Open main menu


I fail to see how any reasonable person can take that section as positive evidence that Bloomberg is reliable. You have 3 editors saying they think it is, and 1 editor and a scathing article in the Columbia Journalism Review that have doubts. If that is the standard then fair enough, but it is basically arbitrary. I won't be giving that list much credence in future. zzz (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Signedzzz, there are three discussions listed in WP:RSP § Bloomberg, and the overall classification draws upon all of the listed discussions, although recent discussions are weighted more highly. Among all three discussions, editors show consensus that Bloomberg publications are generally reliable for news and business reporting.

In the most recent discussion that you mentioned (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270 § Bloomberg), you were the only editor to question Bloomberg's coverage of China-related issues, while 5 other editors (not 3) disagreed with your concerns.

You claimed that the Columbia Journalism Review article (published 2017) criticized Bloomberg's China coverage and Bloomberg Businessweek's "The Big Hack" article (published 2018). However, Softlavender refuted your argument and clarified that your selected quote referred to Bloomberg's spiking of a China-related article (i.e. what they didn't publish), not the entirety of Bloomberg's China-related coverage (i.e. what they did publish). You did not respond to Softlavender's correction. Also, the CJR article does not mention "The Big Hack" at all, as it was published one year before "The Big Hack".

As there is no compelling reason to weight your opinion more strongly than the opinions of 5 other editors, I have determined that the discussion shows consensus that Bloomberg is generally reliable for China-related news reports (in addition to its other news coverage). — Newslinger talk 18:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Correction? No one said it wasn't about spiking a story, so no one was "corrected" (or "refuted"). The article did indeed cast doubt on the entirety of Bloomberg's China-related coverage - that was the point of the article. Perhaps you should read it. zzz (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I did read the article, and it covers Bloomberg's refusal to publish a China-related piece because Bloomberg feared that its access to China would be impacted. While GreenMeansGo noted that the article cast the incident as "a lapse in their journalistic integrity", they still considered Bloomberg reliable "on average". Softlavender noted that the CJR piece did not mention any errors in the articles that Bloomberg did publish.

If you want to appeal the result of this discussion or Bloomberg's generally reliable classification, you can start a request for comment on Bloomberg on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 19:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one was interested in re-examining their strongly-held belief in Bloomberg's reliability, so there was no "discussion". As I said, if that results in a classification of "generally reliable", the classification is of little value. zzz (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
RfCs on the noticeboard tend to have more in-depth analysis than plain discussions, and they are normally open for at least 30 days. If you want a broader section of the community to re-examine Bloomberg's reliability, an RfC would be the best path forward. WP:RSP only reflects the contents of discussions on the noticeboard, so please be sure to make all of your points inside these discussions and provide rebuttals to dissenting opinions when you have strong counterarguments. — Newslinger talk 06:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Signedzzz, I noticed that you recently edited 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Social media. Is your opposition to Bloomberg related to the Bloomberg Opinion piece quoted in the article? Since the referenced opinion piece was written by Adam Minter, a columnist who is not a subject-matter expert, there is a possibility that the opinion is undue. I've started a discussion at Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding the Twitter data sets to examine the issue. — Newslinger talk 11:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and my changes regarding police misconduct in HK 2019 protestsEdit

Hi @Newslinger:, thank for the message. You said you removed some of my edits, but as new as I'm, I'm not sure which part you were saying. Please let me know. Cheers. Ltyl (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ltyl, there were several instances of unsupported attributions ("It was alleged") in the Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests article, but I just realized that they were already in the article (phrased using different words) before you edited it. Sorry about the mistake, and I've restored your edits. Welcome to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 15:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

thanks for helping me edit 5-Minute Craft (in DrifAssault's (mine) sandbox)Edit

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for helping me edit 5-Minute Craft, the article would be very biased without you. DrifAssault (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi DrifAssault, thanks for being so receptive to feedback from other editors! Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are a lot to take in at once, and there's a steep learning curve, but you're doing great so far. If you have any other questions about editing or if you ever want my opinion on something Wikipedia-related, please feel free to ask me here. — Newslinger talk 02:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger, for the 5 Minute Craft article again, it is consider to be an original research or/and unreliable source if I conclude this channel have various other sub-channel? The reason for that is I have found YouTube channel which are aimed for specific audiences, but all have the same name format "5-Minute Crafts (kids, recycling, etc.)" and also being shown on 5-Minute Craft's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talkcontribs) 12:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I found this review on Common Sense Media that says, "5-Minute Crafts is a YouTube channel with several subchannels", so it should be fine as long as you cite this page. You can also use the rest of the review, but the opinions should be attributed to Common Sense Media so it's clear where they're coming from. — Newslinger talk 15:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

RSN MoratoriumEdit

Hi, Newslinger - our project team (dogs) is struggling with RS issues, so I headed over to RSN to get consensus on use of a particular source, and while I was there, re-read the moratorium RfC. I may have misunderstood the proposal or it could be that retrospectively, I’m seeing things differently so I struck my iVote. I encourage any advice you would like to share (ping me if you do). 🙂 Atsme Talk 📧 10:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, and thanks for reaching out to me here! I really appreciate your participation in reliable sources noticeboard discussions and RfCs, even when your views don't align with mine. It's important to have a variety of perspectives represented on Wikipedia, since that is the only way this encyclopedia can accurately reflect the world around us. Your opinions are valuable here.
Regarding the discussion on The Bully Breeds: You did a great job researching the questionable legitimacy of the publishing company. Unfortunately, deletion reviews aren't suitable for introducing new arguments, and I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catahoula bulldog would have had a better shot at a merge/redirect result if you had directly responded to Nomopbs's 13 bullet points. If the Catahoula bulldog still doesn't meet WP:GNG after a few months, you may want to consider a proposed merger to Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog.
On the topic of general reliability, I think that most editors on the noticeboard agree that context matters, but simply disagree on how much guidance to give editors upfront. Although I appreciate your new position in the RfC, your support for the moratorium was also perfectly respectable. My goal is to strike the right balance between RfCs and discussions on the noticeboard. RfCs reduce the number of repetitive discussions, but without some type of restriction on when RfCs can be opened, we run the risk of cluttering the noticeboard with too many RfCs (as they run for at least 30 days).
If you have any feedback on my editing or my noticeboard participation, please feel free to tell me at any time. — Newslinger talk 15:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:MicroG for improvement, if interestedEdit

There should be a microG page. Could you help make the draft, Draft:MicroG, better? -- Yae4 (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Yae4. Thanks for creating this draft! An article for MicroG was on my to-do list, but I wouldn't have been able to get to it very soon on my own. I'll be happy to contribute to the draft when I have a bit of time, since it's clear that MicroG is notable. — Newslinger talk 15:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

new report about Twitter disinformation campaignEdit

Thought you may be interested, I've included new information about the Twitter disinformation campaign:
International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Social media
The last paragraph of that section is new. Feel free to improve upon this if you wish. Thanks. (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this! I've reworded one of the sentences, but everything else looks great. — Newslinger talk 15:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest and Edit War at /e/ (operating system) and Gael DuvalEdit

Hi Newslinger, Would you please have a look at the recent edits and talk page comments by me, User:Caliwing, User:Indidea, and User:Mnair69, and advise on how to handle? I believe something like User_talk:Mnair69#June_2019 is also appropriate for at least Caliwing, and probably Indidea, and I'd like to nip edit wars in the bud if possible. Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I've looked at the edits by Yae4. It's impressive to see that he's doing all his best to ruin the page about /e/, systematically discretiting, adding content about similar or competing other projects, using non-neutral tone, unediting other users edits. This guy seems to have an account here only to destroy the work of others. Newslinger, I don't know if you are an admin and I don't know a lot about Wikipedia procedures, but what actions can I take in this case to ensure that this page is getting balanced and factual content without getting vandalized by a single user? Indidea (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Indidea, I have responded on your talk page at User talk:Indidea § Response to your comment from my talk page. — Newslinger talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I am monitoring the progress of the /e/ (operating system) article. Let's continue this discussion on the article's talk page, Talk:/e/ (operating system). — Newslinger talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Joel Gilbert ArticleEdit

Hey, wasn't sure how to message on wiki. Not trying to mess up anything but I need some help. I'm still trying to get the article updated without creating a mess and I need your assistance. There was no conflict of interest other than a group (who moved on without me) trying to do an article together so no one had to do a whole page. This article as it is has numerous issues beyond the version I worked on. Again, not trying to be a jerk, just want to actually get it fixed and get your blessing. Below is when I thought I was blocked and wrote the whole story on what happened to get things reverted. Please help if you can, not trying to circumvent your decisions, just not sure why inaccurate material that has bad sources is chosen over accurate material (albeit, equally bad sources right now). If anything you see needs fixing before it goes in, please let me know.

Apart from finding new information and choosing which parts to edit, all independently, me, rory, and nate are not working on this article for any other reason than his name was first on the list of articles to edit. The current version of the article has bad sources and is negatively skewed. We're literally just fixing what is wrong. There should be no issue. The problems brought forth are one, my account, rory's and i guess nates too were created recently (mine and rory's because we've never had an account) and just trying to get some articles done. The goal was literally, get to ten edits and get started. There is nothing wrong with creating an article and there is no conflict of interest between independent editors agreeing to do an article. If that were wrong the community portal is wrong too. Two, nothing is being promoted; the only sources pertaining to Joel Gilbert are news articles and his website. I might've cited one wrong but that's it. The article as it stands has a negative skew and bad sources. We're trying to give it a neutral stance and fix the sources as we go. To accuse me, rory, and nate (we don't know him too well. He said he would check our stuff and gave us a general outline: i.e. stick to a topic and build a reputation) of being sock puppets is no different than calling anyone who's ever communicated on wikipedia about an article, a conflicting interest. I get the timing is bad (just looked over the history, there's a lot in the last few days) but nothing we have done has contradicted any guidelines set by wiki. This is classic looks like a duck must be a duck thinking. Not sure why the contention for this is so high. The article should be taken down if not fixed. Not trying to be a bother but its wrong to label this a conflict of interest when it isn't. JGoldman76 (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGoldman76 (talkcontribs) 01:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi JGoldman76, you can participate in the sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sweethominy. If you are not a sockpuppet, then the investigation will conclude in your favor, and you have nothing to worry about. I will return to the Joel Gilbert article after the investigation is complete. — Newslinger talk 05:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about using primary or secondary sourcesEdit

Hi - maybe you didn't notice my question on the /e/'s history page, but I'd like to better understand and get your advice so that I can contribute better to the /e/ page and others. I think in some cases (probably for tech projects) some facts can clearly be checked from primary sources and you won't necessarily find content in secondary sources about it. Let me give an example in the /e/ case: the list of supported devices, like it was added recently by a user, is on their gitlab. That's a fact, it can be checked. Is there any issue with using such a primary source? Another case: reference to source code. Does it qualify as an acceptable source for a citation on a Wikipedia? Also, another case that comes to mind: /e/ have released their "cloud" part as a set of various software components that can be installed by users to self-host their /e/ services instead of relying on the /e/ cloud at As this is rather new, there are no secondary sources about this news. However this kind of information is not a claim, it's factual and can easily be checked on the appropriate download page. In that case, is it acceptable to be mentioned and cited in an edit? Caliwing (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Caliwing. I've responded at Talk:/e/ (operating system) § Primary sources. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 10:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Phoenix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019Edit

Hello Newslinger,


Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.


A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Portable Care ActEdit

Please see my edits to the RfC you initiated. My goal was to make it clear where editors should register their opinion. Also, I moved the table of contents box you created, although I wonder if it would work better higher up (a bit below the RfC banner), but I defer to your judgement. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Markworthen, and thanks for reorganizing this. I was concerned that the RfC would end with low participation, and I think your changes made it better. I've changed some of the heading names and moved the table of contents upward. I hope this works for you as well. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I like! Great work on this thorny topic btw. Whew! Not easy.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it! One last thing: did you mean with Talk page discussion after extensive edits (after instead of before) for the "Retain" bullet in Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § Instructions? — Newslinger talk 06:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, I misunderstood the label. Looks good! — Newslinger talk 07:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, me too, Markworthen. I caught that you fixed up the page, and it's better. Thanks.NormSpier (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Newslinger. On the ACA article, as I have somewhere on the RFC page, it's looking like the "original research" (unless an actuary or economist comes in and "no, says that's not original research") will probably make the best solution for the article to revert permanently all but the "problems" section. The calculation for bronze and silver in that section is "routine calculation" by the verifiability thing you linked me to, I think it will be clear. (Notes on that in the RFC. I'll be glad to answer any questions, and even just write down the whole string of calculations, with the numbers, for your, or anyone's, review.)

Detailing "what do the simple calculations involve?"
You look up the premium and out of pocket max for the couple in question, on for the second lowest cost silver plan, and the second lowest cost bronze plan.  (To get that premium, you put in a salary like $120,000 for the couple, putting them well above 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, so they get no subsidy, and you see tells you explicitly there will be no subsidy--you thus know you have the total premium not knocked down by a subsidy.) You then calculate the premium subsidies they get at 399% FPL and 401% FPL using the rules, and the rest is obvious additions, subtractions, multiplications, and additions on the calculator. The rules for the subsidies are simple, and taken from Kaiser Family Foundation Subsidies page, which I have inadvertantly left off as a reference for the calculation, though the reference appears elsewhere.NormSpier (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC) 
There is also an alternative to get premium subsidies for the 399% FPL couple and the the same couple at 401% FPL, by going to, and getting direct the premium subsidy amount information for the couple.  This is plugging in the couple twice, with two different incomes, rather than once. In the first case, there is a big subsidy, and in the second case, the subsidy will be 0.  ("The couple has gone over the cliff".)  In doing the calculations, may have some slight rounding conventions, or may have already updated FPL from where it was last open enrollment, so the cliff-point might be very slightly different than exactly 400% of for-2019 open enrollment that I have used, but everything will be extremely close, unless I have in fact made a mistake.
And of course, as above, I will be glad to put all the specific calculations, i.e. walk-through of the calculated numbers, on a sheet for your review.

One or two of what you have in what you presented as problematic in the "Problems" section may have to be dropped, and they are of minor importance. The references reliability can all be substituted with reliable ones--I didn't know the standard when I used them. The remaining issues on that section: (1) I think you had that the POV in that section was not neutral. I counter-argued on the RFC. So I ask, do you still have a neutrality issue on just the "Problems" section? And, can you be specific exactly where? (2)We have comments "prolix" and much of it needs to be rewritten (from our only two visitors leaving a vote), so can guide me as to if you think they apply to Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Problems only, and, as to specifically what needs to be adjusted. Basically, I think it's all pretty quick work to get it right by you.

Do note, that some of what had put in which will be reverted was a correction of a serious flaw in the article. (This is before I got to it. You may want to search for "sharing".) A main component of the flaw was not to mention cost-sharing reductions (less clearly called cost-sharing subsidies) as a provision. (This was recognized both by me, and someone else, as pointed out in the RFC Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Cost-sharing_subsidies) It's a main provision, and it's also central in what Trump did to try to sabotage the law. (The article mentions the cost-sharing in the erroneous table, and then down in what Trump did. But the silver-loading response by many states and insurers is also omitted--a major omission.) I have not proposed to keep the section I added on the cost-sharing reductions, Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Cost-sharing_Reductions, and also on the silver-loading later on, because I can't get around "original research". The silver loading has to be explained, and that is "original research". (So I'm lowering my goals to produce a high-quality article. It will be a incoherent on the matter of cost-sharing reductions. Nothing I can do. At least the article will have the glaring (POV) omission, "Problems" (sometimes only) in the functioning of the insurance it offers. (It's very unfortunate that we have a bunch of able and willing editors to improve this now-timely article, and that's just how it is.)NormSpier (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

And, also, if you could possbily guide me on: Is there a master starting where you can get to all of the procedures and rules around here, like the ones you are pointing out in various places? And, I have seen the term "Encyclopedic" in the RFC in a few places. Do you have a link for me on that?

And also, thanks much for all the work, including directing me to the appropriate policy documents, and setting up the RFC.NormSpier (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I just notified all the people (being just 3) who had prior comments in the ACA talk section on content about the RFC, and our general need for some people who know the law, etc., to give some comments.NormSpier (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Markworthen, Newslinger , Usedtobecool: Given the RFC, and the 0 available editors besides me to work on the ACA article, it looks like the optimal investment of my time and yours (as proposed by me yesterday), will be reverting all of my content permanently, except the "Problems" section, which section is easy to fix -- I mainly just have to substitute some references to meet Newslinger's conditions on the section, if the routine calculations are accepted as routine calculations (which I can't believe you won't when you see what they are). So, out or in now on "problems" doesn't much matter. It seems like "problems" will ultimately be in, unchallenged, pretty soon.

However, there have been comments on the way all of my contributed sections are structured / worded, possibly extending to "Problems". Since I have little experience with Wikipedia writing, it would be most helpful, if you happen to have time, if you could make specific comments about the structuring / wording, etc., of that one section: Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Problems to help me make it useful for the reader.

Otherwise, thank you all for your help and comments on the RFC and otherwise.NormSpier (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

In a very well-written comment (good job!) in Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Comparison,_particularly_depth_of_coverage,_to_Brittanica,_and,_are_we_teaching_people_to_fish?, GreenMeansGo has alerted me that basically, any Wikipedia article needs to be written roughly at the level of the average person who may choose to access the content. (Me "synthesizing" from his exact words.) This makes it clear that all but "Problems" as I wrote them are at too high a level for the intended audience for this article (but not for the audience of Banach space or , Risk_parity#Equally-weighted_risk_contributions_portfolios). So the prior-proposed-by-me "get rid of all of my contributions on the ACA article, except the 'Problems' section", seems even more appropriate than it did yesterday. I can't see how "problems", perhaps with some rewording, would be above the level of the audience (or is above the level of most of the rest of the article), and people at the level of the audience, both on the left and right, will want to, and deserve the right to, see the problems that sometimes arise with the ACA coverage, which are nowhere else mentioned in the article, and are often discussed by politicians with "repair" proposals, like Biden recently.

The separate article Medicaid estate recovery is also not above the level of the audience for that article. A bit of rewording may be needed, and I'm craving any specific advice on that from any of you four: GreenMeansGo, Newslinger, and the other two just above (who I don't want to bother with a "ping") in that ACA article section, and that article Medicaid estate recovery.NormSpier (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well NormSpier, I guess I'd preface this by reminding that brevity is the soul of wit, and you're going to make much more progress, and get more participation on Wikipedia by compartmentalizing problems and addressing them concisely. At some point, people are simply not going take the time to read pages upon pages of text.
A couple of quick notes looking over the estate article: There is basically no reason that we ought to ever be including a dozen citations to support a single sentence. It's unnecessary, and disruptive to readers, especially on mobile. We should also never use postal abbreviations on Wikipedia. How are you, as presumably an American, supposed to know that PDL is the postal code for Pays de la Loire? And that's probably the core problem with the content overall. You are pretty clearly writing as an American and for an audience of Americans. That seems to be the source of the overly-detailed state-by-state breakdowns, the excessive use of acronyms (DMAHS, LTCR, MAGI) and US-centric terms (e..g, Federal Poverty Level) while seemingly presuming people know what they are, and the overall approach of writing for people who "deserve the right to see the problems". That's not our job. The POV issue with the "problems" section is the entire section. Wikipedia does not advocate for any "side" and we are not here "make an argument". So long as you are making an argument for Americans who "deserve to know" then the content is not going to appropriate for this venue. GMGtalk 13:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi user:GreenMeansGo. Thank you for your comment, which seems to divide into presentation stuff (like don't use state abbreviations), and that you think all of the material discussed is not appropriate for Wikipedia. On the latter, I only see that the labelling "problems" of the section may be tendentious, and that it should be something like "What some people, including experts, assert are problems' (but more concise, of course). Since this very directly bears on the content of the ACA article, and the Medicaid estate recovery article, note that I will copy it to those talk pages.NormSpier (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
No, NormSpier, the problem is not the title of the section; the problem is that more than half the article is an extended argument in support of the position that the thing is problematic. As it stands, everything in the "View that the..." and "Argument for..." sections should be removed entirely. The notion that it is "just presenting expert opinion" is at best a thin veneer, and the pretense is dropped almost entirely by about halfway through, when it stops pretending to present "a view" and starts telling readers outright what you're advocating. In the bits where the veneer holds, it's still painfully obvious that the writer is bending over backward in order to try to act like they're presenting "someone else's" argument: One aspect of the problematic interaction point of view that was raised is seen by noting that the.... I mean...One aspect of the view that Steve is a sexual deviant, is raised by noting the company he keeps of lewd and lascivious women. It's just attributing it to death, and yet attributing it to no one at all, so you can proceed to simply state the argument you wanted to make in the first place. GMGtalk 14:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, user:GreenMeansGo. I interpret the comment above to now refer to Medicaid estate recovery only. Oh, yes, I am having trouble getting POV right, and my awkward "viewpoint" kind of think is coming from my rewording after POV comments by user:Newslinger, indicating something like "viewpoints had to be reflected in proportion to presence reliable sources". So I have put a pro and con section, to try to hit that POV criterion.
The issues pointed out (in 2013, 2014 and at other later times, in some places, including the Washington Post, and Seattle Times were:
a)ACA expanded Medicaid (and other medical Medicaid) bills paid out have to be paid back by the person's estate. (Applying only to people 55 or older, and only in some states)
b)There is an unequal treatment of people below 138% FPL vs those a bit above. Both groups get their medical bills paid, but those below 138% FPL have to pay it all back, while those above don't. Further, those above are getting very cheap, highly subsidized insurance with low copays, quite similar to what people below get (premiums may be 0, copays are small), except for that having to pay it all back.
c)There was a compulsion to have the coverage for people under 138% FPL (the mandate), and still is in some states. So people are compelled to pay back all medical expenses, and there is also a case of capitations: maybe $700 a month per person has to be paid back, even if the person didn't get sick, or go to a doctor, ever.
d)The notice of the Medicaid estate recovery is inconspicuous, in many states. In states that use the Federal exchange, it's actually non-existent when the person applies. (It is unclear to me whether states are obligated to eventually tell the person. If they do, using the Federal exchange, it may be after the person already has the Medicaid, and are exposed to all Medical expenses needing to be paid back.)
The above 4 items are the essence of the information in the article. Also needed, though, is me not being lazy. The various newspaper articles and other places where the issue was brought up mainly talk about one or two states only. I have not been lazy, and looked up the situation in a number of other states with the recovery, to assist the reader to determine that there are a lot of states that currently do the recovery, and a lot of states that currently do not do the recovery. I have also placed timing, like 2014 or 2017, in cases where the recovery rules were changed, so the reader can figure out that it was in apparent response to the ACA.
Yes, I need good help on avoiding POV problems in the exact way I have written the thing. I welcome your suggestions. Such as of the type I have already gotten from user:Otr500. (If the discussion continues to be just related to Medicaid estate recovery, we can copy this, and move it to talk there. I already have your initial comment there.) Also, note I will be in and out today.NormSpier (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @NormSpier: I have been restricted on time lately but will look at things a little closer as soon as I can. I would only remove material that is from your perspective and not backed by reliable sources. If that is a large amount then I understand but first see if sources back up what you include. Otr500 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Unable to save edits for ArsDigita?Edit

To repeat: Edit. Put Cursor at end of 1st paragraph, or end of another paragraph. Use Cite Tool (as done many times already), automatically for this link:

Hit Insert, Publish, type summary, Publish again. See:

Something went wrong HTTP 404 [Dismiss]

I've also see this error (but don't remember what was done leading up to it): Error loading data from server: apierror-visualeditor-docserver-http. [OK]

The above book link was added to Philip_Greenspun without problem.

Could you see if you also have problems with editing ArsDigita? Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm Seth Whales. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, The Good, the Bad & the Queen, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

SethWhales talk 22:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Hello. Did anyone mention me on this page? Mention me back if you did. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 22:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Newslinger".