User talk:Jettparmer/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Conspiracy Theories
I have a special interest in conspiracy theories and the behavior of crowds. To date, I know of no proven conspiracy theories - that is a theory of a conspiracy that later revealed itself to be true (faked moon landing, etc.). Jettparmer (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Ken McCarthy.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ken McCarthy.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Done Jettparmer (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Image permission problem with Image:Ken McCarthy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ken McCarthy.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement on Ken McCarthy
The Ken McCarthy article has generated a lot of discussion. I have been accused of having a personal vendetta and maligning him as a purveyor of conspiracy theories. Frankly, Ken came to my attention after receiving a slew of e-mails linked to his BrasscheckTV site. This site promotes alternative media and the majority of the videos would qualify as conspiracy theories. This site is owned and operated by him, as he attested to in a July 9, 2008 interview on Alterati.com. He is also an internet marketing advocate, having been involved with this since his early days. However, a serious biographer would not be able to escape the overwhelming evidence pointing to his first passion - activism and alternative media. In a letter he writes to the Princeton university radio station, regarding his time there, he maintains a fascination for providing "what is unavailable' via the mainstream. I am perplexed by the vigorous denials of some editors regarding these facts. Jettparmer (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I will provide a more detailed response to some of the specific points on the discussion at talk:Ken McCarthy, but please take a look at whether you are confusing fact and opinion. Much of what is stated in the above paragraph is your personal opinion, to which of course you are entitled. However wikipedia is not a forum for propagating personal opinions. Please take a little time to familiarise yourself with the policies on what Wikipedia is not, neutral point of view, verifiability, reliable sources and biography of living persons. There is no doubt that he "maintains a fascination for providing 'what is unavailable' via the mainstream", but that is not the same thing at all as "promoting conspiracy theories", except of course to those who regard Fox News and the Murdoch press as providing a full and honest account of current affairs. Neither should undue weight be given to something which is demonstrably a very tiny portion of his activity. DaveApter (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would be interested in discussing what you consider opinion. I think the BrasscheckTV site is significant and clearly promotes some conspiracy theories. The site is wholly owned and operated by McCarthy. It is his work alone (not unlike the Drudgereport. I look forward to improving the article or recommending a removal Jettparmer (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Opinion is what someone thinks, and fact is what is an objectively verifiable state of affairs. More to the point for Wikipedia purposes, facts are what can be verified from reliable sources. Let's look at what we can agree on:
- 1.The site is wholly owned... by McCarthy agreed probably.
- 2. The site is wholly.. operated by McCarthy ?? Who knows?
- 3. BrasscheckTV site is significant. ?? well maybe - significant to whom? and on what evidence?
- 4. BrasscheckTV site... clearly promotes some conspiracy theories. I don't know. I didn't even know about these sites until you flagged them up on Wikipedia. I had a look round both of them and didn't find anything that I would call a conspiracy theory. Can you point me to an example? Even if we agree on this, it might not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia unless some reliable source has said so.
- Does this help? DaveApter (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Quickly to your suggestion, it's sound. 1 - Concur, 2 - He states in the Alterati interview he owns and operates both sites. 3 - BrasscheckTV results in 84k returns on google, slightly less than "system seminar". Separating Brasscheck and TV returns even more. I would place that as significant. A quick comparisonon Alexa places BrasscheckTV orders of magnitude over either Ken's site or the Systemsemiknar site. 4 - Planes were make believe. If the simple heading is not sufficient evidence of conspiracy theory promotion, I am not sure what it. It is the first element I came across in the largest topic. Jettparmer (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 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) 22:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 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) 02:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 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) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 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) 03:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 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) 22:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 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) 19:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 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) 20:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 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) 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 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) 19:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Greg Caton
A tag has been placed on Greg Caton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RWJP (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Greg Caton
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Greg Caton. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Caton. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 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) 18:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 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) 03:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Greg Caton
Your expansion of this article appears to have created some BLP issues, the article was brought up at the WP:BLPN abd has been trimmed of the issues, feel free to discuss your additions at the BLP noticeboard thread. Please don't re add similar weakly cited controversial content without support, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- My additions for Greg Caton's article were from the available web resources. Some of these were clearly less reliable than others. I have no issue with the edits as listed. Jettparmer (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 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) 03:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 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) 22:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for deletion. The discussion is here. Maurreen (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2010 (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)
Issues with IP User 96.237.170.36 REDACTED at request of User:Keegan over Greg Caton and Cansema Pages
I have moved this to a separate section for discussion and clarity. User makes several allegations, bordering on personal attacks in comments. Let me address each one individually;
- 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. REDACTED at request of User:Keegan 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)
- If you are the REDACTED at request of User:Keegan, former freelance writer and projectionist, who owns and operates the goodhealthinfo.net site, then you should clearly declare your wp:coi. By the way, what is chapparral? Your contributions clearly reflect potential a commercial aspect. Jettparmer (talk) 18:43, 23 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.[1] 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.' "[2]
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)::::The Caton Page and the Cansema page have all been visited and updated by nuemerous editor, including someone claiming to be Caton's wife. The article withstood a speedy deletion request and numerous reviews. Your contributions actually educe the relevant references and inject a significant amount of bias - some elements I had even submitted and been castigated for including. A BLP requires an accurate framing of the person as they are and can be reliably represented through verifiable sources. Their own webpage, first hand accounts and wishful thinking do not constitute WP:RS. Your perception on the "favorabe" reception of escharotics is inaccurate. Only through internet marketing, illegal suppliers and unlicensed practitioners are these products available to a gullible public. Although the may work "functionally", none of them cure cancer nor should they be used in anyu circumstances - except by trained, licensed clinicians. I think your preferences for this meme are clouding your neutrality. Jettparmer (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You continue to make the same allegations, unsubstantiated by nothing more than your own opinion. (And "educe" means to draw forth or bring out--it contradicts your apparent assertion.) There is no prohibition against linking to a subject's own site or a contributor's own site--only on adding material with no source at all.
As far as escharotics, your statements make it clear you're begging the question--assuming as true what you are attempting to prove. You were the one who claimed "the marketplace" should be a determining factor, and the marketplace has decided in favor. Now you claim that although escharotics work, they shouldn't be used, because they don't work (simply untrue) and users are dupes. But the number of visits per year to alternative practitioners now exceeds visits to conventional physicians, with most people paying out of their own pockets. This has been going on since at least 1990 and is due to more people "seeking alternative therapies, rather than increased visits per patient," according to a 1998 study in JAMA. Clearly, all these people can't be dupes of scam artists, despite your wish to believe that.
Speaking of clouded neutrality, perhaps you are aware, as the Wikipedia article on Medical ethics points out, "Studies show that doctors can be influenced by drug company inducements, including gifts and food.[21] Industry-sponsored Continuing Medical Education (CME) programs influence prescribing patterns.[22] Many patients surveyed in one study agreed that physician gifts from drug companies influence prescribing practices.[23]"
Your admitted hostility to alternatives and reference to "trained, licensed clinicians" causes me to wonder: are you receiving any kind of compensation from the medical or pharmaceutical industries, or anyone else, for posting on Wikipedia or advocating your point of view? 96.237.170.36 (talk) 04:04, 24 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
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.
- Current Section - Please continue Talk at the bottom
Your admitted hostility to alternatives and reference to "trained, licensed clinicians" causes me to wonder: are you receiving any kind of compensation from the medical or pharmaceutical industries, or anyone else, for posting on Wikipedia or advocating your point of view?
I receive no compensation from anyone for any work done on the internet, Wikipedia. I am neither in the employ or influence of any pharmaceutical, medical device or any other firm. I have no competing interests, other than a passion for eidence based medicine, science and rationality
I contend that your additions to the article are inadequately sourced, introduce bias and in some cases erroneous. You have deleted valid references and reduced the quality of the article. You claim a personal, firsthand knowledge of the facts - which implies a conflict of interest WP:COI. You posted the article up for comment review and initial indications would support a revertion to the previous version, which was in line with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP standards.
Information on a living person may not be sourced solely from their own site, as this violates the standard of WP:NPOV.
:I say the same about your additions and changes. If you believe that "a personal, firsthand knowledge of the facts ... implies a conflict of interest," you badly misunderstand the COI policy. There is no such prohibition. In any case, I don't claim "firsthand" knowledge. What I claim is personal communication with Caton--which in no way implies a COI (see comment on my user talk page).
- Your claim that initial indications support a reversion is another example of non-reality-based thinking (NRBT--I think this needs a Wiki article). One person liked your version, one said they're both fairly similar, and one didn't give much of an opinion either way, asking if there was a middle ground. So it's basically 1-1-1. Another example of NRBT: the implication that I sourced information "solely" from Caton's site. How can you say this stuff with a straight face?
- As far as deleting valid references, let's take an example: the Time quote. You said something to the effect that escharotics were first mentioned as quackery in the 1955 Time article. However, this is begging the question--assuming as true what you are attempting to prove. An article in Time doesn't prove anything of the kind, and in any case, the article just gives brief mentions of several cases where people were harmed by escharotics. If you saw a similar article in Time about people who were harmed by a drug (e.g., Thalidomide, Vioxx) or an operation (heart bypass, transplant surgery, cesarean section), would you claim this "proved" that they were quackery?
- Other examples: you linked to an FDA letter to Burt Hampton, which has nothing to do with Caton, and to an FDA press release about Caton, as if, with all the other citations, there were any doubt the FDA went after him. A reference can be "valid" but still trivial or superfluous.
Cansema is a well understood compound which is commonly referred to as black salve and is classified as an escharotic - even by the alt-med purveyors who sell it. It has been reviewed by established, robust scientific methods and its usage has fallen out of favor over more safe and effective means of dealing with skin and other cancers. Some of your comments, such as claiming that "zinc chloride" can be handled without any PPE (personal protective equipment) are contrary to the fundamental aspects of that compound - whether in liquid or crystalline form. Cansema is a compound associated with outmoded cancer treatments, such as Mohs Surgery. Your additions were neither helpful or accurate.
:You assume that "established, robust scientific methods" are the only valid criterion. They just happen to be a dominant model in the US (as, e.g., communism was in the USSR for 75 years--did that make it a good one to follow?) There are other, equally valid models, but you don't know about them or want to. Moreover, the ones here are enforced by enormous vested interests (the med and pharma industries and the FDA, which has a revolving-door relationship with the pharma industry, as I describe here). Many books have been written about the corruption, including by doctors and former employees of these industries (e.g., Racketeering in Medicine, by James Carter, MD; Confessions of a Medical Heretic, by Robert Mendelsohn, MD; The Cancer Industry, by Ralph Moss, former PR employee at Sloan-Kettering, to name a few)--but again, you don't want to know.
- You keep making the claim that escharotics "have fallen out of favor." Only with an industry that sees no opportunity to patent, and therefore profit from, them (as I point out on the Cansema talk page). I never claimed that zinc chloride can be handled without PPE (though now that you mention it, I recall Caton, who handled it often, saying something like that). Unless you're an expert in chemistry, you have no basis for making that claim. Finally, Mohs surgery is not outmoded--it's widely used, although escharotics are no longer part of it. Nowhere have I seen a claim that it was because of safety--only because it required one visit for application, then another the next day for tumor removal. Now they freeze the tissue and remove it in one visit.
In this instance, it is my understanding that you have a commercial interest in cansema being represented inaccurately. Is this correct?
- No, this is not correct, and the "Are you still beating your wife?" phrasing strikes me as further evidence of bad faith. I reject your contention that I am representing Cansema inaccurately. Moreover, I think you're doing the same--but I have facts to support my contention; see my comments on the Cansema talk page. As far as your "understanding" that I have a commercial interest in Cansema, it's a misunderstanding. I have no commercial interest in Cansema or any other product.
Statements about numbers of visits to alt-med practitioners is immaterial to the scientific properties of cansema. Even the alt-med sites warn purchasers to use "extreme caution" with cansema and other escharotics.
- And so do some drugs. Does that mean drugs are quackery?
Aside from the immateriality of the argument, your assertions about how people (specifically doctors) can be influenced by gifts applies as well to alt-med practitioners who are also wooed by diagnostic lab firms, supplement manufacturers and equipment sales people. To claim otherwise contravene's human nature.
- Okay, how many people are harmed each year by alt-med practitioners and remedies vs. conventional docs and drugs? The former is maybe in double digits; the latter is several hundred thousand. So who's the menace to society?
Summary
There is room for inclusion of verifiable, well sourced information in relation to Greg Caton's case. There is no reason to delete information which meets this standard, including aliases, regardless as to how it paints the individual - providing it adhere's to wp:BLP standards.
Your additions to the cansema article, however, are unhelpful. Jettparmer (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would say the same about your additions. You're in favor of "verifiable, well sourced information" as long as you're the one to determine what that constitutes, including superficial and trivial sources.
- 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) 13:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Talk moved to talk:Greg Caton Jettparmer (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Re:Cansema
Thanks for the reply, I admit to letting my frustration show through in some of my comments. Jettparmer (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Greg Caton
I have nominated Greg Caton, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Caton (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. decltype (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |
The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |
The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Conspiracy Journalism
I removed the incubator template from your user page as that template put your userpage in the incubator category, which is against WP:User pages. I am curious as to why you have material on Conspiracy Journalism in two places - the incubator and your user page. Are you in some way dissatisfied with the incubator? SilkTork *YES! 18:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dropped a note on your talk page. Jettparmer (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SilkTork *YES! 18:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Conspiracy Journalism and the Incubator
Hello and thanks for commenting on the CJ article. I place a copy on my user page to preserve the article in the event it is deleted from the incubator. It was moved there after a RfD discussion which I disagreed with (naturally). I have made some modifications and would like to put it back in for comment, but am concerned about a speedy delete and loss of the work. Any thoughts or suggestions? Jettparmer (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I assessed the article and would agree with others that it appears to be original research. It reads like an essay arguing for the the term "conspiracy journalism" to be accepted as a neologism. Wikipedia accepts neither personal essays or theories, nor neologisms. As you have this material in your userspace there is no need to have it in two places so I have nominated it for deletion at WP:MfD. SilkTork *YES! 18:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am going to have to disagree with your assessment. The term is in use in the media and academia. I am simply catalogging it. Jettparmer (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
 |
Hello, Jettparmer/Archive 4! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!! |
--Kumioko (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Welcome to the project and please let me know if you have any comments, questions or suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
New Years Message for WikiProject United States
With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010
| |||
New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition
Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:
- Portal:United States
- the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
- the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
- and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.
You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.
--Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.
.--Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
|
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.
--Kumioko (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
US National Archives collaboration
 |
United States National Archives WikiProject |
|---|---|
|
The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.
--Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.
--Kumioko (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
tri-sided pyramid screw
I have encountered this type of screw used on Breville kitchen kettles. The screw is a female and as opposed to the TP3, has straight sides. Have you any information regarding this, or are you able to re-direct me. Apologies if this question should not have been sent to you, I am new to WIKI. I had referred to the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-Wing#Tri-wing
and had noticed it was not listed.
Regards Chris MurphyHardy31 (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Terrorism - Welcome Back!
Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.
--Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- ^ BusinessWeek, Jan. 8, 2007.
- ^ "The FDA's Panacea".