User talk:Friday Thorn

This is my talk page. If you want to comment on something or explain a change you've made to a page, please make it here and SourceWatch will notify me. Thank you!

about @
Hi FT;

Changing @ --> AT has no effect on trawling robots. So what if they can identify an email? And of course, " AT " can easily be programmed too. So it doesnt provide any deterrence.

Kind rgds --Antidotto 17:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

put some effort
Hi

I have been cleaning up some of the articles, and it is easy for you to put in and  Instead of asking others to clean up, why don't you do some research and rewrite in a useful manner.

Also, if SW is going to be a useful resource, then some general analysis by the author should be acceptable -- that requires reviewing the website, or the history of the organization without reference to a particular citation. There used to be a person who thought that every single line had to have a footnote, and every term a link -- the result was something rather unreadable.

Kind rgds --Antidotto 23:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Antidotto:

I don't believe every comment or term has to have a footnote or link, however as Editor at the Center for Media and Democracy, I have an obligation to monitor items for content and to enforce policies. We don't require a neutral point of view but request claims are substantiated. Please review our ground rules. Articles still need to be fair, accurate, and documented.

Thank you. --Friday Thorn 17:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

not very useful
Hi

Changing email addressess from @ --> AT is useless. NB: wikipedia doesnt do it. It was thought that bots could exploit this, but then so can they recognize "_AT_"

Kind rgds --Antidotto 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

frankly
You did something that I consider rather unfair and annoying. Someone was editing an article and doing two things: (1) deleting materials that were well referenced without offering any justification therefor; and (2) entering material that was sloppy and with ample formating errors -- thus some paragraphs appeared unintelligible because text that was meant to be in the article appeared in the footnote, and vice versa. I simply cut this and put it in the discussion section pending a fix by your buddy. Now, I think that I acted in a way to save the integrity of the article in question. I certainly didnt engage in "edit wars".

I have contributed to SW for quite a few years, and believe that I have contributed some valuable info. If you ever pull such a stunt [block] again, I will devote my energies elsewhere.

Annoyed --Antidotto 14:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton
Why did you update the Monckton picture to a more complimentary one? Just trying to work out where you're coming from. The man is on the loony right, a science denier. ≡ SCRIBE ≡ 08:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Scribe:

Someone emailed us (CMD) that the picture was demeaning because he suffers from a rare disease. We agreed and changed the photo but also added a video of Monckton giving a speech in which he lays out his views very thoroughly. The article shouldn't be about his appearance but rather his actions. --Friday Thorn 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've responded on my Talk page. ≡ SCRIBE ≡ 00:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Off topic edits
Hi, I noticed all the recent edits by User:Mediawire -- they all seem to me to be close to spam and peripheral to CMD/SourceWatch's primary focus. I'd suggest they be deleted.--Bob Burton (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2013 (EDT)