User talk:96.237.170.36

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. Jettparmer (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

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. 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?) 96.237.170.36 (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. 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. 96.237.170.36 (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How about Caton's own website confirming his alias in founding AO Labs, for starters? - 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.

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:

Conversely, although referenced, Natural Health News is not. Let's put that to rest shall we? Jettparmer (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, let's not. As far as the alias, fine. Negative on "the rest of the planet," as the Wiki arbitration about the Quackwatch article proves. Similarly, your opinion about Natural News is your own. Why are Mike Adams's articles on NN about alternative healthcare any less reputable than Barrett's articles on QW opposing it? When a three-judge appeals court finds a so-called expert "biased and unworthy of credibility," you can't just blow past it by quoting the Wiki page, which was evidently written by people with your animus against alternative medicine. Moreover, the page points out that "Quackwatch is closely affiliated with the National Council Against Health Fraud.[18]" What you may not know about the NCAHF:

The "quackbuster" flagship, the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), sank beneath the waves in 2003, after the NCAHF lost several lawsuits in California including (1) the NCAHF v. King Bio case - where delicensed MD Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson MD, the author of the presumptuous "Scientific Review of alternative and Aberrant Medicine" were officially declared to be "biased, and unworthy of credibility," (2) in a separate action the NCAHF was tagged with over $100,000 in attorney fees they can't pay, and (3) The NCAHF lost their 501C(3) non-profit status in California.

It appears that, now, the NCAHF is run out of cardboard box in the back room of Robert Baratz's, it's President-For-life, hair removal salon in Peabody, Massachusetts. Apparently, no NCAHF Board meetings have been held since 2003 - and there are none planned. (www.quackpotwatch .org/opinionpieces/barrettbotnick.htm)

You keep mentioning a COI. The COI page says, "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." I am not promoting my own (or someone else's) interest in alternative healthcare any more than you are promoting your opposition to it. You're trying to cast Caton in the worst possible light because of your "dim view" of holistic health, and I'm opposing that in the name of NPOV. Also, I see nothing on the COI page suggesting that communication with the subject of an article is COI. I volunteered that I have a longtime interest in holistic health and have communicated with Caton and written an article about him, and as the COI page says, "Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight."

I see no point in continuing this argument. If you want to draft the articles along the lines discussed on the Caton talk page, we can take them up there. 96.237.170.36 (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving to the Greg Caton talk page for consolidation. Jettparmer (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

June 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for one week

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Greg Caton

Hello 96.237.170.36, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Greg Caton - a page you tagged - because: Not blatantly an attack page or negative BLP. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sign Up

Go to thepetitionsite*com and search for and rid the internet of Wikipedia, just quickly sign up. 189.108.210.38 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)