Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:25, 7 July 2008

Archives

ME/CFS, Basic Income

Template:HEC userbox 2

Da Costa's syndrome

Guido den Broeder; Thankyou for your note about other editors questions of synonym usage on 30-5-08; I have responded to your suggestion on 30-5-08 here and on 1-6-08 here Posturewriter (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

You're welcome. The general rule is that diagnoses should only be considered equivalent (never: 'the same') if there is significant consensus about it among experts. Note that the WHO classification (ICD10, the ICD9-CM is not a WHO product) is often misinterpreted. If two diagnoses are listed under one number, this does, in contrast to what many people think, not imply that they are equivalent, just that they belong to the same group. I practice, two diagnoses being equivalent is extremely rare. What usually happens is that old diagnoses get either combined or split. For instance, while Da Costa's syndrome cases are always Effort syndrome cases, Effort syndrome is not always Da Costa's. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder; Thankyou for your comments about Da Costa’s Syndrome on your talk page on the paragraph of 1-6-08 just above. I agree, and have responded to them on the Da Costa talk page on 8-6-08 here to avoid duplicationPosturewriter (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

ANI notices

Hey, thanks for leaving those ANI notices! I mentioned it, hoping someone else would take up the unfinished business, and it is nice to see that happening. Have you had a chance to look at any chess articles recently? Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I have little time for content this month, but I plan to return to editing and will look at some chess articles, too. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: your rfc

If sanctions or blocks (preventative measures) are applied for those issues noted in the RFC, then it is closed and has served its purpose. It's to indicate you were blocked (after the creation of the RFC and) for the same concerns expressed in the RFC - it doesn't necessarily mean you are still blocked or were a blocked as a result of the RFC. If the same problematic conduct were to continue, then it would go to the next step - arbitration. Does that clear it up for you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was, however, not blocked for the concerns expressed in the RfC. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I section about you

I have started the discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Complicated legal threat situation about your situation. Fram (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In light of the information presented there, I have indefinitely blocked you on this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Roadcreature (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Some explanation is in order here. I have not made a legal '''threat''', but I have '''announced''' legal action against Oscar by email, as nl:guidelines require in such a case. It is customary on nl:Misplaced Pages that during a legal procedure, the filing side is blocked, with seems reasonable to me. On en:Misplaced Pages, there does not exist a similar conflict. I apologize for briefly addressing the nl:Misplaced Pages situation on Oscar's en:talk page, but this was a one-time necessity because I could not post on nl:Misplaced Pages since I was blocked by him (in contrast to here, a blocked user's talk page can't be edited by the user), and for legal reasons, I had to give him a final chance. Now that the legal trajectory has started, I will not post anything relating to it until its conclusion. I would like to hear a second opinion, since it does not seem logical to me that I would be blocked on en:Misplaced Pages for something related only to nl:Misplaced Pages. However, if this is the custom here, then so be it. Protecting my legal rights and good name far outweighs my desire to contribute to en:Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 09:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Some explanation is in order here. I have not made a legal '''threat''', but I have '''announced''' legal action against Oscar by email, as nl:guidelines require in such a case. It is customary on nl:Misplaced Pages that during a legal procedure, the filing side is blocked, with seems reasonable to me. On en:Misplaced Pages, there does not exist a similar conflict. I apologize for briefly addressing the nl:Misplaced Pages situation on Oscar's en:talk page, but this was a one-time necessity because I could not post on nl:Misplaced Pages since I was blocked by him (in contrast to here, a blocked user's talk page can't be edited by the user), and for legal reasons, I had to give him a final chance. Now that the legal trajectory has started, I will not post anything relating to it until its conclusion. I would like to hear a second opinion, since it does not seem logical to me that I would be blocked on en:Misplaced Pages for something related only to nl:Misplaced Pages. However, if this is the custom here, then so be it. Protecting my legal rights and good name far outweighs my desire to contribute to en:Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 09:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Some explanation is in order here. I have not made a legal '''threat''', but I have '''announced''' legal action against Oscar by email, as nl:guidelines require in such a case. It is customary on nl:Misplaced Pages that during a legal procedure, the filing side is blocked, with seems reasonable to me. On en:Misplaced Pages, there does not exist a similar conflict. I apologize for briefly addressing the nl:Misplaced Pages situation on Oscar's en:talk page, but this was a one-time necessity because I could not post on nl:Misplaced Pages since I was blocked by him (in contrast to here, a blocked user's talk page can't be edited by the user), and for legal reasons, I had to give him a final chance. Now that the legal trajectory has started, I will not post anything relating to it until its conclusion. I would like to hear a second opinion, since it does not seem logical to me that I would be blocked on en:Misplaced Pages for something related only to nl:Misplaced Pages. However, if this is the custom here, then so be it. Protecting my legal rights and good name far outweighs my desire to contribute to en:Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 09:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer

• Requests for unblock