Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 26 April 2015

This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Errata Sheet. [REDACTED] This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time. This user is a Rouge admin. This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 20 years, 5 months, and 2 days. This user has been an admin for 19 years and 5 days. This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans. This user believes WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
• My Last.fm profile
• vGuyUK on Twitter | SceptiGuy on Twitter

Obligatory disclaimer

I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

About me

I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I am an amateur baritone and professional nerd. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to subdue dissent, actually it's just me as a middle aged parent of young adults saying "oh no, not this shit again". I am British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC and other closes

I am am making a good faith best efforts attempt to close backlogged RfCs and other debates from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. These are mainly backlogged because there is no obvious consensus, so any close will undoubtedly annoy someone. I invite review of any such close on WP:ANI, where there are many more watchers than my talk page. I am happy to provide clarification of anything either here or on ANI, please ping me if it's at ANI - that exempts you from the ANI notice, IMO, and I prefer a ping to a talk page notice as the latter tends to spread discussion to multiple venues, which is a nightmare. Feel free to use "email this user" if I am not responding to a request (but remember I live in UTC, soon to be UTC-1). Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

and stale

Thanks, and a thing to possibly complete

Guy, thanks for your close here and the notification. I took the step of combining the notice you placed at AN with the request I made, see diff, just to keep the two together for "posterity." Of course feel free to undo that if you didn't intend them to be connected. Would you also consider amending the entry at WP:RESTRICT to match the wording you provided, if you think it'd be necessary. Thanks... Zad68 23:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The "amending the entry at WP:RESTRICT" is a good illustration of Zad's attempting to alter the terms of what was voted upon ( post-vote) by a narrow margin. I prefer that the original decision wording be left unaltered until appeal process complete. Zad's failure to notify me of his, for now, apparently successful separate attempt to alter the terms of the proposal and decision at ANI is also indicative. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 06:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You give a very good impression of trying to relegislate the original case. This is not the place. You have an avenue for appeal, you are free to use it, or abide by the restriction, it has to be one or the other I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 06:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC

If you have taken that impression you have not comprehended what I wrote I'm afraid. I will abide by the original restriction agreed upon.Watch the article concerned. It has been, and will continue to be, a shining example of all that is wrong with WP --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 17:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging JamesBWatson to this conversation to review the edits and determine whether the edit making reference to "the article concerned" is problematic per the topic ban. Zad68 03:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. This edit is the one you are referring to. It is clearly at best pushing the boundary of the ban. It is also clear that both that edit and this one are intended to announce that Tumadoireacht intends to defy the topic ban: the statements "I will abide by the original restriction agreed upon" and "I abide by the original article ban for the present" are both clearly designed to indicate "but I will defy the new ban". I would not quarrel with anyone who took action on the basis of the edit in question, but for myself, I would wait and see whether he or she does any more unambiguous violating of the ban. One of the problems with taking action on the basis of a borderline edit is that it gives a disruptive editor the opportunity to scream on the admin noticeboards about admin abuse and unjustified blocks, with the confidence that there will be some people who will come along and agree with that. (Some disruptive editors are even devious enough to deliberately keep pushing the boundary in the hope of eventually provoking someone into action which will enable them to do that, but I don't see any reason to think that Tumadoireacht is likely to do so.) Another reason is that there is simply very little point in taking action merely to stop something as trivial as vague remarks on a talk page which could possibly be regarded as near the boundary of a topic ban, but doesn't quite mention the topic. As I said above, Tumadoireacht has clearly declared the intention of defying the topic ban (or, as he or she might prefer to say, the intention not to recognise it). If he/she carries out that threat, then clearly a block will be in order, but as long as it's at the level of sort of hinting that he/she will defy the ban, I would leave it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks JamesBWatson I think your comments are dead on. It is interesting that the editor chose to talk around mentioning the topic directly; if the editor truly doesn't recognize the scope of the topic ban, why would there be any reason to avoid mentioning it by name on a User Talk page? Appreciate you checking in here. Zad68 13:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC

The zealousness around this two tier silencing process is both fascinating and illuminating at present, and, will no doubt be of passing interest to those historians who study how these articles have evolved or have been stagnated over time. You wouldn't be attempting to provoke a mention of the article that cannot speak its name now Zad ? -surely not -unworthy thought. The sub text of article content selection and dismissal is also an absorbing study.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 18:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, we're all about suppressing The Truth™. Just ask any homeopath. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Illogical extension of an argument is as weak as, well, homeopathy. Which is amusing. Yup indeed --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Lubitz

Deletion review for Andreas Lubitz

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Andreas Lubitz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Who predicted that? Guy (Help!) 09:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Adam Davidson (journalist)

Hi JzG. If you haven't already, would you mind adding this article to your watchlist? I just removed some content that appears to have been removed by you last year and has resulted in the subject of the article posting to the article's talk page. I would appreciate a second set of eyes. Thanks, Tiptoety 15:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like an accident, it was reinserted in this edit. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	It is great to have an admin like you. Your administrative actions and your great contributions to science and medical are much appreciated. I have also checked that you had nominated Sandstein for adminship. Well, thanks a lot for all these contributions! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Close of PNAC-related RfC

I believe that you misread the consensus of the RfC

Consensus supports either removal of the text entirely, or inclusion but only with the context of Meacher's Truther agenda, but this is likely to be considered WP:UNDUE. None of the specific proposals seems to have consensus yet, so the safest course is to avoid mention altogether at this time.

and the issue has in fact been stably settled on the article for about a month, with the following single sentence and citation to a peer-reviewed secondary source.

British MP Michael Meacher made similar allegations in 2003, stating that Rebuilding America's Defences was "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration.

I don't know whether there is a need (and don't want to bother) challenging the close, but in case there are problems later, perhaps you could clarify your reading of the consensus?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing through protection

Guy, you CANNOT use your administrator privileges to edit through protection on a page you are WP:INVOLVED with. This isn't open for discussion, you cannot do it period. This is the second time I've had to make a similar point to you regarding this. Please do not do it again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring tot he correction of a trivial error on the Griffin article? Guy (Help!) 07:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't matter what it is, you cannot use administrator privileges to edit through protection on a page and conflict you are involved with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the edit: . If you think that violates WP:INVOLVED then I suggest you are being overly sensitive. It was an utterly banal and uncontroversial edit request with no dissenters, no plausible dissent, and nobody made any complaint when I did it or since. And that's in a context where one editor would dearly love to have the entire reality-based community banned from the article. It introduced no substantive change to the article.

What would help is getting someone to close the RfCs so we can maybe move on from the endless repetition of rejected demands for edits re laetrile, especially. Did you see Atsme's essay on "COI ducks", essentially claiming that the existence of a body of editors opposing apologia for quackery means that users are entitled to draw the conclusion that they are shills for Big Pharma? Frankly I have had enough of this article, but as you can hardly fail to be aware, long term civil POV-pushing can be a highly effective strategy, because everybody else gets bored with the drama or loses their temper and gets topic banned. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Remember, the most important thing to a bureaucrat is bureacracy and the rules. Sanity is no defence William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to say to does seem bureaucratic. Still, maybe this is current thinking on WP - it would certainly explain why we have so many backlogs. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with bureaucracy, you are involved in the dispute, you can, therefore, not use administrator privileges. I said I was going to have a low tolerance approach and that's what makes this 'period' rather than shouldn't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Beaurocracy gone mad is what it is. Changing "a" to "an". Right. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 10:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

In response to a {{editprotected}} unopposed then and now. And let's not forget that the only reason the article is protected is due to long-term civil POV-pushing by an editor who appears at this point to have drunk liberally of the kool-aid. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It's Madness I Tell You. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJz_FhTl8Fk) -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 11:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Assuming that the diff indicated above – which changes an "a" to an "an" in response to an uncontested, uncontroversial edit request – it strikes me that your interpretation of WP:INVOLVED is rather too strict in this instance. If you are unsure about how this policy should be applied to this situation, please raise the issue at WP:AN. I hope that won't be necessary, though; it is clear that JzG's interpretation is both correct and reasonable.

It might be fair to state that JzG is involved – or "WP:INVOLVED" – with respect to the content dispute over how Griffin ought to be portrayed (I'm not sure about this history here; I don't follow the article). But there is no indication that JzG is involved – or ever has been involved, or likely ever will be involved – in a dispute about the proper use of the singular indefinite article. An admin can be involved, for Misplaced Pages purposes, with some aspects of an article or topic but not others, and that involvement can both extend beyond an article and simultaneously not cover an article in its entirety. In other words, the concept of involvement is tied to a particular locus of dispute, topic, or "case" (in the words of the policy), not to a specific page.

Of course, even leaving aside the fact that JzG's involvement is limited to the content dispute and does not in any way involve a (nonexistent) grammar dispute, WP:INVOLVED still explicitly permits admins to take actions which are likely to be completely obvious and uncontroversial. Fixing a typo in response to clear and uncontested edit request fits that bill, too. If an admin judges poorly with respect to what might be "straigthforward" then on their own head be it, but that clearly doesn't apply in this case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I should state: I very much welcome Callenecc's commitment to helping out with this article, it has been subject to months of argumentation. Have a quick look at the RfC I have just added tot he Talk page. I am trying very hard to remain calm and push towards resolution, but unfortunately the previous RfCs are still open and the person who is, in my view, the root cause of the problem, refuses to take "no" for an answer.

Atsme is sincere, pleasant and generally an asset to the project, but I think this response to this discussion basically tells you all you need to know. Atsme has, in my view, settled on an authorial angle, and unfortunately the angle is orthogonal to Misplaced Pages policy since the ideas for which Griffin is known are undoubtedly very solidly in the realms of WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking to ask this on AN, but I hope it is not required anymore. SamuelDay1 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the protection policy states: Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (emphasis mine). Uncontroversial edits to protected pages (like changing "a" to "an") are clearly permitted by both the spirit and the letter of site policy. MastCell  15:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

New COI ducks essay

I was wondering if you would mind reading the latest version of the COI duck essay with an eye towards determining whether it's still got aspects of the pharma shill gambit, whether it's still encouraging bad faith assumptions, and whether it accurately described advocacy editing? I think the essay is still problematic but I could be wrong and I would appreciate some clarity from you. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe the essay was restored because I had been in discussion with Atsme and we agreed to think about at least integrating some of the material into the existing essay at User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet, which has had several people working on it and, according to some of the comments I have received, been welcomed as an attempt to deal with problematic editors who may qualify as "ideological" COI editors. I actually haven't seen much discussion on the possible integration yet, but I would welcome Atsme integrating any material from her essay into mine, particularly material which I and the others involved in the making of that essay may have missed to date, or, for that matter, you, Guy, if you so see fit. Actually, the only people I would hope wouldn't edit the page right now are the SAP editors themselves, but, unfortunately, I think in many if not most cases those individuals might be the least able to perceive what is to others often an overwhelmingly obvious bias in their editing. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Integrating the essay into yours sounds like a great idea. I don't think that's the direction the essay is going, however; I think that it's going to be reposted into main space (I have no proof of this so I want to emphasize that it's only speculation on my part). That's why I'm wondering whether the essay is still assuming bad faith and whatnot or whether I'm wrong about that, and is why I'm looking for clarity. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

IMO, it is still problematic, in that it encourages people to read between the lines and assume bad faith. If you are the kind of person who believes in the Big Pharma conspiracy theory, this is exactly the essay you're looking for to reinforce your prejudices. It gives you the full list of alphabet soup to use in accusing the Misplaced Pages consensus of being a flock of "advocacy ducks" suppressing The Truth™. If you're not that kind of person, then the essay is useless to you. In other words, it is valuable only in reinforcing the prejudices of precisely the kind of person whose prejudices need reducing, not reinforcing. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. FYI, I have no intention of using your words in any way. I had thought the essay was still problematic but when I went through it and tried to show the problems, I was told that my criticisms were spurious, unwarranted, misleading, and POV-based. After seeing that a few times it's hard not to start to believe it, so I was hoping that I wasn't out to lunch on this. Thanks for the reassurance. Ca2james (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder who told you that? 23:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You get three guesses and the first two don't count. :) Ca2james (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

blacklist

I think you accidentally posted in the wrong thread. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

RFC close

Hi Guy. Thanks for taking the time out to close the RFC at Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden. Unfortunately, the close seems to have led to more consternation. Many of us didn't (refused to) participate in the RFC on the basis that it was invalid and was part of a long pattern of POV-pushing from one particular editor (who was at ANI at the same time for the same thing, in addition to edit-warring). As a result of the lack of participation, that editor now believes your close supports his position and has started edit-warring again to impose his anti-LGBT agenda in the article. I'm sure that wasn't your intention. Really, the RFC (which wasn't a valid RFC) should have been closed as "no action" which is exactly the direction the ANI thread was going. Anything you could do to make your close clearer would be much appreciated. St★lwart 23:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Open an RfC in which people are prepared to engage, then. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Days after an invalid one that was validated-by-closure? I'm not sure that would help prevent edit-warring. But thanks for having a look and for the response (here and there). The clarity there should at least work to discourage some disruption. St★lwart 10:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The original was narrow. Ask a better question, it's all good. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

comments unbecoming of an admin

You recently added a comment here to my request for an apology from another user. Your intervention was completely inflammatory and designed only to fan flames. My original posting was 8 days ago! As expected, I did not receive an apology from the user. That, for me, was the end of the matter. Why do you wish to start provoking me?DrChrissy 10:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a common view on Misplaced Pages that forced apologies are worthless, and that demanding one makes you look petty and ridiculous. If that's the reputation you want for yourself go right ahead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I had requested (not demanded) the apology, it was not forthcoming, so I had dropped the issue. The issue now is the inflammatory intervention by JzG - see WP:Mind your own business. Please keep your comments to the subject of the thread.DrChrissy 14:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you should let JzG manage his own talk page and define what he considers appropriate discussion, rather than attempting to do so yourself. If JzG asks me not to post on this topic (or not to post at all) I will of course honor that request. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I like stoats William M. Connolley (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Close this discriminatory anti ferret thread. It is against Talk page guidelines. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's toatally out of order. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually it was not offered as an admin but as an experienced Wikipedian. Your input to our articles on fowl is excellent. Your input to our articles on quackery, not so much. You might also want to read WP:QUACKS. You're welcome to ask for advice if you like, but my immediate thought would be: stick to what you know. You're good at it. Jytdog, on the other hand, is good at holding back the never-ending tide of bullshit from quackery shills. Horses for courses, or perhaps ducks for ponds. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You are repeating a personal attack - again not the sort of behaviour I would expect from an admin. Your original intervention was uncalled for, unwelcome and a personal attack. Please explain your behaviour.DrChrissy 22:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Weasels are cute, too William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You appear unable to distinguish forthright advice from personal attacks. The problem is your end. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is your end. You have suggested that my editing on certain pages is below the standard required by Misplaced Pages. Please provide the diffs to support this personal attack.DrChrissy 22:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

keep digging. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Is that a refusal to provide evidence to substantiate your personal attacks?DrChrissy 22:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's a refusal to play silly buggers with a troll. Bye. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Clearly you are not willing to provide evidence to support your personal attacks.DrChrissy 23:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on the Chanticleer Article

You edited the list of notable people on the Chanticleer article, based on your knowledge of Wikipeida's definition of "notable". Keep in mind, "notable people" can be used to describe those worthy of attention or notice, or those who may be remarkable. Your edit was superfluous, unnecessary, and deleted content carefully compiled by knowledgeable people. This list was not erroneous, why change it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.185.64 (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please revert your closure of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BBC misrepresentation of sources

How is it neutral of the BBC to ignore the majority of what their various interviewees say and go their own sweet way and then to compound this with an actual misrepresentation of content that their interviewees have directly presented? I do not agree with your, I think, judgemental interpretation that I would "shoot myself in the foot" and, in any case, this is not your judgement to make. In effect you shot the thread down with deliberate certainty.

I would be grateful if you could please revert this close. GregKaye 06:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me think about that for a moment.

No. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your jerkiness

You don't go overwriting Talk secnames that I opened, without good reason - and you had no good reason. If you have an opinion to express, that isn't the way to do it. (And I think you already know that, if you know anything from being an admin. But mostly I think you just like to assert your jerkiness, which explains the infamous Internet reputation you have. Why don't you quit the fuck trying to bait me, asshole? IHTS (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A change was justified. Maybe that was a bit much, but your version was outright false. Striking the word was an option which left your original wording in place, but the last change (removal) was the best solution. Too bad you didn't take the high road and do it yourself. These nasty personal attacks are going to be your undoing. It reveals a childish, primitive, and petty mentality. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@IHTS Please provide diffs in messages such as these. I also have great concerns about the editing behaviour of this admin and if I/we/others are to take to ANI, it is so much easier if diffs are readily available. I hope your editing becomes more relaxed soon. DrChrissy 16:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you really don't. I think I may have has as much as one brief exchange with you in the nine years or so since I joined this project. I don't have a lot of patience for quackery apologia. See Misplaced Pages:Lunatic charlatans for evidence that I am not alone in this. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to assert that a study is independent when it isn't. I had good reason. I was making a point. The current title is neutral, yours wasn't because you don't check your bias at the door, mine wasn't because I was deliberately making a point about your advocacy.

Baiting? Not so much. You need to back off form that article, because you have clearly drunk of the kool-aid. Burzynski is the very worst kind of quack: he blamed the parents of one of his victims for stopping her treatment in the final weeks of her life, to spare her the appalling side-effects. Think about that for a minute. He defrauded the family of large sums of money, gave them false hope, inflicted a worthless treatment that made her even sicker, and then blamed them when she died of the disease he wasn't curing. Oh, and he also gave them his two signature lines: misdiagnosing the regression of pseudoprogression as therapeutic effect, and asserting that ischaemic necrosis was the tumour "dying from the inside" due to his treatment, and that this was a good sign.

I don't know you from a hole in the ground, but I know Burzynski rather well. I do not think very much of him, or his cult of personality, or his many internet shills.

So my suggestion to you is: stop advocating for this quack, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators