User talk:ImperfectlyInformed/Archive 5

Anthropocentrism
Thank you for your unexpected (but quite welcome) 2 cents on the talk page. I've actually been meaning to wrap up a discussion on PPACA but then got badly distracted with that mess. I appreciate what feels like a fresh breath of air! (P.S. Sorry about messing up your clean talk page so soon after archiving =P ). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 14:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for all that work on PPACA (and fixing anthropecentrism, which still needs work!). I've been avoiding PPACA until everything shakes out. The major rulemakings seem to be out of the way and we're nearing the big January 1st date. The dispute over subsidies for federal exchanges won't be settled until 2015 (see Tax Credits In Federally Facilitated Exchanges Are Consistent With The Affordable Care Act’s Language And History) altho hopefully that won't be an issue, so we're pretty close to seeing how it works in January 2014. I'm somewhat worried that it won't go that well. By the way, this year I've skimmed through almost all of the committee reports for appropriations bills which have out of DC (skipped the HUD bill and in some cases just read the House or Senate report, I don't think all 12 are out yet). They're fairly interesting and reasonably concise. I also added Politico to my RSS feed and while 90% of it is about day-to-day campaigning (boring), the balance gets into what's happening behind the scenes legislatively. II  | (t - c) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Re:PPACA: Thanks! =) (And, yea, there's a couple of articles I hope to check after PPACA - hopefully - gets made a GA: like Anthropocentrism, that filibuster reform you mentioned, Immigration Reform Bill, and the Health Insurance Mandate pages. It's just a matter of finding the time, ain't it?)
 * Fair enough. I took the opposite approach - I'm trying to have the page as good as possible before October (when enrollment begins), when I expect it will receive far more traffic from people looking for reliable information. And then, if and when further regulatory clarifications shake out, it'll hopefully be easier to integrate into a pre-existing foundation. As for the dispute over subsidies, that article's headline really says it all. Plus, I doubt Chief Justice Roberts would uphold the law only to cripple it on a technicality. (Aha! I thought the article you linked did sound familiar: I had seen an excerpt in this article =P : The Legal Crusade to Undermine Obamacare—and Rewrite History)
 * I'm pretty impressed you skim through those reports (making me feel a little guilty lol). I tend to assume I'm served well enough by following people like Jonathan Cohn, Jonathan Chait, and Nate Silver. But, yea, I can't be bothered wading through Politico for that 10%.
 * Tbh, I'm also mildly worried that it could go wrong (although I do expect it that after a mixed launch things should smooth out). You might be interested in these Cohn article that give, I think, the most accurate picture of it that I've seen (which is why all, except the first, helped me add something substantive to the PPACA page):
 * My Five Obamacare Anxieties - The scenarios that keep this reform advocate up at night - this outlines what could go wrong and everything below lists provides the best evidence of how things're working to give my aforementioned assessment of implementation.
 * Why Obamacare Is Not a 'Train Wreck' (Again)
 * We Don't Know Everything About Obamacare. But We Know Who's Trying to Sabotage It.
 * The Obamacare Train Still Hasn't Wrecked
 * Six Reasons Hipsters Will Bite on Obamacare
 * (For the record, I don't mean to be evangelizing for this magazine. The reason I refer to it so much is that 1) I honestly think they reliably provide accurate analysis, and 2) I have Asperger's so one of my coping mechanisms is to be quite restrictive with my media intake (e.g. no Politico) - things like TNR and Chait both seem to cover things broadly and deeply enough to cover the policy bases + they generally quote and link to opposing opinions so I am exposed to them and know the authors are being intellectually honest, open, and not debating strawmen. Bit off-topic, but I'm a bit self-conscious about it). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll check those out. I think the last articles I really read on the topic were from the CJR (Obamacare Scorecard) a couple weeks ago. Regarding the tax credits, Volockh noted yesterday that one of the suits survived a motion to dismiss. As far as Politico, Feedly doesn't publish click-through rates like Google Reader, but I would estimate that my click-through is around 1% or maybe lower, so 10% is probably a big exaggeration. At the same time, I do read 20-30 headlines or so a day from my feed. I like seeing articles like House GOP: Welfare reform 2.0 for food stamps but it's so full of fluff that I'm going to have to trim it (and also currently reading This Town by Mark Leibovich, which makes Politico more sociologically interesting for a bit). By the way, if you want to learn about a law, I do really recommend at least skimming the committee report. II  | (t - c) 15:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The CJR (Obamacare Scorecard) was pretty good reading. As for seeing things like the politico piece on 'welfare reform 2.0,' well... I prefer pieces that critically examine the claim. Still, like you say, as a social phenomenon, politico is fascinating:
 * Politico Accidentally Exposes Beltway Elite
 * Politico Is ‘This Town’
 * Why Washington Accepts Mass Unemployment
 * Sb101 (talk|contribs) 07:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

A little light reading
A little light reading for your sojourn among the trees: Shit You Didn't Know About Biology (the blogger uses vulgarity for comedic effect but the facts are good). - 2/0 (cont.) 18:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments
Greetings. I noticed at Talk:Low back pain you left detailed comments about the sourcing of the article. Thank you for that. I am trying to make sure the article meets the WP:GACR. Your comments at Talk:Low_back_pain/GA1 could be helpful. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'm quite busy for the next few days but hopefully will find the time. If you could email me the Manusov paper (and the Salzberg paper) I'd appreciate it. II  | (t - c) 20:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hey, it was great to meet you the other day, and I hope you had fun visiting the Foundation offices!

Jorm (WMF) (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC) 

Proposed reference format for Alternative medicine
Greetings and thank you for your contributions to WP. I have proposed a format for references on Alternative medicine. I wanted to let you know and give you an opportunity to comment here. Good day! - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Editors on CFPB Page
Hi, I work at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I noticed that you had a number of constructive edits on the Dodd-Frank wikipage and a few other finance related topic. I wanted to get your advice on attracting some knowledgeable editors to take an interest in the CFPB's wikipedia page. Perhaps being a new agency, we haven't received the same attention from the wikipedia community as the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and other regulatory and consumer finance areas. Since we have a conflict of interest, no one at the Bureau has edited the CFPB page, but we did add a few suggestions in the talk page.

Any advice or editors that you'd recommend getting in touch with?

Much appreciated, Ryan.CFPB (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deficit reduction in the United States
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deficit reduction in the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Responded to big-picture question about sources with political relationships (an economist who is a former political staffer, in this case, but no specifics). Not really a good discussion for an article talkpage. II | (t - c) 02:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links
You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I took a look but don't have time to dig into it I'm afraid. II  | (t - c) 09:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no rush here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Windows 8
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Windows 8. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded, but could not provide a recommendation due to how poorly the RfC was designed and presented. II  | (t - c) 09:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Tea House
 Alexbrn has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hey - sorry for being a bit snippy in my response to you at the Tea House just recently; I think my patience has been frayed a bit by some of the interactions that had gone on around the article in question ... have a cookie by way of peace offering ... 05:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I jumped the gun a bit on you. Keep up the hard work; although I disagree with your aggressive approach sometimes and it's not really my style, I'm glad there are people like you out there working on this stuff. II  | (t - c) 05:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ping
ImpInf, I've emailed you. Tony  (talk)  08:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issue
This may be of interest to you: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard -- regards, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 07:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure if these types of messages run the risk of canvassing. I had noticed that earlier, actually, and provided a brief comment on the talkpage. It appears that Richard Keatinge's language is pretty good and could nicely settle the dispute. II  | (t - c) 18:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Re canvassing, Jytsog said something similar, so I guess I don't grok WP:CANVASS. I thought it was OK to notify editors of discussions if done in a "non-partisan" way, and all I assumed (from what I've seen of your earlier contributions) was that your input would be well-reasoned, irrespective of whether I agreed or not. I don't perceive your views (or those of Jytdog) on TCM- and alt-med-related topics as strongly "skeptic-movement-aligned" or "advocate-alagined".  Brangifer and Guy Macon, whom I also notified, lean toward the former if anything, while also offering reasoned input.  Since I am, at worst, perceived as an advocate and incapable of anything less than self-serving thought on the topic, I don't see how any of this impinges on the appearance or reality of impropriety.  Oh well.
 * Somewhat embarrassingly, I'd only read the DRN entry in detail and had missed Richard Keatinge's suggestion at Talk:TCM. Agree, excellent solution. regards, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Flaunting an agenda to improve the encyclopedia
Thank you for your kind words. EllenCT (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year ImperfectlyInformed!


Happy New Year! ImperfectlyInformed, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 06:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Tech news snippets
Snippets that I grabbed after cutting out the boilerplate from weekly tech news - these may be quite outdated
 * Developers are looking for ideas of small technical projects that new developers could work on. Please add your ideas.
 * You can look at the plan of the Mobile team for their future work.
 * More changes to Media Viewer are coming. It will be easier to disable it, and you will see the caption below the image. [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Improvements] [//www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?oldid=1203037#2014-09-monthly]
 * You can sign up to answer questions from designers. It will help them make editing easier.
 * You may see a new tool on the mobile site of the English Wikipedia. It asks simple questions to make the article better. In the future, your answers will go to Wikidata.
 * You can get help to become a developer. You can learn more on the Google Summer of Code and Outreachy pages.

GamerGate
I saw your comment at NorthBySouth's talk page, thought I should offer my two cents as a experienced (less than you though) and involved editor for GamerGate. Personally I felt that several editors who were leaning anti-GamerGate were hostile and partisan on the talk page. While I sympathize with the offsite harrassment and doxxing NorthBySouth and others (even some seemingly pro-GamerGate editors were doxxed) received, this should not have been an excuse for battleground behaviour. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  05:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. Hostility and partisanship are pretty common in these areas: people feel frustrated, especially when they're dealing with a seemingly neverending stream of single-purpose accounts. The fact that these groups regularly use "social justice warrior" as an insult and are generally associated with misogyny also makes people feel entitled to be assholes. I have three younger brothers and we're all gamers, starting from Mario and ranging from Halo and Counterstrike to the various Final Fantasy games. It's exceedingly disappointing for me to find my more impressionable younger brothers getting sucked into the absurd world of TheRedPill where women are lying and cheating boogeymen, particularly when they have so little experience with women. I've had to become fairly well-acquainted with the whole controversy to discuss it with them, even though my thoughts are succinctly expressed by cracked.com's quote:"'Gentlemen,' we said amid the stunned silence, 'do you realize that if what they're saying is true, then this is still the most pointless fucking bullshit anyone has ever forced us to read?" Based on my extensive research, I actually think RationalWiki covers it decently: "Gamergate is a term for... the internet activism movement associated with these claims and for targeted harassment campaigns run by bitter misogynists, agitators and trolls ... Literally none of Gamergate's advocates' claims of "what really happened" hold up under scrutiny — including claims that may initially seem plausible".  II  | (t - c) 22:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should encourage your brothers to play Pokemon. As a female character. I'm not sure what else - haven't 'gamed' much. About the RationalWiki article - I really disagree with the last paragraph of the Gamergate and Wikipedia section. Does GamerGhazi edit that article - so many references (and effort) put into it ..? P.S. oh so that's where Ryulong went. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  10:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Support request with team editing experiment project
Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.