Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:21, 3 May 2008

Archives

ME/CFS, Basic Income

THIS USER IS ON WIKI-BREAK

In view of the continuous harassment, bad-faith assumptions, forumshopping and sabotage acts by various users, I will be unavailable until further notice. Congratulations, you have won. Misplaced Pages lost.

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 . 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. DanaUllman 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a new look at the article some time in the future, as I am presently working in a different area. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I review

RFAR been declined, and proposed that AN/I review issues, which is an appropriate means of reviewing admin actions (and to be fair, also how an admin approached an issue), lets await views at WP:AN/I#Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions.David Ruben 23:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As the review got archived after several admins critisized your approach, I assume that the article ban is off. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thread indeed now archived after a couple days no further input to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive408#Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions. Agree no support for article ban, and you are free therefore to resume editing - but I would caution you follow the very sensible advice Jossi gave :-) I'll make a note at the COI/N on this. I note SunCreator helping to watch over another article of yours - see User talk:Davidruben#Guido den Broeder and Dutch Wikipedians - so hopefully that helps keep decorum :-) David Ruben 11:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I did not get a chance to paticipate at Vereniging Basisinkomen

I was very busy with other issues and have never commented on a proposed deletion. Before I felt I knew enough to add anything positive the discussion was closed. Ward20 (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, fortunately the article was saved. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Spam warning

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Basic income. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Fram (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The link is in accordance with the guideline, thanks. Please do not single out external links for special treatment because of the editor, and don't randomly call a link spam. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Guido den Broeder)

Hello, Guido den Broeder. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Misplaced Pages. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at ], where you may want to participate. -- Fram (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Page rules"

You don't WP:OWN your user talk page. Furthermore, I have added my posts with the "new section" tab at the top, which is easy to use but does not follow your page rules but the standard Misplaced Pages way, i.e. adding a new section at the bottom. I have now added this section manually (by editing the whole page, instead of adding a new section), but in general I use the new section tab. Fram (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I will ask around what can be done to prevent the new section tab from adding text below the footer. No need to get upset. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You have reverted the page Basic income already four times during the last 24 hours. Further reverts may get you blocked per our WP:3RR policy. Fram (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. You may also notice all the other edits in between; it might help if other, non-knowledgeable users would not interfere so much and find the article's talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, user:SunCreator has testified that 3RR was not violated. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible solution to your talk page problem

I noticed your request and I came up with this if you are interested. Regards. Thingg 16:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried that already. It should work, but doesn't. The footer won't show, at least not in IE7. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What that code did was put the footer below the "Wikimedia" footer. I normally use FF but I'm typing this in IE7 and the footer does show up. It's not the best solution to your problem, but unless you had access to Misplaced Pages's page generation servers, I don't think there's any way to remedy your problem. Just a suggestion. Thingg 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it now, thanks. Hmmm, no, that won't do. :-) Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Assumption

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Types of unemployment. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages. David Ruben 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions dissipate in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Block

Details: 3RR breach with 4 reverts of material 16:39, 1 May 2008, 16:45, 1 May 2008, 17:17, 1 May 2008 & 18:46, 1 May 2008. Additionally flagrant problem of COI reinserting links to your own work in total disregard of concerns raised at WP:COI/N and WP:RfC David Ruben 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I have not violated 3RR. Undoing vandalism (and blocking admin has acknowledged that there was vandalism) does not count. Blocking admin got overruled on previous decision and consensus is against his views on COI. He is bypassing due process and executing his own request while he is an involved user. Please note that my edit is the result of consensus and is still standing; even blocking admin had to agree that the edit is correct. It is a resolved dispute; this block therefore furthermore serves no purpose. Blocking admin has had this problem before, he seems not to understand that a block is not for punishment.

Decline reason:

You did violate 3RR and the reverts you made were not undoing vandalism. Just because an edit is reasonable doesn't mean that its opposite is vandalism. Your diffs below show that you have a quite skewed view of the situation. Let me be clear: do NOT edit war. In fact, I would consider it very unwise for you to ever revert anyone who has removed a reference to one of your writings even once, let alone more than 3 times in a day. Let the sources stand on their own merits and leave it up to others to decide what is done with them. Mangojuice 15:29, 2 May 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.

You are mispresenting my position. I do not claim that reverting a reasonable edit is by definition vandalism. I only claim that three of these removals are vandalism. The reason for that is that we had just reached consensus on the dispute and these new removals were done regardless. Thanks, however, for calling my edits reasonable. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. The edits you were reverting were not vandalism. Period. The fact that you continue to call them vandalism when they are clearly not vandalism goes to indicate that you are out of touch with the situation. Mangojuice 04:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Diffs

inserting them messes up the code

• Acknowledgement of vandalism
• Acknowledgement that edit is correct.

Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - blocked for WP:3RR - 4 edit-links as listed above. Reviewing admin, please note WP:COI/N#Guido_den_Broeder_vs._others and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder for separate (but not unrelated) COI issues. Edits were not removing vandalism, but rather content dispute. As the link you provide to WLU's talk page states "In itself, GDB's adding material that is disputed is a content dispute in so far that GDB was not merely removing obvious vandalism which of course is exempt from 3RR" - so I had not "acknowledged that there was vandalism". Likewise you distort my statement at Talk:Types_of_unemployment in the second edit link provided - my acknowledgement was that theses may indeed sometimes be considered reliable sources - but neither link is any acceptance of any right by you to resinsert content material 4 times. Nor does fact that a thesis may be a reliable source allow an editor to repeatedly add references to their own work and against opinion & cautions of other editors (for which Misplaced Pages:COI#Consequences of ignoring this guideline might apply) - however block was for the 3RR breach as above and likewise WLU warned of 3 reverts, not of vandalism, nor of whether a thesis is a RS or not. David Ruben 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  Additional point, yes I am well aware of what a block is not for punishment but to prevent ongoing disruption - breach of 3RR is disruption and hence blocked for that. Fram had added a separate warning (above) over breaching 3RR on 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC). The RfC discussion (re COI and general behaviour issues) is on hold until after this block, so those issues can continue to be discussed at later time. David Ruben 13:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  The warning you gave to WLU was equally pointless. The dispute no longer existed, and there was no disruption going on that needed to be stopped. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of fact - my third revert was to remove just Guido den Broeder's work as a conflict of interest, which is the content of my edit summary: "rv - undo as an ongoing conflict of interest." Note that in the diff you can see that Kooiman's thesis remains per the RSN discussion and later I supplement it with a journal citation. Your fourth revert has an edit summary of "Undid revision 209499154 by Robotje (talk) - vandalism)" - ignoring that this material is removed due to COI concerns, not random vandalism. Calling something vandalism does not make it vandalism, particularly when COI issues have been expressed.

David Ruben's warning was not pointless, it was fair - both of us had three reverts, therefore I deserved to be warned. I stopped reverting because I knew I was at the border of the 3RR and it was obvious that you would continue reverting. The dispute still exists, but I am waiting for the outcome of the RFC. Reverting back and forth is dumb, and a final opinion is doubtless forthcoming. I'll be speaking to Relata refero again, since s/he seems to have expertise and is uninvolved. Pending his comment, if he states that he sees no issue, then I am satisfied because an individual with no COI has reviewed your change. If he says that it is not a good source, or that there is a better one, then I will replace it. I appreciate that David Ruben is being scrupulously fair in that he is warning me as well as blocking you - totally appropriate to the policy. The dispute still exists, I'm trying to work within policy to settle it. WLU (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about a different dispute here, one that I was not aware of. If you are doubting the reliability of my publication, that needs to be discussed. I would not have reverted had I known you had such a doubt. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit summary of "rv - undo as an ongoing conflict of interest." seems pretty clear. Your RFC contains extensive discussion of conflict of interest issues, as does the COIN noticeboard. I think my reasoning is very obvious since I used the words conflict of interest in my edit summary. WLU (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

COI by itself is not a dispute, so removing the reference for that reason alone is wrong regardless of what you think of my conduct, and I am perfectly within my right to revert that as many times as needed. Now that you are questioning the reliability of the publication the situation is different, and if you were to remove it - with the text - on that ground until we have a consensus I would not protest. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)" I am perfectly within my right to revert that as many times as needed"...actually, no you are not and that's why you're blocked. 3RR applies when it is a content dispute. COI is a content dispute. It's not vandalism because you disagree with it. You don't own the page, so you have no "right" to revert. Writing the publication does not mean you have sole control over its use and can put it where you see fit or exert sole control over its use - in fact, it means you have less right to insert it, because of the conflict of interest concern. I never questioned the reliability of your publication, though I did of Kooiman's thesis (and still do, I think citing a thesis is a terrible idea, but I am satisfied with RR's statement that it's OK). I expressed concerns over you citing your own work because of COI concerns (and also of writing and linking to an organization you are the treasurer of, which also places you in COI). If it's a content dispute, if it's anything but 'shitshitshitpoopfuckfuckshitpoop' or something similarly blatant, obvious or unquestionable, then you violate the 3RR by reverting 4 times. Claiming that you didn't realize my removal was based on COI concerns is somewhat staggering to me given the words 'conflict of interest' appear in my edit summary. I don't even know what to say to this, but I do now question why you appear to think your own publication is unreliable - otherwise why would you accede to its removal? Since you now seem to think it is OK to remove a publication until we have consensus, I am now very, very tempted to remove "A family of market transaction functions" because of my ongoing COI concerns, but that would be dickish. If you truly, truly do not understand the issues that are being raised around you by many editors, please, please consider requesting a mentor, otherwise I am quite certain you will run into further conflict in the future that will not help you or wikipedia. WLU (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You have misread what I said. It was perfectly clear to me that you removed because of COI. That is, however, not a valid reason for removal. A lack of content consensus is. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And no, now that you have withdrawn your reliability concern, you cannot remove again, for that would again be vandalism. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

Three comments - would any of the following work to substitute, or as a second reference to the statement currently justified by your own work?

The search was for "A family of market transaction functions", with quotations, on google scholar, in case the above does not work. Note that I have not removed, and will not remove the information from types of unemployment despite your block. The process should determine if COI is an issue, not who is blocked.

Would this journal article work as a substitute or a second citation? If a second citation explicitly backs your point I am willing to assume good faith that COI is not an issue.

Note that this is the result of a search on google (not google scholar) for the document. Notice that wikipedia is the first result. This is why COI is a concern, because placing an item on wikipedia can give it disproportionate attention, which is why wikipedia is used hugely as a vehicle for self-promotion and why there are policies on COI. In this case, there also is at least one site that has mirrored wikipedia, giving it even more prominence, which is another reason why people are concerned over self-promotion at wikipedia, mirroring is extensive. Again, any inclusion on wikipedia gives a HUGE leap in prominence because of wikipedia's global visibility.

I bring this to your attention because it is an effort to resolve the issue civilly and without dispute. This is the second-easiest way I can think of to clear up the COI concern on the ToU page (the first being asking RR). And since it is easy I don't mind doing it.

My final comment - you should never, ever, ever place this page on mainspace yourself. Submit it for review. It's the second link to show up on google searching for the title of the book/paper.

As an aside to the contents of that page right now, there are some coatrack and self-promotion issues in the paragraph on your illness with ME and a redlink to the deleted article ME/CVS Vereniging. Redlinks are usually included only when there is a reasonable expectation the article will be created shortly, and since that article has been through an AFD discussion it should not be re-created until notability has clearly been established through new sources. Finally, my opinion on the notability is that the article does not pass WP:N or WP:PEOPLE and just about everything requires citation. Notability could be established by the FIDE Master wins (though given 4.5K worth of FIDE masters, I think that's equivocal), but that would have to be sourced, and the chess wikiproject would probably be best to clear that this is sufficiently notable to merit a page based on the notability of that accomplishment. WLU (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you are planning on having your own page reviewed to be placed in mainspace, you might as well add and fill out an infobox for a person; there are more specific ones, but none leap out at me as directly applicable, though I have only scanned the list. WLU (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, WLU. I have no great desire to see an article about myself on Misplaced Pages and was certainly not intending to create one in mainspace. (The selection criteria for chess players are quite strict here and I would not qualify on that ground, but rather as a scientist.)

My method was applied to the AMO-K model, while Kooiman's method was entered into a rival model of the Dutch economy shortly thereafter. It could serve as an additional source. Note though that there is also an article mentioned as main article to this paragraph, which needs some sorting out. The fact that the google score for the present reference is low not surprising since it's from before the internet and most references are to the applications - model and other - which are much more interesting to the wider audience. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if WP:PROF was cleared, and would require independent sources anyway. WLU (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of those, I'm afraid. But let's not go there. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

THIS USER IS ON WIKI-BREAK

In view of the continuous harassment, bad-faith assumptions, forumshopping and sabotage acts by various users, I will be unavailable until further notice. Congratulations, you have won. Misplaced Pages lost.