User talk:Hauskalainen

You might have missed it, but I did explain it on the talk page.

You might have missed it, but I did explain it on the talk pageHere

My rational is that although your comments on English Bill of Rights 1689 are very interesting, I believe that they do not belong in the English history section of the 2nd Amendment article. I believe that only point here is what influence the English Bill of Rights had at the time of the drafting of the 2nd A. Anything that occurred after 1792 is not relevant in my opinion. I respect your input and knowledge and certainly do not want to get into an editing war, so I ask you to please review the TALK page and reconsider your position. Your points could be inserted elsewhere in the article or in another article comparing British & American gun law. Anyway, I wish you well and hope that you do not find my view too dogmatic. I apologize if any of my comments upset you. Grahamboat (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

death panels

hello. i was wondering if you noticed/liked the organization the page had[1] prior to the IP putting "rationing" under use. i liked it. thanks. Jesanj (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i have to thank you for adding wilensky to the article. i had known for a while she deserved mention (and i think i even mentioned that at DYK) but i never got around to it. thank you. =) Jesanj (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Death panel, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Kelly ^hi! 19:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this so thanks for the heads up. Now I need to find out what this means exactly. I noticed this article had been reinstated (against my better judgment) instead of the redirect to Sarah Palin, and that the content was now highly POV. I did as much as I could today to fix it and removed the POV marker which I saw that someone had placed there. My last edit was to re-fix a massive POV issue tho not a BLP one (I assume the main issues have been BLP ones). Someone I see has reverted my fixes so I guess thet get the same notice as me.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

death panels again

was the "balance" you added here in the blog posting cited? i didn't see it. Jesanj (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean by putting the word "balance" in quotation marks? I was just reflecting the balance represented in the article where it says Aaron saying

"I’m sorry, but this simply isn’t true. I think [Avik is] accurately representing the position of many on the Right. But not the Left. I would say that the position of many on the Left (and it’s the “Lefty-Left”) is that government should determine what care individuals need and pay for that. For everything else, let individuals pay for the care they want, even if that means that some people are able to afford more care than others."

So as this was the contra argument, yes, it is adding balance. It is true that in England, the government pays for care free of charge at the time of need for what it thinks people needs, but it does not prevent people from getting care that they' they think they need but which the government is not prepared to pay for. Everyone is free to go out and buy private insurance which may offer wider coverage or believe that they will wait less time if they go to a private hospital. Aaron is right in saying that it is not about "government health care or no health care" (i.e. the people are denied free choice) but rather a system which says that there is a government coverage for everyone but if you have the money or the insurance and want more, you can get it.

unfortunately i felt it necessary to revert two of your recent edits. that might upset you. i don't think Corn is off topic. consider reading the New Yorker piece about the politics of death. lots of sources (Annas, Corn, Lepore) talk about an uneasiness with death. Jesanj (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked at what you have deleted yet, but if you have deleted the bit where he says "I want death panels" (which is a direct reference to his use of the term) and replaced it with the motherhood and apple pie bit about what constitutes good end of life care and which is not directly about what Palin said, then I will revert it.... and with good reason... your edits are pushing a POV that death panels are something more than a voluntary one-to-one with the doctor about terminal care options. That cite nails that lie.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated Kettl's "I want death panels" bit because you think it is important, not because I was pushing the POV you allege. Sorry I put balance in quotation marks; I struck that. I guess we could both WP:AGF more. Jesanj (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the note of protest you left me regarding the use of National Review as a source. Please note that I did not put it there originally, and I personally dislike it, but it has been consistently found to be a reliable source at the Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and I do not believe that it is permissible to remove it. You are welcome to raise this issue at the Administrators' Noticeboard, although I think the Reliable Sources board would be a more appropriate venue. Delia Peabody (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death panel

Just be cautious about continued reversions of other editors' edits to this article, because it appears you're crossing the line into edit-warring, which is against the terms of the Palin article probation. Kelly ^hi! 18:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you too need to be careful. I give very reasoned explanations for all my edits and you seem to have ignored the reasoning in this one. I am curious why you sent me that "warning" a few days ago. I have to admit I was fooled into thinking you were an administrator or something. You acted as if you had some special authority. I checked to see if you hjad issued similar warnings to the other editors (who it seems to me are not editing neutrally) and it seems you did not.

I am curious why this very unusual edit restriction has been issued on a topic which is not BLP. I am inclined to challenge it and give examples from the recent editing at Death Panels in support of my case. If it comes to this I will defend my actions with the utmost vigor.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've started a thread at WP:ANI here. Kelly ^hi! 18:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good.. I have not yet read what you have said but I welcome opening what you and the other editors have been up to to wider scrutiny. I know that I am only adding balance and fair presentation and the other editors are trying to present a POV one.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hauskalainen. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 21:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hauskalainen. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 21:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hey.

Okay, listen up.

Firstly, I agree with you re: Palin, the need for healthcare reform in the US, etc etc. Your opinions on that topic are valid and sensible.

However.

You're not going about this properly. You're screwing up, you're making mistakes, you're getting people upset with you. I haven't read the articles in question, and I don't plan to, because it's important to me that I remain dispassionate on this... but you have to abide by the rules that have been established. Rules are established for reasons, and one of the most important reasons is that otherwise we fall into chaos.

"There is a great deal of history involved," she said. "And far too many rules have accumulated. It all started out very simple, but of course it couldn't stay simple."
"But why not?"
"Because it's done by people," the wizard said. "We can never leave anything alone; we always meddle, and adjust, and repair." -- The Wizard Lord, book 1 of the Annals of the Chosen, by Lawrence Watt-Evans

D'you understand? You've been doing stuff that goes against the rules which have been developed through many months of trial and error. You have to do it properly, or else disciplinary measures will be enforced.

I don't like enforcing disciplinary measures, but I will if I have to.

Another thing to bear in mind is that your disputes, your arguments, have become meta arguments. You've stopped arguing about the article and have begun arguing about the methods and approaches by which the argument has proceeded. Once an argument reaches the meta stage, it is very, very difficult to resolve without long-term animosity, especially because meta arguments feed on themselves.

If you wish to continue participating in the Wikipedia project, I very strongly suggest that you apologize to the people with whom you have been in disputes lately. That's not a threat; it's a recommendation: apologies may make it easier for you to interact with the other contributors, thereby lessening the possibility of you getting fed up with the project and storming off in a huff.

Remember, Wikipedia is not a zero-sum game. Apologizing does not mean that you have 'lost' or that someone else has 'won'. DS (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would apologise if I have done anything wrong. am still waiting for some Administrators to get to the case. As far as I can see I have not done anything wrong. Yes, there are lots of people CLAIMING that I have, but then there are a fair number of Ms Palin supporters around who are willing to defend the poor darling even when she puts her foot in it. For example, I recently added a piece to the article about private insurance companies doing exactly the kind of rationing that Palin complains about - bureaucrats making decisions about health care that the patient's own doctor says will help them. It was just one example, and certainly not the worse. It has been left in even though NICE and IPAB are clearly NOT rationing bodies in the same sense. IPAB only determines rates for Medicare reimbursement. Doctors are not forced to take on Medicare contracts for heavens sakes!. And NICE is not even a rationing body but a clinical excellence institute issuing guidance which doctors are not obliged to follow. Any decision about whether a drug for example is efective or not is personal to the patient, as the so called "death panel" would be. The insurance company decisions to deny care, that are very common, and they are VERY personal. Now I see that one editor has deleted that entry because it does not refer to "death panel". That is about the weakest excuse I have ever heard. The socialized medicine article which I have edited has lots of examples of socialized medicine around the world because it meets the definition of socialized medicine. That hardly any article calls for example Israel's health care system "socialized" is completely irrelevant. It meets the definition so its OK. Same with Insurance company rationing. Its more personal than anything NICE does! See the recent entry I made on NHS Cancer drugs at the Death panel article. It nails the lie that is often told that NICE is a death panel. So I revert that entry.Hauskalainen (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand. I am an administrator, and I'm telling you that you've been doing stuff wrong. I agree with you regarding Palin and health reform -- you are right about those topics -- but you are behaving wrongly. Please read this essay; I believe it may help you understand how to go about things properly. For subjects that are so very inflammatory, such as Palin-related topics, there are rules on what sort of editing can be done, because otherwise it turns into a great big pit of unreadable chaos. The people on the other side of the dispute are following the rules; you have to follow the rules also. I know how little Palin's statements are worth, but you need to be able to document that properly. Understand? DS (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have read that essay. It does not express policy and I am still baffled to understand why you think it applies in my case. The issue with the article has been that it did NOT fairly represent opposing views. It was mostly only showing views that agree with Palin or, worse still, it pandered to people's prejudices. The complaint about me was posted at 20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC). I am going to take a look at the edits I made in the 2 days before this notice went up.

this diff explains quite properly what an an advance health care directive is. It is about choice and it is not just about end of life care. It carries no citations but these would be easy to obtain. It is quite accurate.

That edit of mine is then reverted by User:Jesanj with the very baffling reason "the previous wording did no say anything about them being end of life WP:LEAD)" But just look at his edit! The previous edit DID have the words End of Life in it and his reversion added them back!

My next edit is this one which says that Palin was referring to NICE. We have absolutely no evidence for this and so it was just speculation by the newspaper journalist and therefore not properly sourced. I corrected the edit by stating what Palin actually DID say she had been referring to, and it was not NICE at all but IPAB. This edit is, as far as I can see, quite right and proper and was properly sourced. Totally within the rules of Wikipedia and making the article more accurate. To be sure I have disrupted other editors to link Palin's comment to NICE, but that cannot be helped. She did not say this.

My next edit was to delete another dubious link between Death Panels and NICE. This time the reason that was given was that the person making the comment is not a newsmaker, a politician, a lawmaker or even a regular journalist. He claims to be a "health care analyst" but in actual fact he Avik Roy is STOCKBROKER's health care analyst. He works indrectly for Wall Street and perhaps is representing a view that the medical industry in the USA would like us to hear. He is simply not a reliable source for what NICE does in the UK.

Now I did not simply delete this I also explained the delete on the TALK page. I explained that I felt that editors were deliberately using Wikipedia to promote two false premises top lead the reader to a false conclusion. My purpose in doing this was two fold (1) to show that I was aware this was happening and (2) to give reasons why we ought not to accept Avik Roy as a reliable source. You may agree or disagree with what I said there, but it was done for good reasons and in good faith. I had not made any personal allegations of editing "in bad faith" but I gave a general indication that I was prepared to think that way. Although WP does have a rule WP:AGF I think it does little harm to issue a general warning when it seems that editors are using WP editing rights to push an agenda (such as linking "death panels" to a body that has received a lot of misleading press in the United States) (Note: I have added today further information about NICE which shows that NICE rules do not prevent people topping up the NHS coverage by paying the excess over the value NICE attributes to a drug and that approved cancer drugs are free of charge to NHS patients. As this contradicts the myth that has grown upo about NICE & NHS cancer care, I fully expect that someone will soon delete this information!!. We shall see!)

An anonymous user then reverts, reinserting the false idea that Palin was referring to NICE and reinserting the Avik Roy link. And I change it back again.

This is my first revert and I think it quite within the rules and the spirit. After all I had explained why, even though it was referenced, the reference was not appropriate.

My next edit is this one which expands what Palin said, uses the word "accused" instead of "wrote" (because it was an accusation) and adds that Factcheck.org said she was wrong on three counts. I do not see anything wrong with this edit.

User:Delia Peabody then reverts my last two edits claiming that they are verifiable. She completely ignores the fact that I have already said that Verifiability is NOT SUFFICIENT for a source to be used and the fact that the last of my edits she reverted was perfectly sound.

Look, I could go on and on here, but so far all I see are other people reverting MY EDITS and not addressing MY ISSUES. Yes there have been other discussions, some of which I have responded to and some reverts by others that I think are unfair but which I have not responded to or tried to revert. I do think that I have acted reasonably at all times and within the rules of Wikipedia. So far, nobody has given me a single instance of what they are complaining about. User:Kelly just says I have been edit warring, but as you can see I have added text, often quite reasonable and sourced, and it has just been reverted by oithers. Why am I being singled out? Is it because I am being an awkward sod and introducing balance to an otherwise biased article?Hauskalainen (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

constructive criticism

hello. i would to give you a little constructive criticism on your editing here. is it welcome? thanks. Jesanj (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YOU want to give ME constructive criticism? Huh! Go on, try me!Hauskalainen (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol. let me find some examples. Jesanj (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to offer advice as well. You seem to be under the impression that the article is about end of life counseling/health care rationing, etc. It's not. It's about the political polemical term "death panel". Kelly ^hi! 03:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, here's some old news i went back and found. here i think you slipped in some editorializing. these things:[2][3] are too bold (especially the move) and better discussed before attempted. in general, i think you are rash and a bit sloppy. perhaps it is because you are in a hurry, perhaps it is because you are passionate, perhaps it is because you have strong opinions, perhaps it is because of how your brain is wired, i just don't know. but, i do know that if you slowed down a bit, and maybe did something relaxing while you edited, and took care to be a bit more cautious/attentive to detail/prone to discussion i think it would go a long way. =) happy editing. (also, your opining on talk pages is excessive, and the term you wanted is Chicken Little.) Jesanj (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelly. No Kelly. I am fed up already with the run around you caused me by your silly comment at AN/I.

All I am concerned about is that the article Death panel should not be used as a vehicle for biased presentation, but a fair and balanced one instead. Which reminds me, your delete of the section I added about private insurance companies is quite wrong given that hardly any of the references at socialized medicine actually use the term. These insurance company decisions meet the definition we have of a death panel much more closely than the IPAB for example.

Part of the problem is that we have added a section to the article called "rationing" based on Palin's use of it. But as I have noted at the Talk page, Palin uses the word "rationing" for something which does not concord with normal usage. What she is talking about is underfunding, not rationing because IPAB could, by its very terms of existence only underfund, not ration. We ought to point out that Palin's usage is out of line with normal usage of that word. ¨¨¨¨

WP:RSN

You should have saved Gratzer for a separate posting. Jesanj (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gratzer only needs saving from himself. Hauskalainen (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]