User talk:Morphh/Archive2

Precursor of Democratic Party
Hi Morphh. I think it's important to mention that the Democratic-Republican Party is the precursor of the modern-day Democratic Party in the Democratic-Republican and Thomas Jefferson articles. The earlier party is the seed of the modern-day party. It's quite amazing if you think about it that a party Thomas Jefferson created in the 1790s is still alive today, albeit in a different form. If you say that Jefferson created the Democratic-Republican Party without also mentioning that this party is the precursor of a modern party, you don't convey how amazing Jefferson's work was. Griot 11:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the post. I'll post it to the talk page as I think it should get some discussion.  I do think it is important to mention in the D-R article but in the context of history and not in the first sentence.  It was the precursor to the beginning of the modern party in 1830 as described in the article.  Jefferson's amazing work was a precursor to many of today's parties.  What is his work?  Is it a name or a philosophy of U.S. government?  What is a party but the ideas of political philosophy?  Yes there is a direct link by name to the Democratic party but this is far from Jefferson's classical liberal philosophy.  Putting this statement in the first sentence without the historical context gives the impression that the philosophy of the Democratic-Republican party is today's Democratic party.  I consider the Libertarian party much closer to Jefferson's philosophy.   I understand the direct link and put in context it makes perfect sense as does the development of other parties that have claimed Jefferson's principles.  I just think it is unnecessary and gives the wrong impression in the first sentence. Morphh 13:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirsten Prout
Thanks for letting me know, i didnt mean it to sound rude :-S, anywayglad i could help, if u can add to the article the stub could be removed, i dont have much more information about her unfortunately, Thanks for your help !!! (Neostinker 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

FairTax Correction
Thank you for your correction to my FairTax edit. I believe I was suffering from "cranial flatulence." Cheers! Dubc0724 19:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Hi, for sevral months, I have been working on the article DNA Resequencer almost entirely independently. Very few other editors have made changes other than minor edits. I appricate that you have taken the time to copyedit what I have written. Thanks. After getting it to be a Good article and a "Stargate FA" I tried to nominate the article with FA staus unsucessfuly. However, I have administered extreme improvements since then. Do you think that it is ready to be re-nominated? Tobyk777 03:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem :-) I think it is getting pretty close.  I'll continue on it tomorrow.  We may need to reword things to get this in closer alignment with an Manual of Style (writing about fiction) out-of-universe perspective.  I'm also trying to make sure all the footnotes are located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2] as per WP:FOOTNOTE. Morphh 04:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was doing that today also. I put so many footnotes in the article that i am begining to think that there may be too many.  A few weeks ago, I went through the entire article and changed everything I could to out of universe.  If you think you can do it even more great!.  Tobyk777 04:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Lucid dreaming/to do
Hi! First of all, thanks for your suggestions. But note that Lucid dreaming already uses the cite.php system. Also, WP:FOOTNOTE which you cited begins with "N.B. This format is not mandatory; editors are free to use a different method.". See To-do list: "a to-do list is not a place for discussion", or a place to note your preference. By the way, I've changed "blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]" according to your comment because I think it was a perfectly useful and good suggestion. But please post similar comments to the talk page before you'd insert them into the to-do list next time. Thanks again. --Zoz (t) 11:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I posted the footnote "to do" as the page uses a mix of source types.  It does use the cite.php system but this was not uniform throughout the article.  I saw a lot of Embedded Hyperlinks when citing sources. While it is not mandatory, cite.php is the recommended method and you were already using it in the article so I figured you would make all the sources comply to that standard.  Working toward a good or featured article, it is a good step.  Morphh 13:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please show me where it didn't use the cite.php system? Also, the only embedded hyperlink I can find links to the wikibooks (which, I think, is not bad). Where are the embedded hyperlinks you mention? I'd be interested in correcting them, but I couldn't find citing problems with the article. --Zoz (t) 13:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "Earlier descriptions of lucid dreaming" is the only section that is using this format. Everything else is using Embedded Hyperlinks. You can easily tell by looking at the size of the font on the reference number.  All these sources should show up in your "Notes" section.  Morphh 13:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks again for your suggestion. --Zoz (t) 17:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not every ref needs to be added after a full stop. E.g. in section "Achieving and recognizing lucid dreams" you moved the ref before "achieving lucid dreams on a regular basis can be difficult and is uncommon, even with training. Despite this difficulty, techniques have been developed to achieve a lucid dreaming state intentionally" so now it seems that the ref supports that statement, which is not true, since the ref was only added to support that "lucid dreaming is a learnable skill". Please don't move each ref after a full stop, as it's not needed (see Footnotes, and in this case, it's misleading. --Zoz (t) 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that.. you are correct. Morphh 17:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

FA nom for DNA Resequencer
Thank you for all your help with the article. I had it good, you made it outstanding. Currently, I see no way it can be improved. I think it is ready for an FA nomination. However, after tonight, I will not be able to acess wikipedia until thursday. (currently here it's tuesday night) Could you please refrain from nominating it on FAC until then. I would like to be able to offer comments in the nomination and be able to support your efforts. Thanks Also, we might want to see what the Stargate project thinks of the article and if they think it can be improved before we nominate it. Tobyk777 03:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - Perhaps we could put out a peer review request specific to the Stargate project. Maybe post to each members talk page with a request.  However, I do think it is ready.  My largest concern is some of the speculation written in the article.  While I think it is great and logical, we do draw some conclusions that may not be seen in the show.  I'm not sure if this will be a problem for WP:NOR or WP:WAF.  I think it adds so much to the article, I don't want to remove any of it.  Morphh 13:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already removed alot of speculation from the article. There still are some things that are arguably specualation, but I think that those things are impreitive in the article.  If there is anything that you think might need to be taken out could you be more specific?  Tobyk777 23:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I just asked for a review at WP:WPSG Tobyk777 01:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

FairTax
You may introduce a citation which tends to rebut ITEP's argument. Please do not endlessly remove it - it is a point of view which you may not summarily exclude just because you disagree with their analysis of the proposal. FCYTravis 20:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not keep removing and moving down sections of the article which tend to be critical of the FairTax proposal. If you keep doing this, you will never get this article to Featured Article status, because I, for one, will vehemently object. I notice you had no problem citing the advisory panel when Lindner used them in a committee hearing, but when I include extensive information from them which tends to reject the FairTax and point out potential major flaws, it gets chopped out. Quite. The fact that they examined it and found it to be unworkable does not mean that you get to remove it because "it's not about the FairTax anymore." Quite the opposite - their findings are relevant to the idea that the FairTax will work at all. Apparently, they don't think it will. That merits discussion. FCYTravis 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on! I moved it down a couple of sentences. It follows a logical order, the rates that follow the legislation and then the rates that don't. You just made it so it goes.. legislative rates, non-legislative rate, legislative rate, non-legislative rate. This makes no sense. I made a compromise to even include these non-legislative rates (alternate NRST). We don't need an analysis of why the rate is this or that - that is what the reference is for in this section. We don't have a analysis for any of the other rates. Perhaps another article split if we wanted to get into it as each would have its own points and the other side would have counterpoints. It could also be addressed in a separate section. I think it is important to quickly state the difference and reason for the rate - it is the same as other rate you provided (Phantom Taxes). While I've given you a hard time on some things, I think we've been working pretty good at compromises that make the article better. I'm just trying to make the article better as I know you are. I barely chopped out anything.. a quote that was misplaced and a duplicated subject. I've left most of your edits with little change as I think there good. Don't patronize me - what happen to WP:AGF. Morphh 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I assumed good faith until you began extensively removing and moving information critical of the FairTax from a clearly reliable and notable source. The article is chock-full of dozens of quotes and references from sources supporting the FairTax, but I introduce a couple that aren't and you claim we need to split the article. I am removing "good article" status based on the fact that this article is not stable. FCYTravis 21:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you joking!!! It's been fairly stable for quite a while now. I've only removed one quote and their are probably just as many good quotes as bad.  I just said that it should get it's own section and debated.  If you look at the peer review you can see I've been looking for things to split.  It has nothing to do with the content and only what is available to be split good. Morphh 21:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article overall had very little in the way of critical review of the methodology and claims of FairTax proponents, and that is what needs to be added. Far too often, the article offers nothing but the unchallenged statements of promoters. These claims are not without controversy and the opposing viewpoint needs to be fairly represented. If this went to FA, it would probably be ripped apart for that very reason. FCYTravis 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - I'll work with you on it. I think I've been trying to compromise and make good talk.  If you look back, I've added bad as well as good and have tried to evenly remove POV.  While I'm for the FairTax, I want the article to be complete and well written.  I respect your edits and hate that you believe I'm being deceitful or trying to manipulate the facts.  Unlike you, I'm not a professional editor / writer and perhaps things come out wrong.  I think we can resolve our disputes on the talk and work together to make it better.  I may disagree with points and make changes - please take that they are in good faith.  We'll find an even ground - if you work with me instead of slam/revert.  Perhaps I should give you a ring.  Chat is always so impersonal and text can be easy misunderstood.  I am a bit upset about the GA removal so maybe I'll wait - I think there were many other steps to take before that action.  I took it as a personal attack as you can see I put a lot of time into working on that and it seemed mean spirited.  Very little was major content change.  I think we can continue to work on it and have it still remain a GA.  Morphh 23:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't intend it in a personal manner, and you're right - this can be so impersonal. I want to make this an FA, and thanks to your great work it's most of the way there already. I guess I'm just a bit of a literalist - when I was going through the various criteria, that particular section jumped out at me. I think I acted too hastily - and I have rectified that. FCYTravis 01:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Morphh, I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but I am in an incredibly busy off-Wiki period, and won't have a lot of free time until mid-Sept. I just had a quick look at your footnote list, and based on a cursory look, without closely examining the article, I see fairly substantial problems with your references. Since the FAC is now closed, do you want me to detail those here on your talk page, or on the article talk page? Sandy 15:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it is just a quick look, it may be easier to detail them here. Which ever is easier for you to watch as I expect may need to reply to some of your comments or get further clarification.  If it is something that will require lengthy effort and the other editors, I can repost your comments to the talk page if need be.  If your looking from a point of Pro/Con, it may be difficult to tell from the references.  Some of them are not used in a pro/con opinion fashion but instead used neutrally to describe the legislation.  Thanks so much! Morphh 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I am *really* swamped today, but I'll get a list here to you just as soon as I can (maybe later tonight). Sandy 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Things I noticed about the citations:


 * The huge majority of inline cites point to a John Linder, and associates Chambliss and Boortz. This is suggestive of POV.  It isn't good to have so much of the article sourced to one possible POV.
 * Too many sources are groups with an agenda, like
 * FairTax Frequently Asked Questions. Americans for Fair Taxation. (which is extremely overrrepresented in the sources, along with Linger, Chambliss and Boortz). Would I find that all of these share the same POV?  If so, that is suggestive of a biased article.
 * Too many sources are books with an agenda. How about independent sources, like:
 * Just how fair is the FairTax?. Money Magazine.
 * Kotlikoff, Laurence (2005-03-07). The Case for the 'FairTax'. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on 2006-07-23.
 * McTague, Jim (2005-04). The Underground Economy. Barron's. The Wall Street Journal Classroom Edition. Retrieved on 2006-07-25.
 * Simplifying tax systems: The case for flat taxes. Barron's. The Economist (2005-04-14). Retrieved on 2006-07-25.
 * Out of several hundred citations, only those four appear to be from very high quality, unbiased sources. I haven't had time to dig into the sources, but this is very suggestive of POV.  I'd be more inclined to want to seriously review the rest of the article if it had very high quality, unbiased sources. Sandy 02:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review. I understand what your saying.  In an effort to cite extensively, we choose the sources that provided the most information about the topic - That being the book (Boortz/Linder), Bill, FAQ, etc.  Like I mentioned earlier, many of them are a reflection of the legislation and not a particular POV.  While the book and FAQ souces are suggestive POV, they are the most accurate and detailed in regard to the legislation.  I tried to use the legislation (Liner - 15 sources) thinking that this was a NPOV source.  While attributed to Linder, it is the legislation.  I'd source this more, however, congressional bills are not an easy read.  The other POV souces may state the same thing but in plain english.  I'll do some searches and try to find independent sources that can provide some of the information that are currently referenced by the POV souces. Thank you again for your assistance.  We'll get this article to FA one day. Hopefully soon... :-) Morphh 13:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is much harder to have to use a variety of sources, but it will strengthen at least the suggestion of broader based views, lowering concerns about bias. Keep at it, Sandy 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Great Job on your efforts with DNA Resequencer

 * Thanks for the star!!! I'll move it to my User page. I was planning on giving you a star as well :-p  Funny. Morphh 17:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is funny, Thanks. Toghther we were able to make the article amazing.  On WP:WPSGs talk page they are discussing wheahter to nominate it on FAC.  Tobyk777 17:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Spelling
I made the change to be consistent between spellings, since the main article for Adria (Stargate) uses Orici. Also Alex Levine, SG script coordinator usees Orici in his blog entry. 

IP 207.195.240.16
Re : Thanks for the heads up, I've shortened the block on the IP in question. -Loren 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My watchlist
Thanks for great scripting bot. I found an odd thing though after it made the edit. The page disappeared from my watch list. I tried to unwatch and watch again and it still would not show up. It wasn't until I made another edit to the page that it reappeared on my watchlist. I've never had that problem and I thought it odd. I can only contribute it to the CmdrObot as it was working fine before the edit, disappeared after the bot edit, and didn't reappear until I made a new edit. Anyway.. thought I would share in case anyone else saw this. Morphh 00:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. I'm pretty sure that my bot isn't responsible for the odd watchlist behaviour you've seen, as it uses Wikipedia's web user interface to view and edit articles just like a normal user does. The only thing that makes it a bot is that it corrects the text in the edit box; clicks the show changes and save buttons; and loads the next article in my list automatically.


 * It is very odd behaviour though. I wonder could there be some subtle bug in Wikipedia that pops up every now and then. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance, CmdrObot 14:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Effect of repealing the Sixteenth Amendment
You may be unaware of this, but after the enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 157 U.S. 429 (1895), the decision which had held a tax on income derived from property was unconstitutional. Rather, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the Court held that Congress had always had the power to tax income. Hence, even if the Sixteenth Amendment were repealed, Congress would still have the power to enact an income tax, unless a separate amendment were passed directly repealing that part of the Article I taxing and spending power. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I expect you may be referring to the FairTax article and the repeal of the 16th A.  I edit many of the articles around this topic so let me know if you're referring to something else.  I believe the FairTax calls for an "aggressive repeal" of the 16th Amendment, meaning that it would not just simply say that the types of income tax empowered by the 16th amendment would be revoked, but that all income taxes would be forbidden. In that regard, HJR 16 does not meet the criteria of what the FairTax calls for.  Such language would have to be included in the bill that repeals the 16th amendment. Morphh 12:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Asuran (Stargate)
Instead of copying / pasting the article I had written into an article with a new name and changing my article to be a redirect, you could have moved it. I guess it's a moot issue, now, but the fact that people, when looking at that article's history, aren't going to know I had anything to do with it slightly annoys me. If I were to ever list the articles I created, redirect pages are not pages I would list. And since that's all my article is, now, I wouldn't, despite the effort that I put into it, list it. Which, like I said, is slightly annoying. TerraFrost 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I wasn't familar with the move option. Now I see it at the top of the page - is this a new feature?  We could still probably move the article - reverts and stuff.  Again sorry, Morphh 11:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as it doesn't happen again, I'm not too bothered by it. Per that, though, I guess subsequent SG-1 articles I create need to be of the form Name (Stargate), heh :) TerraFrost 12:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Fair Tax Fraud Institute
You are breaking the neutrality rule by recognizing organizations that are 100 percent for the Fair Tax and yet you have no organizations that are 100 percent against it. Fair Tax Fraud Institute may be new and not well known yet but it is the only organization on the web that has a mission of defeating the Fari Tax bill. The organizations you have listed as being against the fair tax have a number of views on a lot of different things and are not significant in the battle for or against the tax bill. None of them ask members to contact congress, or vote for an alternative tax. The Fair Tax Fraud Institute is the only organization specifically fighting against the tax bill and that makes it the most significant opposition on the web.

Furthermore your interpretation of what is accurate and what is not shows a non-neutral political bias FOR the Fair Tax. Since that makes this entire article non-neutral it would be a candidate for deletion. Please reconsider your deletion of the Fair Tax Fraud Institute. Bconline


 * None of the Associations listed for the FairTax are dedicated to this purpose. They are well know associates that have come out for and against the plan.  We don't have the FairTax Foundation on there.  There are plenty of links and references on this site from anti-FairTax articles.  Half the article is debating the FairTax points.  The Association needs to be somewhat known.  We don't just add any site that states they have a view.  What is your membership?  How do I register?  Where is this Institue located and under what business name - non-profit?  Who are the principle members / owners?  What are the credentials for the Institute to make valid and factual claims? As far as I can tell, you set up a website and gave it an "official" Institute name and claim it as some association.

As for my "interpretation of what is accurate".. I'll point some out - some are point of view and some are factual.

The first page I looked at “FairTax Fallout” at a quick glance...

“Too bad they couldn't deduct their mortgage interest anymore because of the FairTax.”
 * The FairTax is tax-free on mortgage interest and has the added benefit of being payroll tax-free. There is nothing to deduct because you never pay it.  My POV (Most of the "Tale of Two couples" could happen under the current system - doesn't seem like there is any point).

“The FairTax plan calls for people to stop paying social security - both the employees and employers share. That's it...just stop paying it. No plan to recoup the money. No plan for social security survival. No plan at all...just stop paying social security and Medicare and it will all magically sort itself out.”
 * No – It is fully funded by the FairTax. There are no changes to the programs.  My POV (In fact, many economist state that a consumption tax is the only thing that can save these programs.)

“Necessities per month = $400 + $40 + $500 + $100 + $50 + $150 + $200 = $1440 minimum per month for basic life support. I would love to hear one of these pro-FairTax ****** explain just how the necessities of life are met by just $187 a month!"
 * It doesn’t pay for the necessities of life but the tax on the necessities of life – in your example it would be $331. However, the cost of the necessities for each household size is determined by the Department of Health and Human Services and not some random guesswork like your example.

“It's Communism in its approach (ie: everyone is equal but some are more equal). It goes completely against the founding fathers policy of working hard and being successful.”
 * My POV (Odd point as the income tax is right out of the Communist Manifest – “Section II. Proletarians and Communists” and the income tax punishes hard work and savings per most economists.)

"Under the FairTax all new homes will have a 30 percent tax added to them."
 * This doesn't consider any removal of embedded cost (estimated at 25% for homes) - all inventory can be claimed and not remited.

"To get around that, developers will probably rent out the houses they build for a year and then sell them completely avoiding the tax. "
 * Can't do this - An item is only considered used if the FairTax has already been paid on it.

"People will probably burn down their houses instead of selling them so they can start fresh without taxes."
 * If you already own it, you don't pay taxes on it. ???

"Not only will they pay the 30 percent tax on top of the price, they will also experience a drop in market value of 30 percent the first year."
 * Where are you getting this crap? What source or economist are you referencing? I think your making stuff up as you go.

Ok - I'm tired of looking at it. Some of this is my point of view but some of it is just factually incorrect. You provide no sources or research. It's your site - do what you want with it - however, I don't think it is ready for Wikipedia yet.

Morphh 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:More Fair Tax Fraud Institute
Everything you just said was in defense of the FairTax propaganda. I could refute everyone of your comments but that won't get me around your bias. You are truely biased. If there is some objective measurement as to what constitutes a significant site and what does not I want to hear it and I would be glad to work towards meeting those criteria. But your subjective response shows nothing more that an arrogant lobbyist mentality. What makes Neil Boortz's propaganda acceptable and not others slant on the bill? Why are you not following the deletion process? Just tell me what criteria meets a significant site (should also cover you existing links). Bconline


 * I also forgot to add... in your housing example - you state the tax as if it were do that year and not over a 30 year mortgage or something. Let's look at the rebate for a family of two for 30 years - $135,240.  Anyway...


 * Ok.. I'm arrogant because a site that doesn't even display itself on a Goggle search is not "significant" enough for my lobbyist mentality. Neal Boortz is a small part of this article.  This is not a propaganda piece and I am not the only editor - this was written by both proponents and opponents presenting both sides with factual information.  This article is not even in the vicinity of a deletion based on your claims.  For one - Get your organization out there and publicized - at least in a page of Google hits.  Official Institutes don't call people "assholes" and such.  As of now - It's flame site with unverified original research, not an Institute with referenced information.  Americans for Fair Taxation has a lot of data that is referenced, researched, etc.  You need to do the same but on the other side.  This would provide a value to visitors of the article and would have unique resources beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Featured Article.  Morphh 05:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to get it. We're not putting ANY of our content on Wikipedia. The only thing thing is going on Wikipedia is a link that says this organization is against the fair tax, which is totally factual. I don't personally agree with any of the propaganda on fairtax.org but I don't interfere with their right to publish it.


 * As a matter of fact, you should be questioning the so-called research. I have been researching this for six months and have found no published studies or research. They say 23 million was spent but no documents. All I see are references to conservative think tanks and the names of some retired professors. There is no verification that any research took place. If so, where is the proof? Where are the documents? Where is the research? 23 million buys a lot of paper (or pdfs). Point this out to me and I'll shut up. Every one of the pro-fair tax tells a tale of 3 men donating money and selecting think tanks and professors (the same story) but that's where it ends. Where's this proof of concept? It's not even in the Boortz book. I say it's a lie - propaganda to sell this plan - no more accurate then our opinions.


 * Okay, we need more hits on google and write ups by other sites...fine. That's objective. But the content is not in question here. The fact is we were only adding one line to the fairtax wiki article. Thant line was a link to associations against the fair tax. And this association is the only one on the web devoted to other views of what the fairtax means and what the outcome will be.


 * We will try again when we are "established" but we will take every measure to see our link is included whether you agree with the content or not.


 * Too bad they couldn't deduct their mortgage interest anymore because of the FairTax.


 * The FairTax is tax-free on mortgage interest and has the added benefit of being payroll tax-free. There is nothing to deduct because you never pay it. My POV (Most of the "Tale of Two couples" could happen under the current system - doesn't seem like there is any point).


 * The fair tax imposes a 30 percent tax on top of the fair market value of the house - none of this is deductable or recoverable. You can't tack on the 30 percent you paid in taxes to the market value when you sell the house so you've lost that money. For a persons largest investment this is a huge hit. Bconline


 * You are correct that AFFT has not published the research studies, they've only published papers based on the studies. They have stated that they are going to release several studies this year. The three business men were Jack Trotter, Bob McNair, and Leo Linbeck, who each pledged $1.5 million as seed money to hire tax experts to identify what they perceived as faults with the current system.  They went on to raise an additional $17 million to fund focus groups with citizens around the country and tax policy studies.  Which hired Professors David Burton and Dan Mastromarco, University of Maryland and The Argus Group, Larry Kotlikoff, Boston University, Stephen Moore, The Cato Institute, Professor Dale Jorgenson, Harvard University, Bill Beach, the Heritage Foundation, Jim Poterba, The National Bureau of Economic Research, Professor George Zodrow, Rice University and the Baker Institute for Public Policy, & Professor Joseph Kahn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  This is not disputed by these groups or individuals.  In fact, Kotlikoff is doing several new studies.  Beacon Hill Institute is finishing their rate evaluation to soon be published.  Young & Associates is doing a study on evasion and enforcement.


 * I questioned the content as Wikipedia guidelines state that a site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources should not be included in the External Links. Your example proves the point as no economist would make such a ridiculous statement.  Who in their right mind would sell a house for 30% less then it's worth?  Price is determined by value - supply / demand.  If you pay $100,000 for a house (with the FairTax included) and then sell it tomorrow - the house is worth and sold for $100,000.  The value of the item is determined by it's worth in the market.  You will not take a loss on the value of the house from the FairTax.  Just as you pay the cost of taxes today that determine the cost / value of the product - the FairTax will determine the cost / value of the product in both used and new goods.  The price differences / margins between the two will stay the same as this is the percieved "value" of the new good.  Example: Builder cost is $77,000 and sells new homes for $100,000, $23,000 to Fed.  Person buys home for $100,000 and sells it in a couple years for $110,000, they make $10,000.  The home is comparible in cost to new homes and other used homes.


 * As far as home mortgage deduction, current law allows individuals to deduct the home mortgage interest costs from taxable income. Someone paying a 25% income tax rate would receive $250 back from the government for $1,000 expended in home mortgage interest.  This is income taxes they paid on the $1000 dollars.  There is no deduction for the payroll taxes they paid on the $1000.  Under the FairTax, you never pay taxes on the $1000 so there is nothing to deduct.  You already have your $250 plus.  You don't pay tax on the interest - you only pay tax on the house.  However, you do have an argument for social engineering as homes are not treated special under the FairTax.  It does not encourage home ownership over other items but there is no cost increase due to the loss of the deduction.


 * Please do come back - I think your site would be good for the article when you get some of these things worked out. There is plenty to criticize and you should be able to find some good reference material.  Morphh 13:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank You for being so civil and pragmatic. I endeavor to be accurate and I do realize I have some errors. I have already corrected the prebate error of fact and will investigate and refine the site. I still think my general premise and overall logic is right - it is an issue of fairness. I hope you will provide links to the research when it is published. Thanks for your comments.


 * Example: Builder cost is $77,000 and sells new homes for $100,000, $23,000 to Fed. Person buys home for $100,000 and sells it in a couple years for $110,000, they make $10,000.  The home is comparible in cost to new homes and other used homes.


 * Are you saying the builder pays the tax for the house he built? I was under the impression (using your figures) the builder builds for $77K and adds his profit $23K to make a $100K selling price. The buyer then pays the price of the house - $100K plus $30K in FairTax. When the buyer wants to sell that house again he can not just tack on the $30K because the house only has a market value of $100K. The buyer has to eat the $30K or wait 15 years for the market value to go up. Bconline


 * No problem :-) "Fairness" is one topic we try to stay away from, since it is such a subjective and point of view term.  While it is called the FairTax, we do not discuss if it is fair or not.  We just present the information and let the reader decide.  My example of $77,000 of the builder included his profit.  However, you could present it your way as well - $100K builder cost/profit and $30K FairTax.  When the buyer wants to sell the house again, he gets market value for the house - which is $130,000.  There is nothing to tack on - that is the cost of the house.  The FairTax just makes the taxes visible.  Taxes are a part of the cost of a good - today and under the FairTax - just like the lumber for the house.  The market value of the house is $130K.  You can't buy it for $100.  Just as the embedded taxes are part of the market value today, they would be part of the market value under the FairTax.  On the same topic, retailers can also claim all inventory - so all houses already built or being built before the FairTax can be claimed as "already paying the FairTax" after sale as they contain the cost of the current tax system.  So, builders can instantly drop their cost price by the 23%/30% figure.  Then the FairTax is visibly added back in.


 * Something to add that might make the thought easier is the idea of an inclusive tax. For example, the excise tax on gas and cigarettes is inclusive.  The tax is included in the advertised price.  The way the bill is written - the cost of the house is $130,000, $30,000 of which is taxes (23% of $130,000).  The taxes are built into the sale price.  So, it is not likely that we would see the house for sale at $100,000 and then they add $30,000 in taxes as sale time.  Either way it doesn't change the paragraph above - the value of the home is $130,000 and will resell for the value based on that price.


 * You could make the argument that there are embedded taxes in "used" goods. The AFFT claim that "used" goods are tax free is like saying today's goods are tax free - used goods contain the embedded cost of the FairTax just like today's goods contain the embedded cost of the income tax system.  It is correct in the sense that no taxes are remitted on the sale of used goods.  The tax burden of used goods would be something that could be debated as a point of view.  They make the claim that we already pay taxes in goods and services in the current system but then state used goods are tax free under the FairTax.  Using their logic - used goods contain embedded FairTax.  So claims such as you could live a fed tax free life if you buy used goods is not accurate.  The rebate works in regard to this but buying used goods does not lift the tax burden - it just lightens it through the depreciation of value.  Morphh 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll also add that in regard to the prebate and correcting the site. I don't think the plan says it doesn't tax the necessities of life.  What the plan actually does is untax spending up to the poverty level as determined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for each family size.  Proponets advertise this as untaxing the necessities but the term "necessities" is subjective and means different things to different people. Morphh 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WPBio articles
Sorry, which articles? Please respond asap as if there's an error I need to check it out. --kingboyk 20:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I see from your recent edits. Let me check this out and I'll get back to you. Cheers. --kingboyk 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA
I closed your RFA after I noticed that you withdrew the request. That was a good decision; I would have hated to see such a wonderful contributor as yourself become discouraged after too many "oppose" votes. I really do think that your contributions are very valuable. Administrators don't get to do very much copyediting, wikifying, and rarely get to add to articles. They primarily work on vandalism and deletions. You are a very highly valued member of our community, however - let me assure you of that!! I sincerely believe that you deserve these cookies and are a great editor. We need more users like you! :) Keep up the great work, and I hope to see you around!  Srose  (talk)  15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here Here. It's too bad that your RFA didn't suceed.  If I knew you were on RFA I certainly would have supported you.  You are a great contributor.  Tobyk777 18:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry that your RfA didn't work out. I voted 'oppose' myself, because I think that good article contributors like yourself needn't be distracted by the often unpleasant janitorial duties that administrators have. I hope the RfA didn't discourage you too much; it can be a gruelling experience, but you shouldn't let it get you down. Perhaps you can make a page over at editor review so that others can tell you whether you're on the right track. Personally, I think you're doing really well, so don't worry about adminship! We need more article writers. Keep it up, and if you ever feel like a chat, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Cheers, &mdash; riana_dzast a  wreak havoc''' 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehe, Riana always seems to be wherever I am. :P Just kidding, it's an exaggeration, but it's always great to see her around. Anyway, in response to your question on my talk page, two helpful pages for tools I use are Recent changes patrol and Categorization.  I'm not sure if either of those lists have exactly the tool you're looking for, but you can always leave a message on the village pump asking for one to be made.  Happy editing! :)  Srose   (talk)  01:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But I'm following you around, Sable, of course :p &mdash; riana_dzast a  wreak havoc''' 11:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Public Choice Theory
Great work on the PCT article. Feel free to remove the cleanup banner when you feel comfortable with it. You've satisfied my reasons for adding it. Morphh 13:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's pretty authoritative. Thx, Morphh.  You were right to post the banner, and I wouldn't have been emboldened to act without it.  I may do a bit more on the article, but I'll return the honor of retiring the banner to you.


 * I think that the substance is there, but the article could still use some concision. Wish that there were a banner for that. Maybe there should be.  Or I could at least post this on the PCT Talk page.  BW, Thomasmeeks 11:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Kudos for folding PC into PCT. Brave & nicely executed. Thomasmeeks 11:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Morphh 12:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

your request
Yes my bot can do that Betacommand 04:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just posting to your page after reading more posts :-) Morphh 04:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please Review this page and mark the pages that should not be tagged and if you want the contents of a cat tagged please note. Betacommand 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I put a strike through a couple cats. There may be a few articles here and there that get the tag that probably shouldn't but they can remove it if they feel it is unnecessary.  There are no contents for the tag - it's a simple tag.  Morphh 04:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please let me know which cats you want me to go down through. Betacommand 05:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * this is the list that i will use please look over and remove any that should not get tagged User:Betacommand/North Carolina Betacommand 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot Tags for North Carolina
Hi Morphh, I am reviewing the list at User:Betacommand/North_Carolina for bot-tagging to category North Carolina. I will manually remove any that I feel are incorrect, and reply here. Nimur 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Others should feel free to contribute to this list, just sign your edits as well.

Items Removed: Moving this list to Discussion Page. Nimur 15:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and give me a list of every cat an i wont go into subcats just clear the rollback page and list the new cats Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Drop a note on my talk page when you get the cats setup and ready to have me make the tag run Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll start the run at about 0200 UTC Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance in this. It has been very helpful to the project. Morphh 14:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, if you ever need another run for this project or any other let me know and I'll be hapy to do so, Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Roni Lynn Deutch
Dear fellow editor: Your input could be valuable regarding the article Roni Lynn Deutch at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roni_Lynn_Deutch

My personal view is that the article is pretty much an advertisement, even if the article wasn't put there by Ms. Deutch herself -- but you may have a different perspective. Yours, Famspear 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006
The September 2006 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. plange 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section in think tanks
It is not fair to include a "criticism" section in only the entry for the Tax Foundation, while not including one for Urban Institute, Cato Institute, or the Brookings Institution.

For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has been criticised here for producing misleading and unabashedly left-wing studies. Why not write a "criticism" section for them also? It is simply not fair to single out only some organizations.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/WM5.cfm

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/316.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1406.html

http://cltg.org/cltg/cltg2000/00-05-23.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba303.html


 * You are correct - CBPP should have a criticism section. The other think tanks you mentioned should also have a criticism section.  Perhaps you could write one... One should be included in each of these but someone has yet to include it - the articles are not as complete or as far along as Tax Foundation in this regard.  I'm a fan of Tax Foundation and I love their recent pod-casts.  Don't mistake me for some left-wing editor.  I'm just trying to create the most complete articles possible and this includes criticism (perhaps misleading and unabashedly left-wing).  The best thing to do in this regard is to debate the criticism as I've included in that article and sourced.  You are welcome to expand on it.  However, you can't just delete it because you don't like it.  This is part of wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.  Morphh 00:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a criticism section under CBPP with your provided sources. Please expand as needed. Morphh 01:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

FairTax
Actually, I have doubts about the main article too. I don't think there is so little doubt about the overall goodness of the idea, if there weren't, it would have been implemented years ago on the worldwide scale. I guess the article was just written by very enthusiastic supporters of the idea, and the detractors have not yet discovered it. I think you have to dig deeper concerning this. Besides, you seem to present everything concerning it as a given fact, rather than reporting that this is the opinion of this or that person or group based on this or that beliefs or principles. One example of how such issues can be handled better that occurs to me is homeopathy - the article is still unstable and deficient in many areas, but thanks to a very heated debate it now reads in the way that allows the reader formulate his or her own opinion on the topic, based on the information provided. A good proof for its impartiality is that it is accused of being POV by both supporters and opponents of homeopathy :D

I want to state, btw, that I actually would support such proposal as FairTax, having a background moderately related to economics, so it is not that I have concerns about the article due to some ideological reasons, but I simply want to maintain high standards expected of encyclopedic articles on WP. At present, the article is just structured as if it was a part of a brochure promoting FairTax. This needs to be written from the point of view of a person absolutely neutral on the subject. I guess neither of the current editors are, so maybe it would be good to find some opponent of this proposal and ask him/her to contribute?

Secondly, I believe that FairTax is not a unique proposal, but just an example of a specific taxation system type, which you can find in literature (quite some time has passed since I had anything to do with taxation theory, so please forgive me for not being more specific here). So much of the description (including the discussion of economic effects) could and should go into a general article. Economics is one of the fields very poorly covered by WP, so if you are really interested in delving in this, it would be good to perform some more general research into that, and try to develop the articles on taxation in general more, which would not be that hard given how much content you already have there.

Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. I don't know how the FA-like GA "tag" came about at the top of the FairTax article, but this is has been officially discussion and the current consensus is that is not allowed to display such tags for GA, the status of the article notwithstanding.


 * Thanks for the thoughts - the article has had many editors in the past couple years - many of them against the idea. It has only been recently that it is not a heated topic - I think because we've included much of the opinion and criticism.  I'll take a look at homeopathy.  We have considered trying to spilt some of the economic information into it's own article, however, the details, effects, and benifits of the plan are specific to each plan.  Since this is the largest tax reform bill supported in the U.S. congress, it made sence to describe the bills specific economic effects.  I'll really take a look at the Predicted effects page - this had less proofing and could use some neutral language.  Thanks Morphh 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

J --

I'm not sure exactly how to send messages via Wikipedia and I've lost your email address, so hopefully you get this.

Yes, it is me. You smoked me out. I recently heard someone using Wikipedia as a reference to the vast amount of research done on the FairTax, which got my gander up. Hence, I started making changes to the Wikipedia article. There wasn't enough room to fully expain the changes in the comment line, which is why my comments might have sounded somewhat curt. But, as always, your replies were so polite that I couldn't really get mad at you for deleting half my changes.

(By the way, I did some further replies in the discussion section.)

As you know, AFFT has been promising for almost nine months that they will have all of these great new studies out, but so far they haven't produced anything. The previous "studies" they rely upon were not really studies at all. (Poterba's "study" was a two-page letter using assumptions provided by AFFT.) And Jorgenson never purported to do a study as to what the revenue-neutral rate would need to be. All he did was focus on the "embedded taxes", and his study has routinely been misreprented by various pro-FairTax types. (Though not you, of course.) So, it always bugs me when I see them listed as providing the basis for the 23% rate.

As to the "grassroots" aspect, as I say in the Discussion section, I don't really believe it's approriate to call this a grassroots movement when it was financed and directed by a small group of multi-millionaires who hired Patton Boggs to promote the thing in Congress. (Linder himself admits this in his conference call on the fairtax.org website.) They may have gotten a lot of groundswell support by, in my view, hi-jacking a good portion of the tax-reform interest that exists among the populace, but - in my view -- they did so because they have the bucks and the radio host to support their plan -- not because their plan is the best. I believe that if some other plan had well-heeled supporters and a radio-host promoting it everyday, you would generate a lot of grass-roots support of those plans as well. (The Flat Tax obviously has a well-heeled benefactor, but not the push of a radio host or the infra-structure of AFFT.)

And, even Linder admitted to me that he isn't aware of any public debates that have EVER taken place on the plusses and minuses of the FairTax plan. (I don't really count Boortz's "debate" with Graetz, because Graetz spent at least half of the time promoting his own plan rather than attacking the FairTax.)

Also, I will note that FairTaxGroups.com routinely deletes posts questioning the FairTax (including all of mine). In fact, it has deleted whole threads with multiple-posts containing wide-ranging discussions on the pros and cons of the FairTax. So, that sort of goes to my point that many of the FairTax proponents -- AFFT, Boortz, FairtaxGroups.com, etc. -- don't really want to debate the pros and cons of the FairTax. They want to control all discussion of it. So, again, I don't really see this as a grassroots movement.

Now, I know that if you were in charge, things would be different. But, as far as I know, they haven't seen the merits of appointing you as executive director of AFFT. Yet. Maybe there is hope, but I won't hold my breath.

Best, --H

Wikipedia talk:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW
I have answered your questions on the USCOTW's talk page. (Iuio 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC))

Not a problem, I have left another note for you on the talk page. (Iuio 15:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC))

Stargate (device)
Well, I just did a quick check and the exact line from "Children of the Gods" is: "Have you ever pulled out of a simulated bombing run in an F-16 at 8-plus gees?" Since the word "pull" isn't actually used in the form "pulling", that's why the brackets are there. In any case, it seems that "pull" isn't the word, either, so I'm doing a little tweak to it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Neal Boortz
In the 2004 Presidential election, Neal Boortz not only voted for Bush, a Republican, he encouraged his listeners to vote for Bush. If that doesn't make him a Republican, I don't know what does. Michael Badnarik ran for President on the Libertarian platform. Libertarians are isolationists, they are opposed to offensive military action. - AllanE


 * I listen to the show often and I think the article correctly identifies him. A vote for a Republican means nothing in this day as a vote for a Libertarian is just about a wasted vote unless your trying to make a statement.  In such a close and heated election, why would he waste his vote on Badnarik.  The Libertarian party is split on many issues and that's why Neal is more precisely classified as a neolibertarian or a republitarian.  What matters is his philosophy and that is mainly libertarian.  Morphh (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again I have to stress that Libertarians vote Libertarian and Republicans vote Republican. Voting Republican is a vote for empire-building, aggressive offensive war, and the surrender of our liberties to a police state. Many Libertarians feel that Neal is a Republican "mole" undermining Libertarian Party ideals. Their arguments are strengthened every time he encourages his Libertarian listenership to vote Republican. Don't you find it ironic that he preaches his brand of Libertarianism for four years, but a month before Presidential elections, the most important political time in four yea he advocates and votes Republicanism? That's how I know he's a Republican. AllanE (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish it were that simple. I struggle with this choice myself as a vote for Libertarian is a well intentioned wasted vote.  When the race is close, sometimes you'll take the lesser of two evils.  Perhaps that is a compromise of ideals but sometimes you have to make the tough choices.  Anyway, someone reworded your changes and then I reworded those and expanded... so some of the changes are still there.  Keep in mind wikipedia policy of neutral tone and no orginal research.  Glad to have you editing.  Morphh (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

, I have a question. It seems that I'm battling a GeorgiaTex on the Neal Boortz article. I've seen that you've commented on Boortz, and thought I'd ask what would you suggest. GeorgiaTex is oviously POV in his edits and it rings full of bias. I know Boortz doesn't make it easy to be NPOV, but I've been trying to clean it up to make it more NPOV. However, when I have to constantly revert back, that makes it more difficult. You've been around here for a while and since I'm new, I thought I'd ask your thoughts on what to do with GeorgiTex POV edits. Thanks! Maniwar 02:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your doing the correct thing to make discussion of the points on your talk page and the Boortz talk page. Remember that GeorgiaTex is very new so he is probably acting in good faith without understanding the best way to convay his meaning in a neutral tone with appropriate sources.  I would take each edit into consideration and try to understand his intent.  If possible, try to rewrite the point, if applicable, in a proper tone.  I aggree that Sugg is probably not the best source for an encyclopedia.  Anybody can set up a website and post information, so we should try and stick with neutral third party sites.  In the same respect, if it is possible to get life information on Boortz from places other then his own website, we should also try and do that.  In regard to his points on your talk, I would consider compromising on 5,6,7, & 9.  #5, probably no point in stating that he passed it on his first attempt.  #6, change it to say that "Boortz stated that he donates" - as this is a verifiable statement.  #7, he might have a point on this one and we should consider revising.  #9, he has a point and we should consider revising - "Boortz is an equal opp. offender, however, most of his criticism is directed at ....".  I don't think the other points enhance the article and end up adding POV instead of reducing it (as per his intentions).  I don't like the separate article Neal Boortz Controversies.  This should be included in the Boortz article and follow the same standard.  Criticism should not be split for the purpose of POV.  The main article is not long enough to justify this WP:SS format.  Morphh (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey; I agree; the next thing is to rm the bulk of his "views" and insert a summary of same. That whole para is too detailed for the lead IMO. Kaisershatner 15:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Better now, still needs cutting - all the self given nicknames, and maybe the equal opportunity offender can be condensed into 1-2 sentences tacked to the 3rd para, but I have to run for now, will come back later to take a look. You can leave it for me if you like or I will return.  Kaisershatner 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq subsection of United States article
Hi Morphh - I believe the information you added to the Iraq subsection of the History section of the United States article is too detailed for this article, especially when you consider the length of the other subsections. Consider that the Great Depression and Vietnam War are addressed in one sentence each. Just because Iraq is a modern event doesn't mean it should have a longer explanation, IMO. -22:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been watching the changes and reviewed the other headers in the history and am fine with the changes. After seeing WWI & WWII lumped together as well as the Cold war and Civil rights togehter, I determined that it was more grouping based on time and similarity.  My initial concern was that they were grouped because of the idea that Iraq was involved in 9/11.  It is now presented much better so they are two events just under the same heading for grouping purposes.  Morphh (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

FairTax
Out of curiosity, have you read the book? --Scott McNay 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep - I've read "The FairTax Book" and "America's Best Kept Secret Fairtax". I've also read most of the whitepapers / and about every analysis on the FairTax that I can find.  Morphh (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering; I got "The FairTax Book" last week and just got through reading it, and there seem to be some points that I noticed in the book which are not covered well in the article which seem to be worth mentioning. As I have some time, I'll go through the book again and make notes. --Scott McNay 14:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On my screen, with the images the way that you like them, the "[Edit]" links BOTH appear overlaying the end of the first line of text in the == Monthly tax rebate == paragraph; that's what I was trying to fix. --Scott McNay 16:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's now technically correct, looks correct, and the images are where you want them to be (which is also where they should be). --Scott McNay 16:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. I was going to say... "I think I've seen that on Firefox.  The other option would be to slit them under their sections but on higher resolutions this creates a gap between the two sections.  I'll take a look and see what we can do."  Morphh (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to run through a few different possibilities to see what looks best. I have a firefox system with lower resolution I can test this on and compare it to a high resolution system (1900x1200) using IE.  Unfortuantly, I can't test it with the "show preview" option as it does not show the edit buttons... so I'd have to save it every time.. and then revert it back if it doesn't improve.  I was going to try a split but above the header and then together but below the first header.  If the Firefox problem goes away with using either of those two options, it would probably look better to IE at high res.  Morphh (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to change resolutions or whatever; just resize the window. --Scott McNay 17:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see a slight overlap of "[Edit]" with the text when the second image is linked above the section title, in FF. Looks ok in IE7. --Scott McNay 17:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Did the other option look correct? Both of these options looked better to me then your last image edit so take a look and see what fixes it.  :-)  Morphh (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I got the impression that people were claiming it to be regressive because they hadn't understood it properly. --Scott McNay 17:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they're trying to be very technical and deceptive (in my view). The FairTax is regressive (on income) looking at it from the United States definition.  However, our definition is one that was based on income taxation and based on a "one year" mindset.  The intent or idea of what regressive or progressive and what other tax systems suggest is what we describe as progressive (on consumption) or the progressive effect over the lifetime of the taxpayer.  It is the difference of what portion of your income is taxed vs the effective tax rate.  Mr. poor person consumes 100% of his income this year while Mr. rich consumes only 60% this year.  This is regressive per the critics definition.  However, Mr. poor is paying a 0% tax rate while Mr. rich is paying much higher (again only for one year timeframe).  If you look over the lifetime, Mr. rich probably consumes the other 40%, so he also consumes 100% of his income.  I think it is just semantics when your talking about a income tax based system or a consumption based system.  They want to apply their specific definition to the term instead of the concept and worldly definition of progressive.  Looking at the progressive tax page, they have change this site quite a bit since I last looked and it looks as if it is more worldly and applies to our definition of progressive.  Perhaps it is just a misunderstanding... but it is certainly a debated point for opponents. Morphh (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yay! Got it to look right over here, in both FF 1.5.0.7 and IE 7.  Please confirm.  Probably should do the same to the first image to make them look the same. --
 * Looks good! :-)  19:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(reset)

If the definition of "progressive" is that it gives a break to the poor, then it is progressive, and anything else is handwaving. --Scott McNay 21:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fact tag
Hi, atm I think it is just rule of thumb. I have seen 7 days listed someplace as proposed policy, and others have used it (that’s where I got the idea), but I am not so sure that it is policy per say right now.

WP:RS Tagging unsourced material says: “remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.” That leaves it open, but often even when the edit box says seven days, more time then that has transpired. Cheers, Brimba 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not much is up
I just don't think it's right to be displaying my acomplsiments on a page. Tobyk777 04:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hannity.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hannity.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * At the time, there was no freely licensed image available. It was the only image and was appropriate FairUse at the time.  I added the image as part of the WikiBiography project.  I don't regularly watch that article so I was unaware of the alternate image.  I have no objections to the removal and believe the page has since been changed to use the free pic.  Morphh (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

FairTax and a cultural shift toward Sustainable Living
Morphh, I understand what you are saying about support for the statement I had added and you put on the discussion page. Huh. I'm kind of stumped as I searched and I can find no real research that supports the suggestion, but I believe it deeply. Though I believe it not only is logical, I know I personally would be strongly influenced toward considering used stuff rather than new when I needed to purchase something. Currently, though I claim to support sustainable living and re-use, the unfortunate reality is I don't think about it - with a monetary incentive, I would always think about it. What's the answer here? How do we speak this possiblity and belief into the article? It should be there for people to consider. How about saying "Though no research has been found to support this, many believe... ... and on the other hand ... suggests it would not be so."? Or something like that? Pbgiv 23:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

FairTaxGroups.com link
Someone asserted previously that FairTaxGroups.com deletes their anit-fairtax posts. First of all, I can tell you from experience that FairTaxGroups does not just delete posts that dont agree with the FairTax. So long as a post makes a clear argument that is factually accurate and does not consist of pure speculation, as many of the anti-fairtax posts on there do, they let them be and encourage discussion on the topic. The basic rule is, if someone finds a real fault of the fairtax, and no tax plan is perfect, and discussion of that fault is constructive, as in, it provokes real consideration and a logical exchange, then the post discussion is welcome. Discussions like that are productive, are often brought to the attention of AFFT people, and could ultimately lead to improvements in the plan or to solve previously un-recognized issues with the FairTax and its possible implimentation. What they do not allow on the site, is for anti-fairtax people to use the site as soap box to hijack conversations, troll, and pick fights. On many occasions anti-fairtaxers with an ax to grind, start threads in sections such as the Newcomer Questions and Answers section, which is supposed to be a help section and then rant about some topic and follow it up with what ammounts to a rhetorical question just to get a rise out of people. Its a violation of the site rules to post that kind of discussion in the newcomer help section. It would be like going on a car thread, finding the section on how to soup up your honda, and then posting about how nissans are better all over the place. Those posts get deleted.

Furthermore, the fairtax movement is a grassroots movement. there were over 500,000 signed supporters of the movement long before neal boortz even wrote his book or made the topic an notable issue on his radio show. its been growing for more than 20 years. The site FairTaxGroups.com is arguably the second most visited FairTax website on the internet next to fairtax.org and is an undeniable part of the grassroots movement as it is used by littlerally thousands of fairtaxers and visitors that wish to read about the fairtax and learn for themselves. As an integral part of the grassroots movement, it more than warrants a place on the external links section. Remember, john linder is an obvious supporter of the fairtax, and you would never consider leaving his website off the list. The fairtax is a grassroots movement and fairtaxgroups.com is part of that movement, part of the story of the fairtax. to leave it off the list does the readers of this article a disservice.


 * Thanks for the post and I am quite familiar with the site. I've posted there on many occasions.  I left the link in the section describing grassroots.  I also posted on the discussion page of the article outlining my thoughts on the subject.  Keep in mind this is not a normal website - it is an encyclopedia and has to follow certain guidelines.  I think the FairTaxgroups.com site borderlines on some of those guidelines as described in the talk.  However, I did feel it was appropriate for the Americans For Fair Taxation article.  Please post to the talk on your comments or I'll post these so that others can consider the link placement. Morphh (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Im not sure how to post to the "talk" thing yet. I'm not sure what specifically you have an issue with regarding the link for FairTaxGroups?


 * Here is a link to the post. I do really like the site - I do agree that it is probably the best resource aside from FairTax.org.  I'm not removing it because I dislike the site or dislike the FairTax.  I'm a fan of both.  Morphh (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:RichardEbeling.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RichardEbeling.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - tried to find a free image but was unable to find one. Morphh (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My user page
Ok.. gotta ask - what's up with your user page and all the banners and such? 16 of them... Morphh (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was testing the addition of an optional banner to Template:Update after, for use at the top of articles; I was having trouble getting it to work right. I didn't want to modify the live template, since it was already being used in articles.  I've been meaning to make an Update after template to go along with it.  I've taken the test template out, so it should look better now. :)  Email me if want to discuss other things.  --Scott McNay 04:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: FairTax
Excellent catch. I read the article twice to find that information; I must have missed it.UMassCowboy 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey!
Hey Morphh, glad u dropped me a line. Really briefly, I'm gonna be around Wikipedia, but my focus will be much more narrow (in terms of editing). I really doubt that I'll have anything else siginificant to contribute to the FairTax article. In fact, I'm going to limit my focus to one article at a time. I'm really glad to see the progress at the FairTax article. Hope it continues, and all goes well for you. --Trevdna 07:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Consumption tax
Hi, previously there was a statement that VAT "is known as "consumption tax" [in some countries]" but this was changed. I've taken the tag down now. Thanks for the notice. Shawnc 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)