Talk:Jeanette Wilson/Archive 1

Request for help by subject of article
Help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace11111 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn't require admin help. Praxidicae (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Connected contributor
This editor speaks in the first person when referring to the topic of article.CatCafe (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Yes I do need admin help please this content is libellous to me. I will repost all that I posted before plus NEW INFO I have.

I am new to editing - I am Jeanette Wilson and my attention was drawn just yesterday to this page is clearly not NEUTRAL as it should be within WIKIPEDIAS 5 pillars. I deleted in goodwill all false statements that were either not supported or supported with only TABLOID references.

(NEW INFO - Citation 2 an article by O'hare in this article O'Hare admits that he sent someone to one of my events, this person recorded me. I did not speak about vaccines at all if I had he would surely have said this in his article. O' Hare and Michael Marshall are linked. The newspaper articles were caused by Michael Marshall writing to newspapers about me and voicing his concerns and opinions - the newspapers concerned did ZERO investigation, they did not talk to me or phone me. Each newspaper copied what another had written without checking any facts.)

I then got given one WARNING and told it was by final warning – I am new to this, I started learning yesterday. I need help please.

I will go through what is incorrect from the top down. I am not an antivaxxer. Where is evidence of this? I am vaccinated myself.

I do not claim to heal people - all healing comes from God. I have NEVER said I heal anyone - where is the SOURCE for this? God heals.

I have NEVER promoted anti- vaccination views - where is the SOURCE for this? I am not anti anything I am PRO good health supported by body awareness & good science.

My UK tour consisted of 75 shows NOT ONE was cancelled for the reasons cited - 3 venues cancelled worried about adverse publicity that was threatened by Michael Marshall of the Good Thinking Society - where is the EVIDENCE for this statement? Background info - Michael Marshall wrote to the newspapers expressing HIS CONCERNS about my shows - some newspapers printed HIS CONCERNS but they did not interview me or ask me for comment - so the articles written were one sided. I have medical disclaimers on my website, on show tickets and in all adverts. I was born in 1962 My grandfather died when I was 6 years of age. Yes I did move to NZ in 1999 - something at last that is correct. I have never said that my hands are "possessed" - where is the evidence for this? I do not hum. Yes occasionally I do move my hands and stomp to release energies but the way they have put these things together make me sound just weird - not a fair account of the Divine work I do, that is usually either silent, or accompanied by a spiritual teaching. I FILM EVERY SHOW and these are made available to the public.

I have NEVER said I can cure arthritis - where is the evidence for this?I FILM EVERY SHOW and these are made available to the public.

I have NEVER said that I cam heal vision impairment - again where is the evidence for this?

I have never said that I have treated paralysis - where is the evidence? All healing comes from God.

I have never said that I have treated blindness in one eye - where is the evidence? All healing is done by God.

I have never said that I have treated many cases of life- threatening cancer - where is the evidence? ( I am amazed this person can get away with saying all this stuff - shouldn't there be checks in place that stop this?

Re Mammograms - my word are twisted I shared my own personal account...which includes that I have (& this is personal to me)structures that are like bunches of grapes in my breasts & doctors have told me that mammograms for me are useless because of this - do I really have to put in the public arena my personal stuff to put my side of things?

I have NEVER described John of God as my mentor - he speaks Brazillian, he lives in Brazil - I am in New Zealand - how is he my mentor? where is the evidence for this? - here I am being defamed by being linked an accused sex offender.

I am not a Christian. I honour whatever religious path others choose.

My books do not talk about "new age topics"- they are about personal growth and development

The next paragraph is all about other people's opinions of me - Michael Marshall and Craig Shearer - - how does that get to go on my page? Totally biased - neither has met me

UK Advertising Standards did not "caution" me - they sent me an email to follow up on a compliant sent to them by Michael Marshall - the only one they have EVER received, they guided me on what I could do in the UK. It was a helpful email that let me know that I must only talk about healing in general terms and not use videos of more serious conditions being healed to advertise my UK tour. In New Zealand I can.

Dietary supplements. I do not promote any dietary supplements - one of my catch phrases is FOOD OVER SUPPLEMENTS I am an advocate of REAL FOOD. PXP Royale is a FOOD it is a PURPLE ( not black) rice. I am not a paid promoter of it. PXP Royale is super concentrated it takes one pound of purple rice to make 1 teaspoon of product - it can't be compared to purple rice you buy in the supermarket ( when did you ever see purple rice ins a supermarket - you don't, its only in health stores) or online. There is no huge mark up on it.

the next paragraph is nothing to do with me- what is that doing there?

Reference to talk off camera re scar tissue - I was about to recommend the best thing I have ever seen for scar tissue which is lavender oil - I DO NOT SELL IT - so me recommending it I don't break any rules -I was joking about Trading Standards in the context of what was said earlier in the show about how I can't use video of people getting better from more serious issues for advertising in the UK, I can only use the knees, hips and back videos

I object strongly to all the SEE ALSO's what on earth do they have to do with me except to attempt to lump my together with those people - none of whom I have any links with The newspaper articles were ALL incited by letters from Michael Marshall or other members of UK / NZ Skeptics - journalists reported Michael's or Craig's concerns but did not interview me/ seek to interview me/ attend a show/ speak to anyone attending an event. I hope whoever reads this will understand my initial eagerness to take down all the false statements and realize that I was not trying to " write my own autobiography" I was simply trying to remove malicious and libellous statements made about me. I would welcome the page being amended accordingly or removed.
 * This still does not require admin help- admins are not 'super editors' that have more power than anyone else. If you are alleging that content in the article about you is libelous, please follow the instructions at WP:LIBEL. If you need further assistance other than that, it might be a good idea for you to create an account and then verify your identity with Wikipedia by following the instructions at WP:REALNAME. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

331dotI have just got onto the Good Thinking Society's Facebook page and gone back to December 2109 when this page in my name was created and they are congratulating each other for what they have done. I have emailed as per the instructions re libel and no one has got back to me. Is there a way I can send this info ( screenshot of their page and comments)either to here or to the Noticeboard? as it does show malicious intentPeace11111 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That email address is staffed by volunteers, any reply will not be immediate. You may, if you wish, visit the administrator's noticeboard to explain- but I am not certain that you will be told something different there. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Links in "See also" section
Numerous wikilinks seem to have been copy-and-pasted to the "See also" sections of various pages despite not having any particular relevance. I have removed several links from the "See also" section that did not have any direct relevance to the article subject other than to implicitly disparage the article subject, which would be a violation of the WP:BLP policy against unsourced content. I believe that that the remaining links should be removed if they are not relevant either. WP:SEEALSO says that "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I do not think that lists of other mediums are relevant enough without some actual connection, or else any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Wallyfromdilbert: You are going way overboard on the medium articles you are removing material. The MOS states: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics..." I maintain that the bios of other mediums and articles covering the general topic are, for certain, tangentially related. RobP (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop restoring unsourced BLP violations. Regarding wikilinks to other mediums, under your interpretation, any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. Can you explain how that would make sense as a guideline? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Claiming See also links are "unsourced BLP violations" is nonsense. What is unsourced? Be specific. I am following the guideline as I stated. Seems pretty clear. Let me repeat it from the MOS on See also: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. That's what these are. If any are not tangentially related, explain. RobP (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How are you claiming the links in the "see also" section are not unsourced? Also, regarding wikilinks to other mediums, under your interpretation, any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. Can you explain how that would make sense as a guideline? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed it again as per WP:BURDEN and it's a completely indiscriminate list. Praxidicae (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Have removed these again. Either they should be mentioned in the body of the article with sources, or a new sourced article needs to be created on Controversies about claims for psychic healing or some such, which appears to be their common thread: such an article might be an appropriate "See also" if it mentioned JW. Pam D  10:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Returned them again because your claim that they were discoverable via category links is untrue. I made the effort to edit and make some of them discoverable via the cats after no-one else could be bothered. And promptly left those ones off the list. The see also wikilinks now listed are all related and not available via the cat's. This is what see also is for. Thank you. CatCafe (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not claim they were discoverable through categories, but I said that categories are for that sort of connection. If articles aren't properly categorised, then categorise them rather than trying to use a "see also" section for an unspecified set of articles you believe to be connected. Pam  D  10:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)  after mistyping.  Pam  D  12:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)