Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roadcreature (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 14 December 2007 (→Please read). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

ME/CFS

The historic basis of myalgic encephalomyelitis

• http://www.investinme.org/Documents/PDFdocuments/Byron%20Hyde%20Little%20Red%20Book%20for%20www.investinme.org.pdf
• http://www.investinme.org/Documents/PDFdocuments/Byron%20Hyde%20Definition%20Booklet.pdf
• http://www.wicfs-me.org/Pdf%20Files/Byron%20Hyde%20-%20Complexities%20of%20Diagnosis.pdf

ME is essentially a vasculitis. It was defined as such by the Harvard neurologist Charles Poser, Hyde believes this based on SPECT and autopsy, so does Spence and many, many others. Children did die at Akureyri, they were autopsied. The same happened with one death in Newcastle of an ME patient. ALL had vascular defects.

I don't intend to get involved in the debate but you seem such a decent person I thought I'd pass on these references in case you didn't know them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.100.99 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have these references, as well as Byron Hyde's 1992 book. Guido den Broeder 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent!!! I have just been put on midodrine. I feel ten years younger- amazing drug. BUT of course what is right for me may not be right for someone else. Everyone is different. Something Byron knows, very, very well. My own physician is more local than Canada I should add. I wish you luck with wikipedia. It is indeed very, very maoist. I have no time for it really. Yes I did nearly die climbing in the Tien Shan etc. Myalgic EncephalomyelITIS. It is a vascular problem.

88.108.25.209 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)alpinist

Hi Guido, good work on the recent contributions, especially regarding the controversial history. - Tekaphor 10:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Raggedy Ann Syndrome

The reference you provided for the term "Raggedy Ann Syndrome" was broken. I could not find a direct reference to Dr Cheney on PubMed. Failing Hyde, is there any other source that we could use to document this archaic term? JFW | T@lk 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember giving this reference, but there is a chapter(?) titled thus in Hilary Johnson, "Osler's Web: Inside the Labyrinth of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic", ISBN 0595348742 . Guido den Broeder 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a page number, so we can actually cite this? JFW | T@lk 11:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. Follow the link: pages 24-38. Guido den Broeder 12:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

ME/CFS

Hi Guido, I am interested in any references you might have on 'The immune system acts like there is ongoing inflammation'. The essential fatty acid work i recently added to Immune Dysfunction discussion , supports this and I want now to look more closely at immune system findings. Regards Jagra 09:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re ME/CVS Vereniging AfD

You may want to add some policy-based reasons to your !vote. If you don't, the closing admin will have to disregard it. S/he will also have to take into account the reasons you gave (which amount to a statement that this was a bad faith nomination). The latter will, no doubt, be interpreted as a personal attack on the nominator if left in place, weakening any otherwise acceptable arguments. Avb 00:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Guido den Broeder 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-oxidants

Hi Guido, a certain editor is reverting edits regarding anti-oxidants in CFS on spurious grounds. Firstly as unreliable source here which I had overturned on the WP RSN here, and now as Fringe theory, which I sure could be easily overturned, as the hypothesis is and in some cases has been tested. Rather than continue his edit war I have posted a Discussion on anti-oxidants and seek a consensus on the Talk page for an replacement section. Jagra 03:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

ME/CVS Vereniging

Hi Guido

The pages can be found at:

• User:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging

• User talk:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging

Hope that's ok. Best, Neil ☎ 00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil! Regards, Guido den Broeder 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

CFS article

Please stop reverting the edits in the alternative medicine section for no reason. You state in the edit log that revert is "per consensus". However the consensus was to remove the poor references and there was no objection (including from you). If you have a valid objection, please use the discussion page. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your personal uninformed opinion does not a consencus make. You have been a disruptive factor since the day you joined Misplaced Pages, never making any constructive edit or remark, insulting all other editors as you go, filling the cfs talk page with endless rubbish. This will have to stop one way or the other. For starters, you and I shall not converse again, and anything new that you put on my talk page will be deleted without comment. My time is too valuable. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read

Here are some policies to read, and here's why I think it's a good idea to read them. I'm trying to be as civil as possible, without being patronizing. You may take my advice or leave it, as I know that I've not done much to engender good faith. Still, I think there's merit to it in your case.

• WP:SPIDER - you appear to be slowly escalating your comments, in many cases in complete disregard to other editors. Or if not your comments, then the tension on the talk pages you're involved on. This leads me to...
• WP:GIANTDICK - yeah, it's a humorous essay, but it makes an excellent point. By walking the line between being a giant dick and actually working with the community, what are you accomplishing? I see one of three things happening with your current approach - either you are eventually banned for disrupting the community, you eventually leave wikipedia in disgust, proclaiming it is broken, or you have a long, conflict-filled time here and accomplish very little. There is a fourth way.
• WP:POINT - your 'ignore list' comments are just silly. If you're really ignoring people, just ignore them. By leaving passive-aggressive comments on talk pages, what do you really do besides alienate more editors?
  • WP:TEND - here's a follow-up. Please pull back from the brink. I'm not saying you're the only one who is doing so, but 'everyone else is doing it' is not a reason to ignore policy.

Here is an essay I wrote for noobs to wikipedia. It's meant to be a take on what the process of being a contributor should be. Have a read through it if you'd like. It's idealistic, and meant to show all the places I've gone wrong and why it's made my life and editing more difficult. I think you're getting a skewed perspective by focusing only on one perspective, on a limited subject (CFS). There's more out there, and there's a better way of doing things.

You obviously feel very strongly about CFS. You obviously wish to contribute towards the articles and insert information that is reconciled with your point of view, that of an advocate for those with CFS. It's a noble goal, and one that is potentially valuable. But your current approach is polarizing people against you. The result is, people begin to reflexively oppose themselves to your point because of who you are, not what you say. Misplaced Pages is a community, and by disrupting the community, you make your own goals harder to reach, if not flat out impossible.

You don't have to listen to me, but I say this because I think your ideal is a good one, while if your method is not. There is room on wikipedia for notable minority positions, but it takes care to get them represented adequately on the page. Further, by coming across as an inflexible extreme position, by insisting on being right rather than being heard, your position also becomes less palatable to the long-term editors who can help you. You want Jfdwolff and MastCell helping you, not pushing back. They know what they're doing, and they can show you how the point of view you wish to represent (that of advocate for those who feel ignored by the mainstream I believe) can be fruitfully integrated into pages rather than continually pushed out.

That's my take on things, and my unsolicited advice. Thanks,

WLU (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks WLU, I know you mean well. However, you are making some assumptions here that aren't true.

First of all, I am not here as a patient advocate, but as a scientist. My goal is to share knowledge and information, nothing else.

Second, you assume that I have options. Unfortunately however, I only have energy for about two productive hours per day. Therefore, I cannot be as patient with users like Sciencewatcher as for instance Jagra is, which is really a pity because that would be my true nature. It is, however, physically impossible for me to match SW's talk productions. (As for JFW: no, I really do not want his help, I want him to step back.) Furthermore, I have to avoid stress on doctor's orders. So if people are continuously attacking me personally, and nobody is going to do something about it, ignoring them is the only way that can keep me here. This has nothing to do with only pointing the finger at the other party. It is to protect what health I have left, which has to come first. It so happens that this is an adviced policy in these cases, to avoid (further) disruption, where the directive on shunning clearly states (and I agree) that it is polite to let the other users know that you are ignoring someone; hence the messages which will of course be needed mostly in the beginning.

Third, you assume that I consider Misplaced Pages the place where I want to be and thrive. This is not so, it is merely one of the places that I visit, and in fact I consider Misplaced Pages, the social experiment, a complete failure that will probably get a much better successor soon.

In the light of the above, I'd be interested to hear if you have any different advice. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Block

.

As already explained, I have not violated any rule. The reverts related to 3 different users with 3 different motives (so 3RR does not even come into the picture) and were to protect the article from vandalism against the prevailing concensus among all constructive users. Basically, I was temporarily stepping in for the admin who had forgotten to check whether the issue was resolved. I continued to make this admin aware of the problem. Perhaps there was a better way, but there was no malintent on my part, I acted on behalf of Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, any block (of me or another user, I can think of several who have violated multiple rules) is unwarranted since the article is protected. Blocks have only one purpose: to protect Misplaced Pages from harm. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC) With regard to the extension, it concerns me gravely that you only look at my reponse and not at the behaviour of the users who caused it. There have been many complaints about their behaviour by many good users all over the place. This falls under the header of blaming the victim. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's closer to wikilawyering and you are misinterpreting the 3RR (see here. WLU (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR applies to one editor's action on a given page, not number of reverts against each specific editor one is in disagreement with. Hence if 5 other editors each singlely revert once, your 5 reverts across this group of editors counts as 5 reverts and is blockable for disrupting the community consensus - use normal dispute resolution in such cases (talk page, RfC, relevant wikiproject etc etc) which will bring in a range of other uninvolved editors to help give impartial advice. But revert warring is in itelf bad and will not achieve your ultimate aim of trying to help improve an article (indeed see WP:1RR that some choose to follow). David Ruben 20:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)