User talk:Brennanconnor

Welcome!

Hello, Brennanconnor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Kevin Wacasey, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 331dot (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kevin Wacasey

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kevin Wacasey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Healthcareonomics

Hello Brennanconnor,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Healthcareonomics for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. —Swpb^talk 14:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Welcome to Wikipedia -- and I hope you'll still believe I'm sincere after what I'm about to say.

None of the articles you've created pass, in my opinion, Wikipedia's notability guidelines -- see WP:GNG. All of the references seem to be about other things than Wacasey himself, or this "equation" (it's not an equation, by the way -- it's a formula). If such references exist, add them right away, otherwise the articles are likely to be deleted.

Please see also WP:PROMOTION. I realize you're trying to being news of this new idea to the public, but Wikipeida doesn't do that until other sources have done it first. Thanks for understanding. EEng (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential COI

Are you in any way related to Kevin Wacasey? I note that the photo you uploaded of him [1] is marked "Own work". Please see WP:COISELF: "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends ... If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly, from adding related advertising links, links to personal websites and similar, and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." EEng (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I work for his publicist. We took that headshot a couple of days ago at the office. I am also adding information about several news articles on Dr. Wacasey from 2001 to his personal page. I appreciate your feedback, and once we get some news stories published about The Wacasey Equation, we'll try back with Wikipedia.Brennanconnor (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or no, are you related to Wacasey, and if so how? EEng (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I am "related" to Dr. Wacasey is the fact that I work for his publicist, Cyndi Miller. That would be a paid, business relationship, not a personal one. I am trying to avoid "promoting" him here; I am only trying to publish factual, verifiable information in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines. I've already said that I'll retry posting The Wacasey Equation at a later date - even though it won't meet the strict mathematical definition of an "equation" as you pointed out.

I am curious though, for his biography page, why is it that his exposing another physician who was considered such a danger to patients that her medical license was revoked, she was convicted of homicide, and (originally) sentenced to two years in prison, isn't "notable?" Unfortunately the newscasts aren't available any more online, but if you took the time to research his whistleblower action, you'd find that he saved lives by stopping her.

Thank you for your assiduous attention to my attempts.Brennanconnor (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, what an amazing coincidence that someone working for the publicist of Kevin Wacasey would happen to choose a Wikipedia username that happens to be the same as this person [2], who was born in the same place as Dr. Wacasey practices! Since, as you say, you aren't actually related to Dr. Wacasey, you must get a lot of ribbing for that. EEng (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Wacasey does not practice in Galveston. He attended school there when his son Brennan (my best friend who introduced him to our firm) was born. But again I thank you as this was my first effort at Wikipediaing, and quite an education.

In any case, I resign myself to failure and toast your success. But, without seeming a tattletale I would suggest that, since Wikipedia is hyper-vigilant about not allowing promotion, you should take a look at the Freelancers Union page. I discovered in my research for the Wacasey Equation that it was tagged as needing citations and reading like an advertisement three years ago, yet there is stands to this day - unlike my material, it has a long-standing request to be edited, instead of having been marked for speedy deletion. Oh, and its founder Sara Horowitz has a page too that contains puffery when describing her accomplishments. Neutrality, indeed.

Have a happy Thanksgiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennanconnor (talk • contribs)

What a tangled tale. You came to Wikipedia with a purpose inconsistent with its goals i.e. promotion of someone who pays you to do so. Not surprisingly that didn't work out. I have no doubt there's other promotional material elsewhere, and no doubt sooner or later someone will deal with those things, but in the meantime two wrongs don't make a right. Please go elsewhere to promote your client. EEng (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EEng I would really like to set my record straight. And I hope you'll still believe that I'm sincere after what I'm about to say.

I did not come here with any nefarious purpose; I AM trying to promote my client but honestly thought I could do so by remaining neutral. I listened to your valid input and critique offered and tried to edit the content to stay within Wikipedia guidelines. But if Dr. Wacasey, and the Wacasey Equation, aren't notable enough to be in Wikipedia, then so be it. No hard feelings. Hopefully, very soon that will change.

I don't want to come off as rude, but I must say that the "gimmick equation" you label is an extremely valid tool that helps ordinary people avoid getting ripped off by health insurance companies, who sell lucrative policies based on marketing "gimmicks" themselves, the most common being the low deductible. And please forgive me for making any assumption about your insured status, but if you do have private health insurance then I challenge you to take a few minutes and apply the math to your own policy, and see what you come up with. You might be surprised.

That being said, again if this information isn't noteworthy enough then delete away! No hard feelings here. But I would ask that you also put some pressure on the Freelancers folks, too; by pointing that out I never meant that two wrongs should make a right. What I meant was that both wrongs should be corrected. Of course, as an Editor you are free to do as you choose.

In closing I would like to say - truthfully - that I appreciate the work you do, and I value Wikipedia very much. It's why I wanted to get the good doctor and his message on it. Perhaps some day he will. In the meantime we will continue to plug away at the press, politicians, and through advertising and marketing.

Thanks again,

BDBrennanconnor (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Wow. EEng, As Michael Corleone once said, "It's not personal. Strictly business." But you're on a mission. Hope you exhibit equal fervor in patrolling other pages - you could start with Freelancers.

I'm done. Have a good one.Brennanconnor (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on a mission -- I just happened to see your Did You Know nomination for "Equation". I understand you're trying to spread the word on this but Wikipedia just isn't the place for that. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And not to burst your bubble, but the formula is wrong anyway. Adding annual premium to out-of-pocket maximum does not give the the total amount spent for health insurance and healthcare in a given year". It gives the maximum amount that will be spent, which is quite a different thing. The article's analyses both assume the insured will be very sick, which in fact is the case for very few insureds in any give year. EEng (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EEng I'm sure you know how conversational tone and inflection are lost in all this typing, but I (and Dr. Wacasey) want to say THANK YOU for pointing this out. None of us are mathematicians (obviously); we just want to give people a simple way to make one of the most complicated purchases made every year. When health insurance premiums are higher than mortgage payments, something's gotta give. As you rightly point out, very few people will maximize their out-of-pocket max in any year, but Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that healthcare is inherently expensive, so they overbuy health insurance. And the insurers laugh all the way to the bank...

I apologize for proselytizing, and I again thank you for your attention. I don't know if you partake, but sometime I'd like to buy you a drink. PLEASE, if you have time or interest, feel free to provide any constructive criticism of Dr. W's site healthcareonomics.com. I can be emailed at admin@healthcareonomics.com.

Happy T-day! Brennanconnor (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. Maybe we'll have that drink someday. EEng (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kevin Wacasey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Wacasey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Wacasey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. EEng (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Wacasey Equation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Wacasey Equation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wacasey Equation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. EEng (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]