User talk:Jimspell

Hi Jimspell, I reverted your changes to the Independent Institute. Firstly, the protocol at SourceWatch is to post a note to the talk page explaining major changes, especially where material has been deleted. Secondly, you deleted some referenced material and the accompanying references seeminglt because they were critical of the Institute. Thirdly, some of the additions really were puff. The point of an article in SourceWatch is not to echo solely what is on a groups website. Finally, I suspect most if not all of the changes to the personnel list were valid and should be incorporated into a revision of the page. This can be done by clicking on http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Independent_Institute&action=history and copying the necessary changes across to the current page. However, just because someone has left the organisation doesn't mean we delete them from the page. Instead we chift them into a "Former staff" section. So if you would like to have another go at adding material that updates the page but avoiding adding puff or deleting other users contributions that would be appreciated. --Bob Burton 06:34, 29 Aug 2006 (EDT)

Jimspell, Are you directly associated with the Independent Institute? If so, please note our policy http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Policy which states that:


 * We don't encourage individuals and groups to create SW articles about themselves or people or organizations with which they are affiliated, and we encourage people to register under their own names when editing articles already on SW about themselves or their groups. We also encourage people who edit articles about themselves or people or organizations with which they are affiliated to exercise restraint and to defer to other contributors with regard to editing choices that are matters of interpretation rather than fact. When disputes arise over interpretation, such individuals should try to address them with comments on the talk page rather than the article space itself. Users who are overly aggressive in deleting relevant facts from articles about themselves or others may be blocked from contributing to or editing the site.

As for your most recent changes, again I have reverted some and left others. (I don't think I really need to go into your greenhouse claims or the lead). I would ask you to refrain from trying to make the SourceWatch page emulate that of the Institute and ensure that statements are referenced (such as the funding statement which I found a reference on their site for).

Generally we have found that we can arrive at an agreed form of wording with most people if they accept that the function of SourceWatch is not that of the groups own website. So con I reiterate that it is to your benefit to follow the protocol in posting a note explaining changes. Just so you know, administrators on this site can protect a page so that only other admins can make changes and in the most extreme cases, block a registered user. --Bob Burton 05:28, 31 Aug 2006 (EDT)