| Revision as of 08:57, 7 July 2008 editFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,196 edits →AN/I section about you: blocked← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:08, 7 July 2008 edit undoRoadcreature (talk | contribs)4,347 edits →AN/I section about youNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| :In light of the information presented there, I have indefinitely blocked you on this project. ] ] 08:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) | :In light of the information presented there, I have indefinitely blocked you on this project. ] ] 08:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::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). Now that the legal trajectory has started, I will not post anything relating to it until its conclusion. ] (]) 09:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:08, 7 July 2008
| User | Talk | Edits | Pinboard | Drafts | Articles | Projects |
 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’." |
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)
| Martin Luther King: "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." |
User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer
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)
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)
- 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). Now that the legal trajectory has started, I will not post anything relating to it until its conclusion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)