User talk:Roadcreature: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:18, 7 July 2008 editSam Korn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users22,849 edits decline unblock request← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:01, 7 July 2008 edit undoRoadcreature (talk \| contribs)4,347 edits →AN/I section about you Next edit →
Line 40:		Line 40:
	{{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=] very clearly states that you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages while you are attempting legal action. Had you not brought this dispute to the English Misplaced Pages, you would not have been blocked. As you have made use of the English Misplaced Pages to evade the nl. block, I completely agree that the block here is correct. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)}}		{{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=] very clearly states that you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages while you are attempting legal action. Had you not brought this dispute to the English Misplaced Pages, you would not have been blocked. As you have made use of the English Misplaced Pages to evade the nl. block, I completely agree that the block here is correct. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)}}

			:I did not not bring this dispute to en:Misplaced Pages, thanks. It was brought here quite a while earlier by several users from nl:Misplaced Pages. By contacting Oscar I was merely following policy. ] (]) 11:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:01, 7 July 2008

User

Archives

Prof. Anton Komaroff (2007): "None of the participants in creating the 1988 CFS case definition and name ever expressed any concern that it might TRIVIALISE the illness. We were insensitive to that possibility and WE WERE WRONG."

Prof. Malcolm Hooper (2007): "The simplest test for M.E. is just to say to the patient ‘stand over there for ten minutes’."

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. Nor did the RfC conclude that there was a 'problematic conduct' by me. 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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

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. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:NLT very clearly states that you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages while you are attempting legal action. Had you not brought this dispute to the English Misplaced Pages, you would not have been blocked. As you have made use of the English Misplaced Pages to evade the nl. block, I completely agree that the block here is correct. Sam Korn 10:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I did not not bring this dispute to en:Misplaced Pages, thanks. It was brought here quite a while earlier by several users from nl:Misplaced Pages. By contacting Oscar I was merely following policy. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther King: "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see."

User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer

Revision as of 10:18, 7 July 2008 editSam Korn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users22,849 edits decline unblock request← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:01, 7 July 2008 edit undoRoadcreature (talk \| contribs)4,347 edits →AN/I section about you Next edit →
Line 40:		Line 40:
	{{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=] very clearly states that you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages while you are attempting legal action. Had you not brought this dispute to the English Misplaced Pages, you would not have been blocked. As you have made use of the English Misplaced Pages to evade the nl. block, I completely agree that the block here is correct. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)}}		{{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=] very clearly states that you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages while you are attempting legal action. Had you not brought this dispute to the English Misplaced Pages, you would not have been blocked. As you have made use of the English Misplaced Pages to evade the nl. block, I completely agree that the block here is correct. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)}}

			:I did not not bring this dispute to en:Misplaced Pages, thanks. It was brought here quite a while earlier by several users from nl:Misplaced Pages. By contacting Oscar I was merely following policy. ] (]) 11:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)