User talk:Gator.MD

Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Gator.MD. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message below.

Please do take some time to review the information in the links above. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser

Hi Gator.MD. About your note on the Talk page, and your edits to the article.

Please do review the Welcome message at the top of this page. Wikipedia isn't a bulletin board or blog comment section, where you can write whatever you want, based on your own authority. Instead, everything in a Wikipedia article needs to have a citation to what we call a "reliable source". The content you added was unsourced, and that cannot stand in WP. (imagine how much worse Wikipedia would be, if anyone could write any old thing they wanted!). No big conspiracy, just the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.

If things don't make sense after you review the Welcome message, please pop me a note here - I can answer any questions you have. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am hereby popping you "a note" - as if your time is very valuable for such junk. Your 100% removal of my material of course does not make sense to me. It suggested you have carefully sourced what is currently there in Wikipedia. Please post the "reliable sources" that suggest:

1) You have a sufficient background on Kaiser Permanente to serve as an editor as to what is true and what is window dressing - documentation expected or it will also be called "unsourced"; my background - beyond an MD - would disclose my experience and invite KP revenge, so I will only disclose 60 hours of time spent talking to federal attorneys on the KP topic wherein they thought I was extremely well informed - not one some one thousand assertions doubted (and lying to them would have been a crime) and documentation was about four feet thick);

2) that Permanente physicians are simply "salaried" and do not participate in a 50:50 profit division with the Kaiser Plan - Kaiser just saying so would not be a sufficient source because of their forty year attempt to try to look like Mayo Clinic where there is no profit split and there ARE only salaries; the proof of profit split of course sits in many places including the Library of Congress where there is a 1960 Medical Service Agreement ordered by the San Francisco IRS prosecutor to be produced and used (uncontested) by the US Supreme Court; [many other sources - Kansas City courthouse MAPMG MSA and bankruptcy case in San Francisco federal appeals court surrounding a Permanente orthopedic surgeon in LA;

[Another test - "Kaiser" will not deny it if you ask it plainly and in writing, and I see you have Kaiser agents contributing to Talk; [Really this is profit fee for withholding service - opposite of "fee for service" the oppose.]

3) that the Permanente medical groups are primarily regional without the central backbone of the Permanente Federation; you need to check Permanente Federation's role as it came on board in 1997 and was summarized by which Dr. Crosson's article in the 1999 Permanete Journal called "The Path to a Sustainable Future" by the founder MD and ten year Medical Director - Francis J. Crosson, MD or internally "Jay"; and you can check the 50 interviews online in the Bancroft Library Oral History review many of them up to ten hours with conversions to books (I have been there to even read his book of dictated materials after he proofed it and redacted much); [the attempt to make the MDs look regional and disorganized is meant to lie to the bondholders who do not realize that the Permanente profits would be paid off 100% before any of their KP bonds would be honored (so the bond prospects also lies);

4) that the Kaiser Family Foundation has no connection to KP when it always has a family member present - now Kim Kaiser; and if you check about ten bios on Kim Kaiser you will find the one case they did not scrub where it is clear he was a KFF Board member first; it would appear Kaiser can help edit its own history without sourcing anything and only critics have to prove them wrong; [When the Permanente physicians lost the Supreme Court IRS case, the lead Permanent author who ran SCPMG for years explained that the KFF paid the physicians back for the tax penalty.] {As both KP and KFF wish to have Henry Kaiser come out looking good in history, they cooperate on many things even though KFF moved from Oakland over to Menlo Park.}

5) and somehow Dr. Robert Mark Pearl ("Robbie") seems to be missing whereas he has run all three entities for over two decades. He is the head of TPMG and the Mid Atlantic PMG - over half the docs. He has veto power over the Permanent Federation. He can withhold any of the MDs' retirement vestings if he thinks they are not going along with his suggestions - including MDs placed on the Medical Board of California, heading up MedPak, and some all but running PCORI. He wishes to be externally invisible except as a plastic surgeon and business professor - too lost in academics to overlook some $30 billion in MD profit money accumulated or to exert national power as needed. Everyone else calls him the most powerful MD in the country.

I think I will stop here - others waiting for this computer I am using. Meanwhile your placement of my material last in TALK will make this probably only a brief conversation between the two of us when KP should be a central subject now as Obamacare folds toward HMOs and KP has 1.5 such members. I will look for other ways to get across the same information whereby Wikipedia will wonder how you decided my material was simply blogged opinion. The public needs Wikipedia as part of the honest Fourth Estate particularly as the Kaiser Health News buys up all the best reporters to put them on salary in Washington, DC - I have visited that office too - have you?

I do compliment you on a rapid response. Perhaps an alarm goes off at your house if the Kaiser Permanente wikipedia entry is touched - my first edit try wiped out in less than 24 hours. Even this Talk entry was moved and answered on a Labor Day weekend (Monday night when America is asleep) - now 5 AM in NYC. The Presidential candidates are debating who could wake up at 3 AM to make big decisions for the United States; I think you might be the best.

Gator, MD

PS - I will bet you $50 that the Kaiser renal transplant unit was fined $5 million - again missing; I go look this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.244.202 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC (UTC)

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. Please also log in when you want to work in WP, otherwise your signature will reflect your IP address. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gator. OK, it is clear that you are passionate about Kaiser. Based on what you wrote above, I want to make sure are aware of issues with advocacy in Wikipedia.

People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead people to abuse Wikipedia - to just write about whatever they are passionate about (say veganism, or meat eating, or some pro sports team or videogame, or some company they hate or love) and essentially hijack the Wikipedia page, departing from our mission of providing the world with free access to "accepted knowledge", following WIkipedia's own policies and guidelines. Advocates are often in a hurry and won't take the time to understand how Wikipedia works or learn how to edit here. A lot of times, people don't even understand that just adding content based on how they feel (or what they know from their experience) is not OK. I try to talk with folks, to make sure they are aware of these issues.

There are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not (see What Wikipedia is not) and one of the things WP is not, is a platform for advocacy. Please especially see the section, WP:NOTADVOCACY. "What Wikipedia is Not" is both a policy and a "pillar" - something very essential to the very guts of this place.

Really importantly, changes to content (adding or deleting) are governed by the content policies and guidelines - namely WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and for content about living people, WP:BLP, and the sourcing guidelines WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. The content you tried to add (and what you write above) violates almost all those policies, and you bring no sources.

In terms of behavior, the really key behavioral policies are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:DR, and the key guideline is WP:TPG. If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course.

We have three very good essays offering advice to people who come here very passionate about something - one is WP:ADVOCACY another is WP:SPA, and see also WP:TENDENTIOUS which describes how advocacy editors tend to behave.

So, while I hear you that you are passionate about Kaiser in the real world, but please do try to check that at the login page. And while you are free to edit about whatever the heck you want, please do consider broadening the scope of your editing. (I do realize that you are just getting started here, and everybody starts somewhere! Who knows where you will end up)

But do try to aim everything you do and write in Wikipedia to further Wikipedia's mission (not your mission) and base everything you do on the spirit (not just the letter) of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Your passions will determine what you work on, but they shouldn't guide how you work here. I hope that makes sense.

If you have questions about working in WP at any time going forward, or about anything I wrote above, please ask me. I am happy to talk. I also have a brief overview of the policies and guidelines I could post here, if that would be helpful. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gator.MD, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Gator.MD! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Editor: (Sept. 7)

1. you have dismissed me as "passionate" without checking one fact, allowing one change, or even taking me up on the renal transplant unit resulting in a $5 million dollar fine (which it did); your Kaiser Permanente wikipedia is full of misleading comments that they have pushed for decades;

2. you have supplied no credentials and are a Kaiser sympathizer or subcontractor or employee more passionate about holding the fort - full of lies - than allowing new comments;

3. wikipedia fails once again to share the truth - this time about the most powerful MDs in the United States - might as well be Kaiser Health News which will never have a questionable comment about Kaiser;

4. you have even ruined this discussion area by a Wikipedia dump that will bore any reader into coma - so this has all been pointless.

While I tried to compliment you on speed of answer, it turns out that this was speed of blockage. But don't worry, when Wikipedia is embarrassed about being so one sided - you will have the explaining to do.

Gator, MD

Sorry, I will not be joining your ridiculous invitation to a "Teahouse" to learn more about editing junk.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.254.133 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]