Talk:Chris Busby
Contents
References?
The references on this page are seriously messed up. Maybe the normal style of <ref>citation here</ref> is easier to get right?
Robin (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2013 (IST)
- The whole thing is lifted from a pdf and I had a long think about how to do it. Manual editing with 186 footnotes was a non-starter (for a first pass anyway). The way I did it was to convert to plain text then use Notepad++ regular expression search and replace to insert the necessary wikitext around the numbers with brackets removed. For a scientist he is cavalier in his footnote methodology. Not only are repeated references made to the same note (OK but awkward) but low number can make their first appearance late in the text - also he is inclined to specify footnotes in ranges which cannot be linked as specified. I agree the <ref></ref> construct would be better but it's a seriously big job and I can't fahom a way to do it automatically. It may be best just to disable two-way linking because, as things stand, return links simply go to the last instance of the relevant note number in the text. Also, I considered sticking with his footnote ranges and just linking to first one (it would look tidier) - the problem with that is that the actual footnotes would split into those with return links and those without. More thought needed now its up. FI, I have in fact sent him an email to advise of its posting and to invite edits/additions etc. --Peter P (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2013 (IST)
- Also, there's clearly something amiss with the 'ref' and 'notes' templates interaction because, after a couple of too's and fro's between refs and notes, the higher text reference renumber cumulatively - not sure how to tackle this one --Peter P (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2013 (IST)
Changes to footnoting
FI - I've spent a while on this. I'm about half way through converting to <ref>note</ref> sytax so don't change the page because any changes will be overwritten when I put the entire thing back. --Peter P (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2013 (IST)
- References are now fully converted to the latest syntax. However, many of then contain raw links and would benefit from link embedding - change 'link' to [link name]. --Peter P (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2013 (IST)
Email exchange with Roger Helbig
Following are the texts of emails echanged between Roger Helbig and Wikispook Admin. It is posted as an illustration of obsessive, mean-spirited attacks that Busby is routinely sujected to:
Email to Wikispooks Admin
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 02:40:57 -0700
Subject: Fwd: Google Alert - Chris Busby
From: Roger Helbig
To: wikispooks admin
I am completely unfamiliar with your pages and not sure what your purpose is. I was drawn here by comments about footnotes on an article on Christopher Charles Busby, PhD - the article has numerous false or misleading statements and appears to have been put in by Busby or one of his accolytes or disciples - Busby is a snakeoil salesman, pure and simple. He is not a scientist. He has a PhD in science and no actual accomplishments. I would like to know how to get in touch with the person who posted this and how to correct it.
Thank you.
Roger Helbig
Reply from Wikispooks Admin
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 12:44:19 +0100
From: Wikispooks admin
Organization: Wikispooks
To: Roger Helbig
Subject: Re: Fwd: Google Alert - Chris Busby
On 03/05/2013 10:40, Roger Helbig wrote:
> I am completely unfamiliar with your pages and not sure what your purpose is.
Then I suggest you read the site information pages before presuming to offer opinions, content advice, or requesting information which is readily available on the site itself.
Peter Presland
Webmaster
https://wikispooks.com
Response from Roger Helbig
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 07:24:24 -0700
Subject: Re: Fwd: Google Alert - Chris Busby
From: Roger Helbig
To: wikispooks admin
Peter,
I am sorry to see that you care more about how something is footnoted rather than if it is accurate. You seem to abhor accuracy. That's pretty sad. Christopher Charles Busby, PhD is not really even a scientist. He has a doctoral degree in an obscure science and he has been selling snake oil for decades. At very least, you should check out the fact that he has private companies that he has deliberately named to make them look like they are NGOs or charities. There are numerous other major holes in his CV and claims as well along with the fact that he really knows absolutely nothing about Fukushima beyond how to con a YouTube audience.
UK Companies House records show that Busby owns Low Level Radiation Campaign private company and Green Audit LLC private company. He also was founding director of The Cancer and Birth Defects Foundation. His titles within these entities are thus meaningless. He was not selected, appointed, elected or even hired to be anything by any of these companies.
Roger
...End of email exchange.
For further information about Roger Helbig (retired US Air Force Lt Col. apparently) see: Christopher Busby libeled by military-industrial lobby --Peter P (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2013 (IST)
Sale of "Anti-Radiation" Pills etc.
I think this page would be improved with something about the 'Sale of "Anti-Radiation" Pills' and other such topics which Wikipedia makes so much of. Do we know whether Chris Busby has commented on this online? Has he said anything publicly about James Ryan, for example?
