On 4/23/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If you provide specifics, editor name and example edits that illustrate your point best, you might get someone else to file the RFC/RFAr for you. You already know what's going on so if you provide the diffs it saves
someone
who doesn't know what's going on a lot of time.
Mgm
Thanks everyone for the various ideas. I will try to find people in the geology project to look at stuff, and I have challenged the editor to correct the citations well enough so that I can look at them, and I have sent off for the referenced EIRs that are not listed anywhere on the web or county cites or corporate cites they are attached to. Some of the geology information I already know is simply incorrect as it is high school California geology, and the editor appears to have incorporated the material into a paper he wrote and is now referencing his own paper, strangely. Problematically California geology is extremely complex and there are few Wikipedia editors working on it, however, I will also try to shift the burden to this editor to provide his references, not use his unpublished work as references, and get people from various projects to look at it.
What? Since when was unpublished work admissible as a reference in the first place? If it's not published, it's not accessible to other editors and readers to crosscheck, and thus not an appropriate reference.
Johnleemk