Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 25 February 2009

Welcome to my talk page

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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#National_Health_Service. 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 Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 {{hangon}} 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 {{hangon}} 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/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 Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Sicko appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Ryan Delaney 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 {{hangon}} 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Sandi Toksvig

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 Misplaced Pages 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/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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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? -- ] 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is one of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines for citing sources Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages citation templates, which formats citations nicely. If you decide not to do this, please remember that URLs need to be formatted like this: 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 according to the reverts you have made on Gun politics. 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 Misplaced Pages 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/search/?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#user:Hauskalainen 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;

• 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.

Anastrophe (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

- 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"[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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)