User talk:NormSpier

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, NormSpier! Thank you for your contributions. I am WereSpielChequers and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Medicaid estate recovery and User:NormSpier.The discussion is about the topic Medicaid estate recovery. Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   17:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have some prior comments on the noticeboard regarding my contributions, which now remain only on this ACA Wikipedia article, and also Mediaid estate recovery.

Here let me add issues relevant to the ACA article, in reaction to comments by Newslinger which are on the noticeboard. (They also may have relevance to the general ACA article, for future editing and such.)


 * From the bulletin board, Newslinger has written
 * (1) "It is fine to include some of the criticism listed at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § Problems, although the length of the content should be reduced. For instance, the listed examples for silver/bronze plans are considered original research since they're not covered in reliable sources, and they should be removed."


 * (2) Verifiability: Readers should be able to verify every single statement in a Wikipedia article with a reliable source.

These two principles, let's call them Newsl1 and Newsl2, seem to be causing problems with the ability of the ACA article here to have information to be useful to certain readers needing more than superficial information. In my opinion.

Thus, on removing the bronze and silver plan examples as, which is used in two of the problems sections, the example provide useful information that a quantitative mind will seek about the issue. Thus, over-the-cliff, total expenses, premium plus out of pocket max will be 41% of MAGI, and 27% under the cliff. Values in dollars are also there.

Thus, the request of Newslinger (Newsl1) to remove the bronze and silver examples would make this Wikipedia article something that I would find, myself, substantially less useful for any kind of numerate understanding of the issue.

(Unfortunately, I see that the two examples, both silver and bronze, are more than we would like. Ideally, only say silver.  But the problem comes up from the states' and insurance companies mixed reactions to the Trump order, which may or may not have silver loading.  Doing silver only is flawed.  (See my first explanation of the need to avoid silver only, under subsidy cliff. Silver only would be a flawed analysis, and note the references to Health Affairs, and as well a spreadsheet on silver loading that I think Health Affairs did I can't do a flawed analysis. I understand the need to simplify. I cannot, however, oversimplify to the point of making the exposition flawed.)

Questions are raised here as to both what level this Wikipedia article is at, and also to how well it is equipped to give adequate information.

The ACA article looks to me roughly at the level of the NY Times. Higher than USA Today, but lower than a graduate math text, or mathematical economics journal, or say the wikipedia article Banach-space.

But, in trying to be at the NY Times level, it still fails. The examples the NY Times might put in, doing its own work. (They have enough policy people and people skilled at calculation to do it.)

However, here at Wikipedia, I was unable to find a reliable source with the information, so I did the numbers myself. I've been asked to remove it. (The calculations are my own, based on the information on the Federal healthcare.gov site, and are thoroughly traceable (for the duration of 2019). However, Wikipedia would hopefully have enough people around, both able to calculate, and with knowledge of the details, to verify.  Then, hopefully they would be able to archive the verification somewhere: maybe with a footnote on the table pointing to the verification.  Presumably, the NY Times has a procedure like this.

(Besides my own thought that a reliable, verifiable (with a little math and policy knowledge) table from a contributor should be acceptable, I caught that a table from 2014 apparently missed QC. This was the original one under "Premium subsidies".  The last column was labelled "cost-sharing subsidies", but had numbers like $1000 for income at 350% of the Federal Poverty Level.  This was just wrong.  Cost sharing subsidies stop at 250% FPL.  I also manually checked some of the other numbers, and they were off.  (Small amounts only, fortunaly, like a few hundred dollars.) (I replaced the table with my own, for 2019. Although it is completely verifiable with minor math, and the references I provided, you probably need to delete it under your policies.)

Otherwise, I'm seeking clarification Newsl2 ("Verifiability: Readers should be able to verify every single statement in a Wikipedia article with a reliable source."), because I'm finding articles where that's not the case. Thus Internal combustion engine, and Calculus, and to a lesser extent, Banach-spaces.

Apparently, in the case of those articles, people writing and editing both have an understanding of the technical details, and are not requiring every sentence to have a reference. However, on the ACA-related articles, I've been told everything needs a reference. (So, for example, the obvious assertion that a Medicaid that has all medical expenses being recovered is a "loan" needs references. So I put them in, but now I'm getting that some of the sources may not be reliable.)  (I suspect the different treatment of hard-science articles vs. the ACA may have something to do with that in the hard sciences, only people who know what's going on get involved, but in anything with any political component, everyone gets involved, and so controls, and everything verified in little baby steps becomes needed as a control against chaos.  But, as I see it, the current Wikipedia procedures are hindering and perhaps blocking a lot of information needed to keep from a muddy, emptyish presentation.}

As for this, I'm not intending on removing important information myself. I am more than happy to help in finding better ways to organize the material, but I can't myself do a gross removal of most of the important information. I understand that general written and unwritten Wikipedia policies and viewpoints will likely result in a gross removal of much or most useful information I have added by others, and that's O.K. with me. NormSpier (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC) NormSpier (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi NormSpier, you've written a large volume of comments here, at the noticeboard discussion, and at other places, and I want to give you a comprehensive reply. Please allow me some time to prepare a response. —  Newslinger  talk   16:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Newslinger No problem on any delay. I appreciate your interest and openness on the issues, and your apparent hard work, for free, to create an information resource.  (Note: I am probably later today going to get specific stuff on the Medicaid estate response talk section.  I have some on the ACA talk page from just a bit back, which I assume you have seen.)

NormSpier (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi NormSpier, I'm responding to all of your comments from the last few days. To keep things organized, I'll discuss general Wikipedia-related topics here on your user talk page, all of the edits related to Medicaid estate recovery as a whole at the NPOV noticeboard discussion, and specific article-related details in the talk pages of each of the respective articles.


 * To start, I'd like to kindly ask you to keep your future comments concise. Wikipedia is a volunteer service, and overly long comments tend to deter other editors from participating. You've written several thousand words (comparable to multiple undergraduate essays) and many editors wouldn't be willing to read such long statements if they aren't highly interested in the topic. Shorter comments also allow other editors (including me) to respond more promptly, since our responses would be shorter as well.


 * Wikipedia's policies and guidelines became stricter over time as the project gained popularity. The Internal combustion engine and Calculus articles were created in 2001. The first version of the verifiability policy, written in 2003, looked like this. As Wikipedia's content coverage expanded, editors gradually focused more on quality instead of quantity. The policies as you see them today are the result of over a dozen years of continuous discussions and debates within the community.


 * When a policy is updated, many affected articles fall out of compliance and need additional improvement to meet the new standards. As you have noticed, many Wikipedia articles have content that cannot be properly verified to a reliable source. When you see this, feel free to tag the statement with a Citation needed template for future review. If the statement is controversial and not properly cited, you can remove it altogether. Generally, we don't use the fact that some articles fail certain policies to justify deficiencies in other articles. We should ideally work together to improve all articles up to the required standard. This is an ongoing effort, of course.


 * I understand that removing content from articles to meet policies can cause readers to be less informed about the subject matter. However, Wikipedia is not a textbook and the objective of our articles is to inform readers, not to instruct them. I feel that your numerical examples would be a better fit for a Wikibook on Medicaid in general, which would specifically be for instructing readers. (See "What is Wikibooks?" to find out if this is a good fit for you.) Wikibooks also has policies on neutrality and sourcing, although they are less strict than Wikipedia's. Your advice-oriented content would be best placed on a personal blog, where you can garner a following of readers.


 * Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not perfect, but they're the best solutions the community has been able to develop to support Wikipedia's goal of being a high-quality encyclopedia. If you decide to stay and continue contributing to articles (and I hope you do!), the importance of these rules will become more obvious as you encounter different situations. You are welcome to propose changes to these rules (on the respective talk pages or at the village pump) if you have further feedback after you gain more experience with Wikipedia.


 * Thank you again for offering your knowledge of Medicaid estate recovery to Wikipedia. Although we can only accept a portion of the information into our articles, I hope you find the best way to communicate the remaining advice and examples to the public. —  Newslinger  talk   12:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

About the ongoing RfC
Hello again, NormSpier! Thought I'd share some points that may be of interest to you:
 * 1) Referring to yourself in third person is unnecessary, since all your comments are supposed to be signed. It's just my view. I don't know how it's taken Wikipedia-wise. Whichever might the case be, mixing third and first person though, as you have in your comments, is downright confusing.
 * user:UsedtobecoolThank you for pointing that out. I believe I have fixed it.NormSpier (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Repeating your position too many times can backfire. See WP:Bludgeon. You have mentioned that you disagree with how the RfC has been framed at three different places in the RfC section alone, the link to NPOV noticeboard added by Newslinger which also contains the same objections, makes it four. In addition to potentially being considered as a bludgeon, it could be seen as not giving enough credit to other editors' competence.
 * 2) You can add your objection to the way an RfC is framed immediately below the RfC (the other editors will often say as much if they agree with you), but it should be as brief and to the point as possible.
 * user:UsedtobecoolThank you for pointing that out. I believe I have fixed it.  (I was concerned, obviously, that it not be missed, but where you suggested I put it seems to make it non-missable.  Please let me know if you find I did not get the right place that you had meant. (However, in the noticeboard is still there, so its twice.)NormSpier (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

And of course properly indented. Please see WP:Indentation and then WP:REFACTOR your comments for conciseness/brevity and proper indentation. This applies to all three of your comments in the RfC,and especially the one in the survey section.
 * user:UsedtobecoolThis one, I'm not sure I understand. I've looked at WP:Indentation, and I see "no blank lines" between points. Are you saying, bullets for each point: yes, blank lines: no.  (If its no blank line and not bullets, I'm not sure how the reader is guided to see each separate point.)  Can you clarify? Thx.
 * Your comment below Newslinger's RfC (above your objection) begins at the same level of indentation as Newslinger's post. If it is a response to them, it should be indented one-level to the right of their comment. If it's not, probably begin it with an asterisk so as to sufficiently/clearly distinguish it from their comment. (You also seem to have added signatures to each paragraph, which has made your original signature redundant. I am not sure what the thinking was there, but WP:REDACT might be of help.)
 * user:Usedtobecool I have adjusted, and think I have it, now. Thanks for your further clarifications.NormSpier (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have limited experience with RfCs but I believe the "survey" section was created for participants to clearly indicate their !vote, with the intention that any level of detailed discussion would go to the discussion section. This would mean that
 * The actual RfC should be left alone, while your objection to the wording of the RfC is acceptable there only because you are a major party to the dispute. New subsection to note your objection is fine by me, as it helps make abundantly clear you object, without cluttering any other points.
 * In the survey section, each editor gets one bullet point, in which to indicate their !vote. A bit of explanation and 2-3 short back-and-forth discussion is accepted there, and anything longer is moved to the discussion section.
 * The discussion section is where the bulk of the discussion is to be had.
 * Not that I know of any such rule, it just makes sense for organisation purposes. You have a zillion bullet points in the survey section, so that's going to make it confusing. You can have all but the first bullet point indented to the right, so that it's clear all bullet points are parts of a single comment by you.  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 06:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) When you quote another editor like you do multiple times there,1 you had better add the link to the exact edit in which the quote was made.
 * user:Usedtobecool This one, also, I'm not sure I understand what it means. Are you saying, like "I recollect from prior discussion with User:Newslinger that this refers to Bronze and Gold" I should put a link to his exact diff showing where he made the comment?
 * When you say that an editor has previously said something, the edit is linked in which it was said. This is done even when it was said on the same page but it is sufficiently far away from your comment (for example, when you are not directly replying to it). This is as much for others' benefit as yours. Misrepresenting another editor's position is a serious offence, linking to the edit removes any such doubt and provides context in which the particular thing was said, and keeps you safe from accidentally misrepresenting others or taking things out of context, which can easily happen especially when you are in disagreement. I reread your comments and I don't see any that need links to edits, so let's just keep that as a general "to keep in mind" stuff for now (although it wouldn't hurt to link to Newslinger's edit in which they tagged the article with issues, so everyone is sure it was them that tagged with the issues that you have presented as their objections).  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 06:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Please keep your comments focused on the merit of the content. In the presentation of the question for RFC by User:Newslinger as binary, the "by User:Newslinger" part is both too obvious and too unnecessary to require an inclusion. Does User:Newslinger want that the problems should be covered up is counterproductive, to say the least.
 * user:Usedtobecool I've left the particular case you mention first as it is, because I don't see it as clear otherwise. I will make another pass soon to try to shorten stuff in general.  And the thing you call counterproductive I have removed.NormSpier (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clear because the RfC ends with their signature, but yeah, your call.  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 06:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

These are just my thoughts. It's entirely upon you to decide the merit of these suggestions and choose to ignore or act upon them. Regards!
 * Thank you for pointing out these things. (As above, one or two things still need explaining to me.  Hopefully, you will have time to respond.NormSpier (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am happy to, as long as you find them helpful. Cheers!  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 06:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 22:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Usedtobecool Would you be able to answer this? When I go into the editor for a talk section, or this page, where I am now, I don't see a visual editor option. (I do see the "show preview", but I still have to monkey in html or whatever it is in here.) Am I missing seeing the button to click on for a visual editor? Thx.NormSpier (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Visual editor is a new feature, under development by WMF, with the aim of making Wikipedia editing more broadly accessible. It is still quite primitive and has many limitations, one of those being that it is not available in talk and other discussion pages, or other namespaces which are not regularly required to be edited by inexperienced users who focus mainly on content. More details at WP:VE. Regards!  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 17:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:UsedtobecoolWould you be able to answer this? You, and one or two others, have tossed around the term "encyclopedic". Would you perhaps have a link to what this means Wikipedia-wise. Thx.NormSpier (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Usually, it refers to WP:!, specifically WP:NOTEVERYTHING. When I "tossed" it, I was thinking of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. You'd have to ask GMG themself about what specifically they meant.  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 05:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Interleaving comments
Hi, NormSpier. I'd like to bring this excerpt from the talk page guidelines to your attention:

Please do not split other editors' comments, especially if it scrambles the bullets and numbering. Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk   18:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Although you have some reservations about Wikipedia's large framework of policies and guidelines, I'm glad to see that you're giving our processes and our culture a chance. Some new editors aren't willing to do that, and they end up leaving Wikipedia with a permanent bad impression. So, thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   20:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The process I've experienced is indeed quite jarring and somewhat Kafkaesque. (Such as saying in words "we're all equal" and then potentially pulling off all of a person's stuff.  Yes, I know about the ref you pointed me to, but it still comes across as unequal, and somehow the expression "we're all equal" is absurdly applied.)


 * One suggestion I have to mitigate the abruptness for others (actually an elaboration on a prior suggestion) is that, right at the top of your page, you put something like:


 * "I am user:Newslinger. My background is ... .  I have been at Wikipedia xxx years.  Some articles I have contributed largely to are... . All editors are equal at Wikipedia.  My personal role revolves heavily around making sure content complies with standards, particularly ... .  This may result in your content being reverted by me, or else challenged in a firm manner.  Rest assured, all editors are ultimately equal.  Disagreements on content will be resolved by majority agreement of editors, ultimately in a process called RFC.  I will help you or guide you to initiate an RFC in cases of dispute of your content."NormSpier (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that all editors (including you) have the ability to revert edits in any article, subject to some restrictions. It's "equal" in the sense that the ability is offered to everyone, although the editor who performed the edit would take on a different role than the editor who reverted it. I'll keep in mind your suggestion to expand my user page, although I would describe myself differently. —  Newslinger  talk   23:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, user:Newslinger. You would describe yourself differently.  I had meant my example as a rough outline, to be modified to be more accurate of your actual role and goals by you. (Which role and goals I, of course, do not know, even now, still.)NormSpier (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your sandbox problem
I'm putting this here because my answer is a bit buried in the answers at the Teahouse. Visual Editor won't work in the sandbox you created at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/sandbox because you created it in Talk space. That's not what Talk space is for. Create a new sandbox in your own User space, perhaps at User:NormSpier/sandbox2 or User:NormSpier/Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (Click on one of those redlinks to create it.) Then VE will work just fine. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, user:Newslinger (and also user:Usedtobecool, on account of general helpfulness, and I observed hangs around the Teahouse). The sandbox I am using is the one referenced at the top of Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act.  I did not create it.  Possibly user:Newslinger created it.  Or it existed prior.  Apparently, there are limitations, especially no visual editor, in that sandbox, as above.  So, I'm pointing out a possible technical point to whoever created it.  (I'd better not myself try and switch the sandbox linked to at the top of the "talk" to a different sandbox, because I'll probably mess it up.)  There are other comments about the problems transferring back and forth in the Teahouse here: Teahouse  It sounds like it comes down to that when we have the right sandbox, with a visual editor, the to-sandbox transfer (visual editor to visual editor copy/paste) will work, but there will still be a problem back transferring sandbox to article.)
 * I suspect the arrangement you desire is to have the work and removals done in the sandbox pointed to at the top of "talk", so I'll give you the opportunity to create a sandbox of the type described above (supporting the visual editor) and repoint the link at the top of talk. I'll wait for you to do it, or decline specifically, in which case I will try and create my own sandbox of the type described by StarryGrandma.NormSpier (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, user:StarryGrandma. Thanks for the info. Just for the record, I didn't create the sandbox in question.  It's one for the ACA article, and is in at the top of Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act, referenced by some sort of "macro??" with "sandbox exists" in it.  I'm not sure who created the sandbox.  It may have been user:Newslinger or not.  I've alerted the "team" (very small), as above, and within Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act because I don't know what's going on with it, and the team may want to work in a specific structure for modifications.  I am not sure how widespread the issue is.  I suspect it also applies to the sandbox referenced here: Talk:Medicaid_estate_recovery for the other article I am working on.NormSpier (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a new issue because the template, sandbox exists, is new. created it on Sept 5, and probably didn't realize that having sandboxes in Talk space would mean that editors who use Visual Editor wouldn't be able to participate. Until the sandbox is put somewhere else use a sandbox in your user space to propose changes. StarryGrandma (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the valuable help, user:StarryGrandma. Just to make sure you yourself know the full problem, so that you can help others later optimally, I think that the issue when there is no visual editor in the sandbox is not just hindering on the editing, but also that references get messed up in the to-sandbox transfer.  (At least when references are used more than one time per reference.)  I believe, from the Teahouse, the forward transfer to a sandbox needs to be visual editor to visual editor to avoid messing up the references. (Perhaps for the backwards transfer, as well, it needs to be visual to visual.  And I think they are saying even so, there will be a modest problem of multiply-used references being duplicated in the reference listing back in the article after the backward-to-article transfer.) NormSpier (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * For creating Sandbox 1 User:NormSpier/PPACAsandbox1 User:NormSpier/PPACAsandbox2 for preliminary tests and usage.NormSpier (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This section is now linked to as a "workaround", and may also get linked to as "How to". Thus, let me try and summarize the info from various helpers.  Sandboxes really need to be on the "article?, or entry? (whatever you call it: I am new)" side of the "do you call it node?", not on the "talk" side.  On the talk side, you won't have access to the visual editor, which is hindering to the editor, including, perhaps not generally known, in the management of references. (In the visual editor, if there are multiply-referenced references, if you say, delete a section with a single instance of a multiply used reference, the necessary adjustments will be done automatcially by the visual editor, including moving references to lower or higher reference numbers because of changed initial use position.  I think this may be done at the point of "publish", rather than when the "cut" is done.)


 * Sandboxes are playgrounds. I have six sandboxes. Sandbox1 is used to test out syntax, and ideas. Even test out a paragraph or two.

I create Sandboxes for draft purposes with no intention of publishing, just to iron out syntax, references, grammar and problems. You can actually create additional sandboxes just type in your user page (i.e. NormSPier/sandbox2 OR SANDBOX3 or 4 or 5 and hit the enter key. Then you can use that sandbox for drafting an article or testing something. When you are ready to publish an article you can move it to draft, by clicking on More with the down arrow at the top and choose move, then choose draft. Don't try and publish to mainspace yourself, but use the template for publishing and put it at the top of the article, then you hit publish.Oldperson (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, with visual to visual transfers, the specific problem I was having, transfer of multiply-used references to and from from article to sandbox will be automatically done correctly and completely, with the one exception that a transfer that has references in transferred part of "from" that are also in "to" will yield duplicate references, that have to be cleaned up manually. (The clean up is still pretty easy in the visual editor.)  Also note, to see the transferred references, you need to hit "publish" after the "paste".  The transferred references do not appear at the point of "paste".NormSpier (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Copy and pasting pages or paragraphs from visual page to visual page yields unexpected results. I find that sometimes it works fine,other times,the references get lost. Best to copy from source editing and post to visual. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.Oldperson (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the VisualEditor is disabled in the Talk namespace. I've added a button to Sandbox notice which makes it easier to use the visual editor on talk page sandboxes. —  Newslinger  talk   20:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool. I never knew about VEFriendly. Every day there is something new to be learned about Wikipedia! StarryGrandma (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * user:StarryGrandma (to ping). Hi user:Newslinger.  I tested the sandbox, and it works, visual article copy to visual sandbox paste, for keeping multiply referenced footnotes.  I will thus knock off my warning about the sandboxes and the workaround in the 6 articles talk sections I have placed it (below you "sandbox exists").


 * I don't know much about sandboxes. My only question would be if, by having a single sandbox per article, problems are invited if multiple users working on an article try to work on their own sections at the same time.NormSpier (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if more than one editor is drafting major changes in the article sandbox, and they disagree on the changes, there would be a conflict. If you're more comfortable with using sandboxes in your user space (e.g. User:NormSpier/PPACAsandbox1), feel free to continue doing that. The talk page sandboxes are available for you to use, but you definitely don't have to use them if you don't want to. —  Newslinger  talk   21:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oldperson and user:StarryGrandma, who seem to know what they're talking about on sandboxes.

From comments of Oldperson, it seems like it might not be absolutely clear what happens to references moving visual editor to visual editor a new article fragment with lots of references to the prior full article. (Prior to Oldperson's comments, I had thought visual to visual, sandbox to article, would work, with only some duplicate references.  With the references being observed correctly transferred only after hitting "Publish".)

The natural question is, can I test what will happens somewhere? For example, if I create User:NormSpier/PPACAArticleDuplicate, and transfer the full PPACA article there (by visual editor cut and paste--that seems to provide a complete transfer), can I then from there test, reliably, what will happen moving sandbox content to and fro? (This comes down to, does the node, or whatever you call it, User:NormSpier/PPACAArticleDuplicate, behave exactly like the ACA entry with regard to content transfers, etc.)NormSpier (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I ran some experiments on copying references in one of my sandboxes. See the results at Special:Permalink/916409615. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi StarryGrandma. Thanks for the experiment results.  I will look at them in detail when I get a chance.
 * Otherwise, I notice from your page that you, like I, have computer science and programming in our backgrounds. If it is easy for you, I am wondering if you can comment on my conjecture as to the architected structure of this Wikipedia stuff.
 * I Conjecture: "Wikipidia is structured as a giant tree.  It has nodes, and nodes with no descendants let us also call "leaves".  "Leaves" are divided into disjoint subspaces, one of which is "Talk", and another of which is in article space or maybe it is entry space.  Talk-space "leaves" always have "talk" or "Talk" somewhere in the name before a colon.  Article- or entry- space leaves do not have a colon in the name.  The leaves that you suggested I might use for a sandbox are article-/entry- space leaves.  Talk-space leaves will have different options (editors, etc.) and behaviors than article-/entry- space leaves, but every talk-space leave with have the same options and behaviors as every other talk-space leave,  and every article-/entry- space leave with have the same options and behaviors as every other article-/entry- space leave."  How did I do?
 * By the way, I also noticed your programming experience goes way back to keypunch machines. Mine too.  I learned to program for 2 years via keypunch.  Then, the next 2 years, we had the old terminals that were like IBM electric typewriters with the balls of letters.  Then, the VT100, TRS80, and into the world as we know it now.NormSpier (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is always nice to meet someone with experience in that era. We once had a family portrait made that included our TRS80. While we can think of Wikipedia as a tree data structure, due to the nature of the hyperlinks it really is a complex graph data structure. We try very hard to avoid leaf nodes. Every article has multiple links to other articles, so none is a leaf node. The Category namespace, however, is supposed to have a tree structure.


 * When you talk about leaves, I think you are referring to the Wikipedia namespaces method of organization. Articles are in a namespace called Main or Article, and by convention the software assumes a bare name is an article. You are right that these are organized this way because they have different functions. See Namespace and the table there. For administrative purposes namespaces allow the software to treat pages differently. Visual Editor, maybe because it can't edit single sections but must load an entire page however long it is, is not enabled for any Talk page on the English Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that the MediaWiki software treats all talk pages the same in general. "User talk" and "Article talk" are separate namespaces and can be treated differently. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit Problems
I am responding to your Teahouse comment via your talk page. I have learned the hard way that posting on the TeaHouse gets you unwanted attention. Editors will then go to your user page, your talk page or check your contributions. Something you should learn to do using the following in the search block Special:Contributions/username. Mine is Special:Contributions/oldperson.

They will then review your posts, looking for errors or to get an idea of your interests (to build a personal profile). Anyway }While the wisdom offered about editors acting in good faith with their edits is true in most cases. In some cases there are editors with allegiances, agendas, paid and unpaid, that monitor certain pages with the purpose of maintaining the "official line". It wouldn't surprise me that corporations, government agencies, political parties, religious institutions have interns or paid staff monitoring and"correcting" articles of interest. And these editors are quite adept at using WP guidelines and rules at maintaining the "party line". They revert wholesale paragraphs that disrupt their "truth", even where the paragraphs meet WP standards and are reliably source. It happens. You might be running afoul of one of these gate keepers, if so there is not much you can do. Leaving a notice on the article talk page will often be met with silence, especially if they can't justify their actions. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't try, but don't expect results. An editor isn't suppose to just delete or revert a paragraph wholesale unless it is vandalism or irrelevant if the edit was made in good faith but had errors of grammar and syntax, or needed a citation or some improvement, another editor can make corrections (which they often do) or notify the editor who made the comment or post via the article talk page. But if the article, even though valid and well sourced, threatens the "party line"or a persons personal agenda (for instance being a teacher or professor who uses WP in their syllabus,or identifies with a religion, ethnicity, or an ideology then they will pounce on the perceived heresy like a cat on a rat. I have even tried to engage some editors who do wholesale reverts on the article talk page..met with crickets. Which of course is suspicious, but be careful about edit warring. Editors and admins (and you never know who is an admin) have been around a long time, and have formed a social circle, some even meet at conferences. They will "gang up on you". This place can get pretty rowdy, and if you don't exercise restraint and more ijmportant learn how and when to play the game,one can wind up in a heap of you know what. The technicalities of the site take time to learn, at least for me.Oldperson (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oldperson Thanks for the comment. Most definitely, some of the behavior I am observing is consistent with your notion " allegiances, agendas, paid and unpaid, ...", though I will not jump to the conclusion that that actually is going on in this particular case.  I've been aware that this kind of thing goes on in society generally for a number of decades now.  Part of the mass-deception and mass-manipulation by coordinated action I tend to see as well documented in Manufacturing Consent (you just need to read the first chapter or two).  The observation is of course not new to Chomsky--it goes back millennia, at least.  Thoughtful people are generally aware of it, with life experience, thought, and maybe a bit of reading.NormSpier (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I see we are of the same "ilk". I have the book, BTW. If you don't watch or listen to Free Speech TV (it is on Dish and DirectTV and some Cable channels. My favorite is a three hour show with Thom Hartmann. You can watch him live on youtube I think. I am not into TV on the computer,being a troglodyte of sorts.  Thom mentions time to time that some years back he visited the Heritage Foundation, the floor was full of interns at their computer, as he walked around he notice that all or almost all were open to and busily editing Wikipedia.


 * Try to post something that doesn't accord with the Ronald Reagan fiction, even if it is sourced and you will be reverted, these people are pretty expert at using WP guidelines and rules to justify their actions. Christian Terrorism is another subject patrolled by "Christians".of course Hindu's and Muslims do the same for subjects Hindu and Muslim.


 * I am really into genetic genealogy, and had a discussion some time back with someone and mentioned Wikipedia, they voiced an opinion that I have heard before, that one cannot trust WP. Like everything in life, take it with a grain of salt, do your own follow up and arrive at your own opinion. Alas the vast majority of people will glom onto and believe anything that they hear or read on the internet.


 * Here is how to create a test page. Click on Sandbox at the top. In the URL add a number (2 or 3 or event sandbox/test hit enter and you have created a sandbox named test. Now go to your main  sandbox or sandbox 1 and create a link to sandbox/test then go and play with cut paste, refs, syntax, whatever all you want.. I often use the extra sandbox for perfecting an edit before I post it You don't have to save (publish) the experiment, or you can then blank it later. There is no rule against blanking your own sandbox and user or user:talk pagesOldperson (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Sandboxed Sections and Removed Sections for References
Sandboxed (safe storage for rollback, possible location for adjustment): User:NormSpier/PPACAsandbox1

Reference only: permanently removed by agreement: User:NormSpier/PPACARemovedOutLineOfCoverageReference

Reference only: permanently removed by agreement:User:NormSpier/PPACARemovedCostSharingRedReference

Sandboxed (just in case. The article is not expected to be deleted): User:NormSpier/MedicaidERStorage

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Controversial topic area alert
—  Newslinger  talk   18:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, user:Newslinger I was wondering when I would hear from you. (And others: I really don't know where this thing is appearing. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia.)


 * People looking for background on this:


 * The discussion is of the ACA Talk-page-mentioned action here:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Removal_of_ACA_Problems_Section_7/2/20--Questioning_That,_especially_pre-election


 * and refers to the just-removed ACA Problems section, that user:Newslinger agreed 9 months ago to keep in in its exact form, is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act&oldid=968987074#Problems.
 * (The contention 10 months ago between User:Newslinger and I are somewhere on a noticeboard that he will more easily be able to dig up than me.)


 * As I've indicated elsewhere, the difficulty of working on the ACA article, to produce something much more than the bunch of ill-thought-through slop that much of it is, has already pushed my goals back for making a decent article, including on important employer-insurance parts not well documented, to just holding the one "Problems" section and only if the Wikipiedia procedures don't make it too hard. I am now likely to drop even that goal.


 * Thus, people who organized Wikipedia may wish to use the section here created by Newslinger just to observe how the Wikipedia procedure is operating, and if any tweaks are needed.


 * You are probably aware, there may be an issue at Wikipedia described by another editor at Wikipedia to me:


 * "[Editors seeking to support a political point of view at Wikipedia] will then review your posts, looking for errors or to get an idea of your interests (to build a personal profile). Anyway }While the wisdom offered about editors acting in good faith with their edits is true in most cases. In some cases there are editors with allegiances, agendas, paid and unpaid, that monitor certain pages with the purpose of maintaining the "official line". It wouldn't surprise me that corporations, government agencies, political parties, religious institutions have interns or paid staff monitoring and"correcting" articles of interest. And these editors are quite adept at using WP guidelines and rules at maintaining the "party line". They revert wholesale paragraphs that disrupt their "truth", even where the paragraphs meet WP standards and are reliably source. It happens. You might be running afoul of one of these gate keepers, if so there is not much you can do. Leaving a notice on the article talk page will often be met with silence, especially if they can't justify their actions. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't try, but don't expect results. An editor isn't suppose to just delete or revert a paragraph wholesale unless it is vandalism or irrelevant if the edit was made in good faith but had errors of grammar and syntax, or needed a citation or some improvement, another editor can make corrections (which they often do) or notify the editor who made the comment or post via the article talk page. But if the article, even though valid and well sourced, threatens the "party line"or a persons personal agenda (for instance being a teacher or professor who uses WP in their syllabus,or identifies with a religion, ethnicity, or an ideology then they will pounce on the perceived heresy like a cat on a rat. I have even tried to engage some editors who do wholesale reverts on the article talk page..met with crickets. Which of course is suspicious,"


 * (which type of accusation I've also see on the Web.)


 * (And I'm not accusing anyone, but the what I have seen is certainly consistent with that exact MO for some people.)


 * And yes, I'm aware you have to some official procedures for dealing with unreasonable people, often ill-informed, and often fundamentally unable to think.

NormSpier (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi NormSpier, I think you would have more success in seeking participation from other editors if you introduce content proposals in smaller increments, e.g. one paragraph or even just a couple of sentences at a time, when the content is disputed. For controversial topics, articles tend to progress slowly, and it is not uncommon for RfCs to be held to determine whether something as small as a single word or phrase should be used. Large-scale changes on controversial topics almost never go over well, regardless of whether the edits are associated with a political sentiment, since the sheer volume of the changes deters other editors from reviewing them with the depth that smaller changes would be reviewed. —  Newslinger  talk   20:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi user:Newslinger Thank you for trying to be constructive. Frankly, I just can't work in tiny little bits.  Without being elitist, I think its fair to see I have a good bit of education in analytical areas, and have routinely dealt with giant "walls of text" of like 2000 pages and large-complicated 500-dataset databases, in my professional work and elsewhere.  The ACA, because of its complicatedness, and the complicatedness of our whole insurance system, and the actuarial mechanisms, really would require multiple coordinating detail-oriented high-capacity minds to get a good product, not running away from multiple issues in a page or two of text.  And the analytical people need to be "reasonable", by their own internal composition, without SOPS trying to somehow make them that.


 * It's kind of a shame. Wikipedia is so good where the content is analytically simpler: the history and layout of a park in Paris, or the reporting on what happened in a simple historical incident, the descendants of King George, etc.  With the ACA, we have just such complexity, particularly with the 50 different states all having different laws and procedures, so that currently available reliable references only hit small parts of things.  An editor trying to do a decent job needs to actually "think" and choose, with reasonability, the needed bits from reliable references to inform the reader.


 * I appreciate your effort, in particular the going around last September to tried to find technically-equipped parties able and interested in working on the article, which of course, failed.


 * (I am of course not that happy that you voted currently to remove a section that you last September agreed to keep in in its exact current form.)NormSpier (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You've definitely identified one of Wikipedia's weaknesses. Since all editors are volunteers who can participate and cease to participate in a topic as they please, it is difficult for the community as a whole to process disputes involving large amounts of content at once. I have proposed an strategy at in which I will review Special:Diff/968987074 one portion at a time, and then propose a way for the reviewed content to be added to the article, if suitable. Other editors are free to help, and I would also appreciate your feedback on the resulting proposals. —  Newslinger   talk   21:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)