Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:33, 6 August 2013

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for all your hard work on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. You may not get much appreciation here, but it means a lot to people that care about a healthy environment for themselves and even more so for the children. Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't know if you still watch the BP spill article or the talk page. I just thought I'd let you know that I'm going to take a little vacation from the article as well. It is just too frustrating to have an editor return and say we've ruined the article and then proceed to make changes without even a pretense of first attempting to find consensus. I don't like being angry. I would have never stayed with a paying job that involved working with someone like that (though one feels more that they are working under her/him) and I certainly am not going to do it for free. I am retired and I'd like to enjoy my Misplaced Pages job like I used to enjoy my "real" jobs. For now, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for all your work on Misplaced Pages. Your story should be an inspiration to us all. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• swoons* petrarchan47tc 01:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

About 40% of Misplaced Pages's article on BP (British Petroleum) was written by a BP employee, and the the source of this text is not disclosed to our readers? BP was also the source of the horrific Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It recently pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and to lying to its own investors, but those facts are not included in the article, nor is there anything in the article about BP misleading our readers.

If you'd like to know why independent editors are leaving Misplaced Pages, please read User talk:Slim Virgin#Re: BP <Retired>

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

		The Friendship Barnstar
		It is a pleasure to meet you. An editor like you is the very heartbeat of Misplaced Pages. Thanks for your strength of conviction and your continuing involvement.```Buster Seven Talk 13:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to safeguard Wikepedia's reputation and safeguard our readers desire to have impartially edited articles. There is alot going on and a lot being said about a lot of different things. It's hard to keep up and to keep track. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Driving The Bus

If you have the time, Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Paid operatives. I collected some stuff that was an off-shoot of involvement with a paid political operative that was editing the Gingrich Campaign article.

The Bus is symbolic of allcorporate and political articles.

• Paid operatives/advocates should never drive the Bus, and should never be allowed, by other editors, to have their hands on the steering wheel of the Bus.
• Paid operatives/advocates are passengers on the Bus...just like the other editors. They have no special seating assignment, no reduced fare, no GPS control of where the Bus is headed, no special permission to be a spokesman for the Bus Company.
• Paid operatives/advocates should only ask the opinions of the Bus drivers (other editors). They should never pick out an editor with similar opinions and ask special favors of them.
• Paid operatives/advocats should never direct the drivers of the Bus where to go, how to get there ("there" may look different for different factions on the Bus), and what to say when they get there unless the direction/objective/language is agreed upon via the general consensus of the passengers.
• ```Buster Seven Talk 00:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You might want to look at

http://www.digiday.com/agencies/wikipedias-dubious-ad-company-entries/ which is from an industry publication targeting the digital media PR firms of the world, saying how there are problems with these folks of WP. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated. petrarchan47tc 00:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Happiness...

...is Petrarchan47 taking a leadership position on this paid editor thing. Very glad you're doing so. Just wanted to say so. Coretheapple (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You're a star - I am a big fan of yours, btw. Thanks for making my day. petrarchan47tc 00:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you! you're very kind. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Just read Core's latest post at Slim's talk page. That's got to be one of the best posts I've ever read here. Brilliant assessment of the situation. So good that it went right to the top of my user page. You are both wise in mind and good of heart. <3 <3 Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For defending the Misplaced Pages project from corporate interests and striving to maintain it as a source of impartial information. SeventhHell (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you! How nice :) petrarchan47tc 20:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well-earned! Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You all have just made my weekend. It is relatively rare to be complimented rather than WP:YELLEDAT on Wiki ;) Perhaps there is some relation between "defending the Misplaced Pages project from corporate interests" and angering people. Binksternet would surely know! petrarchan47tc 23:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Like ```Buster Seven Talk 22:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for anything from fixing typos to maintaining some of our most controversial articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Misplaced Pages Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Editor Petrarchan47. As a member of the Typo Team and a "recent changes" patroller as well as an important editor at articles like BP and Deepwater Horizon oil spill, this editor is involved with the big and the small of WikiWorld. Defending our reader from the influences of COI editing of all types is high on her list of things to focus on. Recently returned from a temporary retirement, she is busy improving articles. An editor since May of 2011, 60% of her almost 3000 edits are in article space.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 13:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Your persistence of purpose and your friendship have been very rewarding. You are THE example of determination. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Buddist symbol for rainbow body

Petrarchan47

Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 2, 2013

A dillegent and hard-working editor that holds the reader in high esteem, Editor Petrarchan47's main focus has been the articles BP and Deepwater Horizon oil spill and her efforts to maintain equilibrium for all editors at these and at similar articles is commendable.

Recognized for

Defending Misplaced Pages from corporate interests

Submit a nomination

What a nice compliment! It is good to see you get some credit for the many hours you have put into making Misplaced Pages more informative and accurate. Gandydancer (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Lest I go all Sally Field on you, let me just say, I am completely speechless. Random acts of kindness make the world go 'round. This is very kind. Thank you!!! petrarchan47tc 20:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Petra, congratulations! It's really great that you got some recognition and it's well-deserved. SlimVirgin 20:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

<3 petrarchan47tc 21:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hey! Congratulations for your award!!! A truly well-deserved achievement!!! Well done, and thank you for all you do on Misplaced Pages!

Thank you so very much for your kind words, and for this project - it's a wonderful way to keep editors' spirits bright :) petrarchan47tc 00:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Congrats for the award and especially for high-quality work on wiki!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Just noticed this, so belated congratulations! You've done some really spectacular work in the faith of sometimes crude opposition. Bravo. Coretheapple (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for all your hard work! It's really appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Health consequences article

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/27/coast_guard_grounds_ships_involved_in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/20/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_of_covering

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)

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

Specifics from the GAP report

Select Report Findings

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)

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."

Thanks for your thanks...

...but you shouldn't step away from the article as you implied here just b/c of certain perceived ignorance. Maybe you should do what I do: Watch it and make a comment once in a while, addressing faulty policy excuses and similar issues that are presented and repeated on a regular bases. That's what I see a lot when checking the talk page. Also, I think Tryptofish made a mistake when reverting your contributions in whole since there sure were some good and reasonable enhancements. On the other hand, I think that so far he/she is editing w/o any agenda one way or another and truly is trying to find a middle ground that can be accepted by all involved editors. In my opinion s/he's trying to negotiate in some way. We'll see in the long run how this will turn out.TMCk (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for trying, but after the experience at AN/I, where I saw that there is no energy within Misplaced Pages administration to address the advocacy problem, I am not feeling keen to give this website much more, if any, of my time - and as far as ANYTHING related to topics where this GMO group gathers, just shoot me now. There are some things that are blatantly obvious to me, and offensive, taking place with regard to the Food Industry and its extremely successful attempt to sway Misplaced Pages articles . However, I sort feel like an alien here with regard to these observations. I feel very alone in what I'm seeing, which leads me to doubt whether this is a place for me. I actually don't believe it is. If the Admins take the reigns a bit and help when such obvious malfeasance is going on, I will happily return and I will enjoy editing articles again. But I can't see why a sane person would throw away time and energy trying to improve articles when it's 99% guaranteed that if a Special Interest has people here to help them out, they will win the day - either by just being complete assh*les until editors leave the page, ignoring (and somehow getting away with) the rules, twisting guidelines and (with the help of seemingly innumerable buddies) abusing noticeboards. I'm going on a vacation, so no need to reply since I won't be checking this page. Cheers, petrarchan47tc 04:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not alone, petra! There are lots of us on here who are frustrated by the obvious efforts of propagandists. They want to demoralize their opponents and manipulate the community just as much as they use 'brute force' to change articles. Regular people don't have the time or inclination to respond constantly, so you don't see our names on the talk pages as often—but there are still a lot of us who see what's going on. I too believe this issue warrants a serious response from 'our betters' in the Misplaced Pages hierarchy. groupuscule (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate that, Groupuscule. And by the way, you're one of my faves. My heart hurt over that "miscellany for deletion" fiasco with folks outraged about your questioning the GMO science and validity of the pro-GMO claims all over Wiki. You must have put a lot of effort into it, thank you for that. petrarchan47tc 03:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)