User talk:Jesanj

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jesanj, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hi Jesanj. Thanks for your message. Let me explain the changes I made to the lead paragraph, so that even if you disagree, you'll hopefully understand what I was trying to accomplish. Let's say I'm someone who's never heard of the term "death panel" before, and someone mentions it on the radio, so I go to Wikipedia to look it up. What's the first thing I want to know? Who coined the phrase? Whether it's a big fat lie? No, what I want to know is "what is a death panel." That basic information was missing from the lead, and it's really essential to a reader's understanding.

Once we establish what Palin meant by the term, we can then analyze whether there's any truth to it. Well, the reliable sources tell us there's not any truth to it, so we can mention that, which the third paragraph does: "Although there was no such provision in the bill..."

A reasonable reader will conclude from that fact that what Palin said is false. We don't need to browbeat them or insult their intelligence by repeatedly adding the word "false" every time the claim is mentioned. Even if it is a fact that the death panels claim is BS (and it is), we need to be neutral in our presentation of that fact. Right now the body of the article is telling the reader that Palin is full of BS. Repeatedly. We don't need to treat our readers like children. Repeatedly using the words "lie", "false" and "myth" suggest that we're trying really hard to convince our readers that Palin is full of BS. But we don't need to. The facts will show that. Once we've presented our readers with the views of the reliable sources that are available to us, we can let them make up their own minds.

I hope this helps. 28bytes (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and helpful explanation. I am going to disagree with you on a few points but I appreciate your message. McCaughey/Palin meant that on page 425 there were death panels. But they were mythical. The term was defined in the context of a false political myth that arose in response to proposed legislation. So, when you say "what is a death panel", that's what it is. There was no death panel. It doesn't exist in the sense of this article. The only way we have an article is because of the notability of publications written about the BS this term encompassed. (Perhaps the article title should be Death panels myth or Death panels (political lie) to make this point more clear.) It seems we're making up definitions when we define it. (And giving the term too much credit.) Also, I could be off on a tangent here, but your whole argument seems like like you're saying, well, humans can react negatively towards evidence (confirmation bias/attitude polarization) so we should break the news easy. You know, give the term the benefit of the doubt in the lead. (But I have seen no papers or books on the subject do that.) If my interpretation of your approach is right, I understand the logic, it might change more minds, but I think we are here to reflect reliable sources and not to tiptoe around the flaws of human psychology. =) O, and I was just reflecting RS when I kept putting in lie, false and myth. I'm thinking that we don't need to waste time in setting up a false scenario whereby people can make up their own minds. RS have done the deciding for us. Jesanj (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jesanj. I was about to resume work on the death panels article but I noticed you've started to undo the changes that Gatoclass and I have made. Given that, I think, at this point, it's best that I step away from the article. My advice would be for you to seek out an experienced editor who has worked on contentious political articles and see if they'd be willing to work with you on the death panels article to get it more acceptable from an NPOV perspective. I understand that you think it's fine the way it is, but given that several other editors at DYK have expressed concerns about it, I would hope you would listen to them and be willing to work with them rather that dismissing their views about the article. I'm withdrawing my participation from the article and its DYK discussion, but if a new-and-improved version of the article gets approved for the main page, I'll be sure to read it. 28bytes (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Death panels (political term)

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Newt and death panels

I previously took out wording about Gingrich "admitting" something because I don't see where he really admits anything.[1] He says it is technically true that rationing is not in the bill. I think it is just a rhetorical device to lead into his argument that the legislation is "all but certain" to result in rationing. So I added the word technically, but it's okay with me if you remove it, because I don't think whether the word technically should be used is a major issue here.

The real question here, I think, is whether Gingrich's op ed should be used as a source at all? It seems to say very little about the term death panels, and it contains many logical leaps. I started to look for another source of quotes from Gingrich see if he put it a bit better on another occasion, and this is the next thing that came up. [2]. It seems to me that in the clip, and in the LAT op ed, he was more interested in looking for arguments that might catch stir anti-legislation sentiment than in actually analyzing Palin's term or giving a direct view on it. That leads to the question of whether Gingrich should be mentioned in this article at all? Certainly he was a significant voice in the debate on the legislation, but what did he really say about "death panels"? For now, I am just adding the word "technically" because that is what he says in his op ed. Here is the diff. I will be looking for better sources on the Speaker's views on death panels. Regards -KeptSouth (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that taking out the word "admitting" is ideal, thanks. I understand your focus on the term, but I would still say, yes, Gingrich's op-ed belongs. The section it is under is Reactions, and it appears to reflect his reaction to the term. If the U.S. had a political party that consistently got 25% of the vote, and many of them said the term makes them think of purple elephants, and there were RS, I'd say it belongs because it is a notable reaction (even if it doesn't illuminate anything about the the term itself). Thanks for the message. Jesanj (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think Gingrich's reaction should be in the article, because of his prominence, and because he usually has something interesting to say. The LAT op ed may not be the best example though, so I will look for another example from or about Gingrich's reaction, and will discuss it on the talk page. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

More death panels discussion

Jesanj - I responded a couple of days ago to your long note on my talk page about the Ivan Illich quote from 1975 that you believe is relevant to the Death panels (political term) article. Would you read over our discussion there and my comments on the article talk page, and respond on the article talk page if you still believe this quote is pertinent to the article? I think we have narrowed the issues down, and that it should now be clear I was not objecting to the inclusion of material by a contemporary author, as I believe you seemed to think. In the meantime, I have removed the passage as irrelevant, but I am certainly amenable to discussion and compromise if you can offer some specific reasons to keep this passage in the article, and in doing so, can make this an issue about which reasonable people can differ.

If we cannot reach an agreement, then I think we should proceed to dispute resolution and ask for a WP:Third opinion. If others chime in, then we will have to go to the noticeboard. I contemplate removing two other passages are apparently snippets of academics sniping at each other, but I will post a separate discussion of those on the talk page before I remove them. Please consider this as a civil discussion of the issues only. I appreciate your civil tone, and I anticipate keeping all discussion between us at that same level. Hope you have a nice holiday. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. =) Jesanj (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Other quotes

I did remove the other quotes and left a discussion on the talk page under "Removing vague internally referential quotes from academics" that you may want to check, and discuss if you want. I will check the talk page daily throughout the week, and I am more than willing to discuss this or to compromise as I indicated in my note above.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing comments on article talk page

As you know, I moved around one out of sequence comment and changed a few indent levels while carefully indicating the WP provisions I was relying on. Why? Because generally, we are not supposed to change anything on an article talk page - the minor edits I did were an exception to the rule. Please see WP:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. Accordingly, I have restored the text you recently removed from the article talk page. -Best regaaards-KeptSouth (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing dates on article talk page

Also a bit of an issue here - signature dates are not supposed to be changed as you did [3], [4]. Same guidelines will explain.-Best regards- KeptSouth (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Response

Talkpage reply removed. Discussion: User_talk:Jimmuldrow#hello_2 Jesanj (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For your consistent, gradual improvement of Death panel. It's not easy working on such controversial topics, but you seem to be handling yourself well. Kelly hi! 22:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to congratulate you for how you're handling issues with this article - when I first came across it, it was in sad shape NPOV-wise...but every time I go back to look, it seems to have gotten just a little bit better. I try to be careful about editing topics like this (when I have a personal point of view on the issue) but I now have high hopes that this will eventually be a quality article with the type of content you can't find anywhere but Wikipedia. Kelly ^hi! 22:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Second Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For consistent and excellent arguments in the face of zealous ignorance, this Barnstar is awarded to Jesanj. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 10:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Jesanj: It was good to meet to you at the meetup today. Let's keep in touch. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It was nice to meet you too. Agreed. Jesanj (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Have you considered joining a WikiProject? I thought the WikiProject United States Public Policy may interest you. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion I will check it out. Jesanj (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Kudos

Good work adding fact check matter on the Independent Payment Advisory Board! Thanks for doing that. -- Dauster (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Hauskalainen

Just take him to AN/I. You have a lot of support behind you regarding his actions/behavior and I think this may be best served with Administrator attention. Dusti^*poke* 04:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing again

I see you have again been pushing back into the article texts which not very long ago you agreed to remove. It is totally POV to insert allegations that are unbalanced. For example the claim that NICE is a "rationing body". It is a body responsible for informing the medical profession of clinical best practice, reviewing new technologies and pressing for their introduction where appropriate (and which occasionally sets "coverage rules"). This latter role, which is a very small part of NICE's overall responsibility is exactly what private insurance companies do in America. If you are going to insert misleading claims into WP (even if they have come from British sources) then that has to be balanced. It would be better all around if the article just focussed on the main claim that Palin made in relation to "Death Panels", and that was that she claimed that her elderly parents and her disabled son might end up in front of a panel established by Obama where they would have to plead for their lives based on their worth to society. All this other stuff about NICE and IPAB is pure fluff and distraction. As I think you are perfectly aware. Hauskalainen (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But we are asked to stay on topic. Thus, a necessary evil appears to be that one article may not treat a related topic as neutrally as the main article should (in this case, the NICE article). I don't think one should be suprised if this necessary evil occured on the main article for a political term. Nor would I consider it POV pushing, just proper editing. Jesanj (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured we could put in "one function" to ease your mind. Jesanj (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You reverted 13 carefully explained edits of mine claiming them to be "vandalism". I am going to reinstate my edit version. At least you must justífy each reversion. Then we can discuss what is to be done if we have a difference of opinion. IMHO you are the one who is engaging in vandalism by unwarrranted support for the inclusion of WP:FRINGE theories and by the placement of texts that you find to be inconsistent with a view you are trying to portray. This article ought to be very straightforward. The IPAB was created to set Medicare reimbursement rates under a rule in which the changes would become effective unless congress overruled them. This replaces the old system where IMAC would recommend changes to congress but congress often failed to act on the advice. Stating the merits for one arrangement over the other should take no more than a couple of sentences with references to web sites that make the arguments. Wikipedia should not be publishing the arguments of each side because that would be using Wikipedia as another talking shop and that IS NOT ITS PURPOSE.Hauskalainen (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

? That was a mistake and I reverted myself that same minute. Jesanj (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen

I have reported Hauskalainen at the admin notice board. Here is the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#More_problems_with_Hauskalainen Intermittentgardener (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you have been talking to yourself again. Do not make the mistake of thinking that this will provide you with a defence against wp:sock.It won't.~~

Re: Question

Hi Jesanj, AutoWikiBrowser is most helpful for tasks that affect a number of articles. For example, finding and replacing a string across articles, adding a category to a set of articles. AutoWikiBrowser/Real user manual hopefully will be expanded to include more examples. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FEED

Hello, Jesanj. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help_desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  07:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry allegation

You may wish to be aware that an allegation of sockpuppetry has been made by another editor about Angel's flight at AN/I and I have repeated there my allegation that there is sockpuppetry going on at the articles that Angel's flight and certain other editors including you have been editing in a way that strongly suggests you are connected persons. The main allegation though is about Angel's flight. I know that you have welcomed a checkuser against your ID so you will not be concerned if this happens as a result of my additional comments at AN/I. I see that again your recent edit here [here] is identical to Angelä's flight edit here. As I say WP is not a place to promote some really whacky ideas, even if they have been published by reliable sources. There are limits.Hauskalainen (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

People agreeing with each other is not enough to prove sockpuppetry. If people never agreed we would never be able to reach consensus and nothing would get done. Intermittentgardener (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen is repeating his sockpuppetry allegations here in the context of a 3RR report that I made against him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:hauskalainen_reported_by_User:intermittentgardener_.28Result:_.29Intermittentgardener (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw... Jesanj (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

April 24, 2011

Hello, Jesanj. You have new messages at Talk:Death panel.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

April 27, 2011

Hello, Jesanj. You have new messages at Talk:Death panel.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. =) Jesanj (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo Talk Page

The edits I made were mostly just a call for better citations. I'll be sure to engage the Talk Page before I make any more edits. Thanks for your help! Ratfinx (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

French India Socialist Party

Hello. Thanks for the DYK review. I have expanded the article and copyedited some. Also added a new hook proposal. --Soman (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Marisol Deluna Talk Page

Hi Jesanj, I refrained from replying in the articles talk page and moved it to the editors talk page as you suggested but the original comments are still there and I was wondering if I needed to remove them or leave them? The editor who made the accusations has *partially* apologized but their comments are still there as well. Do you know the correct course of action to take at this point? Thanks again. Aa1232011 (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You can take a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines but I doubt there is anything that should be done. You're welcome. Jesanj (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fee-for-service

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Overutilization

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks!

for the notification regarding my user page. --Soman (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. =) Jesanj (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

thanks for adding the intro message onto the Fall 2011 section of my user talk page. I appreciate it! Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I replied on my Talk page to you. -- Avanu (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Support

Thanks for the support, much appreciated. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Euthanasia

Just wondering, why did you remove my referral to the Groningen Protocol? I used it as example of the strict and well described conditions to avoid prosecution in case of involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought it might be overly detailed, for the lead. I was thinking other people could click on that type of euthanasia (or go down the page) to get more details if they want. But I wouldn't object to it being put back in. Jesanj (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Marisol Deluna- External Links

Is there any way you can help me by compiling a list in a proper Wikipedia format using some of my original research? It seems as if I keep making things more difficult than they should be. I can send you the information that was deleted if this makes it easier and fine tune it a bit to only include projects online. Fingers crossed and thank you either way. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

For external links? Can you provide the diff where your original research was removed? You can post below. I don't mind. But, no offence, I'm not terribly interested in the subject. I got involved in an attempt to cool down some heated and inappropriate exchanges. So no promises. But I don't mind spending a little bit of time. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The following were found on and offline- Yet are not Encyclopedic. (Company Website and Facebook) I will continue to search for "Verifiable Articles".

A Sample List of Non-profit Designs Part 2:

Alamo Heights Independent School District American Yacht Club Association of Junior Leagues International Campus De Excelencia- Spain City Garden Club of the City of New York Cosmopolitan Club of New York Covert Girls- England Daughters of the American Revolution- London Daughters of the British Empire Daughters of the Founders and Patriots of the State of New York Fiesta San Antonio Friends of the Canary Islands The General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen of the City of New York Hamilton College Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Junior League of Central Westchester- New York Junior League of the City of New York Junior League of Greater Princeton Junior League of Philadelphia- Pennsylvania Junior League of Raleigh- North Carolina Junior League of Richmond- Virginia Lotos Club New York National Society of Colonial Dames of the State of Georgia National Society of Colonial Dames of the State of New York National Society of Colonial Dames of the State of North Carolina New England Society New York City Housing Authority (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/pr/storecatalogue.shtml) San Antonio Convention and Visitors Bureau Shooting Society- England Sioux City Symphony Guild Smith College Sunset Club of Seattle University of Houston Wellesley College

Thank you a million times over as my understanding of Wikipedia is improving daily due to editors such as yourself. Now off to my grandchildren! Beth ElizabethCB123 (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is essentially a list of product offerings right? If so, I'm unaware of any encyclopedic use here. Jesanj (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I noted these purely for your use as a gauge to understand that she is a designer that is not as I mentioned, "runway" yet rather has taken a different route. Her page stands at one sentence and one reference. I have never seen anything like this. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just added two more references in addition to the book for the Pilgrims Society to slow the continued mockery of another user after I stated being familiar with her work in London. He is trying to pinpoint my identity in the most unflattering matter. Can you remind him again? Thank you for expanding her inclusion. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I will. Thanks for the note. If it doesn't work you can politely explain (and provide diffs) that the user keeps accusing you of being a sock puppet and the subject of the article (who appears to have also posted). You could do this at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance or probably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is best. The editor shouldn't be accusing you of sockpuppetry. I mean, it's a step in the right direction that they said they might apologize if they were proven wrong! Sad, hunh? But they shouldn't be putting their neck out. There is an open case. It will be dealt with. It's clearly inapproprate. Be polite. Keep it simple if you post. And mention the how they said they might apologize if proven wrong so you are fair. Maybe just ask others/an administrator to admonish the user. But I'm going to post a diff of this on their talk page and tell them I think they shouldn't be putting their neck out like that. Maybe it will be unnecessary to go elsewhere. Jesanj (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that before I saw the invective of his most recent personal attack. Sorry you're having to put up with this. Jesanj (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"At least sign your posts, if you must continue this tedious blathering. And I would assert that you clearly don't know the difference between your proverbial bottom and a hole in the ground. And to the one under the rock from which you crawled I wish you would soon return. Respectfully.Tao2911 (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)" This is now crossing the line in my life on or offline. Can we report him? I don't know how. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I see two other editors have followed suit. I don't know if I am allowed, but on his own page he attacked me. Can I add any of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tao2911#Marisol_Deluna. To think I originally went to him for assistance. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You're allowed, but I seriously doubt it would make a difference. It looks like it might settle itself. We can get back to more meaningful editing, I think. =) Jesanj (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Tao's contribution on the "Noticeboard"? He states the professor in question never taught her- How would he know this? Most high tier art schools have studies outside of one's own degree. I will not contribute to avoid additional dispute. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)