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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.