User talk:Sb101

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Sb101! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! II | (t - c) 17:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
  • PS: I wouldn't worry too much about the overload of information above (note WP:BOLD - you aren't required to be an expert in Wikipedia policy, just use common sense), but in case you need anything, there's a bunch of resources there (I posted it using the automated tool Twinkle, which you can install by checking your preferences and looking at add-ons). Again, feel free to hit me up if you need help. II | (t - c) 17:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

And nice work on PPACA[edit]

I appreciate the tweaks you're doing to the PPACA article, although I would recommend edit summaries and we need to be careful about summarizing (WP:SUMMARY) as the article is getting pretty long. If you need help with anything, let me know. Incidentally, if you have the time and expertise, you could review Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#January_2013_filibuster_reform. I'm not sure some recent changes accurately reflect what a CRS report I found says happened (see also Talk:Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#Added_text_to_January_2013_filibuster_reform). II | (t - c) 17:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia talk works is a bit confusing - usually you can just respond wherever the conversation started. I think the stuff you're adding is fine - it really does make it more clear, so don't worry too much. I don't think there is a way to add IP edits to an account. Let me know if you have any more questions! :) II | (t - c) 17:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

PPACA[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your relentless contributions at PPACA. You are a workhorse. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence

Your GA nomination of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination update[edit]

The article Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Status[edit]

Hello Sb101, the GA review hasn't been touched in more than a week. I'm happy to continue, but considering the duration of the review, a little worried there may be a drive-by closure by other reviewers (as reviews are listed on the GA page and can be viewed by time on hold), would you mind updating the review? We are so close to finishing, LT910001 (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sb101: I've noted your absence as well, and I hope you are doing well. It would be totally understandable if you feel a bit burnt out, and of course real life outside of Wikipedia has its own demands. But you've done an excellent job improving the article, and I really hope you can see through the GA review to the end; it's almost done! I'm sure countless viewers already are grateful for your contributions, and it will be quite an achievement to reach GA status. If would like any help on the final leg of the journey, please feel free to let me know, and I'll be happy to help. I'm sure some of the other PPACA regulars would be too. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I should say you and the other contributors have done a marvellous job and I admire the tireless way you guys are discussing and maintaining the article, which is looking fantastic and is seen by a staggering number of people each year (something like 9 million plus). Prototime or DrFleischman there's no reason that another editor couldn't help out with the review, and I am sure Sb101 wouldn't mind, as they have clearly put the majority of work into the review and this wouldn't be stealing their thunder. Would any of the other regulars be interested? LT910001 (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
In the interest of not allowing the GA review to expire, I've gone ahead and finished up the last few parts of the GA review like you encouraged, LT910001. It really wasn't much; Sb101, you've already done most of the hard work! I in no way mean to steal your thunder from you, as you clearly accomplished the vast majority of the work. If there's any more work to be done still to get the article to GA status and you return, I'll be happy to turn the reins back over to you. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Misc.[edit]

PPACA infobox[edit]

I feel like the PPACA is such a big subject that it might be useful to create an infobox. Your thoughts? Remember (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to set one up but I hadn't considered it before. If you were interested in setting one-up, I would think we include things that are part of the Act: the main page + provisions + insurance exchanges + Contraceptives mandate + constitutional challenges. I'm just not sure whether that's enough for an infobox to be worthwhile only because it seems mostly contained in the 'main' page (PPACA article)? I know there are many more things related to PPACA (like health inflation, federal deficit) but which aren't components of it, if that makes sense? I imagine you have more ideas for it? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is what I put together. Feel free to revise. Remember (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
That actually looks pretty neat! =) I'll go and add 'ACA (PPACA + HCERA)' + Contraceptive mandate + Provisions + we're eventually going to have to add 50 state exchanges, presumably, so we should alphabetize it by state. I'll make a few other changes which I'm less confident about: change 'other health' heading to 'see also' as they're not part of PPACA, even though it modifies them. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 03:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Excellent. Glad I could help. I will add it to the article page. I went through a phase of creating lots of footer templates so I got pretty good at them and noticing when one was needed. Remember (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and FYI[edit]

Thanks for all your work on PPACA. I'm just a bit of a, for lack of a better word, quality snob? I don't know. I care about when things are featured or GA or not and what that means. Or what it should mean. You can see Talk:Malaria/GA2 as an example of some of what I consider my best work in regards to a GA review. The article still didn't pass GA, but I think we drastically improved the quality. That's what's most important to readers, in my opinion. And that's what we should focus on, I argue. =) Thanks again for all your work. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Biosthmors; Thanks. I know (the vast majority of) editors aren't being personal, although it can be a bit demoralizing to pour so much effort in (I wouldn't be surprised to have written 3/4 of the article) and getting so much negative (though usually constructive) feedback. I understand where your coming from, and deeply appreciate the message. I agree completely that the focus should be on creating a comprehensive, clear, concise, and verifiable article for readers; which I have been particularly motivated to do for exactly the coming date: exchanges open in 2 weeks, and the article is getting a traffic spike from a negative ad campaign started two days ago. I want to make sure people have a source they can trust in that context. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Awesome timing with your work! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
And yes I don't want to demoralize! I just want to help the article improve. So maybe I could work on that. I just can't help but point out things I perceive. (Plus sometimes I think I like to criticize anyways.) I hope you don't take it personal! Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't making a specific criticism, just expressing what the Review process can feel like (even when I know that, for example, you and LT90001 are trying to be nothing but constructive). I know it will ultimately be worth it when it gets to the final product. =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 15:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Random

And why not redistricting reform next? ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha! 'Redirect: Split-line redistricting' Done? =P Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I just hope there's a redistricting reform in the United States article one day. User:Biosthmors/Money and politics in the United States is my "next" one in this regard. But feel free to edit there. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
ReBiosthmors You may like this: My preferred redistricting reform; although I think FPTP is inherently flawed and the US needs much more political reform. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 15:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to cut in, but I thought I'd mention that after I'm done working on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 article, I'm planning to soon start on article on "Vote dilution in the United States" if either of you are interested in participating (obviously tons of overlap with gerrymandering). Also, I figured I'd give a shout out to the single transferable vote, my personal favorite voting system (that exists virtually nowhere in the US...) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the PPACA Provisions[edit]

Sb101, we're having some more trouble on PPACA with Innab, who has decided to disregard discussion by restoring the "Provisions by effective date" section and totally removing the "Background" section. I have reached 3RR and cannot revert Innab's edits anymore for 24 hours, so if you could help revert Innab's edits when you get on (assuming no one else already has done so by then, which they may not happen given that weekends are usually slow), I'd appreciate it. I suspect he'll then revert your revert and violate 3RR himself, which will be a clear instance of punishable edit warring. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sb101, I know that you are working hard to improve the PPACA article, however, we really need to discuss more the removal of the PPACA Provisions. Article is about the Law, and what is actually in the law, it is more important than history or some people opinions about the law. The provision were there for many years, even when the article just started. Moving this main section to the sub-article does not make any sense to me, because the sub-article always has less views, and if you look at the statistics, the sub-article "Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by effective date" had only couple hundred views per day on average ( http://stats.grok.se/en/201309/Provisions%20of%20the%20Patient%20Protection%20and%20Affordable%20Care%20Act%20by%20effective%20date ), while the main article "PPACA" has several thousands views per day ( http://stats.grok.se/en/201309/Patient%20Protection%20and%20Affordable%20Care%20Act ). The exchanges are open on October 1 this year, and most people are want to find out what law says about subsidies and benefits now, so it is very important section. Innab (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
@Innab: Didn't you just say that discussions to change article content should be "normal" discussions that occur on the article talk page? Then why are you (finally) posting an extended rationale for your edits on Sb101's talk page? You should have brought up these points on the article talk page before you made your changes and edit warred. At the very least, you should have engaged me in discussion on the article talk page after you were initially reverted. Nonetheless, I'm glad that you are willing to engage in discussion on this point, and I welcome Sb101's participation. But it should occur on the article talk page, where all editors who participated in the previous discussion can see it, and the article's former structure should be restored while this discussion is occurring. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Innab, for also posting this rationale on the article talk page, where we can continue discussion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you![edit]

Bubble Tea.png For dealing with all the incoming bombs over at PPACA. This is for you! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Re: Biosthmors Ha! Thanks, I need it lol. I work on it for ages and suddenly BOOM - out of nowhere. Oh well, perseverance. =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 09:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Too bad you didn't get more input sooner! Let me know if you work on another article like this again, and I can try to give input earlier. Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reoccuring debates[edit]

Hi Sb101, I've just come across the talk page for abortion (here) and note that it has an 'FAQ' section attached. Considering the number of readers and what appear to be the perennial debates on renaming the article, you might want to consider adding an 'FAQ' entry on items with established consensus. The two FAQ entries that come to mind are "Why isn't this article called 'Obamacare?'" and "Why doesn't this article focus just on the law and its provisions?" (or some such). In explanations it might be helpful to mention the relevant guidelines, so that you're not re-sowing the same upturned field every day. Just thought I'd drop a note to let you know such a thing exists. Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Original Obama Mandate Position[edit]

I concede your point about the debate quote. It doesn't add anything. I'll look for something better in terms of his explaining the reasoning for the original position he held. I don't agree with regard to the part about the ad in the primary campaign. The article as written states only that he and Clinton disagreed. We agree that "it was a relatively big issue between him and Clinton." Mentioning the ad (IMO) is valuable because it makes that point. There are lots of policy matters on which candidates disagree but fewer that become significant in the campaign.

Is it worth emphasizing that it was a contentious political issue rather than merely a disagreement about policy? I think it has to be given that in the same section there are two quotes (which seems redundant) emphasizing the reversal of Republicans on the same issue, one from Ezra Klein and one from NYT without an author. He and his opposition both had reversals, so adding the fact that the opposition's new position corresponded to the position he used to campaign against his primary opponent adds important context to the healthcare debate. Do you disagree? OckRaz talk 16:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about what you've said.
In principle, I could go either way on how much emphasis the initial position and the reversal really deserve. I definitely see where in an encyclopedic article, one could take the view that one should be primarily concerned with ensuring that you don't over emphasize something whose importance is disputable. After all, it's largely a subjective judgment and it would be inappropriate for an article in a general reference work to bear an authorial imprint or even an appearance of one.
In practice, I think the judgment should be based upon context and whether having more or less would be in keeping with how the rest of the article is written. What I keep coming back to, is that there seems to be a good deal of emphasis on the same reversal for the Republican party, and therefore there should be at least equal emphasis for the President's reversal. Otherwise, the imbalance implicitly suggests one is more significant than the other. As it stands, I believe there's a lack of equivalency in the article. OckRaz talk 01:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Million Award[edit]

Million award logo.svg The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (estimated annual readership: 2,160,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

Million award logo.svg This user won the Million Award for bringing Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to Good Article status.


If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Original Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your diligent, tireless, and outstanding work over the past several months on bringing Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act up to Good Article status. Congratulations! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Wishing you a happy new year. Here's hoping you are having an enjoyable wikibreak and that you will return to Wikipedia soon with your many talents! You are missed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

Good to see you again. Ironically, I just added you to WP:List of missing Wikipedians yesterday. Hope you'll be able to stick around :) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thank you for volunteering to be the world's single most consulted authority on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It was very nice of you to spend your time bringing that article to good article status, thereby positioning yourself with respect to that law as its most popular spokesperson. Your work in developing this most requested summary has had and is having a deep influence on all national thought on healthcare in the United States. For having impact comparable to the sum of the entirety of government educational funding on the issue, I hereby grant you this cup of coffee. Thanks for changing history. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by effective date concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by effective date, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject![edit]

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation