User talk:Daveclarke

Hi Dave, I'll have a look at the changes to the page and get back to you soon. cheers --Bob Burton 17:19, 15 February 2007 (EST)

--- Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. One of those days.

- User AI culled back my excessive internal links, which is fine, but I am wondering if it isn't appropriate to have a repeating internal link the first time it appears within each section (e.g. Barry Cooper appears several times in different sections).


 * as a general rule (emphasis on the general) we link the first time only. But this is not a hard and fast rule. The risk of overlinking is that numerous red and blue links per par/section risks making reading the page a little harder on the eye. (It is a bit like the general editing rule of having a full name the first time it is used along with the acronym and then subsequently only using the acronym). However, in a long article where there is a big gap from the first link, there is no harm adding another link. I guess a rough rule of thumb is to use links to help a reader not distract them. So it more a matter of horses for courses.

- I would like to do more detail on Fraser Institute's ISPM. Could/should that be a separate article?


 * Yes I'd be inclined to split it off as a side article along the lines of Fraser Institute/Independent Summary for Policymakers on Global Warming (or what ever the most appropriate title is.

Also, I suppose we cannot quote or cite AR4 Second Draft? (This kinda means fighting with one hand tied behind one's back, at least until the release of the AR4). Perhaps we can at least paraphrase the sections cited already in Fraser ISPM?


 * I'm not quite clear on what the problem is here. Is it that the first draft AR4 is out but that the 2nd Draft hasn't been released publicly but you have a copy? If the latter, when is the 2nd draft likely to be released?

- Tim Patterson has edited his own page. I was thinking of keeping some of his claims, but attributed as third party quotes, as well as restoring some removed material. Is there a SW policy about this? As an editor can you reprimand him for editing his own page?


 * Dave, thanks for noticing that one. Somehow I missed that. Our policy is at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Policy#Groups.2Findividuals_posting_articles_on_themselves

I'll post a note to his talk page. It would be great if you could clean the page up.

Cheers --Bob Burton 04:23, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Dave

on checking I had already posted a note re our policy on Patterson's talk page. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_Patterson

On reflection I think we should tighten our policy up a bit in this area. So feel free to edit hard on his changes if you think that is warranted (and some of his changes are unwarranted and other material puff). --Bob Burton 04:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)

PDFs
Dave, I have uploaded the FOS letter as a pedf http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/8b/Friends_of_Science_letter.pdf and set the security setting so that it can be printed but not changed. I'll upload a pdf of the email shortly. cheers --Bob Burton 19:41, 25 February 2007 (EST)