Revision as of 14:46, 6 September 2011 editNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 edits →ITN: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:02, 6 September 2011 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 3d) to User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 34.Next edit → | ||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
{{search archives | small=yes}} | {{search archives | small=yes}} | ||
{{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
== Bayes == | |||
I seem to remember that you were interested in Bayesian probability. There's a new book on the subject, , which looks like it might be interesting. I haven't read it myself, but thought I'd pass it on in case you're looking for summer reading. Cheers. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I remember seeing that in '''' last month. It certainly sounds very interesting. I'll check it out once I finish ]. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I haven't read that one yet, but several of my colleagues enjoyed it. There's so much bad writing about medicine out there, so it's worth looking for good stuff. Atul Gawande is my favorite - or rather, I hate him because I'm jealous of how well he writes. :) ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Both Gawande and Mukherjee are quite excellent. I only managed to get through about 70% of the book before I had to give it back to the library, but I think I should get another copy and finish it. It was very interesting to read for me, as all I know about cancer is the little I learned when friends and relatives were diagnosed, but I think even you who must know so much about the subject will enjoy (re)learning the history of cancer treatment.<p>I've read ''Better'' and ''Complications'' by Gawande, both of which were excellent, but I haven't picked up ''The Checklist Manifesto'' yet. Have you read it? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::No. Mostly, I've read his pieces in the ''New Yorker''. The ones about national health care and overutilization were particularly good. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::Those are pretty good, but I remember reading about some issues with his in particular. I'm going back and rereading it now. The Mayo Clinic definitely has extremely good health care and low costs, but they in 2009. I imagine they didn't just go from a large number of Medicare patients to none in just three years; perhaps they had previous been accepting Medicare patients in a partially pro bono fashion? The rest of that article does seem very convincing though. I'll have to read that paper by Elliott Fisher that Dr. Gawande mentions. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 15:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::. I wonder if he is right about . I hope so, but growing up in a post-Reagan era has undoubtedly made me cynical of government, even for the Crazy Liberal that I mostly am. I'll have to go back to these pieces if and when I'm disappointed in 2012 and 2013 by all three branches of the federal government. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 16:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::I agree about the overutilization piece. His presentation of the Mayo folks as the shining example of altruistic medicine actually kind of pissed me off, because he didn't acknowledge the realities you allude to. The Mayo Clinic has more money than God. They can sit back and pontificate about the way things ''should'' be done, because they aren't subject to the same financial pressures as everyone else. It's like listening to one of the Rockefellers lecture you about how you shouldn't stress out over money. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] mentions you slightly == | |||
Hello NW. In the fine print of this AE complaint, it links to at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Do you want to add a comment in this AE? Thanks, ] (]) 15:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not sure one is really necessary at this time; I think the reasoning for my edit is self-evident. I also don't think that it ] me in the article or the topic area, but I'll defer to the rest of the AE corps on that. Thanks for the heads up though. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 15:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Me & Mathsci == | == Me & Mathsci == |
Revision as of 18:02, 6 September 2011
I hold the SUL account for NuclearWarfare
|
This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why. |
Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Me & Mathsci
I can tell that the ongoing dispute between me and Mathsci is getting on people’s nerves, so I’m making an effort to resolve it in his user talk here. If you’re thinking of commenting on this issue at AE, you might want pay attention to the discussion on Mathsci’s talk page, even if you don’t actually get involved in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, never mind. He removed my offer of reconciliation from his page three minutes after I'd posted it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a request. If you decide in the AE thread that you need to do something about my conflict with Mathsci, could you please give me and him a mutual interaction ban? My “side” of the ban should also cover Ferahgo, so that she can interact with me but not with Mathsci, and Mathsci can’t interact with her. Now that Mathsci has rejected my offer of an amicable resolution to this conflict, I’m probably going to need to request an interaction ban from ArbCom at some point, but it would save everyone a lot of time and drama if this could be done at AE.
My conflict with Mathsci over the past year has happened in far more places than just AE, so banning me from AE is not going to solve this problem. What I really care about is Mathsci not being able to pursue me anymore, but a mutual ban is probably what most people would see as fairest, and I don’t mind giving up my ability to interact with him as long as I can know he’ll be leaving me alone. (For us to both leave each other alone is also what I tried to suggest in his user talk.) --Captain Occam (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I’m sorry if I seem to be badgering you, but could you please get back to me about whether a mutual interaction ban between me and Mathsci is something you’d be willing to provide in the AE thread? If not, I might decide to request this from ArbCom before the AE thread is closed. I’m getting a stronger and stronger impression that allowing the conflict between him and me to continue festering is a detriment both to the community and to me, and something needs to be done to end it. But I don’t want to start an amendment thread about this issue if it’s going to be resolved at AE. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I haven't had time to look at the case. But no, I don't think so. One of the other commenting admins might though? NW (Talk) 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think I’ll probably just request it from ArbCom. Thanks anyway, though. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Clerk review of proposed amendment needed
Please look at User talk:EdJohnston#Final draft prior to submission and see if it has all the needed information. Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Appreciate your review. In Template:ArbComOpenTasks the date of the amendment is now shown as 16 August. I think it should be 1 Sept. Thanx, EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ah yes, thank you. I replaced the parameters of a previous template but neglected to fix that. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 20:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your help with the DYK for Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard. -- James26 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal questions
We're done here |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
NW, do you understand why it isn't appropriate to ask editors personal questions like this about their religious, philosophical, or lifestyle beliefs? For one reason among several, because we address the edits, not the editor. Also, it's the kind of atmosphere this creates in what is supposed to be a collaborative project. If you edit the Catholic Church article in a way that someone disagrees with, do you think it's appropriate for them or an admin to come to your talk page and ask you if you are a follower of the Catholic religion? Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Outing: NW you have attempted to out me: You took a comment about a degree, and a statement someone made on the COIN then guessed at personal information, and posted it here? In the meantime you employed Inquisition type questions on my user page in further attempts to get information? Its hard to know what to say.(olive (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)) |
ITN
Can you check this blurb out please? It's been ready to post for more than a day, though one editor appears to have a disagreement over a tag. But there is a strong consensus. Wikifan 03:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Checked out and posted. NW (Talk) 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)