User talk:Jimmuldrow

Welcome to Wikipedia!
&mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; J im M uldrow's T ALKPAGE &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash; &mdash;

Dear Jimmuldrow: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~&#126;). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! --Alex S 22:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

American Civil War
Uh... can you kinda revert all the archiving you just did? Not sure what happened but everything's screwed up now. I'll fix it up for you. (It did need to be archived, it just wasn't done propoerly).-- Wizardman 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, easy enough to fix. Next time read up on WP:ARCHIVE adn you'll do fine. If it makes you feel better, it took me 9 months to learn :)-- Wizardman 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

American Civil War GA sweeps review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed American Civil War and have determined that it is in very good shape but need some assistance to remain a GA. I have put the article on hold for seven days until the issues on the talk page of the article are addressed. I wanted to mention this to you since you are a significant contributor to the page and, if interested, could assist in improving the article and help it to remain a GA. It currently has a few problems concerning the lead and citation templates & needs about 20 more inline citations for quotes, numbers, etc. Additionally, I will be leaving messages on other WikiProjects and editors affiliated with the page to increase the number of participants assisting in the workload.

If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

William Rehnquist
I noticed that you had done some work on this article (removed Trivia section). Are you going to continue and address other issues as well? (see Talk:William Rehnquist). Ruslik 07:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unintended action?
Did you intend to delete this material? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your copyediting on American Civil War is appreciated
.

I looked at page history
...and saw something I thought I'd never see on ACW main page:stability. Whatever you're doing, it's shown durability. Must be okay with most folks. BusterD (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's always nice to know what works, and what doesn't.Jimmuldrow (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Frequently asked questions about the American Civil War
A Proposed Deletion template has been added to the article Frequently asked questions about the American Civil War, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. - Tim1965 00:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter slur
Hi, I would like to apologize for the actions committed under my username to Ronald Reagan. I am currently at a Memorial Day party and did not sign out of my account, enabling my brother to vandalize the page. I am sorry for the trouble. You will see that I am an experienced editor, as well as a main editor of the page, and am committed to improving and expanding Wikipedia. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan
Jim, I would appreciate if you would please use the discussion page for, well, discussion, rather than simply revert me in article space (as you have done twice now). I've stated my reasons as to why my proposal falls more in line with Wikipedia guidelines/policies WP:RS, WP:SS, WP:SIZE, and WP:WEIGHT. Your most recent edit that included very similar material, though not placed in a section of its own, is barely an improvement from the first version. This is starting to get out of hand. Happyme22 (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or is Happyme22 lording over that article. He's been working very hard to keep out one sentence about the AMT.  Is he trying to protect the article, or the Reagan myths. Mattnad (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Final trigger
I tried to fix a section in American Civil War to prevent duplication (two mentions of final trigger in same section). You put it back. I do not see how that improves this overly-long section and ridiculously long paragraph :: (I could not see the paragraph break was still there -- with all the linking & line bumps by superscript footnote numbers) --JimWae (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiring Fannon
Gonna have to remove those cites you put in, sorry. Neither mentions Fannon being hired, let alone Palin hiring him. I am sure you felt as I that it was cheap and ridiculous of someone to ask for a citation for that. I had, however, left the in because it was ironic to anyone who had read the previous paragraph, filled full of her firing Stambaugh. It was obvious that she had the power to hire and there was no reason to have left it to a subordinate and no reason for a superior, which would be what, the state governor or something?, to have done it. So, the edit will be, citations gone, citation needed tag gone. I am pursuing the rape kit charges issue diligently. If you can take a look at the Discussion page, look further up the page from where everyone else is messing around and you will see where that issue is being discussed, below --Rape Kits again-- and above --Golden Flurry--. Anarchangel (talk) The cites were already gone by the time I had got there. Anarchangel (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks for the info.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO
Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reagan and minorities
Hi Jim, do you have url links to any of the articles that you cited in Political positions of Ronald Reagan? If you do, could you add them? Thanks! --Happyme22 (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, well thanks for replying. No no, I'm just out to get the facts straight and the lame duck remark was uncited. Thanks for contributing! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My edits were a good faith attempt to show both sides of the issue, or at least that was my intention.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagreed with/opposed
You're right, of course. Missed that, my bad. Well spotted. Anarchangel (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Slavery/Civil war
The way the paragraph reads, it says the pillowcase massacre was the reason for the breakdown in prisoner exchanges. The supplied cite doesn't support this. Perhaps the bit of prisoner exchange should be removed, as no reliable nsource has been supplied linking the two events.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A better source was added.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

why??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.189.212 (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello
I just completed alot of research On the Civil war. The north had 2,100,000 soliders

--MyspaceMan12 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, simple mistake...right! --MyspaceMan12 (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit to Sarah Palin
Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.'

Health Care Debate
You may have pegged me wrong on this issue, Jim. One of the things you may know about me, as I stated so on my talk page more than a year ago, is that I favor treating health care as an inherently governmental function, just like highway maintenance or managing a military. My family and I have lived under a "single-payer" system for 35 years (military health care), and I can tell you from firsthand experience that both sides of the debate are wildly exaggerating its benefits and its problems. I'd be happy to share the realities of our experience, if you're interested. As far as Palin's specific contention about "death panels" or whatever, while exaggerated to the extreme, it is actually a feasible outcome of certain provisions of the bill if taken to the logical extreme. Remember, money will (and must) drive health care decision-making, even as it does so today, and this is particularly true when you're talking about a monolithic beast where extra pennies amount to billions in the aggregate. However, I have faith in democracy and our ability to shape our future when such things go off-track, so I think the idea of that "Soylent Green" world is surely her bogeyman. Finally, if I could prognosticate, I predict this much ado about nothing anyway. What will come is some form of a watered down health care bill for the poor. The "public option", as it's been presented, is insufficient in scope and unsustainable under its own weight. Thus, it will require tax-based revenue to sustain the near- and long-term, while driving the costs of private comprehensive or supplemental plans even higher because of the demand for resources. As a result, most people will be dissatisfied with the presented public option, but would still pay higher taxes to support that while also paying more for private coverage. The only feasible solution would have been a public-only plan, a la military care, that aggregated what Americans pay for their private insurance today. Private supplemental coverage for non-covered procedures would emerge for those who could afford the extra expense. Finally, I am very disappointed that the administration "sold its soul to the devil" (drug companies) in exchange for favorable press. As you probably know, prescription drug costs comprise 10-15 percent of our overall health care costs, and the agreements made by the administration essentially indemnify them from many cost-reduction measures. Anyway, we blog, and I'm not even sure you care, but I did want to let you know where I stand on this versus how I treat a WP BLP (which are two very different things!) Fcreid (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Contributions to Ezekiel J. Emanuel
Thank you for your additions to the Ezekiel J. Emanuel article - they go a long way to making this article a much more informative piece. However, I wanted to pass on a friendly word of warning about plagiarism. As documented in WP:PLAG, "duplicating text with little or no alteration" is a violation of copyright, unless that duplication is brief and completely enclosed by quotation marks. Usually, re-wording and re-ordering everything is sufficient to avoid any kind of plagiarism accusation. While you should be commended for integrating several sources and re-ordering their content, the verbatim use of even 3 or 4 words in a row without enclosing them in quotations can often be deemed plagiarism.

Aside from that, thanks again for your contributions to the article. Happy editing. --Zach425 talk / contribs 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I tried to fix the error you mentioned. You were right about that.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Bachmann
You addition of information to Michele Bachmann's article is very much WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. You have taken section of quotes from Sarah Palin, Bachmann, and others to try and frame Bachmann's role in this incident to a non-neutral point of view. This is NOT an article about Sarah Palin, and if you wish to make such drastic and very negative additions to a WP:BLP you will have to discuss such changes on the talk page. Arzel (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The "OR" was done not by me but by Sarah Palin, who credited Bachmann for her opinion on Ezekiel Emanuel. Bachmann and Palin both quoted from Betsy McCaughey's article Deadly Doctors. ABC News, TIME and The Atlantic mentioned all this.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

About the Sarah Palin Death Panel thing
I did read your reference. There is nothing in the reference that says Palin was inspired by Bachmann. It might be truth but the reference does not say that. The article does not use the word "inspired" or any synonym that I can see. It merely points out two facts but does not state or even imply that there was any kind of causal or inspirational relationship between those two facts. You are inferring or synthesizing that one fact inspired the other fact. See Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What way would you paraphrase the ABC statement Palin refers in her statement to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who in a speech on the floor of the House, Palin said, described the "Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff. ... I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors." ?


 * Or Palin's August 12 statement, changing topics from section 1233 to Ezekiel Emanuel as follows: Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel?


 * Or the link on Palin's August 7 post to facebook to the YouTube video of the Bachmann speech?


 * Or when Palin said on September 8, directly referring to Ezekiel Emanuel, particularly disturbing and Such ideas are shocking? Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When I first replied here, I didn't know that you had raised the same question on the Palin talk page. When I saw it there I copied my answer there so that others could see both question and answer. Now that I know the Q&A is on both pages, I'll respond only there - but possibly not right away as I don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. Regards. Sbowers3 (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It was Palin herself who was "synthesizing" the "propter hoc", as described by both the references and Palin's posts to her facebook page. Read the references accurately. The "propter hoc" comment would make sense only if you don't read the references at all. As explained by the media and Palin herself, Palin said that the Bachmann speech was the source of her ideas about Ezekiel Emanuel.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It would seem that you see your own version of references, in order to make the "post hoc" "propter hoc" statement possible. For example, if the ABC statement were altered (in the mind's of some editors, perhaps) to read as follows: Palin refers in her statement to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who in a speech on the floor of the House, Palin said, described the "Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff. ... I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors." In other words, mentally edit out facts that contradict. Since Palin referred directly to Bachmann's speech about Ezekiel Emanuel, you can't describe them as seperate random unrelated events.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no "Death Panel" article. It redirects to Political positions of Sarah Palin. I knew I was taking a risk by posting what I did there, but "Deather" redirects to Health care reform in the United States. Which provides no information, not even about death panels. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that. Maybe YOU won't, but Bonewah might. I'll check for a better source when I have time. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

death panel redirect
Ok so go on talk and get some consensus for your proposed change to the redirect. I'm not grinding any axes here. I already got my single-payer public medical insurance and though I find the opposition of certain people in the USA to this perplexing to say the least I don't really care much. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
I appreciate your trying to step in and build some resolution at Sarah Palin, but at this rate, User:Scribner is just going to drag you into an edit war. I've brought the matter up at WP:ANEW, but it might be best for you to let him tag the article however he wants for the moment. user: J  aka justen (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds about right to me. I tried.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought you gave the quote and then posed a question. I put the quote back up with a link to the transcript and audio of the interview. tsheiimneken (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Please see this report. You seem to be engaged in a back-and-forth "slow" edit-war. Please stop and discuss the issue with other editors. If you're at an impasse, then involve some of the other editors on the talk page - certainly the article is watched by a lot of people who may be able to help generate a consensus one way or the other. If the slow edit-warring continues, then you may be blocked from editing. MastCell Talk 21:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll do as you request. However, it was not me but Bonwah who endlessly mass deletes edits. I didn't mass delete Bonwah's edits. Also, WP:NPOV would seem to require the inclusion of a mainstream point-of-view with many reputable references, such as the point-of-view that there are no death panels in a health care bill. Bonwah essentially blocks anyone who isn't a fan from editing the article. Still, I'll do as you request.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've raised your name on Talk:American Civil War
Could you help illuminate the discussion? BusterD (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin's political positions are her positions. The section is not a debate on her positions. Just as Barack Obama's positions are his, etc. You seem intent on proving that her positions are negative, wrong, or in some other way, have no merit. This article is on probation for a reason. It has an unusually high amount of traffic vis-a-vis other articles. Unusual weight is given to petty items like the librarian, etc. These are small town events that have taken over an entire section and yet Manticore55 sees fit to entirely delete mention of Palin's own memoirs on her own BLP. Do you see how the editing comes across on that page? Malke 2010  19:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to your response...
Jim, replied on my talk. Fcreid (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, and in response to your own query on my goals, I thought I made my position on this pretty clear six months ago (and a bit higher up on your talk page here). I am a staunch advocate for single-payer health care and only single-payer care.  Critics can call it "socialized medicine" if they wish, and they might be right in the denotation, but it's fundamentally no different from saying we have a "socialized transportation system" or "socialized military force".  These programs seem to support American society and capitalism quite well.  Factual pros: Incredibly low costs to program and consumer.  Factual cons: Lower quality products, services and availability.  Those who can afford supplemental coverage should be free to buy that in the private marketplace, as there will surely be a thriving market for such coverage.  Also for the record, on the matter of "death panels" specifically and without getting into a prolonged debate of my own related beliefs, I not only comprehend the necessity of but adamantly support the institution of treatment protocols for the terminally ill.  I'm not so clinical as not to comprehend the emotional ramifications, but having direct experience of agonizing struggles with those who will inevitably die very soon regardless, I have concluded that the expenditure versus return (in both dollars and suffering) is indefensible.  More often than not, that suffering is prolonged by others who care but are neither suffering nor paying.  I'll let you decide whether that puts me in lock-step with Palin's position on health care reform, but my position has nothing to do with the content and quality of her BLP article.  Finally for the record, I made my own prediction on the outcome of the current legislative debate in my same post above... and here we are today.  Fcreid (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
Hello Jimmuldrow, whenever you are ready, show me your edit on the political position thing, okay? You can answer on my talk page if you want or the Sarah Palin talk page. We will get it resolved. Malke 2010  04:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin
Sarah Palin is under WP:Article probation. I've again closed this thread on the talk page, which wasn't much more than a long complaint about another editor. Please use the talk page only to comment on sources and how to echo them in the text. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

March Coordinator elections
Hey there! I'm pinging a list of ACW content area editors I believe would be suitable candidates for the positions. FYI, I'm entering myself, and I wanted some camaraderie with editors I trust already. If you're interested, read up on the responsibilities and ponder whether you could devote the time to serving in this way. Thanks, even if you'd rather decline. BusterD (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Truce...
What you just added works for me. Fcreid (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried. I really tried to be fair.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking to me on Palin Talk, Jim? If so, I have no idea what you're talking about and have no desire to argue just for the sake of argument. Fcreid (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You certainly don't allow any large number of references to interfere with opinions.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy St. Paddy's Day


Happy St. Pat's Day, Jimmuldrow. :D Malke  2010  23:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Death Panel Quote
FWIW. Palin's Quote made it to the top ten. Just thought you should know.[]--Buster7 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious. Malke 2010  16:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is hilarious, too. . XD Malke 2010  02:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All very cool! My fave is, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." Speaker at health care reform town hall meeting in Simpsonville, S.C., commenting on the government-created Medicare program, quoted by The Washington Post on July 28.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * XD XD XD. Where in hell do they think that money is coming from?  Manna from heaven? Malke  2010  20:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at CSA page
Hi Jimmuldrow. I was wondering, if you have the time, if you would look at an edit I made on the CSA page, under the Civil Rights section. I have been watching an edit war this past week there, and thought the paragraph I added might satisfy both parties, but my own edit was reversed within 30 minutes. The discussion is under #16 Leave Lincoln Out. BTW, Lincoln is mentioned in the text of the article 14 times, and 7 in the notes. Thanks, Dubyavee (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Curious
I notice that you've been unlinking Death panel nearly everywhere it appears, I was curious why. Kelly hi! 14:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Imho, it will be awhile before it's any good.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WIth respect, that's not a reason to delink it. Linking an article helps to bring other editors to the article who will improve it. Kelly  hi! 15:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why?
I have blocked you for 48 hours for edit warring on Sarah Palin. I have warned you multiple times against edit warring without discussing the matter on the talk page. I see no indication that you have changed your behavior. Instructions on how to appeal this block, should you wish to do so, can be found at Guide to appealing blocks. NW ( Talk ) 16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't edit warring, and wasn't even the first to revert one time. I didn't revert two times, much less three times, even in response to someone else. I'm sure you must have some honest intention that I just don't quite realize yet. Have a good day.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if I didn't discuss one zillion and one times instead of a zillion, sorry. If you think that Palin's statements about death panels are not very well-documented, well-known and very relevant to many statements made by Palin over a period of years, you are mistaken.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

However one feels about it, one would have to have been hiding under a rock for the past few years to pretend that Palin nothing to do with death panels, or that she had almost nothing to do with death panels, or to pretend that the complications with this story are not as well-known and well-documented as they are.

For many months the endless mass-deleting consensus was that Palin never said a single word about death panels. Now the consensus allows that she might, perhaps, have said two words about this, but no more.

In other words, there is a large gap between “consensus” and honesty. What’s massively well documented by many sources deemed to be reliable by Wikipedia is not documented, what’s well-known according to opinion polls is unheard of, and what’s relevant in that it reflects many things Palin said over a period of years has nothing to do with Palin. Either this, or Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion all mean the opposite of what they say. What’s tiny is always “overwhelming.”

One editor said there should be “no cherry-picking”, and then replaced the rest with his opinion that Ezekiel Emanuel really IS running a death panel as his interpretation of “the truth”, and mass deleted the rest. Most reliable sources tell a very different story.

A dishonest consensus indicates merely that the number of less than honest editors is large, which does not make for a very good encyclopedia article. Ten liars are not ten times as honest as one liar.

Nuclear Warfare blocked me for “edit-warring” for not two, much less three reverts, and even though I was not the first to revert even one time. I guess this lie must mean a lot to the “consensus” of pathological, repetitive, persistent, extreme, year after year liars.

Horologiun said that “excluding information is not the same as dishonesty” even if the exclusion is very, very selective and dishonest, and contradicts all Wikipedia guidelines for inclusions. If this is true, the death panel “selective  and misleading” lie was not the “Lie of the Year,” and Mark Twain was mistaken when he thought he knew a thing or two about lies, including the silent lie (“one of the most majestic lies that the civilizations make it their sacred and anxious care to guard and watch and propagate.”)

Could I never again hear that repeating all the details about these lies merely a gazillion times instead on one gazillion and one means that I didn’t discuss all the reasons why well enough. The persistent message from the “consensus” is: The more liars the better. The bigger the lies, the better, The more extreme and repetitive the lies the better. If all the very well documented and well known reasons why lies are lies get mentioned only one gazillion times instead of one gazillion and one, it’s because honest people don’t explain well enough. If liars NEVER explain why they keep mass deleting the most well-referenced, well-known, relevant to Palin information, it’s because pathological lying is so wonderful.

Which might be the single biggest issue we disagree about.

Nuclear Warfare's statement "I have warned you multiple times against edit warring without discussing the matter on the talk page. I see no indication that you have changed your behavior" IS AS BIG A LIE AS ANY.

One obvious clue as to all the reliable references for the above are all the references that mass-deleting liars keep deleting year after year. It's not as if they have no way of knowing how dishonest they are.Jimmuldrow (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic-banned
You really aren't getting it, are you. Consider yourself topic-banned from all articles related to Sarah Palin. NW ( Talk ) 20:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The above has nothing to do with any edit warring on my part. I only did one revert to that page in many months, and I wasn't the first to revert that time.

The two points of contention here that I'm aware of are: one editor claims the article should say that Ezekiel Emanuel IS plotting a death panel, which is contradicted by many sources deemed to be reliable by Wikipedia, and then there was the very incorrect claim that I didn't explain why Palin's death panel statements were well-documented, well-known (according to opinion polls) and very relevant to Palin. The latter was explained repeatedly and in detail. No evidence to the contrary was ever attempted. The following is one example:Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This editor said that, contrary to TIME, The New York Times, the New York Daily News and other sources, Palin's death panel remarks had nothing to do with Betsy McCaughey. This editor previously repeatedly accused others of violating Wikipedia rules that require editors to follow what sources deemed to be reliable by Wikipedia have to say. Palin herself cited a Michelle Bachmann speech about a Betsy McCaughey editorial which, according to Palin, was given by "Michele Bachmann" in a "floor speech to the House of Representatives" as "a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors." Palin even had a link to a You Tube video of the Bachmann speech in which Bachmann said, "This morning I read a column written by Betsy McCaughey, and I would like to quote from it extensively now."

The editor warrior in question made an incorrect correction based on the above incorrect assumption.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This editor also said, "These so-called death panels have no relationship to Advance Directives" as a reason for another deletion. Palin had her spokeswoman tell the media that her death panel statement was about page 425 of a health care bill, which reads in part, "(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses." Page 425 is otherwise known as Advance Care Planning Consultation. A long list of fact-checkers accurately describe the legislation as allowing Medicare reimbursement for voluntary end-of-life counseling about advance directives.

The above describes another incorrect correction by this edit warrior.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The following edit was deleted because the editor in question said Palin's death panel remarks had nothing, or at least not much, to do with her opinions about Ezekiel Emanuel. The edit read as follows:

In explaining her prior "death panel" comments, Palin said, "My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel...." Palin reiterated this explanation in three separate posts to her facebook page and again through her spokeswoman.

The editor never read the references, or severely misunderstood them. Palin's own words about this are as follows:

From August 7, 2009 - Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

From August 11, 2009 - My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11] President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough.

From September 8, 2009 The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a “death panel.” The work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health policy advisor and the brother of his chief of staff, is particularly disturbing on this score. Dr. Emanuel has written extensively on the topic of rationed health care, describing a “Complete Lives System” for allotting medical care based on “a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”[12] He also has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”[13] Such ideas are shocking, but they could ultimately be used by government bureacrats to help determine the treatment of our loved ones.

According to The Atlantic, Palin reiterated this point through her spokeswoman. As The Atlantic said, "Reading the post, it's hard to see what Palin actually meant. Her political spokesperson later confirmed that Palin was referring to the principle of 'community standards,' which she linked to a New York Post piece about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel."

It would appear that Palin made this point more than once, more than twice, and in words that indicate that she attached a great deal of importance to this point. I will mark this as yet another incorrect correction from an edit warrior.

This editor previously said the article should reflect what Palin said, and then kept deleting what Palin said. He later said the edit was deleted because it is large. It's not large. It's tiny. Almost all of the details are through a wikilink to another article.

removed discussion line
Hi Jim, I removed the discussion section at American Civil War. I was not using my account at that time and someone logged in under my name. Figured out who it was and they won't be doing it anymore so no worries. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Sounds good.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

American Cvil War - speedy deletion?
Is the speedy deletion notice on "American Civil War" vandalism? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year Jimmuldrow!

 * Many thanks! I wish he same to you, and your family.Jimmuldrow (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
You were banned from articles relating to Sarah Palin 3.5 years ago. I do not believe that ban has been lifted. Another violation of it may be enforced by a block of significant duration. NW ( Talk ) 15:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

To set the record straight, the topic ban 3.5 years ago is because many reliable sources say that Palin's death panel remarks didn't quite fact-check, and you apparently think they do, based on zero references that you chose to mention in those 3.5 years. If you believe in death panels that much, you have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to intimidate, threaten and censor, regardless of how strongly you feel. Editors such as yourself used mass censorship for years to portray Palin as never having said a single word about death panels. Now you allow that she said two words about death panels, and said much more about foreign policy.

I don't expect anything I say to change what you say or do, just setting the record straight about what we both know about the honesty of your opinions.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
Your account has been blocked indefinitely. If you are willing to agree to the terms of your topic ban from pages related to Sarah Palin, which you are of course fully aware of, you may request unblocking by following the procedures listed at this linked page. NW ( Talk ) 20:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)