Thursday, April 8, 2010

My Wikipedia edit to the Ivanpah_solar_facility article rejected!

Okay, so I probably made typical newbie, amateurish mistakes.

I heard about this from a comment on this site, that directed me to the morongobill
talk page on wikipedia, and to scroll down to the bottom of the page. I promptly
took down the link, rejected that comment for publication here, and surfed over.

The only sentence of mine left in was the site’s proximity to the MNP and 2 wilderness
areas. So the score is BrightSource shill or hack 1, the rest of us 0, we’re
being shut out so far. Here is the actual rejection note from someone named
geni in the U.K. and my response:

While I understand you feel strongly about the issue wikipedia tries to be an encyclopedia. This means that articles need to be written with a certian tone. Wikipedia also does not allow original research and edits need to stick to a Neutral point of view. Incerdnetly images can be uploaded via special:upload (or Wikipedia:Upload if you need more instructions) however copytright being what it is you generaly need to have taken the photos yourself.©Geni 18:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That was my first attempt at editing.

Okay so you have policies against self promoting and using copyrighted material.

Your bot removed the links to my blog, morongobillsbackporch, that's fine. However I did do the hikes ,videos,etc- just want that clear.

As far as you removing the 2 pdf links, 1 to the actual BrightSource official Biological Mitigation proposal and 1 submitted by an intervenor with the California Energy Commission, Basin and Range Watch, those are actual public record documents submitted for the approval process, and are not copyrighted material and are free for public use and dissemination. How do you think the plaintiff's make their case? I am giving you the link to the actual official website for you to go to and see for yourself. Those links I need to be re-inserted, to show the public reading your article, that there are 2 sides to this story.

So far, and many of my colleagues agree with me on this, this article is only showing one side, which is BrightSource Energy's side, there are many organizations on the other side of this issue that would like to see the changes made in the environmental section to provide that balance, that this article so desperately needs.

Here is the link to the OFFICIAL state of California website, CEC where I obtained those links:

Scroll down to the first document in the applicant section, entitled applicant's biological mitigation proposal, that was my link#1. Now scroll down to the section marked intervenors: go down to #13,basin and range watch photo database of desert resources, that was my link#2.

Again these are all public record, and are put in under penalty of perjury, that should be considered truthful enough even for your site.

I would, if nothing else, like those links put back in, if you would like to spell them out under the external link section, that would be fine. I am not so in love with my writing that I have to see it even in the article. But those links are truly important here and deserve reconsideration.

Thank you, Bill Mcdonald also known as morongobill Morongobill

If I have any readers with experience involving Wikipedia, can you please
help me out here? Here is the link to the article again, look it over and if you
feel that I am right, please try to edit it, if I am wrong, okay, thanks for looking.
In my humble opinion, the only side being told in that article is the BrightSource Energy side, in no way is that article “fair and balanced”.