User talk:Morphh/Archive6

Re: FA economics challenge
I'll see what I can do but I don't know much about the topic (I'm Canadian, to begin with). Gary King ( talk ) 16:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hall-Rabushka flat tax
Hey Morphh, how's it hangin'? I haven't talked to you in a while, but I liked your entry on the Hall-Rabushka flat tax. I had never heard of this particular flat tax proposal. So I've decided to award you a barnstar for it.


 * Cool! Thanks.. Lately, I've just been trying to keep up. :-)  Morphh   (talk) 14:21, 09 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO
According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (John Stossel) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS and that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ECON/A favor
If you find the time, could you take a minute to form an opinion about the importance of Hicksian demand function to WP:ECON, and weigh in on the discussion? So far this one article is in dispute, and I'd like to start building consensus around the importance criteria. Thanks, I appreciate it. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: FairTax
I have responded to your comments on the FairTax article. I'm sorry to hear you don't agree with my opinion (I promise, I'm by no means a moderator of the discussion!) but it seems that Kbs666 and Looie have provided very reasonable explanations of their proposed changes. Whereas, it seems to be that you appear to be opposing them based upon you having to find new sources. If you wish to find another mediator in the cabal, or another mediator over at the committee, you are welcome to do so. Once again, my apologies, but being a little more courteous towards me in future might get you further. Kind regards —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's right to call me a moderator of the discussion, I'm simply an outsider as a third-party. I have no more control over the article than anyone else. I appreciate your concerns and I'm aware that I well and truly 'fucked up' on this one, so I'm probably going to step out of the dispute and allow someone else to take over should you need it. Thanks for your comments though and I hope we've solved t.he bad start we seem to have had with our introduction. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 15:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tax haven
It wasn't a revert so much as the removal of an unjustified assessment. The guidelines for assessments say that the reasons for an assessments should be given. Are *you* saying that you think the article warrants B and B? If so, please justify that. I think the article needs lots of work before it would merit such a mark. Let's continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to reassess it if you'd like but it appears like a lower B class article based on the content and references. Perhaps not.   Morphh   (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Econ template
It seems like most folks are staying out of the discussion. If there's not much more comment, I'd take that as silent consensus to at least take the experiment to the next step and put it in the article. That will hopefully inspire anyone disagreeing to pipe up. C RETOG 8(t/c) 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. :-) Morphh   (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again, Morphh. I did not comment on your last ("Haha") Edit, b/c I took it all as humorous lament. If I'm mistaken, would you consider clarifying, here or wherever? Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On your recent "quick comment" on the Talk page, I did not want to get in the way of it but did wish at least to acknowledge its forthrightness. Combining (A) and (B) would indeed be a really not-good idea. I regret any obscurity on the point. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith image question
I've been addressing Adam Smith's GA review, and I came across this image, to which Protonk noted:

"This permission '...Banks' permission ref. FCA/9292B.' is pretty cool. Anyway we can verify this, or better, get them to email WP:OTRS?"

I was wondering if you could follow up on that, or let me know what needs to be done? Otherwise no biggie, I think, since it's fair use anyway. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Motto of the day
Hello, I notice you're using one of the motd templates, run by Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Email
Thank you for your help. I knew it is possible for other editors to contact you once you have your email on your preferences, but I did not know where the "Email this user" link was. Thanks again.

Pacluc (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dale W. Jorgenson and FairTax?
I would've thought there would be some mention of the FairTax at this article, though I do see an article linked there called Efficient Taxation of Income. Brian Pearson (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The FairTax is briefly mentioned on there. I'm not sure that it would merit much more weight than it is already given.  Morphh   (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics
Hi Morphh,

I thought you would like to know that we are trying to hammer out a consensus about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics. Please drop by and leave your comments.

thanks, lk (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've been periodically watching the discussion. I'll try to leave some comments later today.  Morphh   (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Related... Hello Morphh, I've seen your comments. I'm just holding off my reply for a while in case someone else wants to chime in. C RETOG 8(t/c) 21:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Morphh--I don't think this will be helpful in the regular discussion. Anyway, regarding Ron Paul & Austrianism--in a way that might indicate notability, but keep in mind how many U.S. congressfolk believe in creationism as a point of reference. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Creationism will merit different weight depending on the article topic. While it is a minority view (perhaps even fringe) in academics and peer-review journals, it certainly is a significant viewpoint to the general population that can be referenced to many reliable sources. We present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.  While great sources, this is not limited to academics and journals.  The policy allows for additional areas to influence the representation of a particular viewpoint on a topic.  Morphh   (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that User:Lawrencekhoo would really like the policy statement to denounce the Austrian School as dubious, so he clings to things such as that parenthetical note. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Expanding transclude text.
Well, I think Accessibility has been out there long enough. Any ideas for our next project? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was sort of waiting for things to shake out at the MOS wikiproject. If you see some duplication though, I'd be happy to work on a new TT.   Morphh   (talk) 2:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'll be in touch. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Say, I just came across this: MOS:SCROLL. Does that mean we should avoid show/hide in Transclude text? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting... I agree with that, but I don't know if it applies to the Transclude situation. In any normal article, that makes perfect sense.  What we have done is that on the primary article, we do provide the full text (defaulting to open).  It's only in other similar MOS guidelines that we allow them to quickly see more detailed information, rather than jumping them around.  It is possible it could have those some of the issues described, but we have to weight the alternatives.  MOS might be an acceptable place for this to occur.  At this point, I don't plan to change it unless there is a huge dispute over it.   Morphh   (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Any changes to these two before I turn them loose? User:Butwhatdoiknow/Sandbox2 User:Butwhatdoiknow/Sandbox3 - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At a quick glance they look good. I'll try to look at a bit more tomorrow.   Morphh   (talk) 2:00, 05 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No rush. I will stand by. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Took another look and I think it looks good. One thing that I'm considering is if we should add an nav template to the transcluded text, so that it is easy for editors to jump to the transclusion page without looking at the code and manually going to the template.  I'll add one to your sandbox and you can see what you think.  Morphh   (talk) 13:01, 05 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I went through many different versions on the sandbox so you could step through them. I'm not sure if we should include it or not, and if we do which one...  But here are the ones that I thought looked the best .  Morphh   (talk) 13:35, 05 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My first thought is that we don't want to make transclude text easy to edit. But, I suppose, that isn't a particularly Wikipedian viewpoint. So I'd vote for your second approach - having the discuss and edit options available only when the text is in "show" mode - at least that way the editing is less likely to originate from a point other than the "main" page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. The new talk/edit links don't work at Lead section TT first sentence content and Lead section TT first sentence format. Can you fix them? If so, would you please do so? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * They seem to be working fine. The "hide" text will only display if the template has the "show=yes" or "show=1" set.  It does not dynamically change as you click the show/hide.  If show is on and the template is expanded by default on the MOS page, it will present the "hide" text.  If the template is collapsed by default on the MOS page, it will show the "show" text.   Morphh   (talk) 0:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. I agree, no problem with the show/hide. The problem is with the new talk/edit feature. It currently points to my Sandbox pages and I couldn't figure out how to make it point to the transclude text page so that it opens up the proper edit or talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake. :-) Trying to fix it but it seems the template has a hard coding for the "Template" space. Will try to fix.  Morphh   (talk) 2:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I got it.. I did a substitution and removed the template space coding. Morphh   (talk) 2:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Improving transclude text
That brings up a good thought regarding the monitoring TT. Many more editors are likely to monitor the main MOS pages, but may forget to monitor the TT. So an editor could make a small change that effects multiple MOS pages, without the normal oversite involved with changing an MOS page. If use of TT becomes used moreoften, we should consider ways to better inform the MOS pages that are linked. Perhaps a bot or something. Morphh  (talk) 16:39, 05 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Say, do you mind if I cut and paste this comment (starting with the second sentence) on to the wp:Transclude text talk page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it. :-) Morphh   (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR
I'm getting so tired of WP:NOR. I'm going to quote you on Raul's law #5. If not for the fact that I think that it's just plain silly to demand that every single source refer to the title of the article by name, I'll pack up and go home. lk (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

EcoTax
Hello Morphh--Considering the rigorous work you put into FairTax, I figured I'd point you towards EcoTax. I know nothing about it, except that the article looks like a collection of notions and speculations. If the whim strikes, perhaps you could feel it out for any substance. (My guess is the article should be eliminated and any content distributed to other articles, but that's just gut at the moment.) C RETOG 8(t/c) 04:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll have a look. We have several other tax articles that center around environmental social policy as well.  Carbon tax, Gas Guzzler Tax, Energy Tax Act, and  Polluter pays principle.  Perhaps some merger is appropriate.  Morphh   (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A few fun things...

 * 1) I changed the photo in the Pub Fin template. Do you approve? :)
 * 2) Care to help my out on getting JRB37 approved for FA? Most of the work is done. Some are stating its needs a good copy edit though. Foofighter20x (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the new pic looks great and gives it the proper international look. I'll check out JRB37 when I have a chance.   Morphh   (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Nonpartisan organizations in the United States
Hi there, I just came across Category:Nonpartisan organizations in the United States, which you created a while back, and I'm trying to assess its utility as a category. I'm concerned that there's a subjective determination involved in deciding which orgs should be included and which should not be included. It's possible, though, that this concern could be addressed by a head note laying out clear and easily applied inclusion criteria. I figured that you, as creator, might like to take a stab at it. Let me know if you're interested. Cgingold (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Business and Economics Barnstar
Economics articles are looking a lot better today than they did a year ago, and your efforts have made a major contribution to that. --LK (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool :-) - Thanks! Morphh   (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been away from wikipedia for a while, it's reassuring to see your still doing a great job. This is well deserved, especially the tireless. Congratulations. GameKeeper (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fairtax legistlation reintroduced
The house republicans introduced a new version of the fairtax bill in January. Since you know more about it, you may want to update the fairtax article on the issue. Cheers --LK (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Stability.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stability.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FairTax page
I appreciate the explanation, and I'm glad you did. But I'm kinda mad now. I just spent the last hour reading that report, looking for a good rebuttal. All that time wasted! lol  Josh  ua In  gram   22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A little reply
I replied to a discussion I stumbled upon a few days ago, because I thought most were overlooking something. Brian Pearson (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I know the answer to that one now... I found the answer during my research. It had something to do with the prebate being factored using a non-accommodation model and it inherently includes factoring for taxing itself.  Morphh   (talk) 2:55, 01 May 2009 (UTC)