alexbrn 06:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is the usual way. I'm not up for a heated debate right now. You need to have consensus to remove this material. Also, at the MAM article, you have just attributed the protest, partially, to a reaction to Monsanto's statements without any source for this. I would self-revert if I were you, until you do have a source making this connection. I have already reverted you twice so cannot correct it myself. petrarchan47tc 06:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, but if you yourself don't have any content-based reason for this, I'd appreciate it if you could self-revert so we could let consensus form in the usual way. Alexbrn 06:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Well (some reading later), that study is a one-off piece of primary research (and one can prove pretty much any fringe view in medicine with one of these), its authors have a clear conflict of interest, and there appears to be no follow-up work or review by peer-reviewed secondaries. Which all rather goes to show that the folks who wrote WP:MEDRS know what they are doing by excluding this kind of thing as a basis for human health information. Alexbrn 08:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sure diseased liver is not unhealthy to eat, the article must be corrected ASAP. </ sarcasm > Seriously though, you did the right thing by taking it the noticeboard. petrarchan47tc 21:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Reversion warning
Your recent editing history at March against Monsanto shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SpectraValor (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)