User talk:Morphh/Archive3

My only concern with the assessment is I think it would be difficult to justify the FairTax as important in the US. There is virtually no support in Congress for it, it's never been voted on in committee. It has had little, if any, effect on the tax system and it's not widely talked about or written about. Certainly much less so than a flat tax and even that doesn't get a whole lot of coverage. I would rate it at low priority, but that's certainly no offense to people working on it. It looks like a good article on a subject I'd never heard of. In other words I'd say we'd need more evidence of impact and importance to justify a mid priority. - Taxman ^Talk 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to rework the priority assessment scale a bit. We want to look at the importance of an article from users, linkage, search factor, impact, etc. For example, Tax incidence may be a national term that effects everyone but not many people go looking for this article. Other articles such as Taxation in the United States are a much higher priority in my view but would currently be rated as "Mid". As far as the FairTax, it is the top tax reform plan in the U.S. and has almost 10 times as many sponsors as any Flat tax bill and has a NYTimes bestselling book. It is the fastest growing grassroots taxation movement with many people looking for information. The fact that it is a GA shows that this topic has interest and attention and therefore, I believe, not suitable for the lowest priority. However, I am biased with this one as it is my pet article. Morphh ^(talk) 21:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't reallize that would show up in the worklist, I just thought that was the place set up for commenting on the rating. It being a GA doesn't actually demonstrate importance (we have FA's on incredibly arcane things), just that someone (you in this case) has done a great job moving the article forward along with others helping. You have a good point on some other factors that should be considered in rating the priority. The scale of national importance was an attempt to reduce systemic bias by having all US tax concepts rated as important. I think that's important because US (or any other one country's) tax topics only directly affect a fraction of the world's people so we have to be careful not to elevate them too much in priority. Objectively they aren't high priority to most people. Having a low priority rating isn't a bad thing of course. In the end the priority rating of one specific article isn't too critical, but how we go about deciding the scale is somewhat important. The problem with linkage and search factors as criteria is to some extent those mirror the biases of the internet in general, being heavily US dominated. Impact is certainly important, for example the 401(k) plan has influenced legislation in other countries, so that elevates it's priority a bit beyond being a one country issue. But the impact criteria is also where I see FairTax on the lower side. It hasn't had much observable impact yet. If it does in the future, then of course that would change things. Perhaps we could seek some input from other project members. - Taxman ^Talk 22:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what your saying with GA/FA, though to some degree, I think you can see (in general) that a stub article is probably of low importance as nobody has taken the time and interest - same thought for the GA/FA. However, I understand your point. I expressed my thoughts on the WikiProject talk in regard to systemic bias and priority. I think we have to be careful with lumping to many things into low priority. The FairTax is a large article with two sub-articles, good U.S. public interest, one of two major tax reform concepts (the one with the most sponsorship), growing movement, etc. Do you put this into the same priority as a stub with very little public interest (such as 1231 property or Rabbi trust)? I'm not suggesting it is Top or High priority.. I just don't think it is Low. I'm thinking we assess articles as if we lived in the specified country and not as if we lived in no country. If I lived in that country, what would the priority of that article be? Morphh ^(talk) 04:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you've already installed the script – it would probably be easiest to run the script and paste the output somewhere on the wikiproject PR page, or on a subpage.

Alternatively, User:MartinBotII transcludes wikiProject peer reviews onto WP:PR automatically (more information about that here). When I semi-automatically review the articles, I also review those that are transcluded by MartinBotII. The output would then be pasted onto Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/December 2024.

Good luck with your new WikiProject, AZ _t 00:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's weird: there seems to be a whole range of different problems with the script being used on Firefox. I read into the topic a bit more and tried making some changes, and hopefully something will happen. If it still doesn't work, could you do me the favor of trying the method at User:AndyZ/PR#Anons/lazy users? AZ _t 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think you would make a great administrator, although an RFA wouldn't go smoothly until you have a lot of experience in areas such as AfD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 23:24Z

Dunno if this is the place for it (I'm a newbie) but thanks for the copyedits to my Stossel edits. Except I don't like the comma after "apology". Unnecessary, I think. I understand from your comment that I need to bone up on proper usage of... ref and citation tags? Whazzat??? I wanted to make the last sentence of "Pesticides..." a footnote and in an edit I did to David_Horowitz there was a page number in a referenced pdf file that I wanted to preserve and had to keep inline because I didn't know how to make it a footnote either. Could probably understand the instructions if I could only find time to look at them... But the text was so bad, and there's only so much time. Andyvphil 13:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your rewrite after my revert of Lawyer2b's rewrite of "non-existant" in the Stossel article. And I've explained myself on the discussion page. You wrote "Statement doesn't support the claim". That's because it is the instance, not the support. The support is Stossel's apology in the next paragraph. Andyvphil 13:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice there is no ordinary income tax article in Wikipedia, and it seems a large number of articles all assume income tax only refers to ordinary income tax. Perhaps the time has come to clarify this. Where do I make a request for the project?

Thank you. Have Gun, Will Travel 03:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Morphh wrote

Seems like Semi-protection would be better suited with problem templates getting full protection. Morphh ^(talk) 19:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately semi-protection is worthless against determined vandals, because they will simply create an account (or more likely, several) and wait a few days until it can edit semi-protected pages. I have no intention of protecting all, or even most templates – only the most-used ones. Semi-protection for less used (but still very common) templates might be appropriate and indeed many such templates are semi-protected already, but I will leave that issue for others to decide – Gurch 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see my presence is so valued. But as it stands, I'm going to limit myself to 1 or 2 articles at a time. Right now, my focus is on Petroleum, and I haven't even gotten much out of that, as I'm just so swamped with other things. I'll gladly check up on the FairTax talk page now and again, but don't expect me to do much. It's a big article, and there's a lot of social inertia on such a topic. I chose Petroleum because a) it's important b) the article's far below quality for such an important topic, and c) there's no arguement about it! It's really a new feeling - I've basically restructured a lot of it, and no one has said a word about it. As long as it looks better than it did before, i can do basically whatever I want.

but i digress - i have too much to do to keep up w/ FairTax. Sorry, but that's the way it is. although it's good to see that someone noticed i was gone... --Trevdna 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have noted that you helped to update the USCOTW while I was away. You should put your name up on the collaboration page. If you edit a bit more, your name will be put in a category of users who often participate in the USCOTW. You need to learn how to archive previous USCOTWs. I did not update it because there were too few users working on it, I felt like shutting down the collaboration altogether. Why did you wait until January to update the collaboration? (Iuio 00:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

I noticed that you put yourself in the maintenance list. Although I have no real problem about this, it is best if you were listed in the category of users who often participate in the USCOTW. Also, here is a template for you to put on your user page. Most of the participants have one. (Iuio 00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for updating the USCOTW in my absence. You need to update USCOTWHIST with the infomation of previous USCOTWs. I'm afraid that I don't have the time to do this as I have been very busy lately. I became the main maintenance member after the departure of the original maintenance crew. I am leaving Wikipedia for a while to write a Wikibook at Wikibooks. I leave you in chardge of the project while I'm gone. (Iuio 06:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Hello,

I realize you've made many edits to the Tax Foundation article, but I think you're being overly defensive about your previous work by reversing ALL my edits to the page. Here are the reasons why the current structure is not correct:

1. In the "criticism" section, the language about "family tax burdens" is factually incorrect. The Tax Foundation does NOT publish any annual study of family tax burdens. The annual study in question is its "Tax Freedom Day" study that is release each April. That studies does not use families as the unit of analysis. It's an economy-wide average, which you can read for yourself at: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/93.html.

2. The "criticism" section lists only the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) as a critic of the Tax Foundation's "Tax Freedom Day" study. But this is clearly misleading. There are many, many groups that are critical of the concept of "Tax Freedom Day," not just the CBPP. In fact, think tanks in dozens of countries around the world calculate their own "Tax Freedom Day" studies, all of which are criticised by various groups for the same basic reasons the CBPP criticises the Tax Foundation's study. It is not the Tax Foundation per se as an organization that the CBPP and others criticise, it is the annual "Tax Freedom Day" study. The correct place to list the extensive criticisms of the concept of "Tax Freedom Day" is not on the Tax Foundation page, but on the Tax Freedom Day page where they are all collected in one location.

For these reasons, I think my edits of the page are logical and fair. Please email me if you want to discuss, rather than simply reversing my edits outright. anonymousman5000@gmail.com. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.242.98 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the info - you should have posted such on the talk page. Large blanking by anonymous IP addresses tend to get more aggressive responses. You had changed some other things such as reference type and general summary style format that conflicted with normal Wikipedia guidelines. It would have been better to make corrections to the text and summarize the criticism. It is not normal practice to just say.. go here. It is better to have a brief summary of the criticism and then say.. for more details go here. Morphh ^(talk) 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

hi there

well i have found some more information for the Virtual Tax article that im trying to spead to all the members of the Wiki tax project. anyways here it is. Virtual taxes are suspected to be charged inside membership fees for games. i cannot find a source for this to verify maybe someone will have better luck. i will keep looking though. Paypal charges a fee that can be considered a tax everytime a transation is processed. thats all i got for now i will look for more for you all. I know i created the article but i want to leave the editing to the professionals but if you need any extra help i can do so just ask Maverick423 20:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Morphh - the results are in! Note that I only counted wikilinks from actual articles, not from talk space, wikipedia space, etc. I figured that was what you'd be most interested in. Let me know if that's not correct. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfect - Thanks!!! Do you want me to copy it from your userspace into the project space or do you plan to leave it there? Morphh ^(talk) 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do copy it. Glad it works for you! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Morph, Do you know of any references to articles about Kurzweil's idea of using nanotech to solve the global warming problem that he mentions in the recent C-SPAN interview; or Las Vegas' solar energy project? And, thanks for the note on placement of footnotes. Bob -  uriel8  (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be able to find what your looking for in Nanotech Could Give Global Warming a Big Chill, where Kurzweil discusses this topic. Morphh ^(talk) 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I just happened to come back to your talk page. (If you put stuff on my talk page, I'll see it sooner 'cause I watch it.) Bob -  uriel8  (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I notice that this seemed to start at IP70.188.138.214 here: [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Famspear (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC). Oops forgot to sign Famspear 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I noticed that and reported it to the vandal page when he was blocked last. I had posted a warning on that talk page but it looks like the IP changed. Working on blocking the new IP. Morphh ^(talk) 05:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The IP 64.38.60.236 was just blocked for 24hrs. Good luck - I'm going to bed. Zzzzz Morphh ^(talk) 05:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

hey morph how ya been

well ill cut to the chase. we have recently found some information about the damages on a city by a storm. however the problem is the cash damage is about 160 years old so by this time it would be alot higher. The damage was $100,000, in the year 1848. if its possable can you please help us get the total $ in damage in todays dollars? thanks much =) Maverick423 14:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ps: leave the awnser in my talk page if youd like

thanks so much for your help =) Maverick423 15:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for awarding me the Barnstar award. I'm happy that someone appreciates the work I've done on articles related to Transhumanism rather than just the Transhumanism article itself. :) --Loremaster 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject 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. Mocko13 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Editor Morphh: You're doing a super job on this project! I know I have been only minimally involved myself, and I hope the energy you've been exhibiting all these weeks on this project will just somehow "rub off" on me! Yours, Famspear 04:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the feedback. :-) Morphh ^(talk) 12:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm not a Libertarian anymore, I need to change that. I'm not really affiliated with any political party. I like freedom and the constitution.

Anyways, this fair tax idea will evolve into what I described. Banks are already making people swipe their ID cards through a machine (at least mine does, I don't swipe though) and retail outlets are all having people swipe their own credit cards now. When we switch to a National Sales Tax it WILL be attached to your National ID card (REAL ID Act.

I'm sorry that this is happening, but it is. You can either go along thinking everything will be okay or you can wake up and realize that in the near future we will be forced to defend ourselves against our Government and start getting ready.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne52.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory65.html

Why Revolution is the only viable solution

Though I didn't really mention a replacement in that post I think we're ready for a direct democracy, which would be simple using the internet to allow people to vote and collaborate on policy. That way everyone will represent themselves, removing the consolidation of power that breeds corruption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeff419 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Good luck with the FAC. I've added my tuppence. Thank you for the comments on business rates. I'm hoping to get it more WP:style compliant soon - I was rather chucking stuff in at the end. Winklethorpe 21:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow! Odd..I didn't even see that link on the first read through. Nevermind on the request then. Great article! JHMM13 03:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am just asking for a source which supports your position. Please. Guettarda 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that vested in the topic. I should probably just drop out of the conversation but it seems the topic needs some conversation since so many people feel it is POV. I really feel out of place with the whole conversation but it just appears to be the correct way to write it. Morphh ^(talk) 19:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Any chance we could focus on one thing at a time? Whether we use big words or simple English is a style issue. Before we figure out how to phrase things, we need to figure out what we are going to say. Getting upset about phrasing while the article is still protected is counterproductive. Guettarda 05:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I do not intend to formally support or oppose (which is why I labelled my concerns with "comment" rather than a formal oppose or support. I would probably not have opposed over them.) because the article is on a topic I have to wrestle with far too much to understand, and I never support an article without giving an actual thorough read. (although my superficial look from reading about a quarter of it points for solid, well-sourced writing) Circeus 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting FairTax to FA - an excellent job. Winklethorpe 09:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a little late here, but I also congratulate you on a job well done. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and likewise for your contributions Morphh ^(talk) 1:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to a lot of this.. what does the dispute resolution for Intelligent_design mean? I'm also unhappy with the intro sentence, but for different reasons than others I think. I'd like to get involved in the discussion though, since I'd be interested in seeing how the topic might be restructured to avoid so much confrontation. What do I need to do? --Sapphic 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:CROSSNG.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, saw your comment about Raleigh vs Charlotte.

I agree Raleigh has a presence. I added the IT tidbit, and was quoting Charlotte's Book of Lists published by the Charlotte Business Journal.

I guess that be considered biased, but it is very well respected. You should change it if you have a more objective source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.172.118.10 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

The Tax article just failed GA last month and the improvements suggested have yet to be made (see Talk:Tax#GA_Review). I don't think it is quite ready for FA. A fellow WikProject Taxation member - Morphh ^(talk) 0:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew it from FAC. --Goingempty 01:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I was just wondering what the "for" tag was for at Inclusive and exclusive we? I don't see how someone searching for inclusive and exclusive tax rates could end up there …

—Ruakh_TALK 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While doing searches for inclusive and exclusive, this article came up. However, you're probably correct. I have no objection to removing it. I just thought it might assist with lost readers but I have since created many redirects that would probably direct them. Morphh ^(talk) 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K., thanks. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography 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 BetacommandBot 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your help so far. I'm currently losing momentum on this, and can't really see the wood for the trees. Are there any major areas that need work that you can see? Anything you point out, I can have a go at. Winklethorpe (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem.. plan to do more as time allows. Just at a glance, it looks really good. However, I'd like to give it a good read through. Small copyedits - For example.. in the lead "many of its rules from income tax." could probably use "the" before income tax. I'll make any comments on the talk page if I find something we should address. Morphh ^(talk) 14:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be on limited-to-no access for a couple of days. Could you do me a favour and keep an eye on the FAR? If anyone weighs in and looks agitated at the lack of a response, just reassure them I'll be back to deal with it after the weekend? Thanks, Winklethorpe (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do - Got family in from out of town so my time will be limited too but I'll check it every time I get on. Morphh ^(talk) 12:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Inevitably, nothing happened :) Winklethorpe (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just a tallying up of the preliminary voting on preferred version of the five currently suggested, and the proposed changes. In other words, how the consensus stands at that moment. I'll be updating it as modifications get voted on and if a different version takes the lead. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't even believe you included it. I feel like a months worth of effort just got flushed. The numbering is also confusing as we've all been talking about #2, which is the lead that is currently on the article. Now #2 is the old lead that was so contensted that it started this entire process. I can't even believe it was even reintroduced.. It is not a preference of wording... it is a violation of policy and will not stand. Morphh ^(talk) 00:40, April 26, 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's one of the ones involved in the edit war that caused the lockdown, so I couldn't very well not include it =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Orange seemed to be the only one reverting it and he hadn't read the other 10 versions that we worked on at the point he was reverting. He didn't try to contribute to consensus... he just man handled it with reverts. He didn't take the approch that we've all been working on for the last month.. to discuss the lead and work toward consensus. I don't see why his lack of participation in working on this requires that we revert all the work we've put into working together. Personally I'm about sick of it. I could care less about ID or the article (I'm a economics and tax editor) but it is an FA which was violating policy. I'd half like to put it up for FAR, remove the FA status, and be done with it... but I know how hard it is to get FA and I wouldn't want to be the one to take that away. Just frustration... Morphh ^(talk) 1:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent_design#Rephrasing_of_first_sentence. Also, if you rfeel strongly about it, by all means put it up to FAR. FAR only becomes the removal process if the problems turn out to be insurmountable, and is a very reasonable step to pull in a wide range of people who know wikipedia policy well. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Morphh, thank you for assitsting the talk page by providing the additional links to apprise readers and participants of the recent discussion of the presently contested issues about how the article lead should best be written. ... Kenosis 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC) And Adam, while I diseagree somewhat with the approach, I expect that the participants will adapt to it in a way that gives credit to the WP [rinciples involved in the current discussion about how to write the article lead. ... Kenosis 03:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to second Kenosis's point above - thank you for putting in so much work on this issue, and for being willing to work towards compromise. I'm sure that if the two sides try and work together we can come up with something that's mutually acceptable, even if neither of us regard it as ideal, and I'd hate to see you give up at this stage. Tevildo 17:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Morphh, in response to your question on my talk page, I can't speak for others on the issue. I only know I chose not to make any judgments to put an "x" on those with which I disagreed most strongly. ... Kenosis 19:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Morphh, thanks for the note on my talk page. I just got a big assignment at work last week, and I'm afraid I've neglected my Wikipedia duties. -- Cat Whisperer 02:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No probs, thanks for having a look. I've had zero time to work on it recently, anyway. Hopefully once the corporation tax FAR closes one way or another (have you been following it?), I can get back to it - I reckon I've learnt a few things from seeing an article pulled to pieces in FAR :) Winklethorpe (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on usefulness diminishing as prose gets tougher. I doubt there are many people working on here who can hit top professional standards - I certainly can't. I've put in a request for a copyeditor, so hopefully one will materialise and tony will be placated. I'm certainly hoping it's going to stay FA now. Thanks for your help on it, too. Winklethorpe (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm afraid RL is stopping me having a good go at following up on your review, but I will be back to it soon. I'd like to follow your suggestion of going for GA once I've had a further round of revisions. Winklethorpe (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, to follow up a point, "let" means to rent, specifically for property. Is it not current in US english? If so, I'll have to change it (I think it's used a few times) Winklethorpe (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Morphh, thanks a bunch for the edits and the advice! EECavazos 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a barnstar four you, I hope you get it in time to include it in your tax-return. Best regards Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 14:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

True, and you're right. But it does define it, so doesn't that mean it shouldn't have a comma? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:FairTax#Criticism_section, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 11#Template:criticism-section. — Omegatron 05:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Morphh. What a lot of work that article's been. ... Kenosis 13:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I keep an eye on it here and there but it requires more attendence then I'm willing to give it. I just wanted to make sure certain statements in the lead were clarified and they've remained acceptable. Perhaps I'll jump back into it later if I'm gluttin for punishment. Morphh ^(talk) 14:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

...has passed. Insert celebration noises here. Thanks for your support on it. Now I can get on with some other stuff :) Winklethorpe (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps putting a commercial link in the article on IR35. If I remove it again, I shall violate 3RR. Do you feel like doing it? Man with two legs 10:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I don't think that it's a conflict of interest, though; I oppose the FairTax too, only I'm not published. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think he might have a financial COI, you should know that in general, academics don't even receive money for their work, apart from their normal salary, let alone promoting it on Wikipedia. This has arisen concerning User:William M. Connolley and the global warming article, as Connolley is published in climatology and is a frequent editor of the article. From Talk:Global warming/FAQ:

I expect this would also hold true with social scientists. Obviously, he cannot have much of a personal COI, as the FairTax is not a person with feelings. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it now. It seems I was wrong when I though there are no opening divs. But there were certainly less opening divs than closing and several were duplicates. I tested it in my sandbox and have moved it to the template itself, I dont see any problems even with all options turned on. Shinhan 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Default hide? That I dont know. Usually class is set as "collapsible collapsed" but I cant find that anywhere else but in nesting section. I'll ask around. Shinhan 16:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

done and done Dincher 18:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool - Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for the peer review you gave for East Carolina University. I think I have fixed everything mentioned. Also I put some stuff about people not wanting the dental school to give the article a NPOV. could you re-check it for GA/FA qualities/lacking there of? thanx PGPirate 16:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to read, I appreciate it. It's a very interesting topic!--Gloriamarie 21:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the new draft at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#A_simple_formulation OK with you? Do you have any comments or suggestions? Tim Vickers 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi; I'm afraid I've not been around much (my home computer has died), so I've not been able to keep up with stuff. I've had a quick look at the Flat Tax thing, and my only conclusion so far is that I need to read it with more time to hand. Someone made a good comment that there's likely to be a distinction between the theoretical nature of a tax, and how a government implements it (or sometimes, how a govt completely mislabels a tax), which is an issue that's been on my mind recently. I've yet to have any good ideas on how to resolve it. There's hope that I'll have some decent access time this weekend. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 11:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)