User talk:Sheldon Rampton/archive 1

Archive 1 of User talk: Sheldon Rampton appears below.


 * Return to User talk:Sheldon Rampton

Sheldon, what gives with your reversals of my D'Souza edits. They are not justified. I have reviewed D'Souza's works extensively and the edit you replaced are strong mischaracterizations, and dare I say "disinformation." The area entitled "Attacking Blacks" is itself a fairly lame attempt at framing. Is D'Souza "attacking" blacks for suggesting that race politics are being used by some people for their own personal benefit? The entire review of D'Souza is peppered with context dropping and complete opinion. Is this what you want SourceWatch to be about? --Dimmick

-

Sheldon, could you add some info about the Leipzig Declaration? I have already provided a short summary on Wikpedia here, but most of the material seems to be in your book, and it would be nice to be able to copy some of it. --Erik


 * Done. There's already a version in the Wikipedia: Leipzig Declaration. --Sheldon Rampton 00:46 Mar 15, 2003 (EST)

Sheldon, there was some cosmetic problems with the logo that show up on a black screen ( I use white text on black cause its easier on the eyes). Ive redone the logo, and am uploading it now to - Be well. -&#35918&#30505sv

---

You may want to remove the following from the Special:Statistics text in Language.php: "since the software was upgraded (July 20, 2002)." --Erik 05:00 21 May 2003 (EDT)

- Hey Sheldon. You might be interested to know that Wikimedia has been born. See Wikimedia. Thanks again for thinking of the cool name and presenting nice long-range view of what Wikimedia should eventually encompass. --Maveric149 05:40 21 Jun 2003 (EDT)

--

Hi Sheldon,

how about adding the new media watch as a link to the sidebar in the style of Wikipedia's "Current events"? This can be set in Language.php as the "currentevents" variable. Erik 02:46 1 Dec 2003 (EST)


 * Good idea. Done! --Sheldon Rampton 03:52 1 Dec 2003 (EST)


 * Thanks! Have you seen the changes made to Denying the Tiananmen Square massacre?Erik 04:15 1 Dec 2003 (EST)

Any thoughts on how the Bush White House managed the media, when it announced the capture of Saddam Hussein? --Surfer Dude 13:56 15 Dec 2003 (EST) --- Sheldon - worth you having a look at the changes made to Rendon article --bob ---

Hi. I'm leaving a message here as I can't find an equivalent of the Village Pump on this wiki. Is the idea that this wiki will be US-only or international? At the moment it seems to be almost entirely US. Before I start to contribute international stuff I'd like to check. Thanks. Secretlondon 13:41 22 Dec 2003 (EST)


 * International stuff is definitely welcome. --Sheldon Rampton 15:48 22 Dec 2003 (EST)

Thanks. I'll pull out the difference between APPGs and APGs. Secretlondon 14:34 24 Dec 2003 (EST) --- Sysop sounds fine. Let me know if there's a FAQ or etiquette for these "super-powers" Zardoz 18:57, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Same here! On a different issue, what are the procedures in place for backups of SourceWatch? I can perhaps help out as I know things about computers and websites. I would hate to lose all my work ;-) --Gangle 10:24, 21 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * I think we've got backups pretty well covered. If you want to download the entire SourceWatch, you can do it here. --Sheldon Rampton 11:53, 21 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Discussion archived to User talk:AaronSw/SourceWatch goals.

Thanks for your comforting note. I didn't mean my above comments as a criticism; I understand that making such a site would take a lot of time. I just wondered that if by making the articles more aggressive, I went against the intentions of the site's creators. Judging from the excellent Impropaganda Review, it seems that it would not. Wonderful; I look forward to improving and contributing to the SourceWatch. AaronSw 21:29, 2 Jun 2004 (EDT)

Deleting Wikipedia links to SourceWatch
Thought you might like to know that the Wikipedia article on Eco-terrorism has just had an external link to its SourceWatch cousin deleted because of purported 'bias'.

Sheldon, do you have a reference for the material on CSE/CSEF regarding the "internal rift" that has led to AFPF et al? --Gangle 08:52, 2 Aug 2004 (EDT)


 * I haven't been able to find out much, but I've added references to a National Journal article and a CSE news release that mention the rift. (I don't think there's an Internet link to the NJ article; I got it via Nexis/Lexis.)

--- Sheldon,

Noticed the chronological reorganisation of the references on the CSE page -- A query -- when I add refs to the external links section of an article I order them so they match the order they appear in the article, not chronologically (as if it was standard footnoting). (This has the advantage of making shifting sections of an article to a side article easier).

For future ref do you want external links organised chronologically as the standard approach? Or only when an article starts getting long? Cheers - --Bob Burton 18:58, 3 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Hi Sheldon.

You might think this a strange request, but well, I am trying to look for information :-) and it seems I can't get one undistorted. So, just in case... Do you know anything of the project recyclopedia ? If so, can you tell me why exactly it dies and if Wikipedia itself is involved ? Or do you have any idea who could know ? If so, please answer me here http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/utilisateur:Anthere

If no idea at all, well, never mind and hope your project lives long :-) ant


 * According to this page 'Recyclopedia' was set up by somebody called bobo from "enzyme.org.nz". Try send an email to bobo AT enzyme.org.nz (replace AT with @ mark) to find out more. --Bonzai 06:20, 7 Sep 2004 (EDT)
 * Hmmm, thanks :-) If anyone heard more, I stay interested. I'll ask bobo as well. ant


 * I was wondering are we allowed to post pornographic pictures on our OWN user pages? I mean it is suppose to be ours personally! -- Triplexxx 14:13, 5 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Blocking Policy: Hi Sheldon. I've no objection to your unblock; my block was for only 4 hours; the additions which the user made were all of the same reference link pasted to multiple articles; in only one of those articles was prior content deleted; at any event, even at 4 hours, my block appears now to have been overly hasty. Thanks for correcting it. --Maynard 13:24, 26 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Hi Sheldon,

I noticed that the number of SourceWatch-pages in Google's index (the ones that show a snippet on the 'Search Engine Results Page') are rapidly dropping. Try this link to see what I mean. I just checked the robots.txt file (http://www.SourceWatch.org/robots.txt) and noticed it only contains:

User-agent: * Disallow: /

I'm not sure if this was recently changed, but I guess it was and that change caused this problem. The file might have been changed on purpose, but I'm afraid the current resulted was not what was hoped for. --Bonzai 00:20, 27 Oct 2004 (EDT)


 * ADDED
 * The site search on SourceWatch is not working. Users who try to use it, are automatically redirected to a page containing the text


 * Sorry! Full text search has been disabled temporarily, for performance reasons. In the meantime, you can use the Google search below, which may be out of date.


 * Therefore Google and other search engines are the only tools to search for information on this site! Disallowing all robots will cause every search engine to remove all the pages from SourceWatch from their index. --Bonzai 00:29, 27 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Wow...thanks for calling this to my attention. I checked, and the robots.txt file was added to our site on October 12, which happens to be the day that we experienced some serious server problems. I suspect that our web host added it without telling me, while they were trying to resolve the problem. I've deleted it, and have re-enabled the SourceWatch's own site search. I'll see what I can do to get us added back to Google as soon as possible. --Sheldon Rampton 01:03, 27 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Sheldon, please read U.S. presidential election, 2004, vote count controversy, and then Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2004, vote count controversy and User_talk:142.177.97.47 about the naming issues and scope of articles re the alleged Diebold Election Systems electoral fraud, 2004 - that is, the electoral fraud alleged by Bev Harris and blackboxvoting.org based on vulnerabilities specifically in the Diebold GEMS central tabulator. User:Bob Burton is concerned about the handling of allegations and speculations though they do seem serious enough to have to report in depth. This issue is SO complex that it requires many pages just to sort through circumstantial, soft, and hard evidence.

When done it will either be the ultimate example of propaganda techniques in action (from the Democrats) or else the ultimate example of electoral fraud and subsequent spin control (by the Republican kleptocracy). Given the seriousness of the allegations, it really doesn't seem like there can be any middle result. These allegations won't go away easily! So your input now on how to arrange this information would help - a. nonymous troll

Sheldon, I wrote the article on George Gross. Could you PLEASE do some proper research next time? Not just googling him on the internet. I thought I could break some important news here. I was wrong.