User talk:CliffGHC

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, CliffGHC. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Guy (help!) 09:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Guy (help!) 17:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new to editing. I've been reading a few books and have visited Dr Penny's website and wanted to update her wiki with content that isn't biased or negative focused. Just simply focused on work and accomplishments. I'll avoid the "edit war". I also removed the amazon book link to remove advertising. Apologies. CliffGHC (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is a reality-based project, we do not accord equal weight to alternative views. This is by design. On a personal note, I urge you to throw away any books that treat Tenpenny as a reliable source, and not to visit her website. Pro-disease activists are not my favourite people. Guy (help!) 17:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm not here for your personal notes. I'm here to be part of an open source community. And it's hypocritical for you to say Wikipedia is reality-based but then imply that only your reality matters. CliffGHC (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is only one reality. This does not align with the quasi-religious Truth&trade; of antivaxers. When Truth&trade; and reality collide, Wikipedia goes with reality. Again, this is by design. And yes, the creationists, cold fusionists, homeopaths and other cranks have for the most part packed up their toys and stalked off, and we really don't miss them. Guy (help!) 17:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , well now you're saying different things. First it was focused on your own personal beliefs, as if you and Wikipedia are one entity, and now you're attempting to minimize your own personal beliefs and reintroduce what Wikipedia stands for in the discussion. The only reality you or anyone is truly aware of is the one presented to them. And since you're not omniscient or omnipresent, you don't really have stake in claiming what other's reality is. Just as sone person can believe in a god and another can't, different realities exist for different people. Anyway, I'm done with this "talk".CliffGHC (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, I am saying one thing. You are welcome to follow dangerously wrong health advice if you like (though I don't recommend it), but you are not welcome to try to edit Wikipedia as if dangerously wrong health advice is anything other than dangerously wrong. Wikipedia is a reality-based project. On Wikipedia, the Earth is four billion years old, life evolved by natural selection, homeopathy is bullshit, and vaccines are safe and effective. Guy (help!) 17:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And that is because RS tell us that. We base our content on RS, and therefore nonsense gets identified as nonsense around here. Tenpenny is not a RS for health. Period. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)