User talk:Friday Thorn

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

This is my talk page. If you want to comment on something or explain a change you've made to a page,
please make it here and SourceWatch will notify me. Thank you!

about @

Hi FT;

Changing @ --> AT has no effect on trawling robots. So what if they can identify an email? And of course, " AT " can easily be programmed too. So it doesnt provide any deterrence.

Kind rgds --Antidotto 17:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

put some effort


I have been cleaning up some of the articles, and it is easy for you to put in {{fact}} and {{badges:rewrite}} Instead of asking others to clean up, why don't you do some research and rewrite in a useful manner.

Also, if SW is going to be a useful resource, then some general analysis by the author should be acceptable -- that requires reviewing the website, or the history of the organization without reference to a particular citation. There used to be a person who thought that every single line had to have a footnote, and every term a link -- the result was something rather unreadable.

Kind rgds --Antidotto 23:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


I don't believe every comment or term has to have a footnote or link, however as Editor at the Center for Media and Democracy, I have an obligation to monitor items for content and to enforce policies. We don't require a neutral point of view but request claims are substantiated. Please review our ground rules. Articles still need to be fair, accurate, and documented.

Thank you.
--Friday Thorn 17:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

not very useful


Changing email addressess from @ --> AT is useless. NB: wikipedia doesnt do it. It was thought that bots could exploit this, but then so can they recognize "_AT_"

Kind rgds --Antidotto 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


You did something that I consider rather unfair and annoying. Someone was editing an article and doing two things: (1) deleting materials that were well referenced without offering any justification therefor; and (2) entering material that was sloppy and with ample formating errors -- thus some paragraphs appeared unintelligible because text that was meant to be in the article appeared in the footnote, and vice versa. I simply cut this and put it in the discussion section pending a fix by your buddy. Now, I think that I acted in a way to save the integrity of the article in question. I certainly didnt engage in "edit wars".

I have contributed to SW for quite a few years, and believe that I have contributed some valuable info. If you ever pull such a stunt [block] again, I will devote my energies elsewhere.

Annoyed --Antidotto 14:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton

Why did you update the Monckton picture to a more complimentary one? Just trying to work out where you're coming from. The man is on the loony right, a science denier. ≡ SCRIBE ≡ 08:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


Someone emailed us (CMD) that the picture was demeaning because he suffers from a rare disease. We agreed and changed the photo but also added a video of Monckton giving a speech in which he lays out his views very thoroughly. The article shouldn't be about his appearance but rather his actions. --Friday Thorn 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on my Talk page. ≡ SCRIBE ≡ 00:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Off topic edits

Hi, I noticed all the recent edits by User:Mediawire -- they all seem to me to be close to spam and peripheral to CMD/SourceWatch's primary focus. I'd suggest they be deleted.--Bob Burton (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2013 (EDT)