User talk:Morphh/Archive7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glenn Beck article

Hello sire. I noticed my edited was reverted, so I thought I would clear up my point a bit here. The sentence says "To his defense he is a champion in defense of traditional American values from secular progressivism." But it's not NPOV to assume that "he is a champion in defense of traditional American" is good, or "secular progressivism" is bad. An alternative--but more time consuming--way to fix the problem is to say something like "John smith defends Beck, because Beck is a champion in defense of traditional American values from secular progressivism." Your thoughts are welcome...--Dark Charles (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence said "To his supporters, he is a champion in defense of traditional American values from secular progressivism", not "To his defense". The Wikipedia voice is not defending Beck's views, and is not saying traditional American values are good or that secular progressivisim is bad. It says his supporters think traditional American values are good and secular progressivisim is bad. Just as we say that his critics believe he's a conspiracy theorist and uses incendiary rhetoric. We're attributing the opinion. Morphh (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, I miss read it. Fair enough:)--Dark Charles (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Economics sidebar

Thank you for finishing the job on above, Morphh (way beyond my pay grade ; ). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, M. I have ttried to formulate a response but wanted to give it a little rest for now (like 18 hrs.). Hope you'll keep an open mind, as I have attempted in trying to in meet your concern. --Thomasmeeks (talk)

Thanks, look forward to the response. I'm open to the idea but just not convinced at this point that it makes it better. :-) I posted a quick notice at the Economics WikiProject to get a few more people to offer their thoughts. Morphh (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've done some more more noodling around and hope that it will be non-issue per changes indicated. Wish I had taken action on that earlier. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, again, M. Per Template:Economics sidebar, the bottom line reads:

This box: view · talk · edit

My vision w glasses can pick the last line of a card-size reading chart. So, not too bad there. But on my monitor (not esp. big but top-of-the-line when I got it a few years ago & still quite satisfactory), the spacing & readability are erratic — too close or far apart as to a nice look and readability. The font/height size ratio is a little under the corresponding ratio for the previous line ("underage"). Increasing font size from 80% to 85% completely fixes the problems noted. And the "underage" goes to "overage" by the same absolute amount. What's your opinion about making a change to 85%? (This is probably the tiniest question you might ever get, but extra caution might be in order here.) Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Per above, done, finally. I was waiting for a lull to work it in. Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Low-importance Economics articles

You may want to check your bot. You listed this as empty along with several others and they are not empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

They contain no articles, only sub-categories, which we're trying to get rid of as well. I think the bot for the quality/importance intersect is seeing the importance category and not moving them properly to the priority cat. Morphh (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Motto of the Day

Hi there, Morphh! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Glen Beck

What are your ideas for compromise on the Glen Beck article? Personally, I see the whole "Media persona and commentary" as a POV section just to throw in negative incidents about Beck. None of it is noteworthy. Comments? Bytebear (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think his style and critical positions are part of his notability. So, while no one particular incident is notable, I think we should put together something that describes these aspects. I'm completely against listing or bulleting incidents like how it was presented earlier. I don't think the details are all that important, but I think we need to properly portray his media persona. I think part of the compromise is adding examples of that controversial personality. He's an opinionated person and he's going to (and likely wants to) create waves. So long we follow NPOV policy and Beck's view is not misrepresented by the critical statements, I think we should include something. It needs to stay summarized and brief (NPOV undue weight policy), and be related to the notability (BLP). I think a couple paragraphs would be fine that included both points of view on criticized statements. We also have to consider that Beck may not get the type of attention that we would usually require for something to be properly notable to him (Beck's controversial views might not be big news).
On another note though, there are many other aspects of the article that could use a good bit of expanding (like his NYT bestselling books that get one sentence each). Morphh (talk) 2:07, 03 August 2009 (UTC)

Intellectually dishonest horseshit, Morphh, and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.157.106 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I will have the time to do more on the Glenn Beck talk page next week. Thank you for participating. --Hardindr (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Making a Wikipedia user page

Hi Morphh,

I love your page. Can you please show me how to put up cool graphics like yours? Thanks,Malke 2010 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Morphh (talk) 1:20, 07 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. . .thanks Morphh. Also any tips on editing would be most appreciated. I'm trying to clean up Karl Rove's article. It's a mess. I want to make it neutral and accurate with real references and not the references that refer to someone who knew someone who once said, blah blah blah about Karl Rove. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please Help

Hi Morphh:

Do you have any suggestions for editing an article? I'm trying to neutralize the article on Karl Rove. I made changes but they were all reversed immediately. I understand that this is a hot topic for some, but the article is so badly written and truly one-sided that I feel it violates the spirit of Wikipedia.

Also, how do you avoid editing wars and do people ever enlist the aid of an administrator? Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How do I flag an article?

Hi Morphh

I want to put up a flag on an article citing the intricate detail.

How do I do that? Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glenn Beck. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nja247 07:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of the rule and will not break it. I just happen to be watching the article at the time. Morphh (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck.

What I want is a balanced article; one which doesn't leave people thinking he's a saint, just because he's a Mormon, which is what it pretty much says now. ANd what I see on your part is either unintentional enabling of Bytebear's biases and intention to white-wash, or a deliberate accomplice to it. Beck has saied incredibly stupid things, repeatedly, then stuck to them. He's a master of the 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' questions, and then bombastically expounds on any failure to thread that needle of an answer. This article does almost nothing to address that. We've now got in ONE, and only one of his major blunders; we need to include more, since it seems no one's yet cataloged his idiocies and written about them directly, though I'm working on finding such articles. ThuranX (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I started out working from the point of view that good writing and understanding of policy would fix the situation as well, but quickly saw that any time bytebear raises another 'objection';, you facilitate it by expecting everyone to stop and listen to him run his spiel again. you are enabling his semi-civil POV Push, in my eyes. You need to stand up for the policies, and for a good article, and not for the editor. An article which remains neutral is NOT achieved by pandering to one editor until that hold-out says it's ok in his eyes; it's by respecting the wider consensus and telling an editor who unreasonably won't budge to go jump in a lake. Look at that section now. FOUR editors have come in since the WP:AN report and all agree the page is a travesty. Instead of respecting that, you continue to advocate for Bytebear, as though he will suddenly desire a constructive participation in the article. He won't. Go read the removed critique of his behavior on the talk page. There is no way he will even accept any amount of negative criticism of Beck, no matter who says it. It's time to move beyond Bytebear, and do what is right for the article. ThuranX (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No... My point is that although the reparations statement was made contemporary to the Gates incident, it was not predicated on it, as the Obama is a racist statement was. 'Obama is a racist' and institutional racism stuff went to the matter of calling the cops stupid and making racial assumptions, the reparations is thoroughly different and about health care. A case could e made that both are indicative of Beck's own bigotries, but we'd need a serious stack of citation for that. In lieu of that, we need to keep the two separate, lest we run into a SYNTH violation, and because they are about two different issues. There may be a way to restructure the entire article to put both into one section, but that would probably also violate BLP/POV, because it would stick two similar things close together without a legitimate sourced bridge. ThuranX (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how differently you work without Bytebear. And it's GlenN, not Glen, by the way. He's just two Ns classy. ThuranX (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:File:Taxanalysts.png)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:File:Taxanalysts.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Userboxes

I'm not sure if we have any userboxes for specific awards, but there are a listed of user boxes with ranks located here. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just an American Citizen. Thanks Morphh for contributing for the H.R. 25 FairTax. I hope that this article achieves a better status soon.

To be fair I will have to read the rebuttals.

Incidentally, I read the book FairTax Book, Brookings and Cato and really need to hear/read more GOOD skeptical opposition arguments, and rational rebuttals from supporters so that I can feel more comfortable about my pursuits. I am NOT an economist or a debater so I need the ammunition for my doubts and the doubters

RfC at WT:ECON

I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. Thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Actually, Morph - I did insert something in the talk section of the Glenn Beck article regarding the verbiage used in the Live Events section of the article. No one replied and that's why I made the change myself. However, those who are not enveloped in what I see as an obsession over this article and the seemingly endless hair-splitting that's occurring (that's just an objective, personal view - not meant to be a negative criticism), and would edit the article when noting irregularities and errors, shouldn't be expected to read the talk page. ESPECIALLY considering the overwhelming length and width, and bredth of it at this point (IMO). It's also my unsolicited opinion that you guys are not seeing the trees for the forest and are taking the whole thing a little too seriously. For what it's worth.  ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation for WikiProject Economics Guidelines

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, LK (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's come to this, but edit warring continues on the project homepage. LK (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Citing WP:Naming conventions, boldly moved the article about the anti-Beck spoof wesite to Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy, which I belive to be something less imprecise and ambiguous than the name it had before. But please feel free to move it to something else. The article has been barely worked on by anybody -- which, by a certain measure, shows its subject matter to be of less interest to WP editors, for whatever reason (and perhaps less notable?), than I had previously thought. (It is a pretty crass joke/parody.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For erasing nonsense at Income tax in the United States. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks Morphh (talk) 20:27, 08 October 2009 (UTC)


Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines

Hi there. Please refactor your statement so it's under the 250 word limit - it's simply going to get out of hand if anyone had more space than that given the number of parties. Kind regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How bout...

"The Beast 50" (link)? ;^)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

haha, funny article. :-) Morphh (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arguing with Idiots

Whether you've changed your position or not, will you come and respond here at your earliest convenience? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 03:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

advice

I've followed your advice, but am being edit warred with ... see here --Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mockery - apology

SlamDiego has identified that what I said in reply about your concern about weight and bias could be taken as mockery. I am sorry if I offended you that way, I meant no mockery. I was just expressing that one has to come down and say something at some stage when writing and if one doesn't go by the most reliable sources as far as bias is concerned then I don't know what one can go by for Wikipedia. I'm fully behind the idea that one should look at non-academic sources for weight - for instance I put in a bit emphasising it was important to check other sources for actual practice when assessing weight in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Economics/Reliable_sources_and_weight proposal. Dmcq (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Tax Analysts

Hi there. I just saw we're both editing this article at the same time. I'm planning on doing quite a bit and cleaning up when I'm done. Would you mind holding off on your end till I wrap up so we aren't conflicting? — Bdb484 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm all done over there, so feel free to go nuts. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

using noticeboard and involving other editors

Morphh, in our discussion on Taxation_in_the_United_States and now second discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable_source you have repeated your self many times and written very wordy long discussions. This tends to make other editors not want to wade through the disagreement and weigh in. If you actually want others to comment, then you should probably try to keep it brief and only make points a single time. Doing otherwise, and ignoring the comments of other editors suggest that you are just arguing and not actually interested in other opinions.

Please start by showing some good faith and not reverting the taxation page until there is more support for your opinion. 018 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To some degree... I can agree with that and will try to make my comments briefer. However, that logic holds of editors read every post or a longer discussion, which may or may not be the case. When presenting a new topic, it makes sense to layout the arguments a new. So you're making up new rules, get one person on your side, and somehow.. I'm the one that needs support on long standing policy and consensus. I think you need to gain more consensus to make that claim. Morphh (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Morphh, I think the point is that we disagree on what the policy is, so both of us can just say, "is so" / "is not" until we are blue in the face but it doesn't help in terms of getting other opinions. I also agree that a majority of 2 v 1 is not particularly strong and that there is a much larger question at hand here that has application across various articles. I would really like to see other editors weigh in on this and get some consensus on the topic, so lets try to give them some space to let them weigh in. 018 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough... sorry I've been a jerk about it. Not sure why I'm so wound up. I think I need more caffeine or something. Morphh (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

William gale

Did he get back to you? If so, is there a way I can see his comments or that they can be made available to the public (obviously this latter option should only happen if he is okay with it). 018 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I just wanted to add that contacting him was an impressive step for a WP editor to make. It shows serious commitment to the article and the encyclopedia. 018 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
He did reply back but it was brief. He politely said he was busy but he would try to look it over and referred me to his existing paper. That was the last I heard from Gale - he was promoted shortly after. I had also contacted Laurence Kotlikoff and BHI executive director David Tuerck at the time. They responded answering questions and correcting errors in the article. Wish I still had the e-mails but I've switched from a local ISP to Gmail, from Windows to Mac, and just don't have them any more. Morphh (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

I wanted to let you know I didn't mind. "Policy" actually sounds better. I appreciate the edit summary letting me know, because if you hadn't I probably would have came here bitching. Any time you see me use the wrong word when trying to add to one of your comments, feel free to change it. However, if I don't like it, I retain the right to change it back! J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 03:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia has both policies and guidelines, with policies being the highest level (see WP:Policy#Role). That's why I thought it was important to change. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Morphh (talk) 4:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

tone

Morphh, in the edit summary for this edit you wrote, "...removed false statement..." I'm not sure I see anything that is "false" in the statements. I'd suggest you could be a little more friendly with the editor who made those edits who is new to Wikipedia and just cutting his teeth. You might also want to start talk pages on some of the edits because I don't think they would agree with all of them and you are, in a sense, RVing lots of their work. At the least, you could call attention to them and setup the talk so that there is a good forum for the editor to go to if they object to the edits. I setup one of them for now. 018 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't mean anything by it. Perhaps "false" was too strong a word - it was inaccurate. I did post on the editors page in a friendly way. The editor added some good stuff and overall, I don't think I reverted that much.[1] Also keep in mind that the editor removed other peoples sourced work without any comment. I think there was just a misunderstanding of some base definitions of terminology. I had planned to start a discussion on it, but ran out of time. Morphh (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics census

Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.

Firstly, thank you for signing the census, and an apology if you are one of those editors who dislike posts such as this one for messaging you again in this way. I've now got myself organised and you can opt-out of any future communication at WP:WikiProject Economics/Newsletter. Just remove your name and you won't be bothered again.
Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to invite your comments on the census talk page about the project as a whole. I've given my own personal opinion on a range of topics, but my babbling is essentially worthless without your thoughts - I can't believe for one moment that everyone agrees with me in the slightest! :)
All your comments are welcomed. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue I)

Positively Economics

The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue I (May 2010)

To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by Jarry1250 at around 10:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguing with Idiots

I have brought back up a discussion in the Arguing with Idiots Talk Page and see that you were a contributor to the former discussion. I'm rounding up the people from the previous discussion. Any input would be appreciated. :) Ink Falls 02:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue II)

Positively Economics

The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue II (June 2010)

To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue III)

Positively Economics

The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue III (July 2010)

To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Tax, tariff and trade

I am a newbie. I like pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation But I see other pages in the same topic area that are of questionable value in their current state. For instance, what is the status of the perennial "Collaboration of the Month" on Tax, tariff and trade, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Taxation/Assessment#Priority_scale

I have seen this page criticized (inter alia because it was allegedly based on an old posting by an adversary), but the idea was good, as it explains the Int. Pol. Economy, a field in which I am experienced.

Pegasusproject (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Morphh, are you available to help with Taxation in the United States? Hope so; big effort will be involved. Oldtaxguy (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Changes

Hi,

I took a stab at cleaning up the article on Tax Equalization. I added a little new content. Most of the edit was to take out redundancies and bad grammar. Since this is the largest edit I have attempted I wanted to have someone look over it before I replaced what is there.

Can you direct me to how I can get my revisions double checked.

Thanks

Rick

Sccrhound (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Austrian inflation

Re: "Seems that article disappeared and was merged."

Heh... I was going to mention that I didn't think Austrian inflation had its own separate article anymore. Does that change your stance on WP:NOTABILITY? BigK HeX (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I actually think I was part of that a while back. It's been too long since I took an active part in this article - the recent changes were just a bit extreme. I believe all that content was in the Inflation article and we stripped it out. I do think it is notable to receive an article, though we don't have enough content at this point to merit it. Morphh (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input and efforts on this. BigK HeX (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue IV)

Positively Economics

The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue IV (September 2010)

To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!

Hi Morphh,

I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, (Taxation in the U.S.) you seem to have a lot edits and expertise in policy and economics, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Restoring Honor rally

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Restoring Honor rally was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Crowd Size

First, you still haven't given any indication of what sources support your idea of how the the media outlets, that I would like to refer to as fabrications, were created by the news media other than CBS, . Also the inherent unreliability of organizers estimates drew no response from you. I hope you don't think the opposite is true. Finally there are in fact three scientific estimates to go by: The Million Man March, the Obama Inauguration and the Honor Rally. As for others benchmarking off the the Civil Rights rally, who has done that? Are sure they aren't benchmarking off the inauguration or the MMM? To be candid your weak arguments are meant to affect the impression that the rally was bigger than the independent scientific estimates showed it to be. If you had sources to support your points, then that would be a more reality based approach. 00:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding on your talk.. you are good at twisting words. You completely misrepresent me, my arguments, my intent,.. it's like you're trying to pick a fight. Morphh (talk) 0:55, 08 October 2010 (UTC)
Playing the role of the victim against good arguments. I really want to know how the media came up with its estimates besides just making them up. I strongly suspect you have no support for your arguments, and unless you can find good sources for your analysis, you may want to regard them as too lame and embarrassing to be repeated.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to introduce an analysis into the article. For the last time, I was explaining to you where the information was derived because you put forth an analysis. For article weight, it doesn't matter how the media came up with the figures; we report what is in reliable sources based on prominence. Read WP:NPOV. Morphh (talk) 11:14, 08 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you haven't gone beyond conjecture and analysis. If you had sources supporting your position they could be looked at and used. So where are they? Who says news media used the methods you assert? If it doesn't matter how the media came up with its figures, (which is odd to say since you spent so much effort detailing how you think they did so) are you suggesting nothing be said about CBS's scientific estimate, and that the CBS's number is all that we can quote, and the it's OK that the reader will have no idea of how significantly different that number is from fabricated numbers? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediator available

Hi again! Don't know if you noticed, but WGFinley offered to mediate our case and so far, 7 out of 12 editors have signified agreement here. If you have any reservations about him, I understand - I believe the decision needs to be unanimous - but if you're willing, assigning a mediator this way will considerably faster as AGK indicated here it may take two to three weeks otherwise. Thanks for considering it, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

I was looking at your signature and noticed that the timestamp is small and italicized. I think it is cool, how do that? Thanks --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor Mediation

Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rural economics

Hello, M. I'm thinking if anyone could fix this you could. Or you might know someone who could. In Rural economics, the Econ. sidebar seems to block the "See also" items and fn. from squeezing up next to it (doubtless b/c it is related to how short the article is). Would you be able to fix that, thereby (filling in all the white space)? Thx. I'll watch that article if you have any fix or here if you would have any other suggestion. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your efforts. Couldn't see a difference on my computer. So, it may be irremediable until the article is expanded. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I noodled around a little more & stumbled onto this fix:
I removed multi-columns in "See also" (which I knew from Cultural economics could cause the above problem) & moved down the 1st para. by 1 line after {{Economics sidebar}} template at top. The previous editor had introduced the sidebar without that line space. That's not a problem, except for articles with very little text in the Lead, like Rural economics. I doubt that I would have come to that result without your efforts in ruling other things out. Thank you again. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp in signature

Hi, I use the javascript program to convert all talk page comments to local time and some of your signatures don't convert properly. The problem seems to be only on times that have an hour less than 10. Normal signatures have a leading zero for the hour, but yours have a >. Here is an example: <i>2:30, 02 November 2010 (UTC)</i>. I could modify my local copy of the script to work around it, but that won't help everyone else who uses the standard edition. Please add the leading zero. Thanks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.. Fixed. Added leading zero to the time and removed the leading zero from the date. Morphh (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Block of BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. [2] This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to the investigation? Just curious as I wouldn't have guess based on his activity. Morphh (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Didn't see this until now. Here's the most recent denial of appeal. His defenses were convoluted, contradictory and deceitful. Essentially the admin found him untrustworthy and blocked him for being a sock evading previous blocks. I don't expect to see him around, unless he starts his umpteenth sock, which would be no exaggeration. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
This is the investigation itself. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Honor Rally crowd size

I have citations for everything you asked. Before I gather them, if asked, are there any other concerns? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look at the sources, consider the weight, and if it's proper for the lead and helps summarize the article. I don't care that it attempts to pit the smart progressives against the stupid supporters as you outlined on your talk. Tend to agree with 82.135.29.209 Morphh (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Accessibility TT lead section

Template:Accessibility TT lead section has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morphh/Archive7&oldid=1142538493"