User talk:Jettparmer

INTRODUCTIONS!

Hello, Jettparmer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Emesee (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jettparmer (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Conspiracy_journalism which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncited

Canton, no I removed it as it is uncited. I have moved it to the talkpage.Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's valid information. Your articles on Greg Caton and Cansema do not constitute NPOV and have been reverted. Perhaps you can accept that not everyone shares your negative viewpoint about holistic remedies and manufacturers and would like to hear both sides. You are writing simply on the basis of web research; I have firsthand knowledge. If you want to discuss this, feel free. If the pages are simply reverted again, I will take it up with admin. Mark Lipsman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.170.36 (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Page disruption

Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's valid information. Your articles on Greg Caton and Cansema do not constitute NPOV and have been reverted. Perhaps you can accept that not everyone shares your negative viewpoint about holistic remedies and manufacturers and would like to hear both sides. You are writing simply on the basis of web research; I have firsthand knowledge. If you want to discuss this, feel free. If the pages are simply reverted again, I will take it up with admin. Mark Lipsman 96.237.170.36 (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, you yourself may wish to review the WP:VAN policy (and be careful whom you accuse of vandalism). The policy says this:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). 96.237.170.36 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Looking over Wikipedia's dispute resolution pages, I find that (as I suggested in my earlier post), they recommend discussion: "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved." So I'm going to make an attempt to do that. I'm doing it here instead of the talk pages because two articles are involved.

Perhaps you'd agree that you have a general predisposition against alternative health practices. Your articles here support this, as do the reviews on your Amazon.com profile page and the fact that your most frequently used tag there (11 times) is "new age crap with a pretty package."

Okay, we can't all be tree huggers. However, perhaps you'd agree that we have a right to exist and to express our opinion too.

I've done that in these articles. If you look closely, you'll see that I kept most of your factual and even unfavorable text and added material to present the other side, particularly in the Caton article.

For example, you said, "Alpha Omega was the topic of an expose by Business Week in their review of the book, Natural Causes. The review focusd upon the case of Sue Gilliat, a nurse from Indianapolis who used Caton's Cansema product."

Here's what I object to:

First, a book review is not an expose. Moreover, just because BusinessWeek liked it doesn't mean it's the unvarnished truth. If you look at the comments to the review, most of them (seven out of eleven) are critical (e.g., "This book contains many inaccuracies and misrepresentations"; "Hurley is way too strident. He has an obvious axe to grind"; "Dan Hurley is doing nothing but trying to make a name for himself in an already heated market. His findings are, at best, theoretical with no basis to substantiate any of his claims"; "This book is pure trash and propaganda.")

Second, on the subject of Sue Gilliatt, the following appears in my version of the Caton article:

A review in Business Week of the book Natural Causes by Dan Hurley references the case of Sue Gilliat, a nurse from Indianapolis who claimed she used Cansema for skin cancer on her nose and that it burned off her nose. However, "an affidavit [Gilliatt] filed eight months after the [FDA] raid doesn't mention Alpha Omega or its products. ... She also bought two more jars of Cansema Salve more than a year after the incident with her nose and returned them unopened for a refund two months later. Caton's attorney points out, in a document filed with the court, that of the two companies involved, Alpha Omega 'is the only insured party.' "

Things are not always as black and white as media reports make them seem.

The Cansema article reflected only the conventional medical view and nothing favorable. Despite your clear disdain for these products, a lot of people have used them successfully, and I revised the page to include that point of view--while still pointing out that there are counterfeit products on the market.

An example of text I deleted is this: "The website Quackwatch warned against the use of escharotics in 2008. This site includes graphic depictions of the effects of this escharotic on unwitting patients." You may be unaware that Quackwatch is run by Stephen Barrett, whom a California Appeals Court found "biased and unworthy of credibility".

You had a number of quotes at the end that I deleted because they were repetitive trivial, and didn't add anything, such as the FDA website and--in case anyone missed the point--a copy of an FDA warning letter and an FDA press release about Greg Caton.

Okay, I've tried to explain the reasoning for my changes. I'm a professional writer and editor, and I don't do things arbitrarily. I have a decades-long interest in, and familiarity with, holistic health practices. If you respond, either here or on my user page, perhaps we can discuss the issues without accusations of vandalism. 96.237.170.36 (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions about the Business Week review are irrelevant, the BW article reviewed a book which is the actual source. Additionally, the article outlined factual issues relating to the topic. BW is a credible, vetted source - unlike Natural News.

Dr. Stephen Barrett's site, Quackwatch, is an acceptable source for Wikipedia. This has been established repeatedly. You make several broad assertions about the FDA's investigation, which are unsupported by reliable sources. You use rhetoric and inflammatory language to present a skewed perspective. The facts of Caton's arrest are not in dispute. He violated the laws of the United States, was tried and found guilty. He lost his appeal, served some of his sentence, was placed on probation and then fled the country for Ecuador. Since he failed to return to the US for periodic reporting, as required by his parole, he was listed as an international fugitive - including posting through Interpol. As you should know, Interpol is NOT an enforcement agency - they are a clearing house for information. The events surrounding his extradition remain unclear. Any detail, which is verifiable, in this regard would be helpful. I can tell you that his wife offered her view - which was rejected as unreliable.

Finally, I do have a dim view of alternative medicine and practitioners who defraud the public - especially in the arena of bogus cancer cures. I would gladly laud an individual who has a genuine product or resource, however, I find the marketplace and open scientific review to be a much better judge of their efficacy. Jettparmer (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You claim, on your own authority, that I use "unreliable sources" (without specifying what they are), but when I point out that a California appeals court has declared Stephen Barrett "biased and unworthy of credibility," you claim his site "is an acceptable source for Wikipedia"?

As far as the Business Week review, you made some inaccurate statements that I corrected. As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Unfortunately, "the marketplace and open scientific review" don't always yield the same results. The former has rendered an opinion on escharotics, and it's favorable. The latter is subject to large vested interests and is often unreliable, as you may have noticed.

I understand that you've had these pages pretty much to yourself until now and that you resent someone making changes that don't conform to your preferences. But you are not the final authority. Ultimately, it's a shared enterprise. 96.237.170.36 (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Greg Caton and Cansema

These pages are the object of a non-NPOV edit war by an IP user engaged in possible vandalism. User has been warned

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.