User:Buster7/Sandbox -BPDP

Thats Right!~!!
The BeePeeDeePeeProject. You got a problem wit dat? ```Buster Seven   Talk  16:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

An ongoing "BP Documentation Project."
A user subpage in which editing of the page, and the obstruction and road-blocking of edits that do not show BP in a favorable light (non-fl), are chronicled on an ongoing basis. Having that in one place, along with a to-do list for the article and other BP articles, might help keep us volunteers, with our disjointed schedules and limited time, on track. Of course, being independent, not everyone is going to agree with edits that are and are not "constructive." But at least we have a central place, other than the talk page and article history, to track the progress of the BP articles. Perhaps a seperate verbal type history will be easier for some editors with fading memories to remember who what where and why. Since non-fl edits are the most contentious and create the most combative interaction, it is suggested that we focuss our chronicalizing on them. But again this is an empty canvas, awaiting the brushstrokes of the various editors that show up.

4-28-13
BP: "Expansion needed" tag added to "Deepwater Horizon well explosion and oil spill."

16:51, 28 April 2013: User:Beagel adds "undue emphasis" tag with following edit summary: as the editor has marked this section needing expansion, which represent the certain POV, the alternative POV which was expressed several times at the talk page should be also represented.

18:01, 28 April 2013‎ Tag removed by User:Coretheapple, no, we don't add "Undue" tags because an editor has placed an "expansion needed" tag; nothing on talk page indicates section places excessive emphasis; in fact, opposite is true

18:09, 28 April 2013 Undue tag restored by User:Beagel.: This issue has been expressed at the talk page in different threads for very long time and a number of editors have expressed this concern

19:03, 28 April 2013 Removed by User:Binksternet Revert ridiculous "undue" tag on section about the worst man-made petroleum environmental disaster the world has seen

4-29-13
Here is what one long-time editor at the BP page considers "attack content". Core began to undue some of the whitewashing at the BP page, fill in some missing information, and was almost immediately reverted by Rangoon11, with the edit summary "rv - crude attempts to turn this article into (even more of) an attack piece". (This is the same editor and claims I encountered in response to my first editing of the page, a year ago).  petrarchan47  t  c   20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is where the spin was re-added.  petrarchan47  t  c   20:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to my pointing out that a major factual error - one favorable to BP - was allowed to persist for a long time despite the presence of a BP employee monitoring the page,, the editor responds by noting that he had drafted the language that gave rise to that error. Notwithstanding his role in creating the situation, he says "I would appreciate it if you could be less quick to criticize other editors in this manner." My response below. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BP#Not_a_.22main_business_segment.22 Coretheapple (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

5-8-13

 * User Shii appears out of nowhere and begins an edit war at 23:34 by removing 9095 bytes. (diffs to follow)
 * User Figureofnine replaces...May 9th, @ 8:36
 * User Beagle removes citing "per talk page"...8:57
 * User Petra replaces @ 13:11 citing "no consensus"
 * Shii removes citing "copyright problems" @ 18:41
 * Fof9 replaces with summary "but..its copied from WP" 18:44
 * New editor Robert McClennon removes citing "ongoing RfC" @ 20:02
 * Fof9 replaces. Time? will advise
 * The reason kept changing but, and I may be wrong, there was very little discussion while the war was going on.


 * As of 5-18, I think it still is "in" the article unless it has been removed via "chopping" into smaller less obvious pieces

5-15-13

 * 17:50 Shii (pronounced she?)edits twice in 4 minutes "too lonf" and "This is the length supported by RfC"
 * 18:06 Petra reverts longer one...8392 bytes