Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:17, 8 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. Nor did the RfC conclude that there was a 'problematic conduct' by me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your block log indicates "further reinserting links to own work despite repeated cautions to take care over COI" Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, but that was not an outcome of the RfC. Furthermore, this edit by me was based on consensus reached and is still standing. Note that the dispute was already resolved when I got blocked, that admin blocking admitted he misinterpreted the guideline on sources, and that I had not violated WP:3RR. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:17, 8 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:

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, including Oscar himself. By contacting Oscar I was merely following policy. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:01, 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:

Reviewing admin states that I would not have been blocked had I not brought this dispute to en:Misplaced Pages. I have provided evidence that I was not the one who brought this dispute here (see above). Note that, though brought here by User:Oscar, the dispute does not relate to en:Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, note the objections to this block by experienced admins at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Complicated_legal_threat_situation, that I did not in fact make a threat, and finally that no legal action is brought against Misplaced Pages.

Decline reason:

You appear to state above that you have initiated legal proceedings against another user on this Misplaced Pages, or are about to. WP:NLT states that "If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked." Accordingly, you will remain blocked until the proceedings are resolved. —  Sandstein  12:59, 8 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.

The guideline pertains only to en:Misplaced Pages disputes, which this one is not. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:38, 8 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:

As above. Second reviewing admin has not addressed my arguments and doesn't seem to grasp the situation. In addition, there is no consensus to block at ANI. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There actually is consensus at WP:ANI about blocking you. One editor proposed a community ban, which is different, and that hasn't gained consensus. But every user commenting there so far has approved of blocking you. Furthermore, whether or not Oscar or anyone else made comments about the situation doesn't matter: you brought the legal conflict here when you made a threat against Oscar on en.wikipedia. This sort of out-of-channels threat is exactly why users are blocked for legal threats. If the legal situation becomes completely resolved (including if you drop all the complaints and all threats to re-initiate them), you may request unblocking again. However, if you make any further requests before that, I expect your talk page will be protected against abuse of the unblock template. Mangojuice 17:24, 8 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.

Comment. WP:NLT states "However, we require that you do not edit Misplaced Pages until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." - i.e. no specification of which language but of Misplaced Pages as a whole seems implied. Obviously most editors are registered with just one xx:Misplaced Pages and so blocking applies in just one domain. Situation of multiple xx:Misplaced Pages users and in particular issues surrounding SUL (Single User Login) seem somewhat unclear at present.

Use of one wiki to contact a user because one is blocked in another does seem to be involving users in the second language (if nl's policy asks that you contact an admin, surely there is some direct email to admin/sysops/office and it is not implied that you jump to another language for this ?) Using en:wikipedia to contact other editors and to do so in dutch (that the rest of us can't follow) a poor option. A comment such as "nl policy asks that I email you but can't see the address for this (sorry I am unable to clarify this there). Obviously we can't discuss issues here in en:wikipedia and I wont contact you further on this here", or some similar wording in English that specifically makes no direct mention of any action at nl (whether arbcom, blocks, comments or threats that might be interpreted by others as legal) would, IMHO, not be grounds for a en:block (unless SUL issues so require). But as I can't read Dutch comments here, can't follow nl:arbcom discussion at all and am not familiar with central WikiMedia policies, I'm unable to respond directly to latest unblock request. David Ruben 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

@Mangojuice: You have the order of events wrong. There was no legal conflict yet when I contacted Oscar on his en:talk. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC) @David: My email privileges at nl:Misplaced Pages were taken away by Oscar. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer