Jump to content

User talk:Polarscribe/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Polarscribe

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Polarscribe (talk | contribs) at 03:39, 20 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NOTICE: Unsigned postings may be removed at any time for any reason.

Archives:

Thanks for uploading Image:Midohio fcy.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 14:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa International Airport

Hey, how come you removed the Red Side/Blue Side airline listings at TPA? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but it still felt more organized that way. I feel like the article just seems lacking now. Oh well. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs

America West Express

The Game (game)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is usually considered vandalism, even when you are arguing about proper application of WP:V. Thanks Ashibaka tock 15:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and it's a clear content dispute. So please don't suggest or imply those on the other side of your edit war are engaging in vandalism. Let's keep things civil, alright? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 16:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry... diffs looked like he was blanking the whole thing. Ashibaka tock 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, this is not a good use of edit summaries. Please try to refrain from making personal attacks. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Airways

I thought I had reverted out that call sign change. Apparently I still don't know exactly how rollback works since it stayed there. Vegaswikian 18:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from thewolfstar

Hi FCYTravis, I've been involved in editing the Democratic Party (United States) article quite a bit for a few weeks. I went there just now and couldn't help but notice that there is a page protection on the article, and you put it there. Why did you do that? Can you get back to me when you get the chance and let me know? Thanks. thewolfstar 18:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xeni Jardin

Probably removing content from a protected page is not going to be at all helpful for us to resolve this dispute. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not interested in involving myself in the dispute. I am interested in immediately upholding WP:BLP, which states that we are to err on the side of caution at all times when dealing with articles about living people. There is no obvious reason why we should include a random bit of defamatory bloggerel written by an unknown person which cites no sources at all whatsoever. It is up to those who wish to include such material to demonstrate why Wikipedia should care that "the temple of me blog" wrote something nasty about Ms. Jardin. What makes "the temple of me blog" an authoritative source on such matters? Until such has been satisfactorily explained, it may not be included. I invite you to examine our policies and guidelines relating to biographies of living people. FCYTravis 06:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that you are seeing the messy result of an edit war, which left the page in even worse disarray. The phrase you removed "allegedly irresponsible journalistic practices" referred to a section that was ripped out earlier, which was about XJ mixing photos from the Minuteman Project with unrelated anti-immigrant posters, and not telling her audience they were from two-plus different sets of people. I have no problem whatsoever with you removing parts that violate WP policy or guidelines (though...just a thought...since it's protected, maybe that should be limited to policy temporarily), but those edits should probably not be based on the current, mangled due to edit war, revision. In any case, it appears that you did involve yourself in the dispute on the talk page, and not in the RfC where this issue is really going to be resolved. That, itself, doesn't help move this along. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You'll note my name signed below. I have a website. You've mentioned or alluded to my website twice seemingly without researching the facts for yourself. You wrote above: "There is no obvious reason why we should include a random bit of defamatory bloggerel (1) written by an unknown person (2) which cites no sources at all whatsoever. (3) It is up to those who wish to include such material to demonstrate why Wikipedia should care that "the temple of me blog" wrote something nasty about Ms. Jardin. (4) What makes "the temple of me blog" an authoritative source on such matters?" (5)

(1) What "defamatory bloggerel" have I written on Ms Jardin? Can you point to the "harmful and often untrue" information about Ms Jardin you claim I have posted?

(2) I am not unknown. Many people know and use my full name. Because I don't use it to sign my editorials does not mean they are anonymous. As a journalist I am sure you could find me to get your information directly from a source if that is your goal.

(3) In my editorial on the actions of Ms Jardin (and others) I cited every point I discussed. Did you read the editorial?

(4) "Something nasty" about Ms Jardin? Exactly what did I write that you consider "nasty?"

(5) The Temple of Me is not an "authoritive source" by Wikipedia standards. If you read the Talk page on Ms Jardin's article you would have seen the numerous times where I argued such. As soon as I realized someone had cited (and misquoted) my editorial I joined the Talk and posted that websites are not notible. Note that I "joined the talk." I never edited the article itself.

I would welcome any questions you have about my site, my editorial, or my posts on the Talk page. domoni 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Many people know and use my full name. Because I don't use it to sign my editorials does not mean they are anonymous." - this is nonsense, and you are not a journalist, you are a computer programmer or office worker who writes a blog for a hobby. If a writer chooses to use a pseudonym he absolves himself of personal responsibility for his work. If a writer does not have the courage to use his or her real name then that writer's words have very little weight or authority. Christopher Hitchens does not use a fake name for the sake of convenience, and neither does Noam Chomsky. Ashley Pomeroy 16:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ashley Pomeroy? Isn't this the talk page for user FCYTravis? I have watched the past week as someone followed searches to my site. If that was your research I applaud your effort. If so, as I am neither a computer programmer nor an office worker it is obvious your research failed you. If you did no research then on what evidence do you base your claims? I am sure you would have learned a great deal more simply by reading my website or writing me directly.
You display a lack of understanding about identity, anononymity and pseudonymity. I'd suggest you start your research with Pseudonym. You wrote: "If a writer chooses to use a pseudonym he absolves himself of personal responsibility for his work." shows a misunderstanding between anonymity and pseudonymity. Your mention of Hitchens and Chomsky is merely Hasty_generalization. For a better understanding of identify in this era you might want to look into the concepts of informational self-determination and the work of Coyne and Wiszniewski.
FCYTravis is who I addressed and he has not answered for himself. I have no impetus to discuss my life with you. Your words don't give me the idea that you are acting to achieve understanding, but are merely arguing a point. And I happen to agree with Shaw's view on arguing. (Don't you find it odd that so many Southern Americans think that idiom is a regional construct?) I do wish you continued peace and happiness. domoni 21:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Review

An editor has nominated the closure or deletion of the article Sports betting forum for deletion review. Since you closed the deletion discussion for, or speedy-deleted this article, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. Regards, MartinRe 11:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thanks for your comment, and for voting in my RfA! Much appreciated. The nomination did not gain consensus, but I'm really glad I accepted. - Amgine 20:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders Ernst August

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KP article RFC

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pansophia You showed an interest in Kaiser Permanente this RFC is mainly about that. Midgley 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No posting of results of AfD

There is currently a second AfD for Prisonplanet.com. However, there is no notice on the article's talk page with the results of the previous one, shouldn't there be? I address this to you since you summed up the first one. __meco 09:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put up the notice myself. __meco 10:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les Aspin history deletion

I note that you deleted two revisions from the history of Les Aspin. However, you apparently missed the fact that the libellous information persisted in the article over several subsequent edits in a span of two months, from 28 March to 28 May. The current history of the article makes it look like an innocent editor added the information. Either the two versions should be restored, or all the subsequent edits need to be deleted as well. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the deleted revisions — there's nothing there that isn't found in later revisions as well. Feel free to re-delete, but please get them all this time if you do. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude

I swear I've seen your name before online. It's freaky. I'm thinking AXA, but then again I think a lot of things. I thought it would be important that I tell you this for some reason. --24.223.144.215 07:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Label Group, Richard Hardin

I saw the article at http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:tfBmnbIy0IsJ:www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm%3Fsid%3D1778+%22Richard+Hardin%22+%22con+artist%22&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a about Richard Hardin being arrested as a con artist. I would be inclined to keep both articles Relevant Label Group (which was deleted earlier today) and Richard Hardin but rewrite both to indicate that a scam is involved. At the same time, it might be worthwhile to create an article on Relevant Media Group http://www.relevantmediagroup.com/ , the real company whose identity Richard Hardin apparently appropriated. TruthbringerToronto 14:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMO there's not enough information available to write articles. The only verifiable and reliable source out there is that single WRCB-TV news brief. That's not enough to base an article on. Even if it was, I don't think Wikipedia needs articles on every person ever accused of fraud or who is alleged to be a con artist. He's just genuinely non-notable. FCYTravis 19:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana flag on your user page

Can you please replace instances of [[Image:Louisiana state flag.png]] with [[Image:Flag of Louisiana.svg]] on your user page? My bot was not capable of doing this automatically, since your user page is protected. Thank you! —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 02:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Your comments at User_talk:Pschemp

I see that you corrected my mistake at User_talk:Pschemp. At no point have the "sock" you pointed out and this account edited the same article, participated in the same vote, etc. Thus, I have never violated the wikipedia sockpuppet policy with these two accounts. Given that it is completely legitimate to have multple accounts if used appropriately, I wonder what purpose your pointing out this mistakes makes. I honestly do not want any trouble and made a seincere commitment to user:Pschemp not to cause any trouble. Why would you want to cause problems for me? Interestingstuffadder 12:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthvm

Can you elaborate on your decision to unblock this user? Let us accept that I chose the incorrect template for recommending deletion of the article Lawtons? Despite that, the user's behavior (as determined by two other admins) amounted to vandalism there. After having that page Speedy Deleted in large part because at the time the page contained only numerous hangon tags, the user then vandalized my userpage and then his own. After having a short two-day ban on main page edits applied, during that very window, in direct contradiction to warnings from administrators, the user proceeded to vandalize his own page multiple times. This led to a week long ban and the protection of his talk page. Yes, the user absolutely failed to grasp the dispute resolution process, but the process was clearly explained through the normal channels of talk pages and edit summaries. Examination of the history at Lawtons, the history at User talk:Matthvm and at my own main page should clearly demonstrate this. Kershner 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is highly understandable that someone not familiar with the arcane ins and outs of our policies, and not familiar in the least with how we do things, should lash out in frustration. Blocks are not designed to be punitive, but are designed to stop someone from damaging the encyclopedia. This user has never demonstrated any intent to damage the encyclopedia - only an extreme frustration with being prevented from making a good contribution to the encyclopedia. We must not be too hasty with extreme measures when users have demonstrated good faith and Matthvm's contribution was not vandalous but was an attempt to improve our encyclopedia. Blocking is a last resort and results in escalation and frustration, as we have seen here today. In my judgement, the causative factor of the user's behaviour was an overzealous use of the delete button and a failure to assume good faith on the part of established Wikipedia users. FCYTravis 21:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthvm has had a history of this, however. It is not about the Lawtons article (which I agree is notable), it is about his total disregard for WP:CIVIL, his repeated removal of warnings and his blanking of his talk page. I have been insulted and threatened with admin action by him before over a simple content dispute (when I produced 3 sources proving him wrong, he still called me a vandal). He may assume good faith, but is incapable of resolving disputes without drastic measures like this. He has had ample time to clean up his act, but still refuses to do so. Kirjtc2 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FCYTravis, I have to support Kershner here. Matthvm has been removing templates from his talk page, and after being told to cut it out several times, he keeps on doing it. We weren't warning him to be punitive. By unblocking this user, you've completely undermined King of Hearts, AmiDaniel, Kershner, and me. Do you think it's a good thing for administrators to have an edit war? - Richardcavell 22:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He removed templates from his talk page because an article he created was inappropriately deleted, and when he did something about it, he was rewarded with the template "blatantvandal," placed there by Kershner - is that how we respond to people who complain about an article they wrote being deleted? Matthvm was completely correct when he removed the db-repost template, because it was an inappropriate use of that template. An article that is speedily deleted may be recreated, and anyone then wishing to delete it should then use a non-speedy process such as PROD or AfD.
From WP:CSD: "In case of a speedily-deleted page (before invoking CSD-G4) they must also determine that it met a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place." The article in question met zero speedy deletion criteria. The author contested Kershner's claim that it was a vanity article, and per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead."
I think it is a good thing for administrators to make the right decisions, and if an administrator makes a bad decision it is incumbent upon other administrators to correct them. No administrator is infallible - we all make mistakes and that includes me. It is hardly an "edit war" to unblock a user who I believe was wrongfully and excessively blocked. FCYTravis 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please excuse my ignorance if the following point is incorrect, but it was my understanding that the original creator of an article may not remove a speedy delete flag even if he feels that the tag was placed in error. Instead the correct procedure is to apply a hangon flag and explain the circumstances on talk at which point an administrator will make a decision. Additionally, it should be noted that Matthvm would not have received any kind of warning for adding a hangon, but repeatedly adding a dozen hangons is vandalism. At no point did I remove the hangon tag from his article, all I did was reduce them to one at which point he reverted to a state with many. Even had that been the only behavior, it was only when the individual began to take out his frustration on my userpage and on his own talk page that I sought administrative assistance. That should have been the end of the process, but instead, the very next day, Matthvm vandalized his own talk page in spite of multiple warnings and through multiple reverts. Your objection appears to be that this issue arose over an eventually valid article. It should be noted that the article was speedy deleted at least once with identical content before this issue arose at which point it was immediately reposted by Matthvm with no changes to content. It was for this reason that I mistakenly used the db-repost template. The article was functionally identical to the 10-sec earlier deleted version. This user deserved a block not exclusively because of his conduct at Lawtons but instead because of his conduct as a whole. Kershner 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to continue this discussion further, but now that Matthvm has been unblocked, he seems to believe that his behavior is appropriate. As such he is going through my talk page and adding comments critisizing long ended discussions on deletions and urging others to report my behavior. This is in spite of a concerted effort on my part (see his talk page under Dispute Resolution) to make good and explain the process. Kershner 22:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And he has agreed to stop (admittedly after testing my patience!) If he does it again, I'll personally block him. Here's the thing - I recognize where you're coming from, but this all has its roots in a mistake by us. Put yourself in his shoes - you've just written an article in good faith and it winds up deleted for what appears to be no particular reason. Ya know what? I'd be pretty pissed off too. If this had been a junk spam vanity article, then absolutely the actions here would have been correct. However, it wasn't - it was about a perfectly valid, important and encyclopedic article that was deleted out of ignorance or haste or whatever. Everything that happened here resulted from an inappropriate deletion action. If we had not failed there, none of this would have happened in this particular case. FCYTravis 23:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how to proceed here. Is it appropriate for me to revert his comments saying "rv - Removed comments by Matthvm posted in bad faith." I don't want to cross the line, but I'd prefer if his aggression against me didn't spill over onto my talk page in every topic. While he has stopped for the moment, the uncivil remarks remain. Kershner 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PHL page external links

The problem with those links that I removed, and which you reverted, is that one is commercial, and the other is opinionated and nonencyclopedic. I don't want to get in to a revert war, but think hard about Wikipedia standards, and hopefully you'll revert back to my revisions. Thanks. Trevormartin227 13:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither page is commercial, and there is absolutely nothing in our external links policy which says we don't link to "opinionated" sites. The PHL Citizens Watch site is an example of something we should link to per "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." We have a prominent discussion of the capacity and expansion issues affecting PHL. We have links to the airport's point of view, expressed on their Web site, while the Citizens Watch link gives readers a chance to explore the point of view of those opposed to noise, expansion, etc. The "Wings Over Philadelphia" page offers "neutral and accurate material not already in the article... (with) a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." The link exchange banners, etc. are hardly an "objectionable amount of advertising." FCYTravis 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Hello. A userbox you are using (Template:User gay) has been moved to user space per WP:GUS. The new link is User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User gay. The link currently being used on your page is a cross-namespace redirect and will not last. If you wish to keep your userbox, it is advisable to change to the new link. I would do this for you, however, your user page is protected and I cannot edit it. Thank you. —Mira 04:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Van Flandern

Heh, I like it! Less is more and all that. I hope you do likewise with Jack Sarfatti, but I can predict that a sane appraisal of how many electrons these guys are worth will not stand. WP's processes tend to encourage growth over pruning. Tant pis, since as all real editors know, excision is their most essential task, not insertion. :-/ ---CH 02:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Disambiguation Quote

Good find there in WP:Disambiguation in regards to Talk:Georgia (country). I think disambiguation pages are so much more useful than endless "battles of the continents" or whether, page hits, Google, etc. count! Another wonderful example is Talk:Syracuse that I'm involved in right now as well. This kind of endless WikiWarfare is ultimately going to cause a major rift in the cooperation and effectiveness in the Wikipedia community. -newkai | talk | contribs 20:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


British Isles

Just curious about that litany of citations on Talk:British Isles. Do you have a particular interest in the issue over terminology?--Shtove 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I mistook you for another user who's already well involved. Thanks.--Shtove 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just wondering why there is a personal attack on my links and you keep the other fan sites??? You remove my MediumTV.com site and keep the Medium-TV.com site that was created far after mine. My MediumTV.com and 2andaHalfMen.com were created before any other forums on the subject. They have the right to stay. If you remove my sites, you must remove ALL fan sites. That is only fair. The more I read the Wiki web notability rules the more I wonder how you are in administrator here. I went ahead and removed all the spam that you missed from the Medium page.

--EmmSeeMusic 11:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating Reform Party USA page

I apologize for inadvertantly participating in a revert war. I tried to keep my comments neutral, but it is dificult when I am somewhat partisan on this.

Your edits made the page more NPOV while retaining some of the elements I added. Much appreciated.

Please see my comments in the Discussion section of the RPUSA page for more background/info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America#First_Person_POV_of_current_RPUSA_situation:__Not_wholly_neutral

  • No problem, I don't consider it a revert war at all - just two people working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. The fact that you have a bias is OK - everyone has a bias on something. The fact that you acknowledge it and respect the idea of NPOV when editing articles you have an interest in is what's important. That marks you as someone I have great respect for, because it can be very difficult to juggle the desire to put what one "knows" is right, vs. the knowledge that we have to uphold NPOV. Myself included in that statement! Incidentally I just stumbled on the article through some other links, I'm not involved in the Reform Party. Your efforts to improve the encyclopedia are quite appreciated. Thank you for the kind words! FCYTravis 03:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FairTax study

I noticed that you placed Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy under the section Revenue-neutral rate studies. Do you have a source for this? Was this a study by them or just a statement? If it is a statement, it does not belong in this section. If it was a study, was it based on the FairTax plan as written or did it include exemptions. Also, all of the studies presented are using the legislative framework as a basis for the rate calculation.. is this figure presented "exclusively"? The idea of phantom (government cost) taxation might warrant its own section. However, the calculation of these taxes is misleading as the current system calculates them. It is a wash but to calculate a revenue neutrality, you have to add it in. Though this may be a good discussion for the article. :-) Morphh 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this entry as it was not an analysis of the FairTax but their own made up plan. If we exclude this, this, and this then the FairTax rate would be this. I don't think this is a fair piece to put in this section as it does not show the plan as written. If a section was written on "phantom taxes", perhaps it would fit there but even then I'm not sure what the point is... If we modify the plan to exclude the Government, the rate would be this. The plan does not exclude the Government, or churches or vets - so the point is moot. I think it is ok to criticize the plan for not excluding these things but we don't exclude them today from income taxes so I'm not sure what the point would be. Morphh 19:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding government purchases is a must for rational discussion, because the government paying taxes to itself is just shifting money around. Can you tell me where the revenue is gained when the Department of Defense pays a 23-percent sales tax to the Treasury Department when they buy a new fighter jet? You don't get to exclude criticism just because it fails to fit your predefined notion of what the FairTax is. FCYTravis 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not excluding the criticism. I'm just saying that it is not how the bill is written. The bill says it is going to tax X,Y, & Z. The statement says "If you don't tax Z, the rate is this!". Let's just exclude Y too, and the rate is this. You can't make up your own plan and then critize it claiming that it is the FairTax plan. However, to critize that Z is taxed in the plan is an argument. Now to your question about the fighter jet (taxing Z)... The government currently pays employee income and payroll taxes just like any other business. You could say today that they are paying themselves. You are correct - it is a wash, they get nothing from paying themselves (today or under the FairTax). It's a big money shuffle. The problem comes when you try to do revenue neutral factoring. If I collect $100 today and $20 is the government paying itself. In reality, I would only need $80 to fund the government. So, the FairTax also collects from the government to get $100. Now the IETP screems and says that $20 is just paying itself (buying a jet) and if you remove the $20 you are only collect $80. Then they boost the FairTax rate (as now we're only collect $80) to collect $100. Nice shell game. $80 is all that is needed under the current system and the FairTax, however, they use Government when caclulating the current revenue collected but then don't count it when they want to calculate the FairTax. Morphh 19:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, you are excluding the criticism. It doesn't matter how the "bill is written" - the ITEP claims this, and you cannot exclude it just because you disagree with their conclusions. You may introduce a cited criticism of their criticism but you may not remove this citation simply because you don't like it. FCYTravis 20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with their criticism. I also don't have a problem with them making statements based on their criticisms. They can claim all day that Government and Church services should not be taxed but it does not mean that get to make up FairTax rates based on excluding them. You are not introducing their criticisms in that sentence. What you are doing is just presenting the "what if" factoring. Where does it end? Exclude health care, food, government, etc and you get a 100% tax rate! Should we include this? No - it is not the FairTax plan! It's a made up national sales tax that does not exist. Your including a made up NSRT and presenting the tax rate for it. Yes they are criticizing the FairTax with taxing government but they are presenting a "what if" when discussing that rate. What if we change the FairTax plan so that they do not receive revenue from the Government, Church service, vets, etc. At that point, it stops being a study of the FairTax plan and becomes a comparison plan. It's not a matter of if I like it or not. I don't like the Gale studies, however, he presents a rate that is of the FairTax plan as written. In his articles he includes numbers up to rates of 60% when he starts excluding things. They are not included as they are not the FairTax plan. Morphh 20:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read my talk please - your change does not flow logical. I think your doing what you accused me of.. moving it up for the reason of making it look bad. While I am moving it for the logical flow of the page. You are including an analysis to make it look bad. No other analysis is present in this section and their is no rebuttal. Morphh 21:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how hard I worked to get that GA? I spent many nights working on sources - look at the history. You just removed it because of a simple dispute. Not cool! Morphh 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be able to go straight to Featured Article Candidates once we resolve these disputes. It's plenty comprehensive, has some good illustrations (perhaps we can find a photo of a FairTax rally somewhere to illustrate the political movement?) and is fairly well-written - but I object to what I perceive is a POV. The Good Article requirements state that the article should be stable and not have an ongoing edit war. Well, we've got an ongoing (but civil) edit war/dispute, and thus it really shouldn't be listed thereunder. FCYTravis 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - Just wanted to let you know that I replied to you on my talk page. I still think this is a GA. We had a couple reverts but I was making changes to it trying to compromise. There was little discussion on what we could do to make it better and work together on it. The article had very little changes in content for quite a while until your additions this week. I wouldn't call that unstable but ongoing improvement. Most of my changes were copyedits with exception of two points - the ITEP, which I compromised on, and the Tax panel quote in the rate section. My next thought was to keep the quote but address it in the next paragraph as critiques of the rate studies. I think this would have satisfied my desire for legislative flow and your desire to include the quote. The section will then grow as a counter point is included but I'm willing to do so if you think it would read better. I think you jumped the gun with removing the GA. Morphh 00:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ionized bracelet#Ionization

Could you help me with this section? I see you removed the template I put there because I apparently wasn't using it properly. I feel that the entire section should be removed, actually, but I already deleted a similar contribution once, and I really don't like doing that. The section in question is poorly written, references no sources, and exists only to label QT Inc. as charlatans selling worthless hunks of solid steel. QT Inc. says they have a secretive ionization process, but from everything we know about ionization, this seems highly unlikely. However, it is not our place to call them liars in an encyclopedic entry. At least not without reputable sources.

What should I do? Should I just post the above argument in the discussion page and strong-arm any contributors who come along crying shenanigans? –Gunslinger47 07:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited your userpage

Sorry for editing your userpage, but I thought it's better than leaving you with a redlink. Conscious 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Heh heh, DVC, eh?

Oooh, cool. So many people from all over the place, and here we are in each other's backyards. :) Luna Santin 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Changes to RDU page?

Why all the drastic changes to the RDU page? I found it was easier to just list the regional partners than to have to constantly go in whenever an airline decide to change partners on a certain route. It also looked more organized and more informative. I just don't get it.

Also, why add the "Renovation" header if it is already covered under "Terminals". That seems very redundant.

I reorganized the regionals and destinations because it's generally our goal to list the mainline and contract carrier destinations as correctly as we possibly can - as is done on all the other airport pages. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports for our style guide to airport articles. If you think that styleguide should be changed, feel free to start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports]] and bring up your point of view. I spend quite a bit of time trying to keep the US destinations up to date... As for the renovations section, I didn't notice that it was already covered, my bad! FCYTravis 03:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polarscribe/Archive_4&oldid=64786346"