User talk:96.237.170.36: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:52, 29 August 2022

Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Blanked IP talk}}
-== Page Disruption ==
-Please refrain from removing verified, sourced information or inserting opinion or unverified items on the following pages, [[Cansema]], [[Greg Caton]].  For further information review the [[WP:VAN]] policy.  [[User:Jettparmer|Jettparmer]] ([[User talk:Jettparmer|talk]]) 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
-[[File:Information.svg|25px]] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] and have been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 -->
-== Caton and Cansema ==
-Your constant deletions, insertions of unsupported information and changes to the afore mentioned articles, [[Greg Caton]] and [[Cansema]] can be construed as vandalism.  You are posting information which is unsupported, [[WP:OR]] or simply untrue.  Claims about cansema being effective are not supported in any reputable literature.  Your submissions in regards to Caton violate the [[wp:blp]] policy and contain third party assertions and hearsay claims.
-:You seem to be more interested in making inaccurate accusations than arriving at an NPOV, which is the first thing I see on the wp:blp page.
-What exactly do you want to discuss?  You delete valid information without properly sectioning off that data.  You deleted Caton's other alias, even though it is supported in source documents.  [[User:Jettparmer|Jettparmer]] ([[User talk:Jettparmer|talk]]) 14:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
-:As I said before, just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's valid or relevant. You're using anything you can find (Parade magazine, Time magazine from 1955, Quackwatch), no matter how trivial or biased, to further your own agenda and blacken someone else's name. (Incidentally, Caton used his "other alias," James Carr, years ago when replying to emails from customers. You've heard of a screen name? But it fits your agenda, right?) [[Special:Contributions/96.237.170.36|96.237.170.36]] ([[User talk:96.237.170.36#top|talk]]) 10:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
-::Caton's alias is discoverable and accurate - it is reflected in legal documents, and thus part of his persona.  Your assertion about it being a screen name, while interesting, does not change the fact that it is a pseudonym.  TIME and Quackwatch are both [[WP:RS]].  There is no intent to "blacken" someone's name.  Mr. Caton is a figure of some notoriety and the public record is accurate. [[User:Jettparmer|Jettparmer]] ([[User talk:Jettparmer|talk]]) 16:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
-:::Please cite the legal documents. Is jettparmer your "alias"--or your screen name? Also, as I point out on your user page, you claim to support "reliable" sources, but a California appeals court has declared Stephen Barrett "biased and unworthy of credibility," and you claim his Quackwatch site "is an acceptable source for Wikipedia"? Moreover, you have a tendency to beg the question--assume as true what you are attempting to prove--as in "the public record is accurate." By choosing sources selectively, you show what you wish to show. [[Special:Contributions/96.237.170.36|96.237.170.36]] ([[User talk:96.237.170.36#top|talk]]) 04:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
-::::How about Caton's own website confirming his alias in founding AO Labs, for starters? - [http://www.meditopia.org/toc.htm Meditopia - Table of Contents].  When will you disclose your own COI?  [[Quackwatch]] is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia and the rest of the planet.  [[WP:Rs]].
-::::<blockquote>''Quackwatch has been mentioned in the media, reviews and various journals, as well as receiving several awards and honors.[7][9][10][50] It is consistently praised as a top source for screening medical information on the web.[10] In 1998, Quackwatch was recognized by the Journal of the American Medical Association as one of nine "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources."[51] It was also listed as one of three medical sites in U.S. News & World Report's "Best of the Web" in 1999.[52] A web site review by Forbes magazine stated'':</blockquote>
-::::Conversely, although referenced, Natural Health News is not.  Let's put that to rest shall we?  [[User:Jettparmer|Jettparmer]] ([[User talk:Jettparmer|talk]]) 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
-{{uw-3rr}}