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

en:User:Meaghan/Sunshine

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia job like I used to enjoy my "real" jobs. For now, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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 ^(talk) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

In case you haven't seen it, CNET News has picked this up. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

About 40% of Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, please read User talk:Slim Virgin#Re: BP <Retired>

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

Hello, Petrarchan47. You have new messages at Ocaasi's talk page.
Message added 19:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Let's work on clarifying procedure for these situations, so it's more transparent and better reviewed. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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" [1][2][3]

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.

[In BP's report], 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]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, I think I understand your perspective now. I just found the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

If you have the time, Please take a look at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia as an enthusiastic editor, no. Not until things have changed. Wikipedia 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? Wikipedia 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 (Wikipedia) 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia that is simply not going to change. It's a shame that the public doesn't know how irretrievably screwed up Wikipedia is. Coretheapple (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia isn't. Brittanica commissions experts to author articles, while Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, apparently, yet he seems to have no interest in protecting its reputation. That's really all Wikipedia 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)[reply]

"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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 23:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You two are the future of Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia; 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia; 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 Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. I sometimes sense that teenagers are ruling the roost here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Buster, you asked earlier about an exchange I alluded to that I found to be strange. Take a look at [2] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia controversies, and I'm impressed by the extent to which Wikipedia 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)[reply]

I'm thinking the writing's on the wall, y'all. The only reasonable response to Paid Advocacy on Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have socks older than him. And that's what's running the No. 1 website in the world. No wonder its reputation is in the toilet, and the pr people are running roughshod. A kid like that is mincemeat for a pr professional. I am appalled by the cluelessness I encounter at Wikipedia and I totally understand the disgust I see from mature editors who have better things to do with their lives. Coretheapple (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. So when mature editors give up and walk away, the problem grows like a mold. Unless the high-ups admit a problem exists, we can only assume it is by design. petrarchan47tc 20:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been following the "women novelists category" insanity? Prominent woman novelist complains about woman novelists being shunted into a separate category in an online NY Times op-ed a few days ago. Petty retaliation takes place at her own article. She writes a follow-up[3] in the Sunday Times Review section today, rips Wikipedia to shreds. That section must get a million readers. Another example of what happens when teenagers are running the show. A terrible and well-deserved blow to Wikipedia's reputation. Coretheapple (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this comment - I happened to hear about this only last night. Well deserved is right. petrarchan47tc 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, which would be facilitated by 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 alleviate whitewashing is directly related to the presence of BP's "Wikipedia engagement team" and lack of proper counterforce. 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 such as 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 coming 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. There is also the fact that our time is limited, and it continues to be the case that lots of it is being wasted by BS arguments on the talk page without getting any editing done unless its In BP's favor. This has been the case since I first arrived there a year ago. It's what I've referred to as abuse, due to complete disregard for honest editors' time.petrarchan47tc 19:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've melded this response into the beginnings of what could hopefully become a formal proposal here. petrarchan47tc 22:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't disagree with anything you said. The conversation to change the system will probably (or IS probably) happening elsewhere and we should make sure that we are a part of that conversation. Too often the grunts, like you and me and others, that are providing the free labor, are forgotten or not invited to the "back-room meeting" to hash out the particulars for future COI guidelines. I also agree that editing the article does get tedious and enthusiasm can evaporate. The use (see:loss) of time is a concern. BP, like every other article, is always in a "draft" stage. TC. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think that I may have worded my pre-departure post unfelicitously. Actually, Arturo sometimes makes requests that are reasonable, such as one he did recently in which he dealt with the "Beyond Petroleum" business which indeed was an error. However, my personal opinion is that in the overall order of things it is a small-bore situation, really a failure to update. In my own personal order of priorities, I think that there are more pressing matters in that article, such as the alternative energy section. I shouldn't have implied that everybody should wait till I get back! I'd have no right to do that. Not my intention. Sorry I gave that impression. Buster, one idea I had, which I mentioned somewhere, is that a "to do" list be maintained on some page, so that people interested in improving the article and related articles can put stuff there. That way, we don't get this "I'm doing it all alone" feeling. What do you and P think? (sorry I say "P" but I can never remember your full handle). Coretheapple (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with P. We do need a to-do list, I've thought of that as well. I wouldn't mind if my talk page was used for that. The work of the BP Wikipedia engagement team has certainly been helpful in some ways. But the subtle and not-so-subtle shift in balance that has occurred below the radar damages the article and Wiki to such a great extent that updated facts and figures are pretty darn irrelevant. I'm not saying the PR team is directly responsible for this biased article, I have no way to prove that. But a correlation between such committed engagement and the current whitewashed, well-patrolled article is impossible to ignore. petrarchan47tc 22:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a subpage would work for that? What do you think? As for how BP got that way, that would be an excellent case study for academic research. It's all a matter of public record, it would just be a question of sifting through the data. Coretheapple (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that - and it is indeed an interesting story. Let's ask Buster for help with a subpage. I haven't dealt with that before. petrarchan47tc 22:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, if and where I can. Please see User:Buster7/Sandbox-BP to do list. As a beginning I just lifted comments from this thread and removed our signatures. Something needed to exist in the sandbox or it would get deleted. Im sure (and will happily watch) it change. The removal of our sigs changes ownership of an idea or a comment. It moves it from mine to ours. The list need not look any thing like it does right now. Please feel free to change and alter and play with it to your hearts content. We can all use it as a playground to reduce the stress from the article. But a playground with a purpose. Our purpose is to unify and collaborate amongst ourselves and the other editors at the article to create the best article we can. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buster. I actually was thinking in terms of content ("fix Section X to remove excessive use of press releases") but what you've drafted is not a bad idea at all. Hadn't occurred to me. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)```Buster Seven Talk 14:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a seperate Content List of Things-To-Do```Buster Seven Talk 14:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. Oh, and I just wanted to be sure you saw my idea for a "BP Documentation Project." See [4], currently at the end of [5]. What do you think? Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See also User:Buster7/Sandbox -BPDP. Note: The pages that I have created over the last 24 hours are available for stress release. Please feel free to play with them. Its like creating art...there is no right or wrong. Spend some time there instead of struggling to be heard at the article. Take a walk away from the polarizing nature of editing BP and refresh yourself. This should be fun, not hazardous to our mental and physical health. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun the first entries, documenting a completely daft effort to add an "undue" tag to the Deepwater Horizon section in BP, prompted not by my adding text to this article but to my adding an "expansion needed" tag!!! I think the word for that is "tendentious editing," isn't it? Anyway, it will be helpful to have a running record of the insanity on that page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great start - I'll be back to fill in more. This work could help us to take steps to deal with individual problems like tendentious editing through proper noticeboards in the (near) future. petrarchan47tc 21:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

...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)[reply]

You're a star - I am a big fan of yours, btw. Thanks for making my day. petrarchan47tc 00:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! you're very kind. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is discouraging. However, there seems to be a new dynamic on the page now. If problems such as that persist into the future, they can be dealt with. Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That "new dynamic" is being labeled "battleground" and "turning the BP page into an attack site". It's discouraging how reporting a clear violation of 3RR tuns into accusations against independent editors doing exactly what we are tasked with - we were told we need to create and maintain balance on that page by Wikipedia guidelines and Jimbo himself, though when we do, we earn labels that can discredit us. But Core, I can't tell you how refreshing it is to have new energy there. petrarchan47tc 18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to muddy the waters. Note too how the BP corporate editor's latest comments, especially his suggested sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the Monsanto article, but this is one of those "losing battle" articles, I think. I've been watching Jtydog's work on that page from the start and it is my impression that he is working within the (Wikipedia) law. I remain open as to the health impacts of GM foods--it is the environmental/human impact that is more my concern, and there is no question but that it is a killer. But you and I and people like us presently have no chance of winning this battle right now. People like Jt have the advantage right now. I have seen a similar advantage in other articles--what environmental group has the cash to conduct their own studies and then pay mega bucks to US congress members to not support Monsanto? Corporations have already taken over the US (and the world) and it should be no surprise that they are taking over Wikpedia. Gandydancer (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever need scientific studies or other stuff hiding behind paywalls, please let me know as I may be able to get 'em for you. Coretheapple (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. petrarchan47tc 21:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can email them to you. I just tested out your email by sending you a message. Coretheapple (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing as I always have, when I find good sources that haven't been added to a page, I try to follow the guidelines and add them. Only twice has the "doesn't meet MEDRS, but it mentions human health so it has to!!" card been played in my 2+ years. The other time, I stumbled across the Cananbis (drug) article and in the first paragraph, it stated that the herb has killed people. Followed by a string a primary studies, the first a case study of 6 people who had cannabis in their blood when they died. There was no causation stated. That was the best source of all of them. I battled in the talk page against the person who loves to add this claim and these refs to all related articles. I tried to add mention of the DEA Judge's statement after his two year review of medical literature looking into the toxicity of cannabis. He found it was one of the most therapeutically beneficial and safe substances available today. Unable to cause death as it is completely nontoxic. The MEDRS card was played to keep his findings out.

The fact that it's only happened twice yet my editing behaviour is unchanging, it is a big red flag to me. I don't accept the idea of a loosing battle. Though that might not be beneficial to me. petrarchan47tc 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P, re, " I don't accept the idea of a loosing battle", you know yourself that you dropped out until the BP article became newsworthy and only then did you return to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I grumbled the whole time - I couldn't let it go. I had some peace whilst retired, but it ate at me. It's just so wrong. It's the same story at Monsanto, apparently. This was an honest response to your comment, even though your position is probably more factual and sanity-inducing. One day I will get there, Gandy :) petrarchan47tc 22:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just saw the "newsworthy" comment. Is that your take? Did you not see the section above where Slim Virgin asked if I would come back to help give my take on the BP talk page situation? That is the reason I came back the first time. The second time is also recorded on this talk page, in a request by Buster. I'm not out for fame. Astonishing that is your conclusion 0_o I'll always be your biggest fan, no matter. petrarchan47tc 22:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand my comment--I know it sounds like I'm being critical but I didn't mean it that way. I really missed you while you were away because you have been a joy to work with and I'm just thrilled that you have returned. Plus, I give you full credit for getting the ball rolling at the BP article--you continued on alone before Bink and I happened to come along. BTW, "newsworthy" meant nothing--it was just a point at which the article made a huge shift. Gandydancer (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gandy. xxxooo petrarchan47tc 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The three of you (ladies?) are to be HIGHLY commended for your dilegence. If the BP article has any chance of giving the reader a full picture, it is due to your efforts and your unwillingness to be deterred by drive-bys or bp editors or whatever shows up today. Don't forget to keep a balance in your editing practices. Don't forget to just edit articles because its fun. Don't let the BP article smother your uniquenesses in its gooey grip. Have Fun. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure you know, I'm no lady! Of course, on the Internet, nobody can be sure about such things. Coretheapple (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm no lady either! (But I'm not commenting on my gender). petrarchan47tc 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that a certain editor has made an appearance at the talk page. Whenever this editor shows up where I am working I leave. So...while I may be involved less, I will be just as interested, if not more so. The article is in good reliable hands. Remember the Reader! If I see that this was just a drive-by, I'll re-appear. In other words, I'm not going anywhere....you just won't see me. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• "glyphosate – Mink et al (2012) in their review of case control and cohort studies concluded that there was “no consistent pattern of a positive association indicating a casual relationship” with cancer; but the studies reviewed showed a striking tendency of increased risk of non‐Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Other cancers showing increased risk ratios included multiple myeloma, breast, rectal, and brain. The authors dismissed the studies for reasons including their being not statistically significant on further analysis, confidence limits too large, or inconsistent results. However this leaves cause for concern about glyphosate and cancer, especially in light of laboratory studies."

• "we found genotoxic effects after short exposure to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture, our findings indicate that inhalation may cause DNA damage in exposed individuals." requires $ for full text

• Human cell toxicity of pesticides associated to wide scale agricultural GMOs petrarchan47tc 23:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarchan47, I requested at ther BP's talk page to remove your comment. It is not only off the topic concerning the ongoing RfC, it is also describing incorrectly the discussions concerning the the name issue of the Oil sands article. Your comment is read as accusing me for whitewashing the term tar sands/oil sands while the current consensus at that article about that term was established as a result of different discussions (not only this one you refers). Therefore, referring revert of edit which was made without any discussion or explanation, as washing black to white, is not appropriate and one could say that this is even harassment. Therefore, I would kindly request you to remove that comment. Thank you for your understanding. Beagel (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done With a strikethrough. petrarchan47tc 21:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tar sands are not "oil sands" except per big oil PR campaigns and Wikipedia

My comment pointed to a perfect example of the point being conveyed: that some argue black is white, some argue diluted bitumen is "oil" when it is arguably, intuitively, and legally NOT oil. (Our discussion about that is here) This abuse of the encyclopedia extends beyond the BP page, it is pervasive with regard the energy industry and other special interests operating on Wiki, and I am glad this is finally coming to light. petrarchan47tc 21:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking through your comment at the BP's talk page. However, you continue make your accusation and spreading incorrect information here. First, the name issue of Oil sands article has been discussed several times over several years, more specifically here, here, here, here. As you could see there was consensus when the article was named Oil sands and there was no consensus (and also no official move request) to rename it back Tar sands. Therefore, describing my edit which reverted edits which were made without any discussion, comment, or edit summary as "argue black is white" is incorrect.

Second, our discussion concerning if bitumen/dilbit is oil. When you say that it is not legally oil, you refer to the taxation of it in the US. The US government memo says that "imported into the United States are not subject on the excise tax on petroleum". The important aspects here are: 1) the definition applies only in the case of the excise tax", and 2) its says that in this context it is not considered as petroleum (aka crude oil). While it is technically correct that dilbit is not petroleum (like different synfuels are not crude oil), it is still oil in broader sense and the final products from it the same as from petroleum. Although petroleum is oil, not all oils are petroleum. Therefore, I kindly ask you to stop your accusations. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/405311-oil-spill-liability-trust-fund-irs-2011-memo.html

This is an issue that needs to go to a notuceboard. My talk page is not the proper place. You and I have never ever seen things the same way and I didn't expect that we will. But it doesn't matter. The wider community needs to be aware of this "KFC-ification" and weigh in. petrarchan47tc 19:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from Little Black Lies, the forthcoming book by Jeff Gailus, on using the terms tar sands or oil sands... What’s in a Name?

The oil industry and the Alberta and federal governments prefer the term “oil sands,” while most opponents use the dirtier-sounding “tar sands.” Technically, both “tar sands” and “oil sands” are inaccurate. The substance in question is actually bituminous sand, a mixture of sand, clay, water and an extremely viscous form of petroleum called bitumen, which itself contains a noxious combination of sulphur, nitrogen, salts, carcinogens, heavy metals and other toxins. A handful of bituminous sand is the hydrocarbon equivalent of a snowball: each grain of sand is covered by a thin layer of water, all of which is enveloped in the very viscous, tar-like bitumen. In its natural state, it has the consistency of a hockey puck.

You might be forgiven for believing that the term has been foisted upon us by nasty, truth-hating environmentalists – but you’d be wrong. The term has actually been part of the oil industry lexicon for decades, used by geologists and engineers since at least 1939. According to Alberta oil historian David Finch, everyone called them the tar sands until the 1960s, and both “tar sands” and “oil sands” were used interchangeably until about 10 years ago, when the terminology became horribly politicized.

With the notable exception of the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think tank that often collaborates with government and industry staff, critics of the way Alberta’s bitumen deposits are being developed use “tar sands,” because that is what it was called when they entered the debate. The term accentuates the obvious downsides of the endeavour – water pollution, for instance, and the decline of certain wildlife species, not to mention considerable greenhouse gas emissions and the infringement of First Nations peoples’ constitutionally protected treaty rights – but it is hardly something environmentalists concocted out of nowhere to give the contested development a bad name.

Even the Alberta Chamber of Resources, an industry lobby group, admits that the term “oil sands” gained popularity in the mid-1990s, when government and industry began an aggressive public relations campaign to improve public perception of the dirty-sounding “tar sands.” “Oil sands,” you see, conveys a certain usefulness, a natural resource that creates jobs, increases government revenues, enhances energy security and makes investors rich beyond measure. Tar, on the other hand, is dark and heavy, the kind of glop better suited to paving roads, or coating dangerous subversives before feathering and banishing them from society altogether. As any corporate communications consultant worth her $1000/day rate knows, there is nothing intrinsically correct, neutral or accurate about the term “oil sands.” Nor is it a coincidence that media coverage has favoured rich and powerful business interests. The media’s preference for “oil sands” is simply the result of the Triple Alliance’s crafty political spin and an aggressive well-funded strategy to brand bitumen development in the brightest possible light, part of a much grander battle plan that relies on a dark web of little black lies to win the day. Is it tar sands or oil sands?

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For defending the Wikipedia project from corporate interests and striving to maintain it as a source of impartial information. SeventhHell (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! How nice :) petrarchan47tc 20:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well-earned! Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia project from corporate interests" and angering people. Binksternet would surely know! petrarchan47tc 23:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like ```Buster Seven Talk 22:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		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 Wikipedia 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:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box))

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 13:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What a nice compliment! It is good to see you get some credit for the many hours you have put into making Wikipedia more informative and accurate. Gandydancer (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Petra, congratulations! It's really great that you got some recognition and it's well-deserved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<3 petrarchan47tc 21:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey! Congratulations for your award!!! A truly well-deserved achievement!!! Well done, and thank you for all you do on Wikipedia!

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)[reply]

• Congrats for the award and especially for high-quality work on wiki!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Thanks for all your hard work! It's really appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia from corporate interests

Submit a nomination

I don't really want to count them up, or report you to anyone for them, but you might want to be careful about your reverts/reinsertions of material on the MAM page. Pretty sure you are past 3 at this point. Arkon (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Petrarchan47 reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: ). Thank you. bobrayner (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit summary you imply that you will continue to revert the article to put back what you consider to be the protesters' reason for protesting. The admin who closes the report might decide to sanction you since you have, in effect, promised to edit war. You may be able to avoid a block if you will reply at WP:AN3 and agree to wait for talk page consensus on this point. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a warning from an editor that has been blocked for 2 days for "edit warring": Don't expect it to necessarily be fair or make any sense. I was blocked for reverting an editor who was working under 3 or 4 socks, made no talk pages edits, made threats on my talk page, and was disruptive in general. And I had hundreds of edits after about 5 years of editing and a clean slate. Gandydancer (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that edit warring was repeatedly replacing (or removing) the same edit. I'm not sure that the RfC 'Admin Notice' has much valiidity. Please, Petra, don't let this minor rabble-rousing effect your health. AS Gandy says, don't expect justice. Don't worry, it will all work out. No Editor of the Week has every been blocked. :~)```Buster Seven Talk 13:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]