en:User:Meaghan/Sunshine

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Easy ways to brush up on the Corexit story (with focus on the recent GAP report and Newsweek investigation):

Video: Rachael Maddow show on Newsweek investigation showing BP coverup

Video: "Inside Story" on BP's use of Corexit to "clean up" Gulf oil blowout disaster

[1] 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

[2] http://www.treehugger.com/energy-disasters/bps-lies-about-gulf-oil-spill-should-worry-arkansas-victims-exxon-spill.html

[3] http://www.livescience.com/25159-oil-dispersant-increases-toxicity.html

[4] http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/27/coast_guard_grounds_ships_involved_in

[5] http://blog.sfgate.com/green/2010/07/08/sources-bp-threatens-to-fire-cleanup-workers-who-wear-respirators/#ixzz0t7sd1lTm

[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/business/energy-environment/13greenwire-less-toxic-dispersants-lose-out-in-bp-oil-spil-81183.html

[7] http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/17/corexit-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill

[8] http://leanweb.org/our-work/water/bp-oil-spill/results-of-the-louisiana-environmental-action-network-lean-survey-of-the-human-health-impacts-due-to-the-bp-deepwater-horizon-disaster

[9] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-using-dispersants-fighting-pollution-with-pollution

[10] http://www.nwf.org/news-and-magazines/media-center/reports/archive/2013/04-02-13-restoring-a-degraded-gulf-of-mexico.aspx

[11] http://news.discovery.com/animals/whales-dolphins/record-dolphin-sea-turtle-deaths-since-gulf-spill-130402.htm

[12] http://news.fsu.edu/More-FSU-News/Dirty-blizzard-in-Gulf-may-account-for-missing-Deepwater-Horizon-oil

[13] http://phys.org/news/2012-11-lessons-bp-oil.html

[14] http://www.fox8live.com/story/22019611/finding-oil-in-the-marsh-3-years-after-the-bp-spill

[15] http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/public-health/corexit

[16] http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/44-2013/2643-3-years-after-deepwater-horizon-report-shows-devastating-impact-of-dispersant-used-in-qcleanupq GAP report

[17] http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/divers-say-they-still-suffer-ailments-from-2010-oil-spill/2123134

[18] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/three-years-after-the-bp-spill-tar-balls-and-oil-sheen-blight-gulf-coast/275139/

[19] http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/gulf-oil-spill-killed-millions-of-microscopic-creatures-at-base-of-food/2113157

[20] http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/30/us-oil-spill-carcinogens-idUSTRE68T6FS20100930

[21] http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/20/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_of_covering

[22] http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/gulf-oil-spill-killed-millions-of-microscopic-creatures-at-base-of-food/2113157

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)[reply]

I'm working two jobs at the moment, no can do... petrarchan47tc 23:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics from the GAP report

Select Report Findings[16]

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)[reply]

BP/Gov't position, etc

Al Jazeera video

"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."

Tar sands are not oil

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?

(Many thanks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Degree7 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thank you too. petrarchan47tc 03:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NSA Primary Sources from EFF - list of all leaks and links to RS

Hi! Could you point me at where to get the full text of this article you cited? The full-text link isn't working for me. (Also, is it only in Spanish?) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this remind me of the time you suddenly cared about Foie Gras? HINT: this was an edit to work that I had done, and like the cannabis articles, followed closely my voicing concerns about your tendentious editing. Did you show an ounce of concern about that article, or the health section, after that? No. It wasn't about the article.

On 30 Nov 3:59, you removed from Medical cannabis: Regarding the relative safety of cannabis, former US DEA chief administrative law judge Judge Francis Young said:

"There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. ... Despite [a] long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity. ... Marijuana's therapeutic ratio is impossible to quantify because it is so high. ... Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."Francis L. Young

With the edit summary "Align with the main article per WP:SYNC".

You proceeded to copy word for word parts of the lede for "the main article" - but effectively removing from Wikiepdia the DEA judge's words in this edit, an edit which also constitutes a gross violation of WP:COPYPASTE and should be removed immediately. Unfortunatey, I seem to be the only person reviewing your work. And I do NOT plan to dedicate this night, or any other, to participating in this game.

On 30 Nov 9:45, you wrote at Wikiproject Medicine

"Anybody getting their information from WP on this would think cannabis is not only harmless, but a wonder cure for many things from bipolar disorder to cancer." With the edit summary "OMFG" ("Oh my fucking God") The removal of the DEA judge's statement, which is in stark contrast to your declarations, should give anyone reviewing your edits pause.

You sound as if this is not a field you have studied. I would suggest getting your toes wet by looking at what Isreal is up to, as they don't have the legal restrictions and apparently aren't scared of the herb: 1 2 You might also take a gander at the doc CNN's Sanjay Gupta did after having studied the medicine for a year, where does cover treatment of cancer and other challenging maladies such as Dravet Syndrome. From here, you can do searches for MEDRS. But to hear statements like you have made, and to see some of the edits, leaves me with zero confidence you intend to pursue unbiased facts.

So, much like what was brought up recently at ANI, you seem to be using underhanded methods to remove information from the pedia to help you make some POV point, in the case of acupuncture, it was to delete the German study altogether. I agreed that your edits should be scrutinized, as I have seen very literally nothing but tendentious editing from you, and even revenge editing. I am a bit shocked you expect me to ignore the obvious and help you to pretend you have some deep concern about offering readers neutral information about cannabis. As neutrality is required, I expect you to step away from the cannabis related articles, having declared your anti-cannabis POV and ignorance on the subject for all to see. I want your edits rolled back other than the tags, and think that you should make suggestions to the talk page at most since you are spinning the article and leaving grotesque misinformation. There is ample MEDRS on MS and you do not need my help.

This recent NYT piece, a paper you have shown to greatly respect, at least with regard to their lowball mention of MAM participants,

• "The strongest evidence for the health benefits of medical marijuana or its derivatives involves the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and the spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis. "

But after your 'fix', Wikipedia summarized the issue:

• "For years anecdotal reports have supported the use of cannabis as playing a part in the treatment of multiple scelerosis symptoms; the evidence however has been unclear, in large part because of fundamental challenges in designing trials that can accurately specify the symptoms to be assessed, and because it is difficult to ensure comparable dosing between trials."

Which you derived from this study

• "For some years a mixture of anecdotal report and data from animal models have implied a potential role for cannabis-based medicines in ameliorating a variety of symptoms of multiple sclerosis. Only recently however have large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examined these potential effects rigorously. At present the results of RCTs have lacked a coherent message to the prescribing clinician and reasons for such heterogeneity in cannabinoid trials are discussed."

Good night, petrarchan47tc 05:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, right. If you have neutrality concerns, raise them at WP:NPOV/N (BTW, WP:COPYPASTE prohibits copying from external sources). Anyway - have you got a link to that Spanish paper? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raise concerns about you to your buddies? Heh. petrarchan47tc 04:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just noticed this edit summary of yours. First off I want to clarify that I appreciate all the hard work you've done on the article. Notwithstanding that, I know you've been a rather lonely workhorse there and I thought you'd appreciate a little constructive feedback. Please don't take it personally. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what constructive feedback are you referring to? I'm a little lost. It's true I've been a lone editor there, save for the occasional iVoters and complaints. petrarchan47tc 21:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean these comments ([1], [2], [3]) and the corresponding tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr F, I promise not to take anything personally. The neat thing about the guidelines is that they make this an impersonal process. And there is always room for improvement, nothing is static, and all help is appreciated. I just think you're approaching this the wrong way (nothing personal!). You don't need to tag it, you can simply edit the page as you see fit, and leave good summaries. petrarchan47tc 04:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these pages will take a lot of time, and I don't have the time to do it all myself. I'm currently focused on other projects. I'll need your help (and hopefully the help of others). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't have time to do it all myself" - exactly! That is why your argument that I am responsible to fill out sections you find anemic is completely fallacious. It's also good to keep in mind that no article is ever in a perfect state, and that no one is being hurt by the Snowden article not being perfectly updated at any given moment. Your main argument seems to be that there has been a purposeful avoidance of the "investigation" section. I assumed you were basing this on RS - that you had seen a fair amount of coverage that hadn't made it to our article. You cannot complain about a section being anemic just because it looks that way to you. From what I have observed, the investigation is not being covered by media. Therefore our coverage of it is in keeping with RS guidelines. Media doesn't have much to say: neither do we. Please remove the tag from the page, and gather sources you want to add to the article. Leave them at talk if you can't get to them. petrarchan47tc 06:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plenty of news coverage over the last several months about the indictment, the investigation, the adjustments being made in the intelligence agencies, all that. I just never collected those sources for Wikipedia... partly because I swore off editing the Snowden article, given all the stupid bickering it required. (Hmmm...) But just because I don't have the sources at my fingertips doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course they exist, and you know it, you read the news. Regardless, tagging an article shouldn't require great research ahead of time, that's the point of the tag. Identify potential issues so they can be worked on. I'm still not sure what's so offensive to you about the tag. If you explained that I might be more accommodating. In the meantime, I kindly ask you to turn down the vitriol a couple of notches. I'd like to work with you to get stuff done, but the petty stuff is making it difficult. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't come to my talk page and call me a liar. You do not know what I read, and what I have stated at the talk page s truth. Research is required to form an opinion strong enough to tag an article like this one. Now I am sure you are just playing games, again. I am done playing. You seem undeterred by the fact that you stand alone in your viewpoints. So I am done trying to reason with you. Good day. petrarchan47tc 08:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was never playing, but sobeit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tincture may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Warburg's Tincture]], ("Tinctura Antiperiodica" or "Antiperiodic Tincture", a 19th-century [[antipyretic]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to pay attention to the many Walmart articles. Specifically the Family wealth and making sure it is kept up-to-date. Heck, just a few days ago there was $40 Billion dollars missing. While investigating, I ran across this...[4]...which reminded me so much of what we are afraid of regarding paid advocates/editors/opeeratives. Love your user page. Hope you had a splendid Thanksgiving. TRA!```Buster Seven Talk 20:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love hearing from you! Hope all is good. This WalMart update is not surprising. Have you been hearing about all the protests? A major campaign by citizens and employees is underway to raise their pay, news reports are popping up about the fact that WM helps their employees get on food stamps upon employment (so that taxpayers, not WM, has to support the workers), one store was even asking for donations from other employees to donate food to their employees who can't afford it. People are calling for boycotts, especially due to WM support of slave labor from China, and workers have been striking across the US. You're right to suspect this PR effort will find its way to wiki, imo. petrarchan47tc 23:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Snowden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NIS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Edward Snowden. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. This is the offending contact. You've been around long enough to know better. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Dr F, it's just silly to quote this at my talk page, after your two recent displays at Snowden Talk showing a total disregard for community consensus. petrarchan47tc 19:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not called canvassing, it's just asking an admin whom I respect for some advice. Canvassing would definitely have to include more people, for one thing. But I do understand feeling upset about the contact because of what I said. It was MastCell's response that led me to give you another chance; it was the reason I said that I had been wrong about you. But I am sorry, I'm afraid there is still no evidence that I was mistaken. petrarchan47tc 02:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your interpretation of WP:CANVAS, if you do this again I'll see you at WP:ANI. Gotta run, I've got a Verax meeting at Langley with the other intel boys. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of J. Wales, "I do not consider alerting me to any topic to be canvassing." ```Buster Seven Talk 13:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that post (you'll note that I had a note for MastCell right above it) and I viewed it as a complaint about you (Dr. F) than an attempt to influence consensus. But as you can see, MastCell responded in a conciliatory fashion and the situation was over. I don't see the point of getting sore about it now. By the way, this has piqued by curiosity about the Snowden article and I don't want you to think I've been "canvassed." Coretheapple (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you do glance at the Snowden talk page, you'll note the good doctor has a certain affinity for drama. Not enough time to find references to back up his complaints, but lots and lots of time for drama. As I said a few threads above, I am not playing. I'm also not going to stop asking for help from the one administrator I trust, or from anyone else. I would hope Dr F goes straight to the ANI board next time, rather than to threaten me first. petrarchan47tc 17:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Others have noted this same POV (the one I mentioned to MastCell). It is discussed here. petrarchan47tc 19:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like what User:Carolmooredc said: "Unfortunately those who want to defend government programs and trash those who oppose them seem to have a strong presence on Wikipedia, despite the fact it is mostly younger 20 something guys who dominate wikipedia who will end up paying for much of that big government. But now that organized special interests have gotten smart enough not to use Anon IPs that track back to their offices, it's harder to prove anything. Good luck! User:Carolmooredc 04:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC) petrarchan47tc 19:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similar elsewhere

Curious, this thread. Petra has also been (in his/her own words) canvassing in the last two days for medical cannabis (with dubious statements about other editors, content added/removed, and correct sourcing), at Buster7[5] and Sunray [6] Petra has misrepresented to both of those editors edits to the article, talk page activity, and has apparently failed to notice an appropriate request for feedback and participation. Because of the personalization, misstatements, canvassing and breach of AGF,[7] should anyone wish to start Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petrarchan47, I will participate. I would much prefer that Petra come to article talk and respond to the multiple queries and issues raised there with the correct use of secondary sources and begin to AGF and depersonalize arguments.

I am open to discussion, but my attempts to dialogue with this editor thus far have been less than fruitful. Considering, Petra, that I have read through more than several dozen of the most recent highest quality secondary journal reviews in the last week, while you are responsible for the addition of large amounts of text cited to primary sources and you say you don't have the time or energy to read the recent secondary reviews as I have or participate on talk, it appears to me that you have misrepresented the situation in your posts elsewhere. It would be most helpful if you would engage the sources, and engage discussion on talk; if you don't have the time to do so, then perhaps you should stop "canvassing" for support for "your team". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that my "team" is simply a means to help me review the changes your team has made to the articles, a review you refused to do. I am doing this above board, on paper with no attempt to hide any activity. The MEDRS Project Medicine, which is behind these changes I and User:Viriditas have found to be the result of some cherry-picking, and which reflect a certain POV against the subject matter, is INDEED a place where like-minded individuals are canvassed for support on certain pages. It is above board, and wiki-legal, no different from the "Project Medical Cannabis" I am trying to find help in creating, via threads linked above. I am hoping to find people interested in putting in the time and effort to get a good, neutral review of the literature. This will require more people, and from a wider range that what is taking place on the page now. The Project Cannabis page was notified by the Project Medicine group already except that no one responded. The message left on the Project Cannabis' talk page, inviting folks to join the Project Medicine efforts is no different from what I am proposing. I am interested in a more targeted working group, for the Medical Cannabis page spoecifically, and to deal with reviewing recent changes and doing some badly needed research. I am also calling in some scientists/researchers in the field, and as your team also has a doctor, I don't see how this could be viewed as a problem, or as anything but a great benefit to our readers. You seem to now be canvassing on my talk page for some anti-Petra talk page? I'd rather you did this someplace else, if you don't mind. petrarchan47tc 19:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]