User talk:Didymus Judas Thomas

Welcome!
Hello, Didymus Judas Thomas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Talk page messages
 Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings. Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the [ page history]. [Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]

December 2012
Hello, I'm SkepticalRaptor. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Talk:Burzynski Clinic, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Burzynski Clinic
Hello Didymus Judas Thomas, as a courtesy I have changed the layout of your request at that talk page. In the future please do so yourself (using the "Show preview" button is also a good idea). Your layout doesn't need to be perfect, but the least you can do is to use paragraphs. Even formatted properly, your comment is still bulky and pretty much tl;dr. I don't have enough time right now to properly comment on it, but I'll take some time tonight and answer at the article talk. I can tell you right now, however, that pretty much every source with an url that contains "wordpress" or "blogspot" probably won't be usable per our sourcing policy. --Six words (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It would really help if you read WP:MEDRS and only suggest secondary sources from now on - it's quite tiring to go through all the sources you suggest and see that they're primary sources, mostly decades old and/or tests on cell lines and uncontrolled tests on <10 patients, where "antineoplastons" are used in addition to surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. We're all volunteers here, you cannot throw every source that mentions Burzynski or antineoplastons at us in the hope that something will stick - make sure they're the quality that is expected, or other wikipedians will stop bothering to look at these sources (I know I surely will). --Six words (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Six words, Thank you for the helpful hints!Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/18/12

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Burzynski Clinic with this edit, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Burzynski Clinic. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. The edit in question is:  JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * JoeSperrazzal. Thank you for your comment but I was just going by what's on Cancer . gov: "Nonrandomized clinical trials investigating the anticancer efficacy of antineoplastons are underway at the developer’s institute." so I didn't  see it as an opinion.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/18/12


 * What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it's not considered in the least promising. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * JzGIGuy, I'm not sure what relevance your above post has since Japan, China, & Egypt has done Antineoplaston research; including 2009, so it would be premature to state they are not doing further research; as Japan has done Phase I Clinical Trials successfully, & it takes millions of dollars & finding enough patients with a specific cancer in order to conduct Phase III Clinical Trials. Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/25/2012
 * The consensus of independent observers (including Cancer Research UK, the American Cancer Society and experts at MSKCC, Mayo and so on, is that ANP is primarily being investigated by Burzynski, that the investigations are not being pursued in a scientifically rigorous way, and that it is not a particularly hopeful line of inquiry. This is unlikely to change without Burzynski publishing some compelling results from the 60 Phase 2 trials he has registered. Not one of these trials has been published. The problem is not with Wikipedia, it's with Burzynski. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Burzynski Clinic". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 09:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

COI
Hello, Didymus Judas Thomas. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * 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.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--John (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This doesn't apply to me. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Didymud Judas Thomas 1/20/2013

Talkback
Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From your ongoing commentary in the AN/I thread about you it's quite clear that you fail WP:COMPETENCE. Ironholds (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

166.205.68.25 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NICETRY "Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these." (Wikipedia:Blocking policy: WP:BP Blocking: Preliminary: Education and warnings.) [1]
 * In my humble opinion, WP editors & administrators did not follow the above policy. Thus, the indefinite block violates the blocking policy.
 * Because of this, in my humble opinion, the indefinite block falls under the category of: "Purpose and goals: When blocking may not be used: Blocks should not be punitive: 1. in retaliation against users; 3. as punishment against users; 4. or where there is no current conduct issue of concern." WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE
 * 1/19/13 Editor grievance blocked by Guerillero without allowing me opportunity to comment. Later unblocked without advising me. (See below link re: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPOV.
 * 1/18/13 filed editor conduct grievance (1/19/13 WP time).
 * 1/23/13 indefinite block by Ironholds without allowing me to comment. (See below link re: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPOV.
 * "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." (Wikipedia:Blocking policy: WP:BP) [2]
 * "The block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates blocking policy)" because as I posted numerous times (See above link re: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPOV), I did not post anything on the Article in question once my Article content dispute on the Dispute resolution noticeboard (See below) was filed 1/16/13. WP:NICETRY [3] [4] 1/16/13 filed Article content dispute on Dispute resolution noticeboard (Filing ignored / removed)
 * Therefore, I was not engaged in "abuse of editing."
 * In my humble opinion; as stated in my Arbitration, editors & administrators engaged in: "Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored." (WP:SOP Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.)
 * Editors & administrators did not explain WP:NPOV when I repeatedly requested they do so.
 * In my humble opinion; as stated in my Arbitration, editors & administrators did "not" engage in "good faith" in eleven WP policies, statements of principles, core principles, & founding principles, including: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion, consensus-building, neutral point of view, thoughtful, diplomatic honesty, politeness, objectively and without bias, & realistically. (WP:DR, WP:SOP 1., WP:SOP 7., WP:SOP 8., WP:SR, [[WP:SR] 1., "Founding principles: 1.," "Founding principles: 6.," WP:NPOVFAQ "Balancing different views/Giving "equal validity," WP:NPOVFAQ "Balancing different views/Religion:," WP:NPOVFAQ "Balancing different views/Pseudoscience:")
 * Therefore, I was not engaged in "abuse of editing."
 * Editors claimed WP:MEDRS was coequal with WP:NPOV but refused to explain WP:NPOV "The principles upon which this 'policy' is based cannot be superseded by 'other policies.'" They refused to respond as to what "policies" WP:NPOV supersedes if it doesn't supersede WP:MEDRS.
 * WP:NPOV versus WP:MEDRS is "not" the correct reason for them to claim. The correct claim is WP:NPOV versus WP:NPOVFAQ "Balancing different views/Pseudoscience: If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."
 * The indefinite block should be reversed for the above reasons.
 * "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy." (Indefinite blocks WP:INDEF)
 * "Tell us why you are here. Say how you intend to help contribute to the encyclopedia after you are unblocked. See here for some ideas about what you could do." WP:NICETRY
 * I have actually researched the issues & am trying to get WP to abide by its (WP:SOP "Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.")
 * "Due and undue weight: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]
 * "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered,". WP:NPOV "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6, Note 3)
 * I am in "good faith" concerned that certain WP editors & administrators do not have the appropriate skills or knowledge to deal with WP issues re the above.
 * It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts. (Account information: block log · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed socks) Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppeteers
 * Really? Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas 1/28//2013
 * If it makes you feel better, I think most of us are probably watching your talk page at this point. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't bother me in the least. Would you like me to post my Arbitration request here since it would be public anyway?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.68.43 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think administrators may have concluded that you are already familiar with policy. In fact, you seem to do nothing but cite policy... —Tom Morris (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
It appears that you have been using IP socks; I have reported this here. dci &#124;  TALK   23:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)