Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:25, 16 January 2008

Archives

ME/CFS

Useful essays

• WLU's essay for beginners
• Misplaced Pages:Shunning

User:Orangemarlin on Christmas Eve, 2007: "I think giving good faith is not getting us far. I think we should execute a few of these trolls first, and if a couple of innocent bystanders get shot too, so be it."

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)

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 <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ine_Review 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)

Conversion disorder

Not entirely sure what to make of some of the recent tags added to conversion disorder. In collaboration with a colleague we are working on improving this article but due to time pressures on us both this is a slow process. I will try over the next few weeks to improve the references and have done so on the first couple of paras already. One thing I can tell you from experience about the tag though, is that the other editors involved in this page will not appreciate the edits of any "expert" we can lay our hands on. Quite the contrary. So I am at something of a loss of how to proceed. Bringing in more academic "expert" input doesn't seem to help much when the opponents of the notion of conversion disorder reject the concept that it exists or that anyone should listen to neurologists, psychiatrists, or psychologists. So what are we going to do? --PaulWicks (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait and see, I guess. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Could I be of assistance?

Regarding your query on the admin talk noticeboard, could I be of assistance? Addhoc (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, yes. Can I mail you? Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, sorry for not replying earlier. Addhoc (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy talk

Guido, my discussion yesteday with Art Carlson about individualise trials has been deleted or mysteriously disappeared from the talk page -- do you perchance know why and where it has gone? thanks ;-0 Peter morrell 13:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. This seems to happen a lot lately. It should still be in the page history. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Anthon01 has restored all of it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Guido, I saw it come back! cheers Peter morrell 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 14 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vereniging Basisinkomen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 02:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

This is the second revert that you have implemented in Fibromyalgia in under 24 hrs. If you have issue with the RFC opinion, then I suggest you open the topic up for Arbitration. Otherwise, please stop reverting the consensus of the wiki community. Djma12 14:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing text that constitutes a misquotation of sources is mandatory and has priority over WP:3RR. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is your opinion that the text is a misquotation. That's why we have WP:3RR. OrangeMarlin 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There are a few specific exceptions for 3RR. This isn't one of them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Misquotation makes Misplaced Pages vulnerable to legal action. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Be very careful in mentioning legal action. Legal threats are not tolerated and will get you blocked without further warning. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not making a threat here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people consider comments like yours above veiled legal threats. There's some room for dispute there, but it's best to avoid such remarks all around. - Revolving Bugbear 23:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be rather silly, since I am not the author that got misquoted. I am merely explaining why it is important to remove misquotations. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, be careful. I understood what you meant, but your wording was a bit vague and could have been interpreted as a violation of WP:LEGAL. This was more of an FYI to be careful about such statements - I would have given you an official warning template if I felt you were making a threat. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've declined your 3RR notification which you filed here. User:Djma12 reverted three times in 24 hours, which does not constitute a breach of WP:3RR. Please take the time to note the exceptions to the 3RR listed at its policy page.

I encourage everyone involved in this dispute to find a way to resolve this without reverting. Please, take it to talk. - Revolving Bugbear 18:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is, that User:Djma12 is convinced that it has already been settled on talk. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to consider some of the other steps of the dispute resolution process. - Revolving Bugbear 20:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war is in progress. You're brushing up against the 3RR yourself. Careful. Cool Hand Luke 18:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia content discussion from WQA

Copied in part from Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Orangemarlin (2)

Guido: I read over the RFC discussion in Talk:Fibromyalgia and the subsequent edits in the article itself, and I see evidence to support other editors' claims against you. I believe that OrangeMarlin was in his right to revert your edit as in the first diff above ("response to votestacking"), as he cited the RFC in his revert summary. That does not appear to be aggression or personal-attack behavior to me.

In the RFC, you were asked multiple times to explain your reasoning that the sources everyone else agreed upon didn't support the text in the article, and as they put it, you stonewalled. As a result, they were in their right to move forward as per WP:CONSENSUS, and your actions after that point appear to have been disruptive. You did bring up some good points, but when asked to back up your points with citations, I did not see you do so.

Keep in mind that continuing to make edits against consensus after consensus has been reached, without properly explaining your reasoning, is considered disruptive and causes most editors to stop assuming good faith. If you make an edit in the article and it's reverted, the best course of action is to take it to the Talk page, even if it has already been discussed before. But keep in mind that the onus is on YOU to sway consensus through logical discussion and good, reliable sources.

More if necessary later. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect about a consensus being reached on Fibromyalgia, and also to claim that I failed to provide sources. Feel free to join the discussion on the talk page, where I have explained things multiple times. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure looked to me like a consensus had been reached. The people you mentioned as dissenting from consensus were quoted back to you with what they said, and none of those statements appeared to be disagreements to the overall consensus - just suggestions on how to change the text improve the presentation in the article. You appeared to be the only one asserting that the sources didn't back up the article text at all. And you kept referring to ICD-10, but I fail to see how that supports your assertions - that is just a list of codes, and without referring to something specific about that article, I doubt other people - even people who are well-versed on the subject - could be expected to know what part of it you're talking about. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is nonetheless therefore untrue to claim that I didn't provide a source, and I have explained in full why this source is important and what the difference is. You may have missed the earlier discussion.

Yes, they were quoted back, but these quotes related to the text put forward in the RFC, not to the text inserted by Djma12, and even then do not constitute consensus since two other votes were left out. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As you mentioned, consensus does not equal a vote. Please go back and read the policy again to ensure you're completely familiar with it. What I saw was a repeated sequence of you stating that the sources were invalid, people asking you WHY they were invalid, and you pointing at a very vague answer with no further explanation. Other editors did not accept that response and continued on without you. Looking back at the earlier discussions, you were asked to support your viewpoint and you claimed that you didn't need to, despite the fact that the general consensus was that the content was well-established and cited. So your using the ICD as a source was deemed "not good enough" by the other editors, even when the RFC went through. (Continuing to point at that source and say "See? I did provide a source!" isn't going to help when the source, such as it is, has not been shown to support your claim.)

Honestly, I think Djma was right. There are far more editors supporting the text that you kept removing than there are supporting your side of the argument. Turning around and accusing those editors of being on the attack against you isn't helping your case. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Nothing in your description of events is even remotely accurate; you are building a house of cards with no foundation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only calling it as I see it. If you can point to specific instances of things you said and did that contradict what I'm saying, please do so. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Start here, where I refer to and explain the ICD10: Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Guido, I think you are confusing the principle of consensus with "if I am right and the others are wrong then I have a veto right". You haven't. Obviously this is a problem, but it cannot be avoided because so often the other side is also convinced of being right. Incidentally I don't even think think your arguments are valid. I know nothing about the disease(s) you were discussing, but a classification designed by a committee of WHO bureaucrats doesn't strike me as a good argument against scientific studies. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"The purpose of the ICD and of WHO sponsorship is to promote international comparability in the collection, classification, processing, and presentation of mortality statistics." So it's not to make diagnoses more exact, it's not even to make the mortality statistics more exact, it's only to make them more comparable. You are trying to use it for something it was not designed to do. The others should have spent more time to explain this to you, but a lot of expert editors suffer from burnout, so the failure seems to be excusable.--Hans Adler (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is nonetheless a source that represents international consensus, for that is what the classification is based on. Further, there is also a WHO treaty, which implies that the WHO classification must be followed. Listing a somatic disease as a psychiatric disorder is a violation of that treaty.

However, all of this is just another layer to the house of cards, which was built on the assertion that I did not provide a source, period. When that assertion could not be maintained, it was asserted that I didn't explain the source. Now that I provided the edits of where I did explain it, it is asserted that my explanation should have been countered. I wonder what will be next. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are building a house of cards as you say, it must be a pretty good one, because I don't see it collapsing just yet. I read the entire discussion from which you took your most recent diffs, and that was what I was referring to above when I said that you did not adequately explain how the ICD contradicts the text in the article. The assertion from Djma and other editors was that the ICD did not directly contradict what was being said, nor did the other sources being provided, and that the scope of the ICD and WHO treaty did not apply to the contested text in the article. IMO, while you did argue against that point, you didn't explain what made the ICD stand out above the other sources.

Also, keep in mind that Misplaced Pages articles should always contain a balanced point of view. Fibromyalgia is a poorly understood condition, and research is still being done on it. As such, it's not something that anyone can firmly classify as one type of disease or another, since the leading scientists on the subject don't fully understand and cannot agree on its causes. It is fully appropriate for the article to mention the different points of view, with their own sources, in a way that gives equal weight to all the relevant points. You need to ensure that by deleting text and discrediting some sources, you're not putting undue weight on just one point of view. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I must have missed all these arguments.

You are still missing the entire issue, however, which is (1) that Djma12 singled out this one theory of many to put in the lead, without any argument whatsoever, while it is already mentioned elsewhere in the text, and (2) that he misquoted the source. It is Djma12 who should provide evidence of weight, not I who should provide evidence against it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what exactly am I missing? The lead paragraph in question clearly stated multiple points of view. It did not single out any one in specific, and I checked out the web-linked sources and didn't see anything contradictory in them. If anything, the biggest problem with the lead paragraph is that it's difficult to follow due to the way it's worded, but the substance of the paragraph seems to be quite intact, to the point, and balanced. I still fail to see what your problem is with it - the fact that fibromyalgia is poorly understood and presents inconsistently in research is quite significant and is a point worthy of the lead. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, just in case this comes up: I am not a doctor and do not have a medical background, but I have several family members who have been diagnosed with fibromyalgia, know several more people with the condition, and have done a fair amount of my own research to try to understand it. As such, I am aware of the state of current research into the topic and I understand what most of the terms being used mean, in context. I do have a strong background in psychology, and I have also done quite a bit of research into my own medical conditions (fibromyalgia not being one of them). Not meaning to try to intimidate you or anything - just want to let you know that I'm not just talking out of my rear here. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not easily intimidated, as you may have noticed. :-) I've done my share of scientific research before I went ill (with ME, that is).

The current lead paragraph is not by Djma12. Dr. Anymouse edited it last and did a much better job, IMHO. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to address the version that you had been deleting. As it turns out, I can see how that earlier version could be problematic, but I disagree that the sources were in direct contradiction - the more scientific terms used in the current version basically mean the same thing, just more elaborately stated, but I do also agree that the current version provides more context and balances the paragraph better. I'd suggest that making the lead easier to read while keeping the same substance of content would strike the best of both worlds. I'd also suggest that a key takeaway from this is that the content can usually be improved, rather than simply deleted.

In any event, we got pretty far off-topic from the WQA. Do you understand what was going on in the Wikiquette side of things? It's very easy to mix content issues with civility issues. As Cheeser1 stated, Orangemarlin is re-examining his own behavior, and he's been informed of the fallacy of some of his statements about you. Most likely, I think he was just getting frustrated over the situation and chose to lash out at you in an unproductive way - such things happen, and it's not necessarily because anyone has a vendetta against you or anything. I don't think Cheeser1 himself did anything wrong toward you, and I do think that your WQA against him was premature and inappropriate. This is, of course, just my opinion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Content issues and civility issues are often related. The root of this problem is, that Orangemarlin sees me as a fringe advocate while he considers himself and his friends to be the appointed guardians against fringe, and he believes that in that capacity there are no rules of conduct. This is, however, solely based on his content belief as a cardiologist that my illness is not genuine. That made him to see my edits on Chronic fatigue syndrome in this light, and from then on there were no breaks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chronic fatigue syndrome. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)