User talk:Apatens

Welcome

Hello, Apatens, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DickClarkMises (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please

Regarding this edit: Let's refrain from name-calling, okay? I want a neutral article version, not one that promotes a particular point-of-view as to the debate over healthcare policy and statistics.DickClarkMises (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Gratzer

Hey, I'm on your side.

Why not use "false" and "misleading" in quotes, and give the source and the subject that Grazer was accused of being false and misleading about?

It's stronger and more convincing to use the quotes and source than not to use them. And it's easier to survive a WP:NPOV criticism, especially since this is a WP:BLP.

To say that Gratzer was false and misleading is potentially libelous and violates WP:NPOV. To quote a respected organization saying it is not. --Nbauman (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has been discussed at length in Talk:David Gratzer#False and misleading versus "disputed".

The lede is a summary of the article.

The "Guiliani advisor and false cancer statistics" section of the article cites multiple WP:Reliable sources who consulted leading prostate cancer experts and cancer statisticians who found Giuliani's cancer "survival rates" to be false and misleading nonsense numbers calculated by Gratzer in an opinion article in the Summer 2007 issue of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal.

Specifically citing only one (PolitiFact.com) of many WP:Reliable sources in the lede and putting "false" and "misleading" in quotes is inappropriate because it could give a reader the impression that:

only one source found Gratzer's objectively false and misleading cancer "survival rates" to be false and misleading nonsense numbers.
scare quotes were being used to indicate that the words "false" and "misleading" did not signify their literal or conventional meanings.

Apatens (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apatens, they're not scare quotes. In journalism, for example, you use quotation marks to indicate that the source said exactly that, and you're not paraphrasing. That's basic college freshman composition -- direct quotes from an authoritative source are stronger than your own paraphrase. We're not making this up, that's exactly the words they used.

I've never seen another case in which a published MD got a basic medical claim so completely wrong. We have specific quotes from distinguished cancer and epidemiology experts saying that. They're detailed in David_Gratzer#Giuliani_advisor_and_false_cancer_statistics. I think I added some of those cites myself. It's important to show people that we're not interpreting these sources to attack Grazer -- the sources actually said "false," "misleading," and a lot more.

Besides, it's WP:NPOV that WP doesn't accuse someone of being false and misleading, we just quote WP:RS who do. This is WP:BLP so the rules are very strict and administrators aren't going to back you up on this.

Realize I agree with everything you said about Gratzer. I'm just saying that according to some strong WP rules, you can quote WP:RS saying that, but you can't say it in WP's own voice. I don't consider that a compromise or softening the criticism. I consider it a stronger and more effective criticism of Gratzer. --Nbauman (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS

On WP:SPS-here I thought I was adding value to the articles with sources. Thanks for reverting and pointing out the issues. The edits were made in good faith, and I believe that you and another editor have reverted everything that I added for the sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad guesses on Medicare and Medicaid programs

Estimates on new social programs are generally wildly and almost notoriously inaccurate. Whjle it may be true that better references are available, this fact should be registered. The problem about getting WP:RELY citations is impeded by the media itself which tends to favor these new programs and not exactly forthcoming about leaving around material that supports how poorly they were estimated in the past.

Material known to be factual should not be removed for "picky" purposes IMO. An editor can be requested to dot eyes and cross tees without actual deletion of text known to be true. IMO People can disagree without acting disagreeable.

One of the sections had no history at all. This should be rectified anyway. But that is just MO. Student7 (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for all of your healthy edits! KarlB (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our Campaigns

Why can't Our Campaigns be used? It is the only database I know of that has information of that kind that is accessible, and it is already used on most, if not virtually all, election articles I have come across. --Ariostos (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not a WP:Reliable source. Please see: Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1980#www.ourcampaigns.com. Apatens (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if it is not a reliable source, then why is it so commonly cited? --Ariostos (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, but not everyone who edits Wikipedia knows its WP:Policies and guidelines or understands what a WP:Reliable source is. Apatens (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you think I should proceed with this? --Ariostos (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding content to Wikipedia from www.ourcampaigns.com or other unreliable, self-published sources.
Start adding content that cites WP:Reliable sources, e.g.:

the biennial reference book series, America votes. Washington, D.C.:CQ Press. ISSN 0065-678X.
the biennial reference book series, CQ's Politics in America. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. ISSN 1064-6809.
the biennial reference book series, Almanac of American politics. Washington, D.C.: National Journal. ISSN 0362-076X.
official state board of elections websites
newspaper articles (from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, The Des Moines Register, etc.), e.g.:
- Clymer, Adam (January 23, 1980). "Candidates shifting tactics". The New York Times, p. A1.
academic political science books , e.g.:
- Winebrenner, Hugh; Goldford, Dennis J. (2010). The Iowa Precinct Caucuses: The Making of a Media Event, 3rd ed. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, p. 99, ISBN 9781587299155.
  - . (November 30, 2010). "Drake's political experts update the definitive book on the Iowa caucuses". Des Moines: Drake University.

If a self-published source like ourcampaigns.com lists a "data source" for its content, you can check it to verify whether it is reliable, and if so, add content to Wikipedia using and citing the reliable source.
If you have a question about reliable sources, consider posting it on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Apatens (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down the rhetoric

You don't need to preface every revert with "NPOV, OR, SYNTH, violates this and that and the other thing". You haven't yet established any of the claims, and I have backed up many of the counter claims with many other sources which leverage and use this information. I'm sure we can come to a consensus, but blanket deletion of material which has been there for more than a year is not the solution, and your revert warring isn't helping. Per BRD, please come to the talk page and DISCUSS. thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:PPACA Length

Just wanted to get your opinion, based on your comment: "... Pruitt v. Sebelius lawsuit may not warrant a paragraph in this already overly long article at this time."
I agree this is a long article (both absolutely and relative to WP averages), but I don't think it's an overly long article: I and other editors have tried to ensure WP:Summary whilst including everything important (and will continue to do so). It probably can be made more concise, but I think most content can't justifiably be removed nor be made into its own article (that hasn't been already). So, yes, long, but since its warranted I don't see it as overly so. (Necessity and sufficiency + we have tried to layout the content as clearly as possible given the length). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 03:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my edit summary. I should have said "very long" instead of "overly long". Apatens (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, sorry. =P Sb101 (talk|contribs) 07:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article

Hello. You reverted without discussion an edit I made to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act adding as further reading the OP-ED letter piece from the Wall Street Journal by a medical doctor and professor with his experience with doctoring under the ACA. You dismissed it as "whiny" etc. I don't typically add useless things. I and others thought it was interesting to read a doctor's first hand experience practicing under the ACA. I've been editing Wikipedia since January 2005, and I thought it was relevant. I'll have to figure what to do next with regard to this matter. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paywall-protected op-ed from the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial pages you added to the "Further reading" section of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article would not help interested readers learn more about the article subject. The op-ed was not topical (it was only partly about minor aspects of the PPACA), was not reliable (opinion pieces are unreliable for factual information), and was not balanced (it was one-sided: one doctor's personal gripes and opinions). Apatens (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the op-ed is not about the ACA.

Many of the op-ed's complaints are about Medicare incentives or requirements that predate the ACA (e.g. electronic prescribing under the HITECH Act) or predate the Obama administration (e.g. transitioning from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM medical coding). Apatens (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another complaint of the op-ed—unrelated to the ACA—is that "To prevent physicians from prescribing more costly medications and tests on patients, insurers are increasingly requiring physicians to obtain pre-authorizations." Apatens (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply. I re-read the letter and now see. Points taken. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Apatens. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of countries by health insurance coverage

The article List of countries by health insurance coverage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Old data, vague parameters, unsupported by RS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – S. Rich (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Apatens. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Apatens. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Apatens. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]