Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:03, 28 July 2011

Welcome to my Talk page.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

A cookie for you!

Thanks for ending that discussion before it escalated. And thanks for the coke. Now to find some JD to go with... FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it just got off on the wrong foot, but looks like its doing better now. -- Avanu (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid this armistice might not hold. I just noticed the first 'collapse' was reverted by Dream Focus with a comment about 'not getting your way'. But whatever, hopefully we can all just play nice. -- Avanu (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Collapse

Good move, thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Can you deal with the whole civility thing with dream focus after we get done with these changes? It's indeed an issue that may need working out, but it'll be better to do it later.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I was typing this out before I even noticed Okip's suggestion to do so, haha.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh it can be put off just fine. I was just getting tired of trying to hat the inflammatory stuff and him reverting it. If it helps things improve, I'll do whatever needs to be done. By the way, Wikiquette Alerts is not a punishment, it is a voluntary process and editors are supposed to help assuage/defuse the situation. Attempts at Dispute Resolution are also a requested step prior to other action. -- Avanu (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting. This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated. We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". >>> Sign-up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My Apologies

On re-consideration, I would like to extend my apology for the perhaps ill-considered use of "drive-by" to characterize your recent edit. I'm well aware of and appreciate your prior contributions and realize now that my characterization was needlessly provocative. I'll be considerably more circumspect inre prior editorial contributions before utilizing that euphemism in the future. Again, my apologies. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. I think you're doing a good job trying to keep the article in line. -- Avanu (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You probably noticed

But just in case I replied at Talk:Fee-for-service. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in this article I'm working on: User:Jesanj/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee Jesanj (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw a reference to that when I was searching Google a moment ago for information on the FFS article. Sounds like a oligopoly somewhat. -- Avanu (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI I added that WSJ source to FFS and removed the tag. I thought the modifications we made to the lead and that info might fix things. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is helping to make the article more balanced. I still think the lead should talk more about the relationship between insurance and FFS. For comparison, if I am selling catering service or shoe repair, I would always want to sell more, when it is FFS. The entire question is clouded by the presence of insurance that pays in a FFS style. But in real life, we don't go to the caterer or shoe repair every day because we don't need it. So the question to me is how do we adaquately determine what part of this is proper use versus overuse, or overtreatment, and how do we determine how people would react if it were actually just market-driven? -- Avanu (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think a section at overutilization which discusses/defines inappropirate care is needed, so I tried to make that clear. Jesanj (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A heads up

I created a Yes-No vote section here regarding our dispute on the first sentence. It includes arguments for and against the revised wording. Unfortunately, I was the one who wrote your arguments, based on what you had said during the discussion, so the argument is probably a little biased towards my revision right now. I thought I'd drop you a note here so you can reword, revise, and clarify your position before the voting gets too far. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi

Re-adding this commentary, "Except he's not still in power. He's lost all of eastern Libya, and is losing more of the west as we talk.," ain't helpful for the discussion. I only owe the editor an explanation, and I won't put it on a shared IP's talkpage. He can always come to my talkpage if he shows-up from a different IP and asks for details. Also my decision was based on similar commentary on multiple pages, deserving his total contribution to be rolled-back (which I avoided because of one tiny contribution). Thanks for understanding and happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam 09:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Liked your January comment on 3rr talk

I agree with your January 2011 comments here in a case where an editor on a 1rr page clearly reverted a bunch of old material that he knew would be contested and within 24 hours reverted my revert. I'm going to try to use that reasoning in appropriate place (3rrN said go to Arbitratio enforcement) - but it would be nice if the language in the policy was more specific and and as I comment there I'll come up with some after this situation done. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Muammar_Gaddafi

While I appreciate the fairness in your gesture, I must politely say that in cases of BLP, we do have a bit more latitude, and I realize that Gaddafi might not be the most well-liked guy on the planet, but we still need to factor BLP considerations into our edits there. Screwball23 was given a warning by me as well to stop messing about with the language regarding Gaddafi's title. He needs to reach a true consensus, not just say, "this is what I think the sources say, so I'm changing it". The language indicating Gaddafi's control of Libya has been in place since the beginning of the article, and while I do agree that the present situation makes it harder to determine who to look at as the proper leader of Libya, we do not need to get into a marathon trying to keep up with each tiny move in the wind. That is what the news media is for, and while people do turn to Misplaced Pages for information, it isn't considered a newspaper, so an outdated item isn't the end of the world, and for the time being, we don't even see a general recognition that its out of date now. -- Avanu (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, I was going to remove it today and let you know that it was just to cool him down. No-one is involved in edit-warring alone, so I can't give him a warning an not you (even tho my summary was clear :p). It worked out well and the conversation is going ;). Sorry tho.. take care ~ AdvertAdam 16:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Re closing comments?

Avanu, I have no qualms whatsoever as to your further expression of opinion on the question you unhatted to facilitate that expression. However, you (and everyone else) have been both solicited and had every opportunity to offer suggestions, pro or con, as to this process towards consensus. May I suggest that you consider refactoring your comment to the discussion area on the "vulgar" question which is still open for comment and allow me to close the question with the obvious consensus "No" response so that we can progress to what may be the heart of the matter? Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Just for accuracy sake, the question wasn't "hatted", it was "collapsed" ( {{cot}} ). JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The "and"

I noticed your post on James Cantor's talk page. Hope you don't mind my commenting here. I'm pretty sure he'd mind if I commented there.

Thanks for trying to build a common ground. Bicycle_gearing might be a better example, after we re-title it "internal and external bicycle gearing" for discussion. Internal and external gearing are similar in some ways - they both move bicycles. It is elegant to present them in the same article, even though none of the gears are interchangeable.

As a matter of credit-where-credit-is-due, I should point out I'm not the one who came up with it being all about the "and." I too initially thought the debate had something to do with the notability of androphilia and gynephilia, but caught on that I was wrong. Now I'm just the one who is trying to keep the AFD debate focused on the original issue: To quote James Cantor, "There are indeed RS's about androphilia, and there are RS's about gynephilia. But there are no references about androphilia and gynephilia as a topic unto itself.".

I'd be a lot more supportive if James Cantor presented reasons why they should be separate articles. Something positive, instead of just negatively arguing against others.

If went to Bicycle_gearing, filed an AFD and demanded RS's to support some relationship between internal and external bicycle gearing, what kind of response do you think I'd get? BitterGrey (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)