Welcome!

Hello, Angel's flight, 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kelly ^hi! 02:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI here you're right about dialysis but it depends on cancer. The 1st round is awesome, but if it is your 4th round of chemo, it will do more harm than good, in the words of Atul Gawande (chemo is toxic, after all). Also, Gawande says

Also this study concluded "Among patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer, early palliative care led to significant improvements in both quality of life and mood. As compared with patients receiving standard care, patients receiving early palliative care had less aggressive care at the end of life but longer survival". So, it depends with cancer. Jesanj (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to cite typical examples of potentially life-saving therapies. Angel's flight (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I think you keep setting up a false dichotomy when you opine[1][2] on death panel's talk page. You say it is either between the budgetary option X or people's lives. But Newt Gingrich says there are plenty of savings to get out of the system without even the slightest bit of rationing:

Ironically, the first paragraph addresses the community that lobbied to get the provision put inside the bill that Palin identified, through her spokesperson, as the original 'death panel'. Having a discussion on how much we spend on terminal care is a difficult one identified by Corn that should take place, when he says

and if that is your position, I understand. Jesanj (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message, let me say that I don't have much faith in Gingrich's judgment. The way I would like to save money in health care would be by eliminating HMOs and all involvement by any private insurer. The savings in administrative costs would be enormous. I favor single payer insurance like France. Angel's flight (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Obama took that off the table and now is moving right. And Uwe Reinhardt says our government couldn't do it though he favors it for other countries. Jesanj (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it is not just Newt Gingrich who thinks there is opportunity outside of what I find to be your false dichotomy. Atul Gawande would concur, IMO. Jesanj (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are interesting programs[3][4] you might enjoy. They look different sides of the industry, not just insurance. Jesanj (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to read/comment here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_at_Death_panel_.3F. it is linked from the talk page of death panel. Jesanj (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported Hauskalainen at the admin notice board. Here is the link [5]. Intermittentgardener (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.   Will Beback  talk  07:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing per evidence presented here. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dreadstar ☥ 15:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Angel's flight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not learn of the ANI thread until I had already been blocked. This seems like a rush to judgment. But more to the point, I looked at the thread in question and I do not see any blockable offense. No evidence is being offered that I abused multiple accounts (and indeed I did not.) Two editors are complaining that I opposed them in separate content disputes. Angel's flight (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sockpuppet of banned user. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Angel's flight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Now that the ANI thread has progressed further, it is clear that I am being accused of editing from a computer at the non-profit organization where I go to volunteer. This is not a blockable offense. It is said that someone edited Wikipedia from that facility while logged out. That may very well be, but it wasn't I. I have opened one account and used that account only. Many, many other people have access to those computers. I would like my case to be reviewed by an uninvolved admin, because it has come out into the open that Jpgordon was the person that SlimVirgin, my adversary in content disputes, went to in order to seek my block. Angel's flight (talk) 8:18 pm, 18 February 2011, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC+3)

Decline reason:

Since Josh has called this a checkuser confirmed block of a bannedc user your only option is to head off to the ban appeal sub committee and ask them to review the block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Among AF's first edits was a suggestion[6] to revert the LaRouche biography back to a version preferred by user:Leatherstocking, an editor who strenuously insisted he had no connection to LaRouche but who was eventually found to be editing from American System Publications. A stream of sock accounts have tried to revert it back to the same version.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Further, AF shows much more familiarity with Wikipedia policies and practices then would be expected from an editor with just a few hundred edits. Like Herchelkrustofsky/Leatherstocking and other socks, he initiated threads on noticeboards, an unusual activity for a new editor. There is additional behavioral evidence available. If any admin is considering unblocking please contact me by email.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an obvious misrepresentation. I did not call for reverting to those versions. I agreed to look at material that had been deleted from a section of those versions, which I did, and I rejected most of it, finding only three items that I thought should be restored.[15] Also, this was not "one of my first edits." I started editing in November, and that edit was from February 3. Shame on you. Angel's flight (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Angel's flight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If you take a look at the ANI discussion which is given as the reason for me to be blocked, you will see that no evidence was presented that I was "abusing multiple accounts," or that I was doing any other blockable offense. It was essentially a "POV block," and I ask that is be overturned.

Decline reason:

Essentially this was a checkuser block, as was referenced in a previous decline. I will direct you to WP:BASC once more. Tiderolls 03:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.