User talk:Team Kernow

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a great page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Thryduulf 13:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hello. A paragraph describing criticism of the Eden Project would be an important contribution to the article if it can meet the following criteria: In order to meet these criteria it would help if you followed the following guidelines: Thank you, Joe D (t) 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is verifiable: people really are making such criticisms and we can prove it.
 * It is notable: the people making the criticisms are not a tiny group using Wikipedia as a soap box because nobody else will take them seriously.
 * It is worded in a encyclopedic way, presenting the facts with no editorialising.
 * Make sure other editors can verify that such significant criticism occurs, by citing your sources, such as a link to a newspaper article.
 * Make sure you do not use weasel terms like "some people" or "many people". Saying something like "Mr Smith, a local MP says..." or "A newspaper poll found 34% of respondents thought..." is far more useful.  Even just "The project has been criticised for..." would be better, as long as the claim is referenced so we can verify it as true and notable.

Please stop adding non-notable and off-topic links! Spamming and disrupting Wikipedia to push an agenda may result in your being blocked. Unless you can provide something more substantial than a large-font plain-text free-hosting site (the internet equivalent of sending messages made from letters cut out of the newspaper) and a message board, there is no way anybody can verify that the criticism is anything other than one person with an axe to grind. Joe D (t) 11:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Eden Project
Whilst I sympathise that you are trying to make a point that isn’t covered in the existing article about possible environmental impact of the Eden Project, the way in which you are going about it is not going to get you anywhere. The tone of the comments that you make is very aggressive, and not in keeping with that of the rest of the article. It is Wikipedia policy that articles are written in a neutral style i.e. you have to assume an opinionless third person writing style and then describe each of the opinions in turn (Eden project pros AND cons – it doesn’t matter if you think that there are no pros, you have to write about what other people think as well). With regards the academic reference that you cited, this really is not a good enough source (sorry!). I’m not saying that you don’t have a point, (because I think that maybe you might if you can prove it) but to cite an article in this way it should be published in a respectable journal, and above all else be peer reviewed (for example, Scientists often publish in the journal ‘Nature’, which is highly thought of, plus everything that is published there is reviewed first by leading members of the field before it is allowed through, to ensure that it is of a sufficient quality). The link that you gave leads to a not very professional looking website (that anybody could have made), and describes a short study, which isn’t exactly accessible to the average wikipedia reader, and certainly isn’t peer-reviewed. If what you say is true then there must be a study out there somewhere in a decent journal, or as I suggested to you previously, a report on the BBC website, or in ‘The Cornishman’ perhaps. I’m not trying to be awkward, but if you really want to put some comment in that the likes of Steinsky won’t disagree with then you have to follow the rules!Mammal4 10:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to cut this off half way through, but I have more important things to do right now. Joe D (t) 13:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What journal was this pulished in?  While our references and external links do not have to be peer reviewed, calling a page an "academic study" when it is not peer reviewed and published is misleading.
 * 2) I'm not entirely opposed to this one, if it's done properly, but it appears to be half misunderstanding and half historical interest only, and its lack of notability seems to be reflected in the fact that, as far as I can tell, nobody else on the internet has discussed it.
 * 3) Turning to a new medium doesn't make your cause notable.  Posting the same information on a public forum as you posted on the website is not the same as demonstrating that there is significant anti-Eden sentiment, however many pretentious adjectives you use to describe it.

Your advice and comments are welcome and interesting Joe D.Clearly familiarisation and compliance with your protocols requires some mulling over.

'''However, in its current state, your ' eden ' ' project ' section reads in places like sales literature or an 'eden' brochure. This is somewhat at odds with the gist and sentiment of sentence 3 of your observations.'''

All high environmental impact engineering projects generate polarised views to some degree or another.What is interesting about this one is that opposition, criticism and concern have existed and do exist but have been and are swamped by the thesaurus dredging and influence powered spin machine that is the misleadingly self-styled 'eden ' ' project '.The principal players of the misleadingly self-styled 'eden' 'project' have cleverly used almost every word in the dictionary in endless press releases, interviews and other verbal outings so that, if anyone of wishes to explore or develop a more balanced view by entering a selection of negative tendency descriptive words alongside eden+project in a search engine they would generally, until quite recently,have come up with even more internally generated self-praise spinmeistering material targeting negative words and phrases at external subjects.Try it!

It is also the case that, through strategically selected and placed connections, the extensive recruitment of influential figureheads, the latest ( June 1st 2006 ),of all people, the Queen- http://www.nowpublic.com/queen_opens_wrong_building_in_cornwall_june_1st_2006 - and the kind of public service media compromise demonstrated by the BBC, an agent of Camelot, the eden funding for profit company that runs the UK National Lottery, members of the public do not generally receive rounded information.For example, you have to rummage quite deeply to come up with some details of the vigorous and substantial protest against the additional road construction and environmental losses that the fossil fuelled misleadingly self-styled ' eden ' ' project ' generated : http://www.wussu.com/roads/r99/r9901291.htm. You also have to rummage quite hard to find references to such things, amongst other notable inconsistencies, as the fact of the extreme and disruptive levels of fossil fuelled traffic congestion and pollution it has generated and generates,the fact it has shut down on three occasions as a direct and predictable result of weather v topography - snow, ice and flood - and the fact that it is so at odds with 'nature' it has to artificially generate distressed seagull sounds to stop them pecking holes in its inflated plastic bubbles-http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,11711,741389,00.html (A seagull free zone in Cornwall where they naturally abound? There's a trick!).

In your mind describe it as it is - the Bodelva Pit Greenhouses - and explore what happens to your perception.It is indeed a product branding exercise that has skewed and clouded the perception and common sense of many - http://www.arasite.org/nseden.htm.

Lastly (on this occasion), biometric data collection and fingerprint taking have recently been introduced for 'payroll management' purposes at the fossil-fuelled misleadingly misnomered ' eden ' ' project ': http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/news/2155267/eden-project-clocks-timekeeping. Given the close links and direct involvement of at least two ' eden ' ' project ' trustees (see http://www.eden-project-insight.tk ),with the ridiculously destructive and irresponsibly massive carbon footprinting worldwide arms trade, it is not inconceivable that management experience of these systems will be fed back up the line for use in other arenas. Who knows, Tony Blair and his successors may even find such data useful as they attempt to herd everyone into a bar coded universe!

This is all a long long way away from any connection, metaphorical or otherwise, with a biblical EDEN, don't you think?

Team Kernow