User talk:InterpreDemon

Welcome![edit]

Hello, InterpreDemon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to assume good faith, but having observed the behavior of the editors and their treatment of various topics over the past month it's pretty hard to do. Nevertheless I will try harder.InterpreDemon (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I want to be transparent about something that happened this evening on the Obamacare page. In PPACA#Background, you wrote to another user, "Yes, and as predicted I did not have to hold my breath any longer than when diving for lobster to see your edits wiped out. Next you will be banned as a user." That user was actually already banned way back in 2010 and has been a serial abuser of Wikipedia's terms and conditions. Blanking of his edits is fully supported by WP:BE and WP:DENY. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that, as you can probably see I am new to this forum and not up to speed on the various tools of abuse utilized by the "pajama hadin"... but I am learning. InterpreDemon (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate use of article talkpages[edit]

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 23:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I have been attempting to focus my comments upon items, aspects or consequences of the law that may prove noteworthy and worth inclusion in the article, and the few back-and-forth "chat room" exchanges that I have seen so far have indeed related to the issue of relevance and not the merits of the law itself. InterpreDemon (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PPACA pep talk[edit]

Hey, I'd like to pass something else on, since you seem to be open to working productively over at PPACA. You (and others) have been quite cynical about the absence of any material about the recent controversies. Last night it occurred to me why that stuff is missing. I can assure you, it has nothing to do with any liberal conspiracy. The reality is that there was one particularly prolific editor, Sb101, who starting this past April, took the article from something mediocre to a fantastic and comprehensive piece that was awarded coveted "Good Article" status last month. I'm not saying everything Sb101 did was perfect, but he/she basically carried the article on his/her shoulders, with feedback and tweaking from a handful of others, including George Orwell III, Prototime, and myself. Sadly for the article, however, Sb101 took a well-deserved break starting October 7, just as the exchanges were launching and the recent controversies were erupting. That's why none of this stuff is covered -- not for the bullshit reasons being spread by Grundle2600 and talk radio. If the WP community (that includes you) wants this material in the article then it's up to us to pick up where Sb101 left off and research it, write it, debate it, and revise it. No easy task to be sure. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that certainly explains a lot, all is not always as it first appears to be and I am willing to help out to the degree that I can. Some accuse me of being a fairly good writer, and for me it flows rather effortlessly as you and others are doubtless painfully aware, so perhaps I can help out with brewing up the body text based upon agreed sourcing and others can distill down and format properly for inclusion. InterpreDemon (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough, really[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you can't resist treating article talkpages like your personal blog, then please find somewhere else to contribute. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, three or four editors (including myself) have asked you to lay off the snarky, unproductive, and off-topic language, and you even agreed to do so. You need to learn to WP:LISTEN and avoid WP:DISRUPTive conduct. Your comments are much better received when they don't include sarcastic little digs directed at your fellow editors. If you continue in this direction you're going to find yourself on the noticeboards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obamacare[edit]

Before user:Grundle2600 was banned by Obama supporters for adding reliably sourced criticism of Obama to Obama-related articles, he had cited on his talk page that he had started a blog and posted a link to it. One of his blog entries is a very long, very well sourced list of criticisms of Obamacare, and many of these criticisms are from left wing politicians, unions, and voters who had supported the passage of Obamacare. The blog entry, which currently lists 176 well sourced criticisms of Obamacare, is at tinyurl dot com slash m8tfd7q

In relation to recent discussions at the Obamacare talk page, item 20 on the blog cites many well sourced of examples of small businesses, government organizations, colleges, and other employers adopting the 29 hour week in response to Obamacare. Wikipedia's Obamacare article falsely states that this is limited to "several businesses and the State of Virginia." Already on two separate occasions, the fact that the wikipedia article contains this false information has been cited on the Obamacare talk page, but in both cases, the comments were erased, the editor was banned, and the false information remained in the article. In other words, the Obama supporters at wikipedia are deliberately and knowingly keeping false information in the article.

Item 163 is also in relation to recent discussion. It says that in June 2010, the Obama administration predicted that 93 million people would lose their insurance because of Obamacare.

The list also includes many, many, many other reliably sourced things which should be included in the Obamacare article.

I encourage you to read the list, check out its many reliable sources, and use those reliable sources to make your own additions to the Obamacare article.

Xqpoiu98 (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]