Jabbsworth

Please note that I used to have another WP account and my actual edit count is 12,000+. Please don't template me; I am not a newbie.

---

Stevia

Please stop for a moment. You have introduced some errors, including unsourced commentary and broken links, into the stevia article that need cleaning up. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is FULL of outdated information and errors, as well as anti-stevia spin. I'll stop when you show me my errors.  Jabbsworth  23:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is also full of relevant history -- including out-of-date studies and anti-stevia spin that were influential in the United States and other countries banning the sweetener. For the most part I have restored your edits after some corrections. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

self promotion

Please stop linking to your own external opinionated writings that are hosted at sources that are not WP:RS. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned your account at ANI too. Warden (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic-banned

You were warned against making unfounded allegations of paid pro-aspartame editing back when you were still editing as TickleMeister (talk · contribs) [1]. You have now clearly resumed the same disruptive pattern again [2][3].

You are therefore now indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to Aspartame, under the discretionary sanctions rule of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. This goes for all edits and comments in all namespaces. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That's ok. I would never have been able to insert any negative data, no matter what the sources, there anyway.  Jabbsworth  00:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That's bull. I WELCOME negative info on Aspartame as long as it's properly sourced and weighted. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Go through the SourceWatch page and extract the cited data you think should be added to Aspartame controversy. You talk the talk, but will you walk the walk?  Jabbsworth  00:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I "have 6,493 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I've got more than enough to look at here and the business of adding such good sources is your job, which you royally fucked up by being a partisan editor. Too bad. I have other subjects that I'm more interested in watching.

We need people who understand the subject and who know the good sources, but they need to follow policy and drop the conspiracy thinking. I first learned of this subject through lots of interaction with Betty Martini, and what a loon she is. My g-d, what long, repetitious, emails! The enemies of Aspartame are their own worst enemies. Too bad. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I am not an enemy of aspartame. I simply want a balanced view of the controversy. If you are fair minded, and you review all the data at SW, and compare to WP, you would have to agree that the disparity is alarming. As for me f*cking up the page by being a partisan editor, the same could be said of many other editors who tried to insert balance on the Aspartame controversy page. It's not really a controversy page because it basically states that the matter is entirely settled in the chemical's favour (which makes one wonder why there are food safety authorities reviewing its safety as we speak).  Jabbsworth  01:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not the page I was referring to, but your chances to influence the editing of the page. That's what you screwed up. Too bad. We need editors who know the subject, and you do. I've seen this happen many times. We've had many expert editors here, who, because of partisan behavior, have ruined their chances to edit. I hate to see that happen. I have nothing against you as a person, or against skepticism of Aspartame. I just object to your methodology, combative spirit, sockpuppetry, violation of our sourcing policies, and your soapboxing. That all gets in the way of what you really want to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My sockpuppetry (distributive) was prompted by stalking and threats, both on and off wiki. Yes, I can be combative when provoked. I have sometimes used sources that are not totally reliable, but that was only in a small minority of my edits, often in conjunction with very good sources and as an adjunct, and I always withdrew data cited to poor sources only, when challenged. In respect to aspartame, the sources were not used against me, more the undue weight argument. Against me and many other editors, I might add. That's the real pity.  Jabbsworth  02:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

BTW, I applaud your thoughts (at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming), and welcome your contributions to the discussion; I'm sorry I'm throwing cold water on your excellent idea, but I think the article already suffers from some definitional issues that we've closed our eyes to, I don't want to make it worse.--SPhilbrickT 15:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood, no offence taken. It's a thorny issue.  Jabbsworth  15:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)