Morphh

I have tagged the article Federal taxation in the United States as proposed for deletion, as previously noted. Your prior discussions with User:Int21h indicate that most of the article was copied by him from Taxation in the United States. While I agree that the topic is of sufficient length and notability that it could be a separate article, I believe the needs of the community are better served with a single article. Further, trying to maintain two high level articles, one of which is merely a subset of the other, will impose too great an editing burden and lead to many errors and contradictions. I believe the Federal taxation article should be no more than a redirect to Taxation in the United States. Comments welcome on my talk page or the Federal tax article talk page. Thanks. Oldtaxguy (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

--Kumioko (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Reply

...only 4 years late......cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated! Oldtaxguy (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Linder picture on the FairTax page, I believe, is from 2007 and shows Linder with the FairTax and the 2007 tax code, yet the caption says "current" tax code, ("Rep John Linder holding the 133 page Fair Tax Act in contrast to the current U.S. tax code.") making it dated and inaccurate.

I would suggest perhaps adjusting it to something like this: "Rep John Linder holding the 133 page Fair Tax Act in contrast to the then-current 2007 U.S. tax code." or "Rep John Linder in 2007 holding the 133 page Fair Tax Act in contrast to the annually growing U.S. tax code."

As you are someone so knowledgable on the article, I thought I'd throw that out to you because this is something that strikes me every time I look at it. Thanks! Pbgiv (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I updated taking a bit from each suggestion. I used then-current and added 2007 to the bill version Fair Tax Act of 2007, since I'm not sure if it is still 133 pages (they made a few tweaks in 2009 & 2011). Morphh ^(talk) 02:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Linder picture is very deceptive. The "then-current tax code" is the two maroon volumes on which Mr. Linder is resting the pages he's holding. I don't know what the blue volumes beside him are, other than maybe an attempt to make the reader believe they are the current state of the law. I strongly favor removing this photo as inherently very biased. Oldtaxguy (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

That would be the complete set of Title 26 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (that's the part written by the IRS), which make up twenty volumes. I'll adjust the caption. Morphh ^(talk) 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:TaxFoundation.jpg. 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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Hope Diamond has been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can vote for this or other articles article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

You might want to chime in at WP:VPP#Disable Article Feedback Tool and Discuss but I'm pessimistic about any chances of slowing this down until things start to go wrong, and even then who knows? Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, always nice to get a barnstar. :) Morphh ^(talk) 03:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Revenuereform.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 06:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

18:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, as someone who has signed up to be a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, I wanted to let you know that several articles have been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

--Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, as a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, this notice was sent to let you know that the article, Leon Panetta, has been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are, of course, quite correct. As a historian in Wisconsin (birthplace of the actual Republican Party (R.I.P.) I am simply amazed and annoyed at the pathetic efforts by the paid liars of the chattering classes to taint my state's motto as evidence of communism, as part of their effort to brand the mealy-mouthed Eisenhower Republicanism of the Obama administration as the work of Stalin's minions (with a side order of guilt-by-association with the Hitler Youth). Sadly, my annoyance leads me to attempt to actually teach them some history, undoubtedly a futile gesture. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, it's certainly easy to get side tracked on such issues. I find the back and forth quite annoying and pathetic as well, but it is what it is I guess - politics as usual. Morphh ^(talk) 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you want some points that have been getting kept out of the Obama article for years, controversies they don't want mentioned no matter how prominent, here are some examples.

• Opposed medical care for newborn infants, was a major issue in both the 2004 and 2008 elections and brought up by Alan Keyes, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain. Newt Gingrich brought it up in 2012. I've written this page covering it, which includes 50 prominent sources. Some major sources include:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
• Disqualified all four opponents in first election, in 1996, so he could run unopposed. He used a team of lawyers to disqualify the petition signatures of opponents on technicalities after the filing deadline. I've written this section covering it. Some major sources include:[8][9][10][11][12]
• Struck a deal with Illinois Senate leader to get all legislation from other Illinois Senators directed to his desk in 2003, building his entire legislative record in one year, in preparation for the 2004 elections so he could become a U.S. Senator. I've written this page covering it. Some major sources include:[13][14][15][16][17][18]

--98.220.198.49 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can't say that I'm interested in getting involved with inserting contentious material into hot topic articles. I'm not looking to target inserting criticism. I evaluate each piece of content on its own merits based on the encyclopedia's policy. So I could just as easily argue against inserting such content depending on the arguments and sources presented in discussion. It looks like you've done some work though, so I encourage you to create an account and present this on the appropriate article's talk page if you think it necessary content for an encyclopedia article. Morphh ^(talk) 12:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input, Morphh. It may be stretching things to call those edits 'good faith', but your point is well taken.JoelWhy (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I replied to your comment on my talk page. I don't know how this works, whether you get a notification of my reply or not, therefore I am leaving this message. - 173.74.164.212 (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "War on Women". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Morphh. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is a courtesy heads-up for you. I'm adding everybody who worked on the article since I have. Belchfire-TALK 02:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Moving this back to the other talk page to keep the discussion in one place...

I've replied further at User talk:Cupco#Tax chart. —Cupco 21:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Which specific graphs do you think don't improve the articles? And what pattern are you talking about? I've been adding graphs in several different topics, none of which I have any COI or work interest in. —Cupco 19:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Replied on User talk:Cupco's talk. Morphh ^(talk) 21:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying you as I noticed your impressive work on the GA Quality article, Tax protester constitutional arguments. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have some basic factual edit suggestions for the Reynolds American article I posted on the article’s talk page. I am an employee of the company and I am therefore just suggesting edits due to my WP:COI. I saw you are a member of the North Carolina WikiProject and so I was wondering if you could take a look at the proposed edits and implement them if you deem them appropriate? Thanks. Velinflo (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please disregard; already handled by another editor. Thanks. Velinflo (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Morphh,

You contend that my edits to the dynamic scoring page present an incorrect premise. Can you please clarify? The premise I added (lower taxes increase economic growth and subsequently tax receipts) is exactly what conservative leaders are arguing for to restore the economy. Are they wrong?

I feel that this article lacks balance and is skewed to promote conservative fiscal ideology. I was attempting to add a little balance by providing historical and factual data refuting that philosophy.

best wishes,

trappem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappem (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article is not the article to debate supply-side economics and the effects of a particular policy choice. Dynamic scoring is simply considering the economic effects of policy when scoring the plan, be it good, bad, or otherwise. Taxation has economic disturbance - dynamic scoring attempts to measure that disturbance. The article states that conservatives promote dynamic scoring as common methodologies factor lower taxes return higher benefits in terms of GDP growth and provide revenue increases over static scoring - this is a true statement. There is no need to include the premise, which is WP:OR as opinions differ depending on what conservative your talking about or liberal for that matter (as they too argue that tax increases hurt economic growth) and what income or policy your discussing (tax increases on the middle class, business owners, "the rich"?). The second portion is also vague - increased revenue over what... static scoring or prior revenues? And of course the rebuttal conclusion is extreme and very weakly supported by the sources. All things equal, 75% marginal tax rates will not boost GDP - there is no causality in these historical figures and it goes against all empirical evidence (U.S. and Global). I'm fine with trying to add balance, but let's not turn this article into a debate on tax policy and the vast opinions regarding it's effects. Morphh ^(talk) 21:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your explanation...t — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappem (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

 Template:TaxationCOTM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kumioko (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Morphh, I'm an employee of The Heritage Foundation and I'm looking for help with a request I posted a little while ago on the Sales taxes in the United States talk page. I'm looking to add a new section to this article about sales taxes on the Internet, but I would like other editors to review what I have written because I've mentioned some criticism from The Heritage Foundation (about the recent Marketplace Fairness Act) in the section. I see that you are a member of WikiProject Taxation and thought you might be interested in looking at this. If you'd like to help out, the request is on the article's talk page here. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sales taxes in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

"99.9%" of people supporting criminalization of homosexuality in 1990 isn't quite on. By that point, states which still had sodomy laws on the books were in a minority. The USA is backward, but not apparently that backward. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ya, I was being facetious in making a point. I don't have any statistic on it. Morphh ^(talk) 20:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I don't know what the opinion statistic would be either. I don't think the "lots of people supported criminalization back then" is relevant either way, since it's Card's support that is controversial, not anyone else's; I just took the off-topic discussion here since I wasn't sure you knew that most states had actually already repealed their sodomy laws before Lawrence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this merger has been spotlighted on FamilySearch Blog: https://familysearch.org/blog/en/difference-genealogy-family-history/ . Hope I did OK explaining it to the public. Murphynw (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your comments. I don't understand the purpose of trying to parce differences between "genealogy" and "family history." It looks like picking one over the other is largely a regional difference in English. It looks like each country has it's own bizarre history of bouncing back between one or the other. If I've understand the comments correctly, in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, “family history” is the preferred verbiage. In the United States, Mormons (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) also prefer to call the endeavor “family history,” but people who are not Mormons prefer “genealogy.” But overall, it's clearly "genealogy" that is most recognizable according to the studies I've seen. LOL Murphynw (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

For the barnstar. I also really appreciate your efforts to meet me halfway and find solutions we can both agree on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Walter Brooke in the movie The Graduate had one word of advice: "Plastics". – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) I needed that. Morphh ^(talk) 18:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you need to revert your recent archival[19] of this case. You do not appeared to have considered or evaluated the behavioural evidence at play, which I think needs to happen before the investigation can be closed (notwithstanding that I declined to provide technical evidence). This is unless you actually have looked at the behaviour of the two accounts, in which case you need to state this fact on the investigation, or unless I have missed something, in which case you need to WP:TROUT me :-). Thanks, AGK [•] 22:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

While what you say has merit, I think omitting remarks about editor behavior is the best course of action. Perhaps an WP:RFC/U is in order. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Srich32977: You're probably right - just frustrating. And yes, RFC/U or ANI (recommend topic ban as related to economic inequality) would be a good next step. I'm not really familiar with starting either one though. Morphh ^(talk) 20:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should have an RFC/U on editors who plan actions against others without informing them they are being discussed. EllenCT (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I recall that you actually did file an ANI without notifying me. Me responding to a post on my talk page about another editor's behavior is not something that I think requires notification. Morphh ^(talk) 23:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Morph, I appreciate your attempts on the article talk pages, but I don't think EllenCT is misunderstanding what's logically required. My suspicion is that she see this as her mission to provide a counterpoint to conservative perspectives and wants to push certain conclusions she has, even if there's no direct support for it. You've laid out the logical gap, but she ignores simple direct requests and refers to irrelevant sources as her justification. I'm at my end trying to reason with her tendentious editing.Mattnad (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Mattnad: I agree that she should be fully aware of the issues and policy by now - it's a reoccurring theme. She's tried to create several straw men, so I just wanted to lay it out directly, maybe more for anyone else that reads the discussion later. I didn't want others falling for the logical fallacy. Morphh ^(talk) 18:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

If I remember correctly, at least two times and likely more in the past week or two you have replaced text and links referring to "progressive" and similar terms with other terms referring to "redistributive", after having asked for the original terms to be included because, as you pointed out, progressive taxes don't increase income equality unless they are accompanied by progressive transfer payments. However, transfer payment redistributions can and do also occur from the poor to the rich, both through government fiscal policy, government monetary policy and private sector rent-seeking. Since "redistributive" policies can be regressive instead of progressive, would you please undo those edits? EllenCT (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think you mistaking me with someone else, as I don't recall saying that "progressive taxes don't increase income equality unless they are accompanied by progressive transfer payments". Ignoring dynamic effects, even if the government just burned the money, the taxation itself would reduce income inequality. No transfer payments are necessary, but I probably asked for inclusion of mentioning progressive spending because it's what is done. Since many people might not be aware of what "progressive spending" is (it's sort of a neologism and not a common term to the general public) and perhaps confuse it with spending tied to a political philosophy and not a distribution method, I thought the term redistributive spending was a more familiar for readers that said essentially the same thing. I agree that the term redistribution could go both ways, but given the context of the section and sentence "and social safety nets result" along with the common use of the term to the general public, rich to poor is implied/assumed. It doesn't matter much to me though and I'll undo it on Progressive tax (not sure which other article you're thinking), I was just trying to clarify it for the average reader following WP:TECHNICAL, which says "Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more understandable explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it." Perhaps we could find a better wording like the phrasing we use on the income inequality article "in a more equal distribution of income across the board." Morphh ^(talk) 13:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I noted the change on the Progressive tax article. In the context of that sentence, it's more than clear that redistribution means from wealthier to poorer households. However, Ellen's comment is something to be celebrated. Here she acknowledges that progressive spending does not have to follow progressive taxation - something she would not consider in the RFC and related discussions about the graph that juxtaposed top marginal tax rates and economic growth. Mattnad (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Progressive tax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Income equality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for addressing my request! Have there been any recent proposals regarding a flat tax? Cmckain (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Cmckain: There are many organizations and politicians calling for various flat tax proposals in the United States, but here are a few bills that are in the 113th Congress: H.R. 1040, H.R. 1569, H.R. 259, S. 173. I believe HR1040 is the traditional Armey / Forbes Hall–Rabushka flat tax (aka Freedom Flat Tax, aka Freedom and Fairness Restoration Act). I think HR1569 (New Fair Deal) is a new proposal, which I recall is being promoted by FreedomWorks. Morphh ^(talk) 15:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Morphh, I hope you're doing well !

I noticed you reverted another user's edits to the article I brought to WP:GA quality, Beck v. Eiland-Hall.

Perhaps you could suggest alternate wording to describe the argumentation style of the commentator, which would be to your satisfaction?

Perhaps something like, "asks guests to disprove an imagined assertion", or something like that?

Or maybe we should just leave the lede intro sect as it is right now, in its present WP:GA quality version?

Thank you for your interest helping to further improve the quality of this WP:GA rated article,

— Cirt (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Cirt:, I'll try to think about how to reword it, but it may be difficult for the lead and perhaps best to leave it out. It would need to be both brief and neutral, and using a short out-of-context sound bite would be difficult. In addition, there would need to be proper phrasing that the example represents a point of view regarding the argument style. Morphh ^(talk) 19:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you could suggest some sample text to maybe use to add to lede, that'd be appreciated, otherwise, I'm fine leaving the current lede intro text as is now. — Cirt (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I added a bit that I think addresses the point trying to be made (helping define the commentary style) without getting into the issue of context regarding any specific example. Hope that helps. Morphh ^(talk) 20:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Agreed. This looks much better. I also like the edit adding the wikilink to Russell's teapot, most fascinating! — Cirt (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. Yes, I also didn't mean to imply that you were assuming bad faith or anything like that. I like conversations like ours. I probably seem really manic writing as much as I have—this is just one article after all—but the underlying issues do interest me. I probably can't add much more to what I've said, and I'll have to admit that there is no dominating reason to support my principles over yours. Obviously we both agree that we should reflect the current state of scholarship (where it exists), but we don't agree on how best to do that. I have some favoured principles, and, if I'm understanding correctly, you favour a more intuitive, common sense survey of the reliable sources: We can divide up claims into "subjective" vs. "objective" by use of our common sense. I saw your recent question on the NPOV talk page. I think if you go through the discussions in the archives (say from 2010 onwards to the end of 2012), you can see that our debate has taken various guises: Most editors have this sense of what it means for something to be subjective vs. objective (sometimes they use other terms for this as well), and many of these think that this is very useful for determining how we assert statements. But then many others disagree. I guess ours is just another chapter in this unsettled matter. I completely respect your manner of discussion and your fundamental positions. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have no objection to the way you tweaked my comment at the Neutralzone, and I'm not miffed just passing on an FYI.... it probably should have run it by me first. As I said, I'm not mad and the change is fine (I officially approve), just don't want you to step on procedural landmine when tweaking someone else's remarks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy, I'm not understanding. If I tweaked any of your comments, I'm not aware of it - it was not intentional (perhaps an edit conflict). Could you point me to what you're talking about? Morphh ^(talk) 18:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I should have mentioned it was probably just an oversight. Anyway see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=601451635&oldid=601426930 this series of edits]. Like I said, it was a helpful change & I wish I had thought of it myself, so no harm done! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh ya, understanding you now. Thanks - good point. I thought it would be better to improve the existing quotebox than write it again. :) Morphh ^(talk) 19:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

{{unblock|1=It appears I may need a local IP block exempt. I got stuck in an open proxy block by using a hotel wireless (which I'll be stuck on for the next 7 weeks). They got me working at Wikimedia, but not Wikipedia (though I can now edit my talk page). Please help, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Global_IP_block_exempt_for_Morphh }}

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Please advise me when your course has ended so I can remove the flag. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - will do. If you can set the expiration now, I will no longer require the exemption after May 2014, so 1 June 2014 would be fine. Morphh ^(talk) 22:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

No time setting here and I'kll forget si just drop me a note. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Adam smith note.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Political censorship please. EllenCT (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

[20] So perhaps we should get studying. There may be a test later. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Thanks for the laugh; Iselilja (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Reply

Yup - though I should know them pretty good by now, being that I've been here for almost 9 years and I help write some of them. Still writing some of them.. Morphh ^(talk) 02:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit new to Wikipedia myself, at 8 years. I think I need some schoolin' Mattnad (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, clearly. I too have begun a period of intense study and reflection. Thank heavens for the wonderful guidance with which we have been blessed! Whatever did we do before this? Trapped in the false consciousness of right-deviationism no doubt. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

There is an RfC at Talk:Georgism concerning scope of the article. This is a neutral notification. Collect (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. I get lost in all of the POV pushing that's been going on. Updated comment.Mattnad (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I implemented the July 2014 consensus. The fact that a current active discussion wants to review that consensus, is a contra-indication to apply reverts either way. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The prior version represented a long established consensus of a policy (see WP:CONLEVEL), which typically requires higher standard of participation and consensus for changes. The July 2014 link did not contain such participation or discussion on the merits of the change. Not saying you did anything wrong with adding it, but now that an objection has been raised, it would be better to fall back to the long established consensus while this new addition is considered (now that it has participation and discussions on the merits). Morphh ^(talk) 16:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:OrientdbLogo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Would like to email you, but your email isn't registered here. If you get a chance, please email me here. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Regressive tax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salt tax. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:FEE.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:TheFreeman.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Tax Policy Center Logo.gif. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Taxation in Singapore. Since you had some involvement with the Taxation in Singapore redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to say sorry for this edit. It was entirely unintentional. Another editor was kind enough to restore your edit. Deli nk (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. No problem - I expected it was an unintentional. Morphh ^(talk) 19:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Jytdog. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Elysium Health have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at Elysium Health shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Payroll taxes don't come out of your paycheck; they come out of your employer as a tax wedge. They're basically like raising the wages your employer pays, but not giving that to you.

If Social Security's payroll FICA was 100% directed at payrolls for those earning over $1M, the *consumer* would pay for it. It actually raises the basic cost of labor regardless of revenue (unlike taxes on corporate profits), thus must be diffused into price.John Moser (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Bluefoxicy: One could argue that all taxes are born by the end consumer while another that the worker bears the entire burden via lower wages, but that is a matter of tax incidence. Wherever the ultimate burden falls, the payroll tax is widely described as a tax on wages that is split between employer and worker. A 12.4% Social Security tax (each pay 6.2%) and a 2.9% Medicare tax (each pay 1.45%). FICA is clearly visible as a tax coming out of the American's paycheck on each pay stub. Morphh ^(talk) 13:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)Reply

Hello Fellow North Carolina user,

I have reorganized and updated the content for the Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina. I hope it is useful to improving collaboration.

User:G._Moore Talk

Thanks for uploading File:Beacon Hill Institute (emblem).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Morphh! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good evening Morphh,

I hope you're having a fantastic Friday today!

I'm sorry for taking a few minutes out of your time, but I will start off by mentioning we've never worked together on any projects in the past. I've noticed recently you've previously commented on the Talk:MyHeritage page before, and my question is would you consider MyHeritage a reliable source?

I was looking at the site and noticed there was a document on the site (I can't see access it, but I must imagine I could use it to good use for a page), which I was planning to use it for the Carlos Felipe de Habsburgo page under the family heading of the page. Here's the MyHeritage website I was looking at.^[1]

Thanks again for taking the time to read into my thread and I hope to hear back!

Sincerely, JayzBox (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@JayzBox: It depends on what the source goes to. MyHeritage can be a reliable source for MyHeritage, if supporting a statement regarding their company. So it would be fine to find them sourced in the MyHeritage article for example, or one of their partners or services to reference something about the company. It could also probably be a reliable source if referencing a document on the site. Both of these instances would be primary sources though, so not preferred, if a reliable secondary source is available. If the link to MyHeritage is to an online tree or what looks like in your example, a search query, then no, I would not consider that a reliable source. MyHeritage is has documents, census, birth records, death records, etc, that could be reliable primary sources, but it also includes user generated family trees. These would not be reliable sources to support the genealogy of a person. Morphh ^(talk) 21:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GeniLogo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Morphh! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Tax protester constitutional arguments has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The file File:OrientdbLogo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

replaced with File:OrientDB logo.svg and no longer used

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply