I understand that you are part of the CRC [1] and as such may have a conflict of interest related to the inclusion of links to your website, here [2] (unlogged in, I presume) and here [3]. More importantly, you have twice deleted well sourced material, once calling it vandalism, and replacing it with material sourced from your website (which is not a reliable source as far as I can), where the webpage does not actually support the statement made in the article: the webpage lists rulings, which could be positive or negative, not those who ruled in favour. Cf Canadian Court judgements on Parental Alienation with the claim made [4] and here [5]. I am going to remove the information you added again. Please do not restore it without a better source, that meets our criteria for verification. Thank you.--Slp1 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is a deliberate effort to make wikipedia worse, while POV-pushing is an effort to force only one side of a debate onto a page at the expense of others. The scholarly sources clearly demonstrate that PAS is poorly accepted by most of the scholarly community, and the page should dovetail with this. Please become more familiar with our policies and guidelines before accusing others of bad faith. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex18:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Slp1 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the guidelines regarding conflicts of interest below:
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Slp1 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when: