User talk:2A04:B2C2:C03:6F00:A51D:7C32:5079:9977

Thank you and more questions
Dear Magnolia

Re Parchman prison. Thank you for your helpful message. I get it. I'm sorry I gave you a load of work.

a) I'm sorry I did stuff badly. I'm new here. No offense intended.

b) What do I have to do to stop you deleting the bit about unit 29 still being open, apart from J building? What would constitute to you evidence of this? (I've asked the state governor and the acting MDOC commissioner for confirmation. If I posted a bit map of their response on the web, would this count as evidence? I don't expect you to believe me just because I know guys in each of the 4 open buildings in Unit 29 and have communicated with them this week - I could be making that up) However, Unit 29 is still listed as a going concern here. https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/Institutions/Pages/State-Prisons.aspx#msp (scroll down or search for Unit 29).  I've asked Clarion Ledger reporter Gerry Mitchell to do a post on this - I guess you would call it evidence if he said so and it was published in a newspaper? ?

c) You have edited my entry about the Department of Health report to say that it has "numerous health and safety concerns including broken toilets, sinks and showers, unsanitary kitchens, cells with dangerous electrical fittings and inmates sleeping without mattresses." The numbers which I had included are important.  To say "numerous concerns" could mean 10 or 20 concerns.  The report lists over 1000.  This is significant.  HOWEVER! After pestering them for weeks, I find today that the DoH has fixed the broken links on its website making the 2019 report downloadable. OK, if I count the number of concerns on the 35 pages, maybe that counts as "secondary analysis". Can I state how many pages the list runs to? I won't wind you up by just doing this now, but can I now amend as below: The latest Department of Health Annual Inspection report, dated June 2019 included a list of health and safety concerns running to 34 pages (ref https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/index.cfm/30,8340,118,pdf/MS_State_Penitentiary_Inspection_2019.pdf), including.... d) REferences: If a journalist writes an opinion in a newspaper it's a legitimate reference. If our organisation does an analysis of a government document and posts it on our blog, its not legitmate. What makes something legitimate?  Is it legitimate if someone ELSE refers to our website? Or is analysis posted in blogs not legitimate, period? Or does the organisation need some kind of accreditation?  Can I say "Campaigning organisation 'Kids With 47 Years' (ref our website) analysed the 2019 report as having included references to 115 broken sinks, 82 broken toilets, 94 inmates without mattresse and sanitary failings in 9 of the prison's kitchens and food preparation areas. ref https://kidswith47years.org/department-of-health-inspection-report-on-the-mississippi-state-penitentiary/

I'm sorry. I bet you get loads of loons like me with passionate bees in their bonnet about particular issues. I don't envy you your job.

All best. Carly Rheilan

CarlyRheilan (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As a note, this was also posted to Magnolia677's talk page. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)