User talk:Hauskalainen/Archive1

Girobank
You added a lot of good information to the Girobank article. I am updating articles on banking at the moment and would very much like to know the source of your info. simonthebold 08:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Europeanism
(The following paragraph has been copied from User:Daniel Chiswick's talk page because the user has since deleted the discussion there and I have therefore moved it to this page).

You removed my request for a citation that confirms that Americans hold the sterotype of Europeans as being "effeminate, dirty, cowardly, lazy and condescending towards other cultures". I have been many times to the US and have never heard this. I also have relatives living in the US and they also tell me that this is not so. That does not make my understanding correct but neither does it justify the reference in the article. You asked me to improve the article and the addition of a citation request was one way of trying to get others with more knowledge than I to do this. Your removal of the request has done the opposite. Stereotypes have to be widely held to be a "stereotype" otherwise they are just a "personal opinion". Two very different things. I am annoyed that you removed this request for citation without discussing this first. Please justify your actions. --Tom 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, those are common stereotypes about Europeans in North America. Do you think stereotypes about Europeans do not exist? Also the stereotypes mostly apply to continental Europeans, like the French, Germans, Italians, Spaniards ect. Since you are British and your American relatives are most likely British I doubt you have heard these common stereotypes, also Americans tend not to speak about certain things around certain people in order to not offend them. User:Daniel Chiswick 15 June, 2007.

Sorry Daniel "trust me" is not good enough. I have seen the complaints about you and the way you attempt to remove any criticism of your edits from the record in Wikipedia. I will undo your change and the reference to the stereotype in the main article. If they are put back, whether under your name or an anonymous IP (actually they are often traceable) I will raise a formal complaint against you. I am quite happy for the reference to be put back if there is real evidence from credible research that proves that such a stereotype exists. --Tom 21:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How dare you, I am well respected by many other users and I only delete certain things on my talk page that are really petty that can be told to me in an edit summery. I do not use anonymous IPs, so how dare you assume that I would use one to add something in such unimportant article. Those are real stereotypes of Europeans, go on google and type up smell or dirty europeans and I am sure you will come up with something. Do you actually believe no stereotypes of europeans exist? On the anti-americanism article there are all sorts of unscources stereotypes about Americans but there are not deleted because it is common knowledge that they are common stereotypes. User:Daniel Chiswick 22:10, 15 June 2007

Daniel, You must distinguish between opinion and stereotype. You can find almost anything using google as I have pointed out already. Of course stereotypes exist of particular cohesive groups and as I have said before on the article's discussion page, Europeans are far from being a cohesive group in the way that people from nation states of long standing are. And I am not saying that you are wrong that Americans may have stereotypical views of Europeans as a whole. But if that is so, someone, somewhere will have researched it and documented it. All I am asking for is evidence. You will find many google hits for things like "Alien Abduction" but that does not mean that "Alien Abduction" is a true and undisputed phenomenon. Stereotypes have to be widely held otherwise the things you refer to are personal opinion. I asked on the article talk page for a citation for the assertion and none was forthcoming. So I deleted the statement. That is not unreasonable. If you are so knowlegeable about the truth of the assertion then you should at least be kind enough to provide one. I am going to let this rest for a day or so and ask you to revert your recent deletion of my recent edit. By the way, I have not said that you are not a worthy editor. I can see that you have written many worthy things. But it is also true that many of the historic complaints about your edits are deleted from your talk page and those complaints could not have been put in the edit summary. I will not comment about the Anti-Americanism article as I am not interested in the subject. You may be right in what you say, but IMHO that is no justification for your action on the Anti-Europeanism article. Clearly we are in dispute and you are the first editor I have been in dispute with. You may have more experience at this kind of thing. Can you suggest how you would like us to resolve this? --Tom 22:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am find and adding scources. I was not the one who added those stereotypes and I personally have nothing against Europeans, but I have heard those stereotypes countless times so I am adding scources. User:Daniel Chiswick 22:10, 15 June 2007

OK. But be careful to make sure they are stereotypes and not opinions. Opinions of individuals are interesting but not meaningful in any anthropological sense and would have little value here as fact in support of the argument. One can always find someone who has an opinion about anything but it is not meaningful unless it is demonstrably widely held.--Tom 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I need to tell you that those are not my views and I did not add those stereotypes, but I do support keeping them since they do exist as stereotyps and they are very common. User:Daniel Chiswick 17 June, 2007.

Daniel. You are being disingenuous. In my 13:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC) comment posted on your talk page (which I see you have already deleted) I referred to "your view that N Americans sterotypically view Europeans as effeminate, dirty, cowardly, lazy and condescending towards other cultures". I did not say you held such views. That you may have heard or read one or more persons saying some of these things, I do not no doubt. But that does not make the grade as a stereotype. Despite your distancing yourself from the argument (by making it seem that I have made a false claim about you, and by deleting the argument from your discussion page -which is bad practise in an ongoing dispute- you still have provided no evidence that such a stereotype exists. You deleted my request for a citation and later undid my changes without discussing them with me or other editors. In the light of the above I will revert your edit. If I get contrary indications from the other 2 academics I am awaiting a reply from, I will gladly add it back with a valid citation if they give some.--Tom 01:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am done with this page but I am just going to say one more thing, do not consult "academics" because they too are not good scources and there is not way to make sure you are not pretending to be an "academic", you also should never bring in an outside party into an argument on wikipedia. Also those are very common stereotypes of Europeans, just like it is a common stereotype that Americans are fat and loud or that Mexicans are dirty and lazy. Can you really tell me that you did not know that Europeans are stereotyped as being effeminate, dirty, cowardly, lazy and condescending towards other cultures? I have heard them countless times so that is why I support keeping them. Also do not answer me on my talk page because I will not have such things on there because it will give other users (Pro-EU users that accuse me for being anti-european because I do not like the EU) more things to talk trash about. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 June, 2007.

I edited your talk page again. Sorry. But isn't that where we should direct one-2-one talk with other editors? And I think academics are exactly the right people to consult but we'll just have to differ on that one. --Tom 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also you could very easily find scources that say that those stereotyps exist about certain european countries, the French for instance are often stereotyped as effeminate, dirty, cowardly, lazy and condescending towards other cultures. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 June, 2007.

I don't recognize the "stereotype" about the French, but even if it existed, it would be a sterotype of a single nationality so would not it any case fit the article.--Tom 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also if you are going to delete that sentence (Which talks about stereotypes that exist" because it has no scources then you have to delete the entire article because it only lists two scources. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 June, 2007.

As for the article as a whole, I changed my mind because, the White House/media campaign against Europe pre-Iraq War II (such as is described in the Garton-Ash article) was a form of Anti-Europeanism so I decided not to. I'd rather focus on challenging the stereotype assertion. --Tom 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's fine I guess. I will be away for a few days and I will be able to use my computer because I am moving, so do not talk to me or leave me messages for at least three or four days. As they say, don't call me I'll call you. User:Daniel Chiswick 18 June, 2007.

Finland "Ruled by Sweden" or "Part of Sweden"
Replied on my talk page. --Drieakko 10:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

British Isles & Ireland
Hi Tom - yip, the term is considered fairly politically loaded. It officially objected to by the Irish government, this school year will see it removed from the major school atlas, it is why the British Isles Rugby Team (more commonly called the Lions) was renamed to the British and Irish Lions, etc. The UK government, for its part, avoids the term in British-Irish relations, much to the annoyance of Northern Irish unionists who see it as another sign of betrayal. That's why the euphemism "these islands" is the common way of addressing the archipelago, and the British-Irish Council is called the Council of the Isles, not the Council of the British Isles. Many academics avoid it - near-universally Irish ones, but also increasingly Britain-based ones too who usually explain why they do so (some examples quotes are here). Neither is it a recent thing. It was a British Conservative (of all parties!) who suggested IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic) as a better alternative in 1980.

I can understand that it would be shocking to someone from the Great Britain, but British identity was never very welcome in Ireland - even among unionists - and so "British Isles" was abrasive to everyone always. Protestants in Northern Ireland have only in the last 30 years started to identify themselves as "British", since the Troubles (see Briton) and even then, quite openly, as a reaction to Republicianism. (Since the peace process "Northern Irish" is starting to race up in popularity, to the detriment of "British.") Before then, they were Ulstermen and -women, and before then Irish plain-and-simple. Even the Anglician elite never identified as British, preferring Anglo-Irish, even while calling Britain the "mainland".

A Daniel O'Connell quote from 1832, I think, is telling: "The people of Ireland are ready to become a portion of the Empire, provided they be made so in reality and not in name alone; they are ready to become a kind of West Briton if made so in benefits and justice; but if not, we are Irishmen again." Ready to become a "kind of West Briton"? Not even a "kind of" Briton?! And that long ago - during our séjour actually in Britain! (Its a nice reminder too that effectively the same issue was raised back then and, if I can infer from O'Connell's reply, opinion is pretty much the same - albeit that the option on "West Briton" is now closed.)

It always bemusing to meet people from Britain who tell me or other Irish people that "you're British, though, really." Not so much because it offensive, but because such a drastically different understanding of a word can exist between people that have both known it all their lives. (Not offensive, I said, because in fact its quite funny for that very reason.) It's obvious that on Britain its seen as a pan-island, we're-all-the-same-in-the-end kind of thing. The meaning to on Ireland is pretty much the opposite: "A British person is someone from Britain. That's a different island. I'm not from Britain, therefore I'm not from British." And that's the crux of the "British Isles" thing: nobody's really too pushed that you call it that - we get what you mean - but we're not going to because, by what we mean by "British", its simply not an acceptable term.

As for your remark whether "Ireland" is not the same - yeh, it has that potential and is irksome on occasion. There is one differences, though: "Ireland" is deliberately a 'misnomer.' Remember that until 1999 the Republic claimed territory over the whole island (see Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland). Since then, in agreement with unionists and the UK government, this claim has been reduced to the "nation" being the whole island. This has the strange result that people from Northern Ireland are simultaneously British and Irish citizens. Yes, Ian Paisley is, whether he likes it or not, a citizen of the Republic. Hence, "Ireland." --sony-youth pléigh 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I did find some things ÿou say as somewhat strange, such that you get people from the UK saying things to you like "you're British, though, really." Is that because you have connection to N Ireland? Clearly, there is a long issue that arises because the Union of England and Wales with Scotland resulted ín the use of the term Great Britain and of course N Ireland got caught up in that. I don't know any people who would really think that people living in the Republic could be thought of as British. Here is the crux of the matter. Whereas as you say, the Irish seem to regard "British" as to what is on the other side of the Irish Sea, the mainland Brits see it differently. In geographic terms British (for the British) is a locatitive issue, but in political terms it refers to a different area. I am confident I know the difference and I think most British do so too, but of course that does mean that there are the ignorant few out there who do not know better. And I can very easily see how foreigners get confused (many here in Finland understand the difference between the nations of the UK but then don't really understand when to use UK, Britain or Great Britain and all that that entails. And despite that, they still refer to England when they mean the UK which upsets the Scottish and Welsh and no doubt the Northern Irish too. So probably there is a good reason for changing the nomenclature, and it would be a good idea if the governments agreed a way to do this otherwise its going to be a real hotch-potch of terms that emerge in competition with each other, during which time, nobody really understands what the speaker/writer really means.

Names can be a funny thing. Of course the very word Britain is not unconnected to the French word Breton, from where many original Britons migrated! And as the British and the French 'supposedly' (and I stress 'supposedly' because I do not fall for all the stuff pumped up by the press) as antipathetic to each other as you imply the Irish are 'supposedly' antipathetic to the British, its a wonder that we are happy to cling to the term British. Time, as they say, is a great healer. The Irish made a significant move with the change to their constitution and I am sure it played a big part in defusing tensions between the communities. And the UK position of viewing the position of N Ireland as being not territorial but free choice for the residents was its counterpart. And of course with us all being locked into a European Union with shared values it was a very sensible move. I sincerely hope that the people that live on the Island of Ireland can learn to celebrate their different shades of Irishness without resort to the bomb or the bullet. I live in Finland where there is a minority (5.5%) of Finns whose mother tongue, for historic reasons, is Swedish (reflecting the history that Finland was once an integral part of Sweden). They live in harmony and I hope that the Irish with different traditions will learn to do the same. It would help if the marches would stop and if "British" was not somehow a dirty word in the South, but I guess (and hope) that in time this will change.

Hauska tutustua!
In Finnish language, you have changed the idiom for "Nice to meet you" from Hauska tutustua to Hauska tavata. In principle, you are correct, as tutustua means "get to know". However, the term Hauska tutustua is, in my opinion, used when an Anglosaxon says: "Nice to meet you". --MPorciusCato 10:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I changed it because there are many foreigners referencing these pages to understand how Finnish works and idiomatic translations can be confusing to them. That was the reason I changed it. I was not being pedantic.--Tom 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

European
Hi. I just made a suggestion there and I'd like your opinion but since that page is so inactive, I felt like notifying you here...KarenAER 12:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake to assume what European meant. I therefore support the creation of a disambiguation page. I see that has now happened anyway.--Tom 23:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh that was fast...KarenAER 17:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Northern Rock
Hello. Just a note to explain why I changed your edit to the Northern Rock article in which you implied that Northern Rock was insolvent. There are actually two different meanings of insolvent, but the one that is usually used in the financial sector is the balance sheet meaning i.e. a firm is only insolvent if its assets no longer exceed its liabilities. By this definition, Northern Rock was never insolvent, or even close to insolvency - FSA chairman Callum McCarthy said "To be absolutely clear, if we believed that Northern Rock was not solvent, we would not have allowed it to remain open for business". Gandalf61 09:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Where do you get that definition of insolvency?? I only know one definiton. Its not the definition in the insolvency legislation or the dictionaries. Insolvency means not being able to meet your obligations as they fall due, so it is related to liquidity. There are companies that are insolvent by your definition and happily trading and legally so. The law says you must meet your obligations as they fall due or else you either go into bankrupty or voluntary arrangement (as a person) or into administration and possibly liquidation (if what is insolvent is a company). Northern Rock was insolvent by this defintion because it could not repay its money market borrowing without getting replacement funds and few would lend to it. So it was indeed INSOLVENT. I am buy professional training a qualified banker so I know what I am talking about.  I did notice thar McCarthy used the word that way, but he is just wrong. He may have used the term deliberately that way to avoid raising alarm, but that is no reason to change the defintion.--Tom 12:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Health care and cultural attitudes
Michael Moore appeared on Oprah last week -- I thought you would find it of interest considering our earlier discussion of U.S. attitudes towards health care. Here's a clip -- Sfmammamia 01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for sending me that. Its quite humbling to hear some of the arguments I have been banging on about being repeated almost word for word by these people. I think they've been reading a few of these Wikipedia articles lately! I think Uwe Reinhardt says really what is the fundamental problem here, and I have said it myself on WP, that is that Americans have a terrible phobia about letting their government do anything for them. Europeans do not have that hang up. And as I said here on WP (and it was repeated on the program) Americans do not get hung up about roads or the police or the fire service arguing that they are a socialized menace! They accept it as a normal state of affairs, just as Europeans do about health care. The case of the steel worker and his wife was very moving. She absolutely should not have had health care denied by the bankruptcy of his company and his own ill health and should indeed have got her health care as moral right not and not through a charitable act of an individual, however honorable that may have been in the circumstances. I suspect its actually a very common story. Thanks again for the link. --Tom 12:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Socialized Medicine Article
I apologize for not having responded sooner, however, I've been extremely busy. I am going to respond to some of the points that you have raised now, and some of them when I get some more time (hopefully, by tomorrow). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomwarrior (talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

3rr
Tom, in the interests of fairness, I'm reminding you as well as Freedomwarrior about the 3rr rule with regard to recent changes on Universal health care I've made a bold edit and deleted that particular "pro" argument entirely. There are already two other arguments in the "pro" that address the drawbacks of the profit motive in health care. --Sfmammamia (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

National Health Service

 * See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits to socialized medicine
Apologies that my change to the socialized medicine article may have inadvertently lost an edit of yours. I was rather livid at the other changes, removing portions that were well referenced and to the point of this definitional question.--Gregalton (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Hey, no problem! I guessed it was something like that. I had not realized that he was back from his vacation and editing again with a vengence. It was only after I looked at the history page that I realized what had actually happened. --Tom (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom, for the text you reinserted (most) the quotes are there. If these (insert expletive here) want another citation on the same fact, just cite those same works again.--Gregalton (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom, I will be out of pocket, have to leave urgently. It is my view that Kborer has violated 3RR in spirit and possibly in letter today and yesterday.--Gregalton (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. I have never got to this point before but I am close to finding out what can be done to block this editor for a while. Also to seeing if there is a tie in between this editor and FreedomWarrior. I notice that neither of them actually denied the allegation I made.--Tom (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not sure what you meant by out of pocket but having looked it up I assume you mean that you are spending too much time here instead of working. I have a suspicion that the other editor(s) we have been working 'with' today are hired hands. Nobody can be this persistent to force through changes on a subject that they probably have little personal experience of (assuming they are in the US). I'm semi retired so I can spend all day at this ;)--Tom (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that, just expect to be "out of contact" for several days.--Gregalton (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I have raised some formal objections to the POV pushing and reversions by those two editors and raised my suspicion that they are the same editor. I probably did not do this in the right way as I am relatively new as an active editor to WP and its the first time I have ever done it. I am not sure what will become of it. But as I suspected earlier, I think there are other user names that have been created in the last 6 months or even sooner that will emerge and start editing here that are probably ´the same person or directed by the same mind. It will be interesting to see what happens.--Tom (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Socialized Medicine
Hi. I'm was just now writing a message on the Socialized Medicine talk page about the POV Disputes and general cleanup when I got your message. I'll have the note posted shortly. Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Risk equalisation
A tag has been placed on Risk equalisation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gromlakh (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Risk equalization
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Risk equalization, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Risk equalization is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Risk equalization, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Freeview
I'm interested by your comments regarding my recent edits to Freeview. I accept that the information is useful, but it is the only channel about which such information is displayed. We should either add the relevant details about the other channels which aren't broadcast for their full hours on Freeview, or leave it out. Personally, I'm going to remove it again so that the article is standardised, and start a discussion on the talk page. Please feel free to contribute there with your views. Thanks Paul20070 (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've now put it back because, like you say, the information is useful. I've also added details on the other channels which do not broadcast fully on Freeview. Cheers Paul20070 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

DoopDoop/Freedomwarrior/Kborer
Huomenta! Please repeat your accusations at the pages of Freedomwarrior and Kborer. I'm afraid they do not read my userpage. Kiitos, --Doopdoop (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * it is just a 3RR counting--Doopdoop (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WHat is? I think you are losing it!--Tom (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Losing what? --Doopdoop (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Losing your mind! You just reverted your own argument having made a passioned argument for making the opposite statement!  What 3RR counting?  If you are alluding to my own edits I will allude to your own abuse of sockpuppetry... I think there is ample evidence in the record. And despite the reluctance of other editors to support me previously, it is now patently obvious what is happening and I think I will garner sufficient support from fellow editors to rebuff any challenge you may be thinking of making.   --Tom (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You might have violated 3RR in Socialized_medicine (Diffs, , , ). WP:3RR recommends you to self-revert. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was already aware. But the matter was settled before you started challenging it. I'll take my chances. I have no intention of reverting. We have been down this route before umpteen times before so the issue is already settled. See the archive. One cannot in logic prove a negative but one can call for proof positive in the other direction. So far nobody has attempted to do so. Hence I'll not revert it. Indeed I'm sticking to my guns. See my recent edit at talk/Socialized medicine. If you can prove that the Brits, the Spanish, and the Finns for example refer to their systems as socialized medicine I'll quit editing here. I'm so confident that you cannot do so that I'll stick by that challenge.--Tom (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

article on health care
This may interest you: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/358/6/549.pdf --Gregalton (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. The more I read about this subject the more incredible it seems that people still cling to ideas that capitalism is working to peoples advantage in health care. Clearly it isn't. That article ends with the statement "Sometimes, we Americans do the right thing only after having exhausted all other alternatives". In fact this is a slant on the same observation by a famous half-American, a certain Winston Churchill (his mother was American) who said "The United States invariably does the right thing, only after having exhausted every other alternative" (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill). What is also interesting is that despite the bleating of certain people in the US about too much government dollars going into Medicare and Medicaid, the private hospitals and pharmaceutical companies would be scared shitless of losing that revenue if the government stopped paying it.  It's no wonder Bush signed in the prescription drug plan recently.  These companies are, in effect, milking the state's coffers, and I have little doubt that the politicans somewhere along the line are getting paid off for it because so far there is little sign of drug costs actually coming down in the U.S.


 * As to how the system actually works against the consumer in the U.S. came up in my digging about MRI usage there. An industry magazine actually admitted that there had been over investment in MRIs and that machines were standing idle far too long and that this was causing prices for examinations to be too high. The US already carries out many more exams per head than any other country bar Japan. The response? Sell them? Mothball them? No. We have to find a way to get physicians to make more referrals. In other words incentivise the doctors to get patients (and the government) to spend more money on MRIs that are probably not needed just so that the investors can get their money back. That, quite frankly, stinks.


 * What is even more interesting is that I get the sense that the American medical industry is realizing that the game could be up in the U.S. and that the good times could soon be over. What is now happening is that those big US medical companies are now moving into the U.K. sensing that government money is up for grabs in the medical sphere over there after Blair was persuaded to allow private companies to compete with the NHS. The right wing claim that this is a victory for free market medicine. The only problem is that this competition is nothing of the sort. If you read journals like Private Eye which often get insider leaks of information about PFI contracts and these medical outsourcing arrangements, you discover that the private companies are in fact milking the state because the business cases made for allowing private investment rather than public investment are fixed so that the private case always wins. Again, one has the sense that there is a pay-off somewhere for the politicians because the sums of money are so huge. The assumptions made in those business cases are turn out to be wrong and always in favour of the private investors rather than the taxpayer. Even a few percent profit creamed off makes it very profitable business. How long it will be before the U.K. population as a whole wakes up to what is going on remains to be seen. Although Mr Freedonwarrior thinks that I am some form of socialist, I actually do believe in true competition. But what we see in the medical industry on both sides of the atlantic is not always true competition. And the consumer is paying a high price this failure. Hopefully Canada has a grip on this. --Tom (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume that you wrote the majority of the material that I've proposed for merger. I'm not trying to give you a hard time ... hell, if Gregalton's on your case, I know you're getting it rough enough, already. I was reading the article though, and some of it seems that it would be better placed in the "publicly funded" article. Have you considered putting the text there, and defending it in that article? The content of the "socialized medicine" seems fine (on the surface .. haven't dug into the references yet), but some of it does seem to wander from the main subject matter. If your references would stand, then it would get much more exposure/use if included in the primary article (the "publicly funded" article). Just a thought. BigK HeX (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I spy Kborer and I claim my $100.


 * Err .. I'll assume that the above statement is another insinuation of puppetry. I contacted you because I was interested in helping you, but it seems, perhaps, that you like living on an island.   There Is No Cabal but if you alienate enough people, you are certain to stand alone against a mob. BigK HeX (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Socialized medicine
In response to your comment on my talk page, I would like to point out that my recent changes were quite small and made no POV claims. I will continue to insist that editors reference claims made in the socialized medicine article. Thanks. Kborer (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Ryan Delaney talk 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Health care politics and health care reform merge discussion
Tom, I notice you have been making recent edits to Health care politics. Did you notice that there's a merge proposal on that article -- suggesting it be merged with health care reform. Could you please review the discussion here and comment? The proliferation of debate sections that deal primarily with the U.S. debate is something that has troubled me for awhile, and I'd like to figure out a way, if possible, to consolidate them into one article (perhaps Health care politics in the United States) instead of replicating the same arguments in numerous articles. Thanks, --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support that idea wholeheartedly! "Health care reform in the US" might be better than "health care politics" in the US. It seems certain that there will be reform in the US and I suspect that if the US gets it right, health care could stop being a political football. Although health care is a highly political subject in some countries like the UK this is because democratic processes have made it so.. In practice, in the UK for example and I suspect in many other countries, the structure of the health care system is relatively settled. I haven't read the link you sent but I will do so. It would indeed be helpful if articles on a general subject were not always colored by the parochial debate in the U.S.  --Tom (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Health care paper
Tom, I have a paper that may interest you. If you contact me through my email (at my user page), I'd be happy to send on to you.--Gregalton (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lauri Tähkä
A tag has been placed on Lauri Tähkä requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bstone (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message
Thanks for the message - comments like that are encouraging and certainly foster the co-operative spirit that is needed if we are to work together to improve articles. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonkerjuu
Started Elonkerjuu - welsome to edit. --Kummi (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hei Thanks!--Tom (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Polyclinics
Thanks for the message. The main reason I deleted your edits was simply that your opinion, valid though it is, is not something that can be included in an article on what is undoubtedly a contentious topic without supporting sources. There have been suggestions that polyclinics are similar to health centres and to cottage hospitals in the past, and there's some reason for that, but there clearly are differences or people wouldn't be so worried about them and the government wouldn't be forcing them upon the health service. My main concerns with them are that they're not going to fulfil the frankly ludicrous claims being made of them and that they're a stepping-stone to having private companies run a for-profit NHS to the enormous detriment of patient care. I can't put that in the article as it is because that's just my {{WP:NPOV|POV]], but I have sourced media statements from notable people who think similarly. That's the criterion I think your claims need to warrant inclusion.

To address your point about London separately, I think that's where they will be worst. There are no accessible large buildings which will be acquired cheaply; that means private firms buying property and looking to recoup the cost by cutting back on the services they provide to patients. It also means locations for new polyclinics are likely to be less accessible than existing GP services, meaning they will get healthier patients. That in turn means the stated benefits for the elderly and chronically ill will not materialise because they will continue going to a local GP service they can actually access, while the polyclinics cream off the young, mobile, healthy patients who make them more money. Again, I haven't put that in the article as such because it's my opinion, but I'd be very cautious of assuming as you do that these things are going to be wonderful. Nmg20 (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes you do seem to have a lot of opinions! I have no special interest in this subject but the observation I made (which you deleted) just seems to me to be just obvious. It does not really need a supporting source, because it is what it is. Having just read Polly Toynbee's piece (which I found by following some recent changes) at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/nhs.health, I can only say that I agree wholeheartedly with her sentiments. As someone who continually had to take time off work to see a doctor, it always seemed madness to me that doctors were allowed to work normal hours! It would be better for the nation as a whole if visiting a doctor did not mean time out of work. And I fear that the recent wins by the GP community following the GMC renegotiation means that the GP community fears that something may come away and take away the golden goose. Well all I can say is bring it on! Anything that means patients are better served has to be a good thing. Your arguments are property and creaming off patients seems (to me at least) completely bizzarre! I feel even more inclined to add the text back. --Tom (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Healthcare in the United Kingdom - Polyclinics
They are being "trialled" only in London, presumably prior to roll-out. They may be created elsewhere as some form of "GP-led health centre". It's a pedantic point, I'll admit. Millstream3 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Polyclinics in England
Re Heart of Hounslow, I do beg your pardon: you're quite right about that HSJ article. Sorry for missing that. Millstream3 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Health care reform in the United States
I just wanted to alert you to the fact that I've placed a citation needed tag on Health care reform in the United States. The edit summary reads "Fact tag. Most citations that dispute that the US ranks poorly are from conservative think tanks, insurance industry groups, not empirically based studies, not peer reviewed and don't meet WP:RS." I feel that it's ridiculous that groups like AHIP, Cato, and Heartland are being cited when it's obvious it's just their opinion with a political ax to grind. These cited articles would never pass for publication in an academic, peer reviewed journal. I have seen some of your edits that give me reason to believe that you agree with me on this and I feel that arguments citing these biased sources should be removed. The average person reading Wikipedia does not have the training to fish through the questionable claims coming from AHIP, Cato, Heartland, et al. What are your thoughts on this? --Prowler08 (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Single-payer_health_care#CPA_link_removed. The argument here was about the Center for Policy Analysis and an article it published (which Cato reproduced). It is full of falsehoods and misrepresentations. Many of my complaints about the claims by these well funded biased sources are repeated in the talk pages, and especially the archived talk pages of the article Socialized medicine. I think User:Nbauman's comments ín the first link I gave was good advice. He says we cannot stop people quoting and publishing these falsehoods but we should be careful about how we quote them and we must be ready to refute their claims with real data. I did that rather ironically in the Socialized medicine article on treatment waiting times in UK. I actually quoted the real waiting times and include them in the criticisms sections.  I don't think the wait times are all that bad, but nobody can dare remove the real data or insert the false claims of someone like Cato or CPA. Nbauman's point was that these sources may have to be quoted to meet WP:NPOV. So it is important then to associate such quotes with words like CLAIM or ASSERT, or IS OF THE OPINION THAT and if necessary oppose these assertions with FACTS from sources that meet WP:RS.  --Tom (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that by allowing these editorials, that masquerade as data, to be used, we end up with statements like this one: "International comparisons that could lead to conclusions about the quality of the health care received by Americans are inconclusive and subject to debate" (that's the statement I tagged). But as long as AHIP and others of a similar stripe are quoted, the reader will be left to believe that this is a serious question, when in reality most experts agree that the US health system is very poor when compared to other developed nations. Anybody who has written a term paper in college knows that certain sources are unacceptable. It's too bad that Wikipedia doesn't even live up to the requirements imposed on undergrads. And finally, the fact that the Wall Street Journal publishes some group's op-eds means nothing. I've had op-eds published in major papers, but that doesn't make me a qualified source. What really should be done is that Wikipedia should establish criteria for sources and get away from applying the NPOV label to everything. Unfortunately, this would require more qualified admin management, which isn't going to happen. --Prowler08 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Postscript: I mean no disrespect to Nbauman. That editor's work on here is very good. --Prowler08 (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there. But the point is that you need to distinguish claims and facts. See my recent edit to the article :) --Tom (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nbauman (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Carte de les Redevances audiovisuelle Europénnes.PNG
I'll see what I can do, as a member of various TV forums I know that they have abolished advertising on France Télévisions, so I will change the colour. However, the UK is coloured red because the BBC is also a public broadcaster and does not air advertising. Maybe the UK could be stripped? -- [[ axg|undefinedSpecial:Contributions/AxGtalk  |undefined]] 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a bit confusing but if anyone is in doubt why the uk is coloured blue then they will get it from the text. Sure the UK could be striped red and blue if you think that would be better. But not just red because of C4. Perhaps thin blue stripes would convey the weight if you can be clever enough to do it! Anyway thanks for the assistance.--Hauskalainen 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Healthcare reform - Your "reversion of the article to last version by Prowler08"
I only restored the old See also links that LincolnSt deleted. I wasn't adding them. You need to take a closer look at the edit history. Also, please change the title of the section and remove my user name, as I didn't do what you claimed. --Cosmic Cowboy (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

LincolnSt
LincolnST has done the same type of removals at National Health Insurance and Health care in the See also sections and, at National Health Insurance, at External links. I reverted the See also edits, but he reverted back. --Cosmic Cowboy (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK and thanks for the headsup. I'll take a look. --Hauskalainen (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just restored both at National Health Insurance, but have not done so at Health care. --Cosmic Cowboy (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * LincolnSt's edits are now bordering on vandalism. He's removing links and other content wildly with no consensus. His argument for removal of See also links is wrong. I have put up the following in edit summaries where I have restored his deletions: Rv LincolnSt as per WP:SEE ALSO. See also links are even considered useful in "...subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." He, of course, ignores what WP:SEE ALSO states and deletes again. I am in the process of moving and I'm caring for two very ill family members, so I can't monitor this editor's behavior. I just wanted to let you know that he has been informed via edit summaries that his deletions are wrong. --Cosmic Cowboy (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Unfortunately, this fits into a pattern that I have observed over the last 3 New Years. Two or 3 new WP users are created ín December or early January. One of them makes innocuous edits to minor articles then begins attacking the health care articles with a strong bias towards removing from WP any real factual information about health care and inserting links towards articles that give biased claims (often unsupported by evidence). This began when I happened by chance across the socialized medicine article and which gave a completely false impression of health care in Europe, and especially in the UK. So I started putting in factual data. Then I discovered the powerful dark forces of the health care lobbyists in the US that want to keep the American government financing health care (because it gives their industry money and keeps them in the style of living that they are accustomed to) but don't want the government to control costs or have any hold over what they do (which, it seems to me, robs every American of some $4,000 a year). That's a lot of money. Oh, and when one user gets challenged, one of the other users pops up to support the changes. Well, I have done some digging and have a good idea who these people are and I have shared that information with a few others but they take the view "so what... just change it back ... what they are doing on WP is destructive but it is reversible.. and what they are doing is not illegal". So we have to play this patiently and just repair the damage they do. They get tired just as we do, but we have right on our side. And although they are almost certainly paid to do this, and my repairs are for free, this is my way of giving back to my community everything that the community has done for me. I wish you well in your caring for your sick relatives. I did the same for 2 years some time back so I know how demanding that can be. I am on vacation myself right now with a relative so my time is limited too. But I am sure that others are willing to help stop this kind of vandalism, so I won't be alone.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for what you wrote on my behalf. The amount of time LincolnSt spends on editing, as well as his edit history, leads me to believe that he's being paid. Regardless, I want to also thank you on behalf of the more than 45 million of my fellow Americans who have no health insurance for your commitment to truth on the health care articles. I'm probably going to be offline for awhile, so I wish you all the best in fighting the good fight. --Cosmic Cowboy (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

I reckon that you deleted half of citations in the article Health care systems (an article which you also attempted to delete despite mid-level importance rating by Wikipedia medical team). You also duplicated national health care articles, which makes it hard to maintain articles, i.e. an expert on UK health care system needs to edit 4+ other articles instead of just Health care in the United Kingdom.

You are NOT allowed to remove citation needed templates before the problem is solved.. Claiming that referenced are found somewhere else is not enough. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.LincolnSt (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are confused. If there is a person who has been making destructive edits in the past few days it is you. I will argue vehmently in my defense if you try to have my account blocked. I am confident that editors of long standing like myself will support me. The Health care systems article is a good example. When I looked at the article as I saw it the other day it seemed to have little merit. That was why I marked it for deletion. I had completely failed to notice how much YOU had destroyed it. That is why I reverted it back to the way it was. Having seen how good it was before you got your hands on it I am glad that I did not get the article deleted. The citation needed templates were not necessary because all the information supporting the claims are, I am sure, in the two links. Its just that the citations are in the links at the end of the section. I think I said that in the edit summary when I reverted your citation requests. If the references contradict what is written there then kindly let me know and I will review the matter again.
 * As you can see in edit history, I replaced copy paste from main articles with a list of main articles. There are 100+ countries, if each main article is copy pasted to Health care systems and other articles, maintaining information is extremely laborious and new editors won't know that they need to update all the different articles.LincolnSt (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That argument does not wash as far as I am concerned. The countries listed were illustrations of different health care systems. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Iam not sure what you mean by duplicating articles. Some content duplication is inevitable in WP. As long as the matter is justifiable (e.g. it helps to maintain flow in an article) then it seems quite reasonable. --Hauskalainen (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Health care systems will be some of the longest and most unmaintainable articles in Wikipedia if each country's information is duplicated into it. If you think that is necessary, then go ahead. Please just don't delete citations (or requests for citations) as you did.LincolnSt (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Posting sources
Hi Hauskalainen, i edited your changes to Healthcare reform, please follow the Wikipedia guidelines for citing sources Citing sources as it helps to figure out where each statement comes from and allows for a standard format across all pages.Gordie (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

List of healthcare reform advocacy groups in the United States
Since I'm getting ready to go offline, I'd like to ask you to please watch List of healthcare reform advocacy groups in the United States for me. There's another editor with a bee in their bonnet, Hu12, who has removed legitimate links on the aforementioned article and has falsely accused me of sock puppetry. Thanks again for your diligence. You also may watch to see if he violates the WP:3R rule. I hope I'm not asking too much and again, thanks for your work on WP. --Cosmic Cowboy (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Socialized medicine
Hi there, when you add a citations to a page, please consider using one of the Wikipedia citation templates, which formats citations nicely. If you decide not to do this, please remember that URLs need to be formatted like this: [ URL Website_name ] in square brackets. I've tidied up about a dozen incorrectly formatted links on Socialized medicine in the last few days. Best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry. You are right. I am not good at formatting references and have not learned how to use special templates. It looks a bit complex! But I will try to learn.


 * On the issue of hospital inspection that you corrected me on there I genuinely had thought that because the healthcare commission inspected both private and NHS hospitals that it was being done to the same standards. I am curious to learn why they are not and whether the standards set for one are more onerous than for the other. I tried following the hints you gave but it is none too clear I am afraid.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem! And I'm sorry I didn't take more time to write: re-reading what I wrote this morning, it sounds a bit whiney!  NHS trusts are assessed against Standards for Better Health and private providers against the national minimum standards for independent healthcare (NMS).  Actually, the NMS are more onerous.  I think that's because public sector organisations are subject to quite a lot more regulation anyway - but that's just my opinion.  Everything will come together in a couple of years' time under the Care Quality Commission.  Under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 there is provision for a unified system, but this isn't due to come into effect for another couple of years, and subject to consultation.  Best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah thanks. Maybe that's what I read about recently. I was fairly sure I had read something about common standards. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR Limiter
Hauskalainen, you're very close to violating 3RR in the current round of edits and reverts to Right to keep and bear arms. By the edit history, you're at 3 right now. STOP, and discuss on the talk page. The idea here is Bold, Revert, Discuss. This article is already being watched as the result of an ongoing Wikiquette alert. Edit Centric (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Please explain. Where have I reverted something 3 times? I am quite willing to put an edit in dispute thru a dispute resolution process if there is something that cannot be agreed. I did delete some edits about crime statistics that did not have a definite gun dimension a couple of times but I think that is reasonable because the editor did not establish a connection between the those statistics and the issue of the right to keep and bear arms. And if that was 3 times I doubt very much that it was on the same day.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, looking at this again, I was in error, mea culpa. (Give me a minute while I kick my own arse.) I'm in "hyper-watch" mode on this article right now, and I saw that you'd made 3 edits to the article, including 1 revert. Still, the idea of BRD is applicable though. You were reverted, which you then reverted back. That would be Bold, Revert...Revert? Instead, I would suggest that, when you introduce something and it gets reverted, take it to discussion on the article's talk page. This will go a LONG way toward preventing another edit war, and may shed some light on what you're trying to accomplish. Edit Centric (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. We all make mistakes. I have already opened a number of discussions on the talk page in an attempt to avoid an edit war,--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good on ya! Now, the idea is to keep an open mind on the material, and learn in the process. Trust me, you're going about this the right way! Edit Centric (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Gun politics
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. --Hamitr (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It takes two to edit war, and you have been at this too. If you take a look at this http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Hauskalainen you will see that I have made 922 edits in the TALK Namespace which is 30% of all my edits.  You on the other hand have made only 61 edits in the TALK namespace. That's just 13% of your edits. I have clearly been editing here more often and more co-operatively at Wikipedia than you. People who live in glass houses just shouldn't throw stones.  --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh! The user undid a similar announcement I then placed on his/her talk page with the comment that I reverted him 5 times and but he/she only reverted me once.  That I think is quite hard to imagine in an edit war with a single user on a single article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics&diff=271436134&oldid=271435475 acknowledges in the edit summary that he reverted 3 edits of mine in one fell swoop. We certainly got nowhere near 3RR! I can't be bothered to count his reverts but I will not go as low as to remove from my talk page that he has made this claim against me and then tried to clean up his own talk page. --Hauskalainen (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

wikiquette report
This message is to inform you that a Wikiquette Alert has been initiated, naming you as an involved party. Please see the discussion at WP:WQA for details, and to add your comments if desired. NOTE: You are not bound or required to participate in this discussion, however your input would be helpful to resolve any dispute that may have contributed to this alert being posted.

Some important things to remember during a Wikiquette discussion; Anastrophe (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A Wikiquette discussion is not an indictment, an insult, or a slight. Wikiquette discussions are an early step in dispute resolution, and involved users should bear that in mind during participation, so…
 * Please remain civil. If you have a dissenting view, please present it calmly, and cite any references to talk page or article content with the applicable diffs.
 * It is perfectly acceptable to disagree, as long as it is done agreeably.
 * Please read the introduction at the top of the WQA page for additional information.

Sock/Canvassing
If this is you, then you have just done yourself a world of hurt. Due to the severity of the canvassing incident, I will be requesting an unofficial sock check. ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 07:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No need. It is clearly me and it does not constitute either sock puppetry or canvassing. I was merely seeking advice. I clearly asked the other person NOT to intervene in editing the article and was not seeking out that person as a mediator....just as an advisor on how to proceed in difficult circumstances. I wanted a second opinion on the rights and wrongs of the argument (on whether the section that I inserted and has been deleted at the article in question should be allowed to stand) and how to present that case given that I had certain supicions about other editors and did not want to (a) others to undermine/confuse my case and (b) do so in a way that would not lead others to trace that I had such suspicions. I am more annoyed that thru my own carelesness these have become more public sooner than I had expected, but I have not done myself a world of hurt as you claim. My integrity as an editor is undiminished and I will defend my reputation vigorously if anyone tries to claim that I have.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] - Hauskalainen, what you are doing here is called "Forum Shopping" with a sockpuppet. Also, if you have doubts about those of us who help with dispute resolution, this is not the way to go about circumventing the process! I find this statement especially patently offensive;
 * "and also I see that you are not in the United States (which I regard as a bonus as you will see)".
 * In addition, you clearly are engaged in the propagation, through use of this sock, of conspiracy theory regarding editors on the English Wiki:
 * I feel inclined to go to formal dispute resolution on the rights and wrongs of the section, but I fear that these people are an organized group, well funded, and may well have "infiltrated" wikipedia at the highest levels."
 * I will tell you this, Hauskalainen. I am not a sockpuppet, I have a Centrist view on most political matters, and I have spent a great deal of time dedicated to mediating disputes in good faith. To see something like this after giving you the benefit of the doubt is simply dumbfounding.
 * This does constitute both sockpuppetry and borderline canvassing. I am hereby issuing you a forceful warning; any more shenanigans, and I will personally recommend that you be blocked for disruption of not only the article(s) in question, but Wikipedia on the whole!
 * If you suspect someone of SOCKS, then there are proper ways of addressing this. This is NOT it. Edit Centric (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was following WP rules. WP:EA allows one to approach a person directly. "Those seeking assistance: If you're here to look for a specific person to ask for help, please make a request to only one person from the list below by posting on their talk page". That's all I did. I looked for someone not in the US and therefore unlikrly to be affected by the highly political issue there of gun control. I have just placed a request for assistance at WP:EA as I was advized to do. Using an alternative account was merely a way to seek assistance on a matter without drawing attention to the fact that I was doing do. That is a legitimate use of second account and does not constitute canvassing or sockpuppetry. The photo on your home page (big guy, dark glasses, shining a flashlight) is clearly intended to intimidate. If you are to go around threatening other users, can we not have one of you in a less threatening pose? --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you referenced the photo on my user page, I'll give you a brief explanation, although this kind of baiting doesn't warrant one.
 * "Big guy"? I'm only 5'9".
 * "Shining a flashlight"? Did you read the caption?
 * "...is clearly intended to intimidate." HUH? I really think you're seeing threats where there are none;
 * "but I fear that these people are an organized group, well funded, and may well have "infiltrated" wikipedia at the highest levels." Yep, you caught us guacamole-handed. We are the Hispanic horror organization known as Al Quesadilla, and we represent the lolipop guild, the lolipop guild.... Edit Centric (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

homicide statistics
there are zero sources provided in the material you restored that link it to the subject of the article, which is Right to keep and bear arms. please advise where this matter is under formal review, so that i may weigh in on the matter there. until a decision has been made, this material should not be included in the article, since it is in dispute. Anastrophe (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have asked for a review at Editor Assistance WP:EA on the section discussing violence and guns that gor removed. I thought you were aware of that. The issue is simply that legislators restrict the right to bear arms because they see a connection between the presence of guns and gun violence. Of course one might challenge that there is no connection, but there has been research on the matter that seems to point out there is.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * that discussion is moribund. i've opened a new ticket at the original research noticeboard - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research%2Fnoticeboard&diff=275294083&oldid=275158311 . Anastrophe (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not moribund. They have just not answered the point yet--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * regardless, the proper resolution will be found at the referenced noticeboard. Anastrophe (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

modifying existing commentary
please don't refactor or modify material you posted previously in an ongoing matter requesting resolution. altering the record, while not prohibited, can lead to confusion and may mislead editors who have not been following the progress. if you wish editors to take note of a change of heart/mind on a matter, add a new comment to that effect. altering your eight-day-old opening comments isn't cool. i have reverted your change at WP:EAR. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The item was in a queue awaiting attention at WP:EAR. The aim was to simplify the task of the reviewer. Nothing sinister. And certainly not confusing to anyone!--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR
Just making sure you are aware of WP:3RR -- Yaf (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am. Are you? You just reverted my edit for the third time today


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=276732434&oldid=276732010
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=276737695&oldid=276737488
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=276739492&oldid=276738994

What's worse, you just had a decision against you on this very topic at WP:EAR. Well I have warned you and now I guess it is time for action.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Gun politics
I have reverted this edit; in its summary you state in part "[i]t does have a source and is demonstrably reliable." Please see WP:RS and WP:OR for a detailed explanation of why that is not appropriate. The site you reference clearly states its agenda: The Gun Control Network was established to campaign for tighter controls on guns of all kinds in Britain and a greater awareness of the dangers associated with gun ownership and use. Even its name shows a slanted point of view. In addition, the specific reference you provide for statistics requires the reader to examine charts and draw a conclusion, which amounts to original research and/or WP:SYNTH, which are not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Please note I have not mentioned the words "truth" or "correct" here; I am not agreeing with or disputing the claims your edit made. I'm simply saying they were not supported by the reference and the reference is not reliable. Since this is a hotly debated topic and the edit is likely to be questioned, I removed it. If you can find a better source to make a point that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies, please feel free to add it in. The best avenue to do so is probably the talk page of the article. Frank |  talk  12:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, maybe I am dumb, but the data about gun ownership levels and gun deaths is reliable data. The graphic merely shows where the UK and the US are in relation to one another on the scales of gun ownership rate and gun deaths. If I quote Killias as the source that cannot be objected to on the basis of WP:RS. The grapic is simply a graphical reporesenttion of that data published by a peer reviewed medical journal and has been republished with permission by Ryerson University people. They have not been selective and they are a WP:RS. It is not WP:SYNTH as you claim.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

UK firearms control
You might want to check out the book Firearms Control by Colin Greenwood (there are a few copies available on www.abebooks.com), which although written in 1972 is just about the only serious work on the subject. Greenwood was a senior police officer at the time, and the book is an expansion of his doctoral thesis. He still writes on the subject and is probably best categorised as "pro-firearms within a robust licensing system." He has particularly written on the relationship between levels of ownership and deaths, the efficacy of the handgun bans ( - this is a reworking of an earlier submission to a conference in New Zealand, which no longer seems to be available online, although I have the pdf), and recent Home Office discussion papers that propose even stricter controls. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is all very interesting.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

please stop adding material not directly relevant to the article
the litany of laws you are adding is not informative or useful to the article. this has been discussed on the talk page, and the majority agreed that it is not helpful to an understanding of the topic of the right to keep and bear arms. you have provided no rationale to support their inclusion other than to complain that there's "too much" about the US in the article, as if this somehow justifies dumping bunches of text in the article to "balance" it (it does not). please discuss on the article talk page why you are acting in contravention of consensus. Anastrophe (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Dodgy gun stats journalist
The really bizarre thing is that I knew about both of these already, but hadn't made the connection either between them, or with the Observer piece! I followed the work of Nicholas Saunders right back to his Alternative London days (I've actually been meaning to do a Wiki page on that book), and was aware of the Time Out dispute from his (Saunders) last book on Ecstasy before he was killed. I've also been working on a page for the Rettendon Range Rover Murders, and had seen the page on the witness's book deal controversy whilst doing that fairly recently. Small world. Of course, it got my memory nagging about a previous poor use of statistics in The Times, but that turned out to be another writer. The problem there was that he claimed "crimes involving firearms" went from "7,753" in 1996 to "24,094" in 2003/04, and that deaths went from 49 to 68 in the same period. The problem is that for 1996 "7,753" was the figure for all weapons (inc. air weapons), but excluding criminal damage, while for 2003/04 "24,094" was for all weapons including criminal damage! A more realistic comparison would have been 7,753 to 13,146 (exc. criminal damage) or 13,876 to 24,094 (inc. criminal damage). Still large increases (70-73%), but not the tripling suggested! The homicides figures were "right," but the intervening ones - 59, 54, 49, 62, 73, 97 & 81 - demonstrate a far more complex pattern (if it can be described as one at all). Nick Cooper (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! That IS strange! This is probably not connected but I'll tell you anyway. I came into contact with some dodgy "business types" back in '95 whom I had reason to contact about their business (which at the time seemed legitimate but someone had warned me that they might not be what they seemed. Drugs had been mentioned in connection to a related person, and later as I discovered, tax fraud came into the picture also). They were out in Herts somewhere and I was living not that far away. When I called one of them to speak about it he refused to talk on the phone but offered to talk to me about it one to one in some Essex pub on a common somewhere. At that point I backed out! He didn't know who I was but he knew why I was calling. I can't remember where this common was but I was so spooked about that call I dropped the matter there and then. Knowing what I later learned about the tax fraud I am pleased I did so. Weird to have this to remind me about it after all this time.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation of Health Care Technologies
RCTs provide an approximation of true population values. They are not perfect estimates (although as their size and quality of execution increases they do get closer to true values). By looking at how important uncertainty over our parameter estimates is (i.e. do small shifts change our conclusions? and does this matter?) we can decide whether it is worthwhile to strenghten the evidence we have before making a decision on approval. We should doubt always doubt methodology used in such serious context. Whilst RCTs are the best we have if we are basing conclusions on low power evidence with great uncertainty (i.e. the results they present suggest a range of possible efficacy values) it may be worthwhile requiring more RCTs be done before accepting a technology. In this context I am not doubting NICEs methodology as they do consider this factor.

I suggest you read the chapters of uncertainty in economic evaluation in the Briggs, Claxton, Sculpher book I referenced for more information. Uncertainty is a key consideration of NICE appraisals and required to be assessed by PSA in the NICE reference case. If the statement you deleted were not true uncertainty of efficacy would not be an issue (as all RCTs would provide perfect values) and would not be required to be assessed by NICE. In reality it is as RCTs provide estimates not true population values and can be strenghtened through further evidence.

Hopefully this has convinced you of the logic behind my statement. If it has not then read Claxton, Briggs and Sculpher. All 3 work closely with NICE and you should definitely read their book if you wish to truly understand NICE methodology.


 * Are you referring to this text in the NICE article in which I deleted the test which I have here put in bold?


 * As NICEs decisions are made upon the basis of the synthesis of estimates of population parameters derived via clinical trials (see decision analytic modeling) they are subject to a certain degree of uncertainty (as a clinical trial only represents the paramaters produced by a population sample, not necessarily the population itself). If this uncertainty is high, the consequence of a wrong decision sizeable (perhaps due to large required capital investment) and the cost of acquiring further information acceptable NICE can approve a technology for research only


 * The reason I deleted the text was that it, to me, stated the obvious, but in the mind of an uninformed reader it could sow doubt about NICE's decision making competance. Of course the population sample size and make up is important and of course NICE is fully aware of this and takes this into account as it makes decisions and recommendations. There is a lot of ongoing debate in the United States right now about what they term "comparative effectiveness research", but is effect what NICE does. The health Insurance industry in America is backing CER presumably because it would enable them to stop funding ineffective treatments, but certain politicians in the U.S. are trying to block the public sector funders from using CER to limit coverage. Which of course would in the long term mean that private insurers would be more effective than any public insurer. The same politicans denouce CER as rationing and claim it goes against "personalised medicine". I just thought that it seemed churlish to give them more ammunition.--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry
my sincere apologies for the misunderstanding regarding the chart in 'gun violence'. if it had been clear from the outset that fully half the data in the chart was derivative, and that you were correcting those derivative values, there'd have been no issue. it was my fault for not examining the source data more carefully. Anastrophe (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. --Hauskalainen (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Right-wing"
Just for your information, the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" carry connotations of extremism in the US that they don't necessarily convey in the UK and Europe. As a result, using such terms in US-centric article to describe a mainstream politician is going to be seen as an accusation rather than as a simple fact. -Rrius (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Waiting times in Canada
You have added some statistics to the section Socialized_medicine. Can you include your reference for these statistics? Thanks.&mdash;C45207 | Talk 21:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference was there but maybe not clearly visible. I have corrected this.  I know that there is a better way tp do repetitive referencing within an article but I can never remember how to do it and I can't find it in the WP editing help pages.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC
Why did you close the discussion at Talk:Gun violence and re-add the list precisely as it was, without addressing my first and second points? I will watch this page for your response. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Abramzame. The discussion agreed that it was wrong to delete useful information from the table. It had been open for some time and only one person (one of two people who deleted the useful information from the article) objected, though even he agreed later that the information can go back in. The issue of deleting the information was the issue at point. I have noted the issue you raiswd about discrepant data. I had a quick look at the table before adding it back and I could only see India as having a column that did not match. I have not had time to correct this yet but will do so later. As to the point about fomatting, I am not skilled enough in building tables to know how this is done and frankly I do not have the time. But if you know that this can be done and know how to do it, by all means please help us out. The extra column wil be deleted in time. either I will do it or someone else. Its on my list but a bit way down at the momenmt. Thanks for your contribution.--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Creationism
Re. : 4 - As far as can make out, Hrafn has not violated WP:3RR. Note that 4 reverts are needed and that contiguous edits count as one. Please take a breath. Thanks. 5 - Are you kidding us? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re 4 and 5. I am the most serious person I know. I rarely kid anyone. The presentation is meant to deceive. I have been editing here long enough to realize that there are many editors here who say X who really believe Y (where X is not equal to Y).--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: United States National Health CARE Act ???
The move was proposed under "Uncontroversial requests" here. This was given as a reference, and it indeed says "United States National Health Care Act", so that's why I moved the article. Do you think I should move it back? Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like the move is disputed in both ways, so I opened up a move discussion on the article's talk page. If after a week there's no consensus to keep the article at the current name, I'm going to move it back. The end result would be exactly the same had the IP filed a normal move request directly instead of listing it as uncontroversial. I understand that you feel that in the meantime the article is going to stay at the wrong version, but I want to find out where the consensus is on this issue before I start moving pages back and forth again. Please leave your comments on the talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I left you a response on the talk page. I hope we can work this out and find a solution that's acceptable for both parties. Jafeluv (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

David Gratzer
I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. Please do not reintroduce original research that synthesizes sources that do not mention the article subject. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Which source did you find unreliable?--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per your request, I explained my position on the article talk page. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Country
You should note that the question of the use of country in respect of the UK has been extensively debated over the years, and a citation summary table is located at Countries of the United Kingdom. The current wording is the result of a consensus process and you should not change the wording of the lede on Northern Ireland. If you want to reopen the debate, then you should take it to the talk page. I realise that this is a difficult issue (especially for Northern Ireland) and that you probably were not aware of the prior discussions and consensus position.-- Snowded TALK  16:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed I was not aware. Its just obvious to me that Northern Ireland is NOT a country in the ordinary sense but that country is a term used to described in the phrase "the constituent countries of the United Kingdom". Province is the term that the BBC uses and not "country". That seems to me to be a lingusitic convenience. It does not really mean that Northern Ireland really is a "country" in the classic sense.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Country has different meanings. Wales, Scotland and England are clearly countries for example, with independent histories although they are now a part of the UK.  The position on Northern Ireland is more complex, but the UK government calls it a country (in the sense of Wales. Scotland & England)  -- Snowded  TALK  20:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism. Contrary to your last attempt at refactoring, it is NOT your comment -- it was made by myself here, and is over my signature. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is bullshit. All I did was to classify that I was basically in the same camp as the other editor! Go take an asprin and lie down. It may make you feel better. --Hauskalainen (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are allowed to express any view you like by making your own comments -- you are not allowed to do so by editing mine. To be honest, I consider everything you have said after the consensus solidified against you (by 05:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)) to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT "bullshit", and everything you said before that point in time to be quixotic at best. You are winning no new converts to your cause by your endlessly extended campaign, so I don't see what purpose it serves. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You made no comments! You classified my opinion (wrongly) as being somehow different from the other editor, which it was not. I merely corrected it. Your attempts (with your cabal at that article) at trying to wear me down will not work. Neither do your threats of blocking my account as a sanction worry me. --Hauskalainen (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Get a bloody clue! This is my COMMENT summarising previous opinions. If you do not agree with it, then post your own comment disagreeing, but do not edit it! If you do so again, then I'll seek to have you blocked. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Single-payer health care
Hiya,

I don't know quite why I got embroiled in this one, but anyway...

I see that you've been making some good edits to the article, and I wonder if you could perhaps help[ sort out the lede a little? I have now read it several times, but (and forgive me here for being a bit stupid, as well as not an American) - I'm still not entirely sure what Single-payer health care actually is.

Perhaps you could try explaining it to me, in simple terms, and between us we could make a reasonable WP:lede that informs unfamiliar readers what it is actually all about?

 Chzz  ►  01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not American either and I got into editing this and related articles because I did not understand it either. Firstly the article name is confusing because it is not a health CARE system but a health care FINANCING system. And basically that is about replacing multiple insurers with a single insurer for a core level of health care. Can I suggest that you use history to look at how the article introduction was about a year ago and, say, 4 months ago. This is because there have been many edits lately which seem to be there to mislead people rather than inform them. The article may be worsened for that reason. See if that helps clarify your misunderstanding. If it does, then look back to the current version and correct what you think is confusing you. Or let me know what is confusing and lets see if we can sort this out. --Hauskalainen (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Health Care In Canada
Hauskalainen, I just added detail from 1991 In Health, to Health care in Canada...you have known me for a while from the Single Payer article...it was a bit rash to delete my addition and say "dubious unreferenced claim" when I had given a full (more detailed that most on Wikipedia) reference including page numbers, certainly not "unreferenced" Next time, Just like C45207 did above on your talk page about the statistics you added about Waiting Times, could you please ask first, before deleting? Thanks--Harel (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't read my talk page every single day, a faster way to reach me is by email via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:E-mailing_users#Enabling_and_disabling_user_e-mail (I have ENABLED being contacted by email) --Harel (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a very relevent or up-to-date argument. 1991 was 17 years ago!! At that time there were 721 people waiting for heart by-pass surgery alone in BC (allegedly). (http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/17472/1/ar910141.pdf) Today the total waiting for ALL heart surgery in BC is 127 and the median wait time for that surgery is 3.7 weeks. http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/cpa/mediasite/waitlist/median.html.


 * We are writing about Canada today. You seem to be making the rather crazy argument that people waiting for surgery in 1991 would be better off waiting because some of them will otherwise die on the operating table. What about those dying because they did not then get the srugery?  For that reason I deleted the text and I will continue to do so.


 * I do not use e-mail for Wikipedia.--Hauskalainen (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen, I am sorry to see you take such a hostile attitude. If you want an edit war, you will get one; actually, worse than a war: if you delete things which are (a) facts, not my opinions (b) the facts are relevant and (c) they are relevant facts which are well-referenced, then you will be sanctioned or even blocked by wikipedia for inappropriate behavior because, you cannot "keep deleting" them just because you don't like things which are facts, relevant, and documented. I will try to reason with you one more time: of COURSE I don't want people dying. But I am not "making a crazy argument" because 1) I am not making an argument, I am quoting other people, in fact, medical professionals so the "I" part is not correct and also 2) it's not a crazy argument, it is merely statistical facts. If you have the choice between giving 1000 people surgery, and having A die on the operating table, or giving none of them surgery, and having B die, then if B is noticeably less than A, then those are the facts, and people will agree that number (B) is better, I don't have to make an argument to people, they will draw their conclusion.


 * Now, those are the facts, but just to help calm things down, Of COURSE I don't want anyone to die, but I do understand Probability 101 that if my chance is 1 in 100 of dying in the next 2 years without surgery and it is 2 in 100 of dying (right there on the operating table) then if it were I, would NOT want that operation! Of course this assumes I trust my doctor; I might get a second opinion, but once I'm convinced I have solid medical advice, the real "crazy" thing to do would be to chose the 2 in 100 chance of death (on the operating table; the total chance of death in the next 2 years would be higher since one can die after the operation as well) instead of the 1 in 100 chance. I am adding this background so you can realize this is not about trying to kill people, it's about saving lives (if we don't trust the doctors, that's a separate, and probably even bigger problem, that goes well beyond this or any other specific example. If we trust them, they would be putting ahead on the list those people with higher risk, to get the surgery ahead of those with lower risk. And those with very low risk, risk significantly lower than the operation's mortality, should be advised against the operation at all) Obviously there is the risk of not enough people getting the operation, whether due to budget cuts, bad doctor practices, or other reasons. The paragraph (which I have a saved copy of and which will be re-posted) directly states that. The numbers for the year 1990 do prove that at least sometimes, the opposite is true, and more people would have been alive if none of them had surgery. Does that mean we should have given none of them surgery? Of course not. That is not a logical conclusion, nor does the paragraph make that assertion. (the correct conclusion is also not that everyone on the waiting list didn't belong on it; but that some of the people on the waiting list (a subset of them) who were waiting for the risk-bearing surgery, the ones least-at-risk from death from heart disease, who nevertheless were on the waiting list to get the surgery, should not have been on the waiting list (or ok to be on the list and never reach surgery) since their risk of death was lower that way; notice the deleted paragraph did not make this logical conclusion either, this is just for clarification), So...Please, pause before you react, the cited paragraph is not anti-public-health or anti-Canada and certain this is not a Sarah Palin "Death Panel" this is doctors (not government) prioritizing more-at-risk versus less-at-risk patients and comparing it to the risk of death on the operating table.


 * Hopefully you now see there is no evil conspiracy, but if you don't, I repeat, these are documented facts cited with full reference and if you delete things which are (a) facts, not my opinions (b) the facts are relevant and (c) they are relevant facts which are well-referenced, then you will be sanctioned or even blocked by wikipedia for inappropriate behavior because, you cannot "keep deleting" them just because you don't like things which are facts, relevant, and documented.--Harel (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I got your post on my Talk page and have replied there a few days ago. I hope this clears up the issues. As for proving the article is real, the good news if I have scanned it into PDFs. But you don't use email (and I'm not sure I should reveal mine) so I am waiting to hear back from the author about copyright (it turned out to be the same Anthony Schmitz (the one I found at http://anthonyschmitz.com/about.html ) as the author of that 1991 piece (the magazine changed from In Health to Health, or from Health to In Health, I forget which direction, but it had a name change)...so you can probably soon have your proof, too, and on the more important issue of avoiding misunderstanding of what it is saying (and what it is not saying) hopefully my reply on my Talk page clears up any misunderstandings. Not advocating any death panels, don't worry! :-) --Harel (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've now gotten the original author to post the PDF (which I had scanned in from my own paper copy) on his website. I've added the url to the references. The direct url is http://www.healthadvocates.info/HealthAssurance.pdf (see page 43 in orig article which is page 8 of the PDF, for the main figures being discussed). As you can see I did not lie and invent the article out of thin air :-) Again per my talk page if you have suggestions how to reduce misunderstanding by minor tweaks of the language by all means do so. Take care. --Harel (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

'Teabagging'
Please stop adding sexual references to articles when they are not mentioned by the sources and not relevant to anything. The Squicks (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion on health care reform in the United States
Hi, can you sort out this guy above? See here. He's freaking out, as do some others, over my anonymous editing. He reverts substantial edits for no cause other than his own fears over anonymous editing. Please weigh in on the substance of this article. Thanks, 74.162.131.186 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but check out what I consider are the key results from SurveyUSA at the end. They are the latest and highly reliable. -74.162.131.186 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Be aware that it is not considered appropriate to go fishing for support for a position. Actually I made that edit before I read your first comment above. I thought it right to add back some other text that was dropped. The Rasmussen poll may have been done by an organization that is often found to be quoted by a particular pole of US political persuasion but that does not per se make it unreliable. By all means you can add (or try to add text) that refers to doubts by some about the quality of that organizations methods and or the organizations providence and how that MIGHT have an impact on its findings. But merely dismissing it outright does not to me seem to be appropriate. That is why I added back the other text that got dropped, because it provides a fuller picture. Polls may of course provide contrary evidence and that will depend on many factors (such as the sampling method and the list of questions that preceded the question, which is a well known practice by those applying polling to get a desired result). That does not mean tho that Rasmussen are guilty of this. Sorry I cannot be more helpful but I hope this helps you to become a better editor. Its a good idea to get an account and stick to using it to avoid accusations of sock puppetry. --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with this paragraph?
''From an economics perspective, all goods that face a insatiable demand greater than the finite supply of resources has to be rationed, meaning that some needs cannot be met.[141][142][143] As President Barack Obama has said, the U.S. "could not construct a system in which you could see any doctor anywhere in the world any time, regardless of expense." A healthy, yet also polarizing debate has sprung up in the United States about rationing in health care.[141][144] Health care rationing happens already in the U.S., mostly in terms of the price of care,[145][144] and the central issue of the debate is which combination of methods would be the most sensible.[146][143][147] Some in the U.S. oppose what they see as socialized medicine because they say it will lead to health care rationing by denial of coverage, denial of access, and use of waiting lists.[146][148][144] Proponents of it state that all those forms of rationing currently occur in the U.S. anyway and that another system would distribute care more ethically.[142][143][144][147]''

I want you to spend just one minute (just one) telling me what is wrong with this paragraph. You can call me whatever bad names you want. I just want to know why. Tell me what problems there are so that I can fix it. The Squicks (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Socialized_medicine. It's fine. I give up. If you want it so bad. You can own it. The Squicks (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the suggestion I made at the talk page.

But to quickly answer your point, you need to understand how I see this edit fitting into the pattern of all the other changes you seem to be so desperate to make. If I tell you what is wrong with just this one piece then you and anyone else will regard the matter as trivial and perhaps non-sensical. But taken overall there is an unacceptable subtle pattern of subliminal bias to your editing.

1. Your bringing in Obama after discussing rationing is a link by association. Rationing has negative connotations and so for that matter does polarization. This is an attempt to associate Obama with rationing in the mind of the reader.

2. An earlier version of this sentence you wikilinked rationed to add emphasis to the word, even through the term rationing appeared much earlier on without wikilinking. The earlier usage should have been wikilinked.

3. The phrase "mostly in terms of the price of care" implies that rationing in the US mostly happens via price. Actually this is not so. Insurance companies ration all the time and insurance company executives have admitted as such. People mostly buy insurance and not health care. Buying health insurance is not the same as buying health care. People are denied care through review, through recission, through caps, through coverage exclusions, and a whole host of other factors. People do not have a pot of insurance money available to them to buy health care when the see a doctor. Insurance companies have to pre-approve some treatments before doctors can act. This is a rationing process. If an insurance company pays the cost, consumers do not behave like normal consumers. HMOs ration care. You may be restricted as to which hospital you can go to and which specialist you can see. That does not happen in the UK or Taiwan or Canada, but it happens in the "Land of the Free". Also there is a complete mismatch od knowledge between patient and doctor. The patient cannot judge a health care decision in the same way as whether he should buy a Chevvy or a Mercededes. So the argument that getting health care is akin to the decision to buy Coke or Gatorade is frankly ridiculous.

4. The original text said

"..health care rationing happens already in the United States [141][142] and the central issue is whether it is rationed sensibly"

You changed this to

" health care rationing happens already in the U.S., mostly in terms of the price of care,[145][144] and the central issue of the debate is which combination of methods would be the most sensible "

This is a subtle change which uses less clear language to muddle the issue of whether the current system of rationing (which as I say is actually not always PRICE as you say it is, though it can be sometimes) is logical. The source clearly thought it was not sensible to ration according to price and that there was a better way to do it.

(Brits understand this issue very well. Its a debate we had many many years ago, long before the internet came into being, so its not something that gets talked about much these days. Most people accept that care has to be rationed and cost/benefit is probably the best way to do it. Hence NICE, but actually most rationing is not determined by central government or NICE. If you treat me nicely I may tell you who REALLY does it :) )

Well thats just the start but its enough to be getting on with!--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I give up. There's no point in reasoning with you since you have never compromised with others in the past. Thus, I promise that I will never edit socialized medicine ever again. You win. Game over. The Squicks (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

history always comes first
History always comes first. For biographies, the person's birth and education. The same should be here. Do not oppose this. I am not changing the wording one bit. Finland 203 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not mix your edits... make an edit in one section at a time for one reason. Then you may not face these blanket changes for contentious editing--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion which I will now follow. If you are mad, do not revert the whole thing, just make the change you want. For example, history first is very standard and I've not change the wording of the history at all. So don't revert that part. Thank you. Finland 203 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But you just did it again! Thats why I reverted it AGAIN! I have not even considered your other edits... the main edit to the lead was unacceptable. I should not have to pick and sort your multiple edits just to undo vandalism and politiking--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not do it AGAIN. Look at the history and you will see that it was done before 19:41 (when I wrote "thank for your suggestion which I will now follow")

The history has been put where it belongs, in the beginning. Don't keep changing it.

As far as the intro, it is purely opinion. A neutral intro is discussed on the talk page and why the old version is opinion. Finland 203 (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lost in translation?
Contrary to your opinion, I thought the public option was the big part of the American debate. You mistakenly said that I am saying that everyone must enroll in the public option. The big debate is whether to have a public option. If you say that the public option debate is not a large part of the reform debate, then you are disagreeing with many newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finland 203 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I said no such things. The article is about REFORM and not the DEBATE. The public option is not the major part of the reform - insurance reform is because it covers peoples rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of their health status. It is a part of the DEBATE but that is not the subject of the article.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

These need help
Please help monitor Health care reform in the United States and Health care reform debate in the United States. Thanks, 74.242.231.184 (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC) These articles are on my watchlist anyway. But I am rather busy right now. If the gremlins are out adding bias you may have to just undo their work when you can. Same as I do. In time they cannot win if you stick to well sourced data and challenge and dubioud counter claims they make.

I have not seen what has been happening so I am not referring to any particular editor in referring to "gremlins", though I guess that this is what you are alluding to.

BTW I liked to Cristol quote, and it does deserve to have an airing at least somewhere in these reform pages. Stick to your guns but beware of 3RR. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

POV problems, Soapbox-ing at Death panel
The lead section of Death panel, which you have contributed to, currently contains content that misrepresents the origin of the term "Death panel", and provides a misleading summary of an article by Nangia and Wilson in Foreign Policy. Most of the problematic content appears to have been added by an editor or editors at IP 209.6.238.201, possibly in violation of WP:SOAP. I am calling on contributors to the page to revisit this issue and either come to a consensus on the proper content, or propose it for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism warning on Death panel
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I have raised the abuse of this article by this IP user at the NPOV noticeboard.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism warning on List of panels making life or death decisions
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not! The article is both WP:OR and WP:POV as well as soapboxing and full of inaccuracies! For instance NICE never reviews individual cases and its decisions are based on scientific analysis and an accepted threshold level for acceptable public funding of a single treatments. Nobody can be sentenced to death by NICE and more than an insurance company panel can decide the fate of a funding for a drug under their insurance scheme! The very idea is ridiculous. Or if you do accept that then perhaps you would accept that we can list all 1300 American Insurance companies that really do cut people off without warning because of coverage exlusions and lifetime CAPS. At least NICE's decisions are decided in advance and you can insure yourself against hitting a NICE restriction if you so wish.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fully sourced. I'm not soapboxing about anything, nor do I have any real agenda here (although I do believe Palin's accusations about U.S. reform are false, FWIW, I'm open to additional content from another view per WP:NPOV). Look, obviously denying a sick person treatment, were they not independently wealthy, is the equivalent of a death sentence sparing a miracle. Hey, your point that British citizens can buy additional insurance is a perfectly fair one, and I'd be delighted if you added such a point to the article. Add whatever you'd like -- but, let's not pretend while sweeping under the carpet the idea that NICE hasn't been a topic of discussion as it related to this "death panel" topic. I'll quote NPOV to you, er... which has changed since I last looked at it, hah, but: "the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'." It went on to say, two days ago or so, that the way to correct NPOV problems is to add other POVs. All I did was stumble on the FP article from Slate's front page this morning and thought the broader issue of death panels, in general, deserved an article. I had no idea I'd end up rubbing so many people the wrong way! -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical issues introduced into Socialized medicine article
You have removed many conjunctives and definite articles from the socialized medicine article which in my opinion break the normal conventions of English.

It may be (that) you are one of those rare types (that) is not concerned about at all about (the) proper use of definite and indefinite articles and conjunctions in their every day language. And of course there may be dialectical usage where this is common. But surely you will accept (that) there are people for whom the absence of these words in sentences where they should exist makes it offensive to the ear!

Maybe you will be kind enough to take a second look.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * As a professional and published writer, my concern is for precise and economical use of language. The wordsmithing edits tighten and remove superfluous wording to make the language easier to read. Generally, the use of 'that' I removed were used as conjunctions and yes, I removed a couple instances of 'the' which appeared unnecessary. I also removed a couple of indefinite modifiers ('very' and 'some'), although that section of the article has surprisingly few.


 * If you would like, I can refer you to high-profile writers such as George Orwell and Elmore Leonard who recommend modern economical language as opposed to the older Victorian style. ("That" is one of their favorite targets.) I was originally trained in the Victorian style and I still occasionally slip back into the older wording.


 * --UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I recall (I think) a request for help regarding non-ASCII characters (ç, è, é, î, ü, etc.) I can't find the original reference, but were you able to resolve the issue?


 * --UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The ASCII issue was not me. I am puzzled that you should think that this usage is somehow ancient. I am not THAT old and neither were my parents or their parents. I would indeed be interested to know more about the style changes you talk about.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings,

When I offered to look up references, I had no idea what I was letting myself in for. Googling for "writing tips" + that turned up 90 million hits, but I found a couple out of the first hundred returns:
 * subordinate conjuction
 * BBC Learning English

My Fowler's The King's English tells us to eliminate that except "when a long clause or phrase intervenes between it and the subject and verb it introduces".

Generally, editors hammer writers to eliminate words, and "that" is a favorite target. Charles Dickens was paid by the word (as are many of us today), and Dickens went to great lengths to pack his novels with extra words. We pay that price today in much of our writing because we learned that style in reading.

I promised tips by Elmore Leonard and George Orwell, and whilst I didn't locate specific references to "that", the following are helpful and worth embracing:
 * George Orwell
 * Elmore Leonard

Kind regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

These could use your review
Thanks for your vigilance and hard work. Please review recent edits at Health care reform in the United States and Health care in the United States. There's no obligation, of course, to agree with me, but a self-admitted sock seems to delight in stalking me. -74.162.151.64 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You reverted an edit of mine at Single-payer health care as "no valid reason to delete". The valid reason to delete is spelled out on the talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) OK. If I recall correctly there was no Edit summary. You should have referred other reviewers to TALK if that was the case.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
You may want to compare this to this, then redo. Thanks anyway, MBHiii (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry I did not mean to criticize your spelling. I have followed your links and see what you mean but I'm not sure that is definitive. The text in HR3200 uses the hyphenated version. That was what I was following, as well as my own instincts on this matter.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion: standard spelling for general use, bill's spelling for bill refs, link the two with redirects. (Meaning trumps spelling, so this is minor anyway.) ~{8-)> MBHiii (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Leuko (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you?
In the page Socialized medicine you appear to have made a Revision as of 15:07, 10 September 2009 by adding text and citations to the article. . is causing a cite error. Can you please go back and fix it?, 75.69.0.58 (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A little help
Please review articles in my edits for anything you care to add. Thanks, MBHiii (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry. I don't see why I should want to follow you around. I have enough trouble tracking my own edits! --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Health insurance cooperative
Hi, as a result of my complaint about Squicks, and our warring, he and I are blocked for a while on this, in effect. Please go back and add what you will to the Talk page and the article. Thanks, MBHiii (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop pestering me. I have no interest in you, your edits, or your disputes with other editors. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeking cooperation and dispute resolution is what these pages are for. My edits and disputes with an editor have effected this article you worked on. -MBHiii (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WRT the Shona Holmes afd
Greetings!

WRT whether the Shona Holmes article is a "biography", and whether WP:BLP applies -- in my personal opinion WP:BLP needs to be split. The authorization for administrators to take emergency action to prevent individuals to be be harmed by unreferenced personal attacks on their character, libel and slander are appropriate. And the use of those emergency authorizations to protect the wikipedia by those who might claim we aided in them being slandered are appropriate.

But you can see some administrators who will delete, on sight, without warning, or a courtesy heads-up afterwards, any "biographical" article they think lapses from compliance with BLP1e. IMO there is absolutely no way an article that someone thinks is a BLP1e should justify the use of emergency powers.

IMO BLP1e -- the "one event" portion of BLP should be removed, and placed in a guideline, as a principle that should generally be followed, while recognizing that some single events do justify an article on the individual. I think it is extremely rare that an otherwise unknown person, who didn't seek fame, who finds themselves the center of attention, due to association with a single event, is harmed by a truly neutral and well referenced article.

Several participants in the Shona Holmes afds have argued that we can't cover her if we don't know her birthdate, education, and career prior to becoming a "patient advocate". Last night I tried to listen to an MP3 of an hour long interview she gave to Michael Coren -- a right wing radio personality, currently only hosting on a Christian network (he was once on mainstream TV). The audio quality was lousy. But, my guess would be Ms Holmes didn't go to college -- may not have finished high school. After trying to listen to that interview I wonder whether her continuing characterization of her Rathke's cleft cyst as "brain cancer", might not be due to actual deceit, but maybe, due to her limited education, she genuinely doesn't understand the difference between cancer and a congenital cyst.

If you have the time I would appreciate your opinion on those two essays I wrote. User:Geo Swan/opinions/"False Geber" and what a biography should contain and User:Geo Swan/The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked.... As I said in those essays, scholars puzzled for centuries over the identity of false Geber. It wasn't just his date of birth and education that is unknown -- no one knew where he really lived, his real job, or even his real name. Nevertheless, he was highly notable.

I think sufficient people support a rename that, if this article weren't in the middle of a [frivolous] afd it would have been moved to Shona Holmes incident, or something similar. That would certainly clarify whether we can forget challenges based on "biographical articles have to state the subject's date of birth." Would you support a rename?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Someone claiming to Shona Holmes left four messages on the "blog" of the producer of that TVO segment. I briefly considered using it as an additional reference, and decided not to, because there is no way I know of to verify that it really was Ms Holmes who left those comments.  Nevertheless I would be very surprised to learn it was an impostor.  That "shonaholmes" claimed:
 * death threat
 * no cash payments from the health care industry lobbyists
 * she acknowledged being reimbursed for hotel and travel expenses related to her lobbying activity.
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I think you have an isssue. As you may have sensed, I too do not think that an article about a person is necessarily biographical. That is my honest opinion but had to reconsider whan I read what had been written at WP:BLP which does, it seems, take the view that an article about a person IS biographical even if it is very limited about its content. I have no intention of getting embroiled in the argument as I am too busy right now. Personally I might accept having the article renamed "Shona Holmes and the Canadian health care contoversy"  or something similar as at least it isolates the issue and not the person. Not as neat but may be justifiable IF other Wikipedians have debated the issue and decided that is the best policy. Its not clear to me immediately that that has happened. I glanced briefly at the links you gave but I am sorry but I do not have the time or inclination to give you an opinion about them. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland
Hi there. Thanks for the message. I am happy for the wording to be changed to reflect that it is 'sometimes' referred to as 'NHS' rather than 'commonly'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Public health insurance option
Please review its history as Squicks and MBHiii are restricted from "re-reverting" each other. -74.162.131.64 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_health_insurance_option&oldid=320889046
I did not add this text as you claim -  it came about through my reversion of one of your deletions without an edit summary. Had you added an edit summary and explained the change my accidental re-addition of a very slightly misleading piece of text would in all likelihood not have succeeded. Please watch out - your verbal aggressiveness towards me has not gone un-noticed or unrecorded.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your aggressiveness towards me, calling me a "menace to Wikipedia", has not gone un-noticed or unrecorded.
 * I'm not afraid of you, and I won't be intimidated by your strong-arm tactics. The Squicks (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd better watch out, as you've been far more negative twoards me and other editors than I have ever been. I don't recall ever insulting someone's sexual orientation, and I don't recall ever calling someone a "menace" either. The Squicks (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not be deterred, in the least, by Squix' verbal aggression. As you say, it has not gone un-noticed or unrecorded. He's behaved in similar manner towards me. Just stay focused on the material, please, and all else will come out in the wash. -MBHiii (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for you to apologize for your homophobic slur. The Squicks (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize to Hauskalainen in that it was MBHiii who made the slur about my sexual orientation, not you. I get you guys mixed up since, after all, your edit patterns and editing style are almost exactly the same. The Squicks (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you dislike these messages so I'll try to be brief. See here to get a clue as to what he's going on about. While you're there (Worldchanging) please review the external link I added and he killed. BTW, Admin.Shereth is former User.Arkyan with whom I crossed swords several times. -MBHiii (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that does not surprise me. As for "teabagging" I am incline to thnk that you should have apologised immediately because it clearly has another meaning. But Squicks has a habit of taking some actions/statements with a quirky/personal interpretation.  I am quite certain that none of my edits contain the bias as s/he alleges.  I am storing up a collection of his/her objectionable edits and if push comes to shove we can discuss them with an administrator. Re your reference. I had never heard of Worldchanging before. That does not mean that it is not notable. There are many notable sources that I have not heard of before. I guess its up to you to prove notability, especially for an external link. The number of hits on You Tube these days could, I guess, indicate something of notabality, but I think it would need something stronger than that for it to be in an external link section. If the link says something that is not covered in other links (a new argument say) then I'd suggest you include it as reference to that argument.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A possible compromise
Instead of proceeding from here, how about we delete any mention of Krugman's name and his opinions as well as any mention of Grassley's name and his opinions? Problem solved. No more conflicts. The Squicks (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly NOT!!!! The comments of both are very revealing- I am in the process of drafting the issues with your editing. It makes interesting reading.. Time for you to adopt another persona perhaps?--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ASAP, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Public_health_insurance_option ...MBHiii (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

New Squix
Seeing what he's done to Chuck Grassley, Public health insurance option, and Political positions of Dennis Kucinich, and how he writes, it looks like Jmcnamera is the new one. -MBHiii (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jmcnamera is not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of me.


 * I would like to heartily ask, at the bottom of my heart, for you Hauskalainen and you MBHiii to go fuck yourselves. I've left Wikipedia with no intention of returning ever and there's no point for you to keep dumping on me over and over again. The Squicks (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
dave souza, talk 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Creationism, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Neil N   talk to me  19:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Creationism. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ''You need to provide a cite. Your opinion is not enough.  Neil N   talk to me '' 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You need a cite for this, "... and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching". -- Neil N   talk to me  22:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Creationism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.  Neil N   talk to me  22:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen, while you've boldly added a sentence that seems obvious to you, it has implications of original research and as such has rightly been reverted by several editors in accordance with verifiability policy. Please find a source, and discuss your proposals at Talk:Creationism rather than disruptively reverting to your version. See also WP:BRD for advice on how to proceed. Thanks, dave souza, talk 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, following your forth revert on Creationism in about three hours, I've blocked you for violating WP:3RR. Since this is your second time being blocked, I opted a longer period of 48 hours. Gabbe (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A mathematician can prove that 123876 + 123 = 123999 but it would be hard to find a citation for it. The text I added makes perfect sense and I think that 99.99% of Christians would agree with it. That there are a few editors at the Creationism article who object to any statement that Christian creationism based on Genesis is actually the same creationism as held by Jews because Genesis is a Jewish tract is perhaps not a surprise. That there is an editor there who is also an Administrator and holds to this is very mush a surprise and I am highly tempted to take strongly take action to get this right removed from this editor. WP:OR here applies because one can use routine mathematical logic to prove the point. Although I have not given references for the logical underlying truths (1 that Genesis is part of the Torah, 2 that the Torah is a Jewish tract inderlying the Jewish faith, and 3 that the Torah predates the birth of Christ) they are quite easy to get. If 1, 2 and 3 are true than Christian belief in creation based on Genesis is certainly based on an earlier Judaic belief. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We are not after the truth, but what is verifiable. If I asked you to prove 123876 + 123 = 123999 then you could point me towards a calculator (which is completely "independent" from you) as a source. We are asking you to do the same thing here... provide a source. -- Neil N    talk to me  23:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just did. I assume you don't need the references for the very obvious points of logic. I am willing to take this to dispute resolution. But tell me. What is it that you are so afraid of? Why are you against a very obvious observation that Christian belief based on Genesis is actually based on the identical Jewish faith that uses the same source? Do you deny the truth of this?  I really do not think that you and the others (Souza and Gabbe) are so concerned about WP:V as much as maintaining that the Christian belief is NOT based on the earlier Jewish faith?  To me (and I am sure most Christians), it is so blindingly obvious that it cannot possibly be disputed. Yet you three seemingly are disputing it.  Why?--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok this helps me to see your viewpoint. The key thing you're missing is that the article is not written for a Christian readership. It is written for readers of all faiths (or none at all).  You can't assume that they're going to know anything about the history of Christianity, Judaism, or the Bible. They're going to come across the text you're proposing to add and quite rightly ask, "says who?". This is why we provide references to third party sources. Also, I would step very carefully when charging that other editors have ulterior motives. We have made it clear that all you need to do to get your additions in is adhere to the Wikipedia policy of verifiabilty: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. -- Neil N    talk to me  01:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "this helps me to see your viewpoint"? Are you seriously telling me that that you could not see that the Jewish religion is not founded in part on the contents of Genesis? It's one of the great books of the Torah laying out the history of the jews! Of course I can put in references for all of the sub claims if you'll then accept the fundamental basis of the Christian belief in Genesis is the original Jewish belief in creation, but really, you are pushing the limits on the need for citations. I have little doubt that the motive for deleting the reference to the Christian faith in Genesis being founded more of Judaism rather than Christianity is that there are some Christians editing here who are so bound to tying their Christian faith to a belief in Genesis that anything that seems to imdicate that that element of that faith belongs to an earlier religion is somehow threatening. It seems ridiculous to me, but given the swift way in which three apparently different editors all swept text which pointed that out (obvious though it is to anyone with even a little knowledge of Christianity), I can only assume that this was the motive. I think other editors at WP:OR Noticeboard and at related dispute resolution assistance pages will have little trouble agreeing with me.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, why not? You're assuming that readers of this article have some knowledge of religious history and you can't do that. For example, having little interest in either the Bible or Torah, I was unaware of how the two were related. I was prepared to take on good faith that they were, but leaving "... and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching" unsourced reads like your opinion. Again, articles are not written solely for readers knowledgeable about the topic. -- Neil N   talk to me  13:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:AGF as well before you keep making (mistaken) comments about the three editors such as the one above. I think you will be disappointed if you take this to dispute resolution, but by all means go ahead. I would have reverted your edits also, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And what would your objection be other than the fact I have not provided a citation for the obvious? Do you deny that Genesis is a Jewish text? I am aware of WP:AGF of coourse, but those insisting that the claim that Genesis is either not one of the founding texts of the Judaism or that the Christian belief of Creation based on Genesis is not basing itself on a findamentally Jewish rather a Christian text must somehow have some other reason for doing so because logic must lead one to that conclusion. The only other possible reason must be if my logic is faulty. If so, I would love to hear from each of you where the logical argument I am using breaks down.  --Hauskalainen (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your argument
The bit you included was "The Book of Genesis predates Christianity and forms part of the Torah, a Hebrew Jewish scripture and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching."

In that sentence, the following five statements are made (either explicitly or implicitly): P1) The Book of Genesis predates Christianity P2) The Book of Genesis forms part of the Torah P3) The Torah is a Hebrew Jewish scripture C) Creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching. S) P1, P2 and P3 together lead to C

All five of them must be attributable in order to meet the threshold for inclusion. For the statements P1, P2 and P3 sourcing would be trivial, any decent book on the history of Christianity would suffice. I don't think a citation for those three statements would add anything to the article. So far I think we are all in perfect agreement. Statements C and S, however, may well be true – but are less trivial to verify. For them a citation would (in my view) be prudent. Specifically, if there isn't a source for S, it is an example of novel synthesis. Remember that the onus is on you.

Also, let me again emphasise that the reason you were blocked was edit-warring, not including the sentence marked in green. If, for example, you had been editing the article World War II, and someone asked you for a source that WW2 ended in 1945, violating WP:3RR on that article would likewise in all likelihood have gotten you (or anyone else for that matter) blocked. Gabbe (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gabbe! Not only have you blocked my account for 2 days you have added an additional block on my ip address for a further 2 days making the block 4 days in all. Please unblock!!
 * You shouldn't be blocked now. You still can't edit articles? -- Neil N   talk to me  01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot edit because an ip block has been applied. This is not set to expire until 00:08, 11 December 2009. Please contact Gabbe or an admin. This is not right.
 * Ok, I will bring it up on ANI right now. -- Neil N   talk to me  01:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)