Roadcreature (talk | contribs) |
DanaUllman (talk | contribs) Feedback requested |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop assuming [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|ownership of articles]]{{#if:Vereniging Basisinkomen| such as [[:Vereniging Basisinkomen]]}}. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit wars]] and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|block]] from editing. {{#if:Consensus of opinion at [[Talk:Vereniging Basisinkomen]] and [[Wikipedia:COI/N#Guido_den_Broeder_vs._others]] (note you can not excuse yourself from working in a community by declining to listen) is that you do have a COI and article, being substantially as you initially wrote, therefore should be so tagged. Against this background, your repeated removal of COI tag is disruptive to wikipedia and consitutes tenacious edit warring. Given the [[WP:COI/N]] consideration, I now notify you that you should consider yourself community [[WP:Banned]] from editing the [[Vereniging Basisinkomen]] article or making anything other than entirely civil, AFG, polite comments on its talk pages; else expect progressive blocks. [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 13:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)|Consensus of opinion at [[Talk:Vereniging Basisinkomen]] and [[Wikipedia:COI/N#Guido_den_Broeder_vs._others]] (note you can not excuse yourself from working in a community by declining to listen) is that you do have a COI and article, being substantially as you initially wrote, therefore should be so tagged. Against this background, your repeated removal of COI tag is disruptive to wikipedia and consitutes tenacious edit warring. Given the [[WP:COI/N]] consideration, I now notify you that you should consider yourself community [[WP:Banned]] from editing the [[Vereniging Basisinkomen]] article or making anything other than entirely civil, AFG, polite comments on its talk pages; else expect progressive blocks. [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 13:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)|}} <!-- Template:uw-own3 --> |
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop assuming [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|ownership of articles]]{{#if:Vereniging Basisinkomen| such as [[:Vereniging Basisinkomen]]}}. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit wars]] and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|block]] from editing. {{#if:Consensus of opinion at [[Talk:Vereniging Basisinkomen]] and [[Wikipedia:COI/N#Guido_den_Broeder_vs._others]] (note you can not excuse yourself from working in a community by declining to listen) is that you do have a COI and article, being substantially as you initially wrote, therefore should be so tagged. Against this background, your repeated removal of COI tag is disruptive to wikipedia and consitutes tenacious edit warring. Given the [[WP:COI/N]] consideration, I now notify you that you should consider yourself community [[WP:Banned]] from editing the [[Vereniging Basisinkomen]] article or making anything other than entirely civil, AFG, polite comments on its talk pages; else expect progressive blocks. [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 13:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)|Consensus of opinion at [[Talk:Vereniging Basisinkomen]] and [[Wikipedia:COI/N#Guido_den_Broeder_vs._others]] (note you can not excuse yourself from working in a community by declining to listen) is that you do have a COI and article, being substantially as you initially wrote, therefore should be so tagged. Against this background, your repeated removal of COI tag is disruptive to wikipedia and consitutes tenacious edit warring. Given the [[WP:COI/N]] consideration, I now notify you that you should consider yourself community [[WP:Banned]] from editing the [[Vereniging Basisinkomen]] article or making anything other than entirely civil, AFG, polite comments on its talk pages; else expect progressive blocks. [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 13:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)|}} <!-- Template:uw-own3 --> |
||
:I am not claiming ownership of any article; in fact I have explained over and over again that users cannot own articles. The tag you mention is totally out of place since it suggests that WLU has a COI, which is not so. I consider this a bad-faith ruling and will therefore not accept it. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder#top|talk]]) 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
:I am not claiming ownership of any article; in fact I have explained over and over again that users cannot own articles. The tag you mention is totally out of place since it suggests that WLU has a COI, which is not so. I consider this a bad-faith ruling and will therefore not accept it. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder#top|talk]]) 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Potassium dichromate (homeopathic Kali bic) == |
|||
You previously commented at this article [[Potassium dichromate]]. I am curious if you have any thoughts on the dialogue that is taking place here now [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Potassium_dichromate#Frass.2FChest_Paper_was_archived]. You will be able to get a better sense of it all by reading what Baegis has chosen to archive. It seems that some editors are insisting that it is not enough that a study be published in a leading medical journal ("Chest") or conducted at a leading university hospital (University of Vienna Hospital) or be a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial or have substantially significant results (P<0.0001) on primary and secondary outcome measures or even be notable enough to have two other universities presently plan to replicate it. And yet, I am attacked for being a POV-pusher. Please judge for yourself, and please condemn me if you think it is warranted. [[User:DanaUllman|DanaUllman]]<sup>[[User talk:DanaUllman|Talk]]</sup> 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:37, 25 April 2008
This user is on Wiki-break. |
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’." |
ME/CFS Wikiproject
Are you in any condition right now to help set up a wikiproject? The temporary home is here. One question is what name to give it. At the moment of the proposed names, I'm actually leaning towards Post-Infectious Project (suggested by Jagra) as that would give us clearer claim to illnesses that may be special, well-identified cases or subtypes of ME. -- Strangelv (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Strangelv, I'm afraid not. My health is very poor at the moment. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Vereniging Basisinkomen
An editor has nominated Vereniging Basisinkomen, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser
Stifle, Meta is refusing to perform a checkuser.[1] What do I do now? User:Jorrit-H has not withdrawn his statement. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Vereniging Basisinkomen
Hi,
Could you remove the COI-tag from Vereniging Basisinkomen (user:WLU who wrote the present text has no COI there) since a one-purpose account is editwarring over this? Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Same one-purpose account is now stalking me and starting to make disruptive edits like [2]. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please see User talk:Stifle/wizard/dispute. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Vereniging Basisinkomen. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Consensus of opinion at Talk:Vereniging Basisinkomen and Wikipedia:COI/N#Guido_den_Broeder_vs._others (note you can not excuse yourself from working in a community by declining to listen) is that you do have a COI and article, being substantially as you initially wrote, therefore should be so tagged. Against this background, your repeated removal of COI tag is disruptive to wikipedia and consitutes tenacious edit warring. Given the WP:COI/N consideration, I now notify you that you should consider yourself community WP:Banned from editing the Vereniging Basisinkomen article or making anything other than entirely civil, AFG, polite comments on its talk pages; else expect progressive blocks. David Ruben Talk 13:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am not claiming ownership of any article; in fact I have explained over and over again that users cannot own articles. The tag you mention is totally out of place since it suggests that WLU has a COI, which is not so. I consider this a bad-faith ruling and will therefore not accept it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Potassium dichromate (homeopathic Kali bic)
You previously commented at this article Potassium dichromate. I am curious if you have any thoughts on the dialogue that is taking place here now [3]. You will be able to get a better sense of it all by reading what Baegis has chosen to archive. It seems that some editors are insisting that it is not enough that a study be published in a leading medical journal ("Chest") or conducted at a leading university hospital (University of Vienna Hospital) or be a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial or have substantially significant results (P<0.0001) on primary and secondary outcome measures or even be notable enough to have two other universities presently plan to replicate it. And yet, I am attacked for being a POV-pusher. Please judge for yourself, and please condemn me if you think it is warranted. DanaUllmanTalk 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)