:::I said that because he had valid arguments, and when he explained further I thought the arguments were even more valid (the ITEP's federal income tax has yet to be explained in-depth). I have yet to see a rebuttal from you which addresses the substance. Do you think you're editing in a completely nonpartisan fashion? I don't have time read the tens of thousands of bytes you and him have expended in your arguments, but I do notice that you keep saying he wants to use non-peer-reviewed publications but the peer reviewed literature you're relying on isn't immediately apparent to me, especially since you don't like the [[Tax Policy Center]], which publishes working papers on its model, but are partial to the [[Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy]] (ITEP) model, which does not appear to publish details on its model. In any case, the debate over the substance is somewhat irrelevant to the bad faith tone and insults. [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|<span style="font-family: Times">II</span>]] | ([[User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed|t]] - [[Special:Contributions/ImperfectlyInformed|c]]) 03:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:::I said that because he had valid arguments, and when he explained further I thought the arguments were even more valid (the ITEP's federal income tax has yet to be explained in-depth). I have yet to see a rebuttal from you which addresses the substance. Do you think you're editing in a completely nonpartisan fashion? I don't have time read the tens of thousands of bytes you and him have expended in your arguments, but I do notice that you keep saying he wants to use non-peer-reviewed publications but the peer reviewed literature you're relying on isn't immediately apparent to me, especially since you don't like the [[Tax Policy Center]], which publishes working papers on its model, but are partial to the [[Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy]] (ITEP) model, which does not appear to publish details on its model. In any case, the debate over the substance is somewhat irrelevant to the bad faith tone and insults. [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|<span style="font-family: Times">II</span>]] | ([[User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed|t]] - [[Special:Contributions/ImperfectlyInformed|c]]) 03:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
::::[http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/175d710dffc186a385256a31007cb40f/785c5ab0cac6167985257b35007320ca/$FILE/A08_Altshuler.pdf] is the best peer-reviewed source (secondary because it's based on multiple OECD datasets) and [http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/notesview/0102292B0EF57B0F85257B35007299B7/$file/A06_Clausing.pdf] is the peer-reviewed source closest to supporting the idea of a 0% corporate tax incidence on consumers, from the same issue of the same journal, but it's a primary source, with new methods and much weaker conclusions about labor instead of consumers in general. The vast majority of other peer reviewed papers agree with the former in that about half are above and half below its concluded incidence rate of about 60%. The traditional figure on which the ITEP models was based was 45.5%, but that figure is from the 1940s and there are good reasons to believe that tax avoidance and evasion is very different today. There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion. Refraining from editing reinforces the status quo which is mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense. The only way to achieve neutrality is to counter that systemic bias. It's not a case of both sides being equally valid. They are not; one side has models that can predict historical outcomes from prior empirical data, and the other does not. The same side has far more support in the peer reviewed literature. The same side is mathematically accurate. Trying to give equal weight to both sides introduces bases against valid hypotheses, biases against the peer reviewed secondary literature, and biases against mathematical accuracy. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT#top|talk]]) 08:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
::::[http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/175d710dffc186a385256a31007cb40f/785c5ab0cac6167985257b35007320ca/$FILE/A08_Altshuler.pdf] is the best peer-reviewed source (secondary because it's based on multiple OECD datasets) and [http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/notesview/0102292B0EF57B0F85257B35007299B7/$file/A06_Clausing.pdf] is the peer-reviewed source closest to supporting the idea of a 0% corporate tax incidence on consumers, from the same issue of the same journal, but it's a primary source, with new methods and much weaker conclusions about labor instead of consumers in general. The vast majority of other peer reviewed papers agree with the former in that about half are above and half below its concluded incidence rate of about 60%. The traditional figure on which the ITEP models was based was 45.5%, but that figure is from the 1940s and there are good reasons to believe that tax avoidance and evasion is very different today. There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion. Refraining from editing reinforces the status quo which is mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense. The only way to achieve neutrality is to counter that systemic bias. It's not a case of both sides being equally valid. They are not; one side has models that can predict historical outcomes from prior empirical data, and the other does not. The same side has far more support in the peer reviewed literature. The same side is mathematically accurate. Trying to give equal weight to both sides introduces bases against valid hypotheses, biases against the peer reviewed secondary literature, and biases against mathematical accuracy. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT#top|talk]]) 08:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::Ellen, your so called [http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/175d710dffc186a385256a31007cb40f/785c5ab0cac6167985257b35007320ca/$FILE/A08_Altshuler.pdf "best" source] doesn't even mention the word "consumers". This is an irrelevant tangent to begin with, but do you have a single sourced quote supporting your claims about consumers? [[User:VictorD7|VictorD7]] ([[User talk:VictorD7|talk]]) 07:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Another [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APolitical_debates_about_the_United_States_federal_budget&diff=589455486&oldid=589454038 personal attack], which is a false accusation as well. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>16:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)</i></small>
Another [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APolitical_debates_about_the_United_States_federal_budget&diff=589455486&oldid=589454038 personal attack], which is a false accusation as well. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>16:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)</i></small>
Revision as of 07:34, 7 January 2014
This is EllenCT's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Hi there! I'm happy to help you with anything. You may have noticed that I responded to one of your talk page suggestions. I really encourage you to be bold. Find a subject and spend some time focusing on it for a few hours and crafting some good language. II | (t - c) 08:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the automated message; I am a real person and I appreciate some of your suggestions on talk pages. II | (t - c) 08:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EllenCT, you are invited to the Teahouse
Hi EllenCT! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)
Hi, saw your short live question at the Teahouse about how to use ref tags and cite templates. Not a problem but a quick crash course in how to display them without upsetting the formatting :-) There's a very useful set of tags called <nowiki> </nowiki> which if you put them round anything else stop the wiki software acting upon those tags so to display <ref> without it affecting anything else I put nowiki tags round it. It's the same with {{cite}} or any other code.
Anyway to business, ref tags and cite templates are used mostly for Inline citations. The basics are:
"Add the article text that you want to reference<ref>Add the reference details in between some ref tags</ref>"
and then at the bottom of the article add {{reflist}} which is point at which the software will display all the references added. What you use for the reference details is up to you but this is where the family of {{citation}} templates come into their own.
There are quite a lot, but there are four that are more commonly used that the rest. These are {{cite web}} for web references, {{cite book}} for paper references, {{cite journal}} for sources from paper magazines, academic journals etc and {{cite news}} for news items either online or paper. Each has their own set of parameters which you can see by clicking on the links I've put in but in general there are a number of common parameters such as author(s), url (for online items), title, publisher/publication, date, page numbers (for paper references) etc. You don't have to use all of the parameters, but enough to get information over that would enable a reader to know where to look, if they wanted to look the source up.
I hope this is enough to get you started but if you have any questions either leave a message on here (I've added this page to my watchlist) or stop on by at the Teahouse again. NtheP (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Too big to fail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Fisher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, EllenCT. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ⁓ Hello7102:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, EllenCT! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Very many thanks for the attention you have given to this submission - very helpful. It's good to have an editor who is familiar with the field, New Economics Foundation etc.
The points about prose and references in the benefits section are well taken, and I will revise it along those lines at the weekend.
There's no url for the supplement because it is still in draft form, but I can abstract suitable references from the material to add.
I think I will chip in on the deletion page that Nonsenseferret has initiated and follow up some of the points there. Naturally I'm convinced by your arguments, and impressed that you have found those references, but if it is deleted don't let it discourage you - you may just be ahead of the curve.
Very best wishes
Julianpratt (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hey. you've got some good sourced contribution on U.S. economy. But a couple of observations from an editor without 'a dog in this hunt.' Occasionally articles get a drive-by editor who only looks at long pages, and United States gets an occasional look-see by one of those sorts. So after I expanded U.S. constitution to about how I would like it to be, two editors and me doing some ancillary work alongside, have cut it by one-half. I think at the worst it was third-longest, yuk. my bad.
The editorial guideline/policy they used was "encyclopedic style". So there have been large chunks moved to subsidiary articles, and one spin-off article. Much ruffled feathers at the removal because articles that have "always been political science" and those which have "always been philosophy" did not appreciate spill-over from 'constitutional history', and what is that in a faculty senate, anyway, so over time, most have been removed as not "germane". But generally I have found that Wikipedia --- apart from occasional proprietary turf wars --- is open to "expanding knowledge" of contributions of sourced information. [Aside. You can print out old editions, or mirror them on your own 'sandbox' or 'editor:article' page, so I have printed out 'my' WP articles in a notebook for my two daughters when I go. There is no time left to make things right, and keep them right for the sake of Wikipedia. I make a contribution and move on, except for maybe make a stand for 19th century Confederate flag-not KKK-not modern secessionist in Confederacy, and maybe modern era full citizens-not second-class aliens in territories. There is more to do for my notebook for my girls, see next paragraph.]
Oh, yes, the point is that much of your latest contributions at 'United States' which are resisted there, might be welcomed at another linked subsidiary article. Also, I have found that lots of subsidiary articles are not linked into general articles. For instance, at one time, a delightful project editors initiated some time ago, a series of historical-context ""[state, city] in the American Civil War]"" had not been linked in the "See also" section of WP-self reference links at 'American Civil War' at one time. Likewise because there was no project, the nomenclature for "[nationality/ethnicity] in the American Civil War" articles were of various formats and titles, so harder to put together for African-American, Irish, German, Italian ethnics, Canadian, foreign, Mexican nationalities. I have not gotten to the Amerindian tribes. Those 'first-nations' were divided North and South each among the Five in Oklahoma, the Plains Indians made war on everybody. The Mexican reference at WP has no separate article, it is buried in a subsection of a memorial bridge, so it is periodically removed by someone with a bot? or a POV? removing the link to a bridge about Mexicans as not-germane. I suppose I should take it upon myself to create the 'Mexicans in the American Civil War' article.
An-y-wa-y, the point, the encyclopedia would be well served if you find a subsidiary article which fits your contribution more detailed economic information that is resisted in a summary-topic-type article, then you make sure it gets connected in the 'United States' article either by a subsection link "Main article" or at the bottom in the "See also" section, so there is a link for those pursuing more detailed economic metrics. The links are an easier sell because they are short (do not interrupt the summary narrative), sweet (lends depth and thereby stature to the article) and unobtrusive (if one-blue-lined link. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently removed a paragraph from Initial Public Offering that you may have worked on, or contributed to. The paragraph contained allegations made by a plaintiff in an ongoing lawsuit, and was supported with a reference to a NYT Op/Ed piece. The allegations were presented as fact, rather than allegations. The Op/Ed piece was presented as fact, rather than as an opinion of the specific author. The author's interpretations of legal documents and securities underwriting activities were presented as fact, without reference to the author's background and knowledge of either the law or corporate finance. No attempt was made within the paragraph to present a balanced presentation of arguments made by both sides of the issue. The paragraph heading was inflammatory, and presumed the truth of Plaintiff's allegations.
I believe that the information you were attempting to present does have a place within the article. But that would require a re-write, as a neutral, with careful attention paid to the sorting out (and identification) of facts from allegations and opinions. Gulbenk (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you advice on how to improve the presentation. I'm glad that you're willing to help. The next step is to recreate User:Mcnabber091/Economy of the United States for all 196 countries. I would be very happy if you were willing to help create new wiki articles for more countries (ex. China, Sweden, United Kingdom, Ethiopia, Monaco, Nauru, Japan, etc.). Partial data is all I'm looking for. Copy/paste from: User:Mcnabber091/Economy of the United StatesMcnabber091 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the tables are necessary for the data being presented. All of the data is in 3 or more columns.There will be sections that are primarily qualitative such as 'History'.Mcnabber091 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once Wikidata is finished, it will be an awesome resource for all wikimedia projects. Wikidata will compliment the Global Economic Map in a great way.Mcnabber091 (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got a job and a near-perfect lab grade, but my graduation is delayed until Fall due to circumstances beyond my control. I am thinking of creating a guide to high-yield bond index funds amenable to foreign investment trusts in the developing world. It seems to me that is how I could help the greatest number while increasing income equality and building my own professional reputation outside of my day-to-day work as an analyst. Have you made contact with Wikidata about your almanac-style project? EllenCT (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only asked the question because "Ellen" is used as the name on the blog. I was not implying WP:COI. I am not John Stossell. I do not have any connection to him or his work. – S. Rich (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless NPOV accusation
Hello, I'm Srich32977. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Economic inequality seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yes, there is a discussion involving you and Morphh. But the issue (in the real world) is not resolved. Seeking to skew the Garret study as an "early" one was not proper. – S. Rich (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This topic has as much to do with "June 2013" as there is evidence that people who think the jury is still out on income inequality have read the math. I thought that policy specified that these discussions should take place on article talk pages, not user talk pages, but perhaps there is some contrary mathematics that I don't know about and as such my ability to judge that 2010 is earlier than 2011 needs to go down on my permanent record. :( EllenCT (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The heading is added automatically by the template bot, and it serves to parse recent postings from others. I've revised it. Not a big issue. I did post the message as a reminder to you about the necessity to follow NPOV, which became a concern in the Economic inequity edit you made. In posting this message, I hope to remind you to look at your edits. The discussion about what should be in the actual article is well underway on that talk page. I shall follow it with interest. Turn that :( into a ! – S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to be happy then please read the sources and answer the questions I've asked. How would you like it if someone accused you of political bias when you knew you were mathematically and otherwise correct? EllenCT (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen, you asked if I was connected with Stossel and I answered. Your questions had absolutely no foundation, but implied COI and bias on my part. On the other hand, I asked you if you were News Hound Ellen because both New Hound and you use the same name. (And given your response, I will continue to WP:AGF.) My concern about income inequality was regarding the particular edit you made some two weeks after the last commentary on the talk page. It was an improper edit because it mischaracterized what the Garret article said.
I am not going to engage in debate with you about income equality in general. That subject is too complex and controversial, and I have other interests. You might be mathematically and politically and otherwise correct, but the issue, for us as Wikipedians, concerns proper editing. Please be careful and don't let your correctness (and/or motivation about the subject) hamper good editing. Jesus told us we will always have the poor amongst us (Matthew 26:11 and Mark 14:7). If that is true, then our edits to WP won't change the world. But we do need to approach our edits with the best NPOV attitude we can muster. – S. Rich (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does. Still, Jesus said decision to help them is voluntary, and Jesus recognizes that helping them directly is a feckless undertaking (because they will always be amongst us). Enormous progress has been made in the last few decades of the 2 millennia to reduce poverty around the world. Moreover, this progress did not come about because people with "good ideas" go about using other people's money to help those who will not help themselves. Is there income/wealth inequality? Yes. But I am not going to get upset about it. – S. Rich (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Feckless"? These last few decades have seen the most poverty reduction where modern post-industrial NGOs such as Doctors without Borders, the Peace Corps, and the World Bank have been throwing around the same mix of donated and other people's tax money as the state-supported missions of the 15th-19th centuries did, but with increasing efficiency and more powerful agricultural tools. EllenCT (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. In Africa, at least, the aid effort has not been too worthwhile. But you are certainly right about more powerful agriculture. Technology, which is developed by corporations and implemented by farmers, has had dramatic impact on reducing hunger -- [2] is part of the story. NGO giveaway programs do not help. In fact, they hinder. – S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you think has been sowing the "high-yielding varieties" mentioned in that Nature Geoscience article, teaching the locals how to tend them, and digging their irrigation channels? Most of the lack of progress in Africa has been due to the AIDS epidemic in the 1990s shown at right and progress there should continue to accelerate. Do you still contend that the voluntary actions separating the Sheep from the Goats at the Last Judgement are "feckless"? EllenCT (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellen, just dropping a note to say hi. I hope you don't mind that I'm keeping on eye on you. Anyway, I don't have anything particular to discuss except to say that I hope you don't get too burnt out or discouraged by the contentious debates around here, and you find the time to stick around, even if on a limited basis. Over the years I've tended to get into the habit of just moving on to another topic when I get into a vicious debate. Perhaps not the best habit, but it can reduce stress. However, I certainly don't want to discourage you from spirited debate. Regards, II | (t - c) 07:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading your commentary on Economic inequity. Thoughtful, intelligent, helpful and well done prose. In less than 4 months and with less than 1,000 edits, you've given us worthwhile food for thought. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latest [[<tvar|technews>m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News</>|tech news]] from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. [[<tvar|more-transl>m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News/2013/28</>|Translations]] are available.
Recent software changes(Not all changes will affect you.)
VisualEditor deployment has been delayed by a week. It is now planned to enable the editor for logged–in editors on chosen Wikipedias on July 22, and on all Wikipedias on July 29.
A bug that made it impossible to save VisualEditor edits that triggered a CAPTCHA has been fixed. [3]
Uploading files has been restricted on Meta Wiki to administrators and the newly created uploader group. An exemption doctrine policy is being developed (bug #50287). [4]
Emergency priority CentralNotice banners will always be shown unless users have hidden them, ignoring cookies set for lower priority banners. [5]
Future software changes
MediaWiki will allow choosing a specific page of a PDF document or a thumbnail of a video file to show up inside the
That's good report you showed me. Thanks for showing me that. I can see how statistics from here such as the wealth estimates might be used in my project (consumer sections).
Thank you, Ellen, for you contributions to the Iraq War article, and your help in bringing about a NPV! I understand the article with be unprotected in 3 days. I hope you will resume your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillneverdie (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep it on my watchlist, but as I said on the talk page, I'm not interested in being repeatedly insulted by one person who has no support and several opposers in an argument going around in circles, in an attempt to replace mainsteam POV with a pro-politician propaganda campaign. EllenCT (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is no point in continuing to debate the WP:Consensus version of the article with CJK on the talk page. I have tried to summarize the issues under the heading “WP:Consensus – CJK’s edits contain original research and move article to a less NPOV” on the talk page. I hope you with continue to contribute your NPOV to the article, which is now unlocked. I do not think we should allow CJK to replace a NPOV article with a pro-politician propaganda campaign. Truthwillneverdie (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.
Recent software changes(Not all changes will affect you.)
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf11) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 18. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on July 22, and on all Wikipedias on July 25. [12]
The schedule to add VisualEditor to non-English Wikipedias has been changed: the new editor will be available for logged-in users on the German (de), Spanish (es), French (fr), Hebrew (he), Italian (it), Dutch (nl), Polish (pl), Russian (ru) and Swedish (sv) Wikipedias on July 24, and for all users on those wikis on July 29. [14]
A warning is now displayed if an edit made with VisualEditor matches an edit filter (bug #50472).
Quick note to register how awesome I think your user name is. Out of curiosity are "C" and "T" initials, or do you hail from the great state of Connecticut? NickCT (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, EllenCT. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello Ellen. I am contacting you to let you know about an RfC regarding Gary North; he is an "Austrian economist" associated with the Mises Institute and I know from the Murray Rothbard page that you have some background knowledge of economics and fringe economics. If you're interested in participating, you can read about the RfC here. Steeletrap (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ellen. Thanks for commenting on the North RfC. I thought I'd give you a quick reply here rather than posting my thoughts on the RfC. (I set up the RfC and am holding off on posting my own thoughts. I've already said a lot in the discussion earlier.) With regard to WP:ABOUTSELF, I'm looking at #3. If North were talking about himself, directly, ABOUTSELF would apply. But some of the stuff quoted in the North article is North talking about others -- American Indians, the Puritans, and homosexuals etc. If there was a secondary source that talked about how North was making such comments, I'd have much less heartburn. But these are North's thoughts all on their lonesome, and they are presented in a negative light. I'd have heartburn too if editors were posting North's positive comments, if those comments were not discussed by secondary sources. Thanks for considering my remarks, and happy editing. – S. Rich (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had never heard of the guy until Steeletrap's message above, but I did read the sources. If someone claiming to have egalitarian motives in their professional life is going to self-publish bigoted and sectarian screeds under their own name on their own blog, I think that says a lot about the author, not just the groups he's writing about. EllenCT (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes; not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf12) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 25. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on July 29, and on all Wikipedias on August 1. [19]
Wikivoyage was offline for around 40 minutes on July 24. [20]
The Notifications and Thanks extensions were added to Meta-Wiki on July 26; other wikis will get them soon. [22]
It is now possible to add edit summaries on Wikidata using the API; the feature will be added to user interface soon. [23]
The software that resizes large PNG images on all wikis was changed on July 25. Resizing of PNG files bigger than 35 megapixels should be faster and more reliable now. [24]
Three new webfonts (Gentium, Old Persian and Shapour) will be added to Universal Language Selector. [25], [26], [27]
Special:MIMESearch, which gives a list of files by type, will be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis with MediaWiki version 1.22/wmf12 (bug #13438). [28]
A mailing list to discuss multimedia features was started; users are encouraged to sign up.
On July 24, VisualEditor was added for logged-in users on the German (de), Spanish (es), French (fr), Hebrew (he), Italian (it), Polish (pl), Russian (ru) and Swedish (sv) Wikipedias; it will be added for all users on those wikis on July 29. [29]
A preference to completely disable VisualEditor while it is in beta phase was added on July 24. [30]
Hi, I'm removing your second RfC tags on the ASCII RfC. Good faith and all but I've never seen it done before that anyone on the 30th day of an RfC adds another alternative RfC, particularly with a massive WP:SNOW as this one. Also as you don't seem to be proposing anything that isn't already done. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the discussion had established that my proposal wasn't part of the policy, even though people thought it was. I'd prefer that you put it back, otherwise I should just open a new one without the benefit of the previous discussion's context. EllenCT (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where people think it is part of policy, I didn't, it is simply what we do. Why chase a problem that doesn't exist? In contrast this RfC addresses a real problem of disruptive editing which has being going on counter a previous WP:SNOW result. If you want to start a separate RfC on Franz Josef Strauss to enshrine what we already do and where a problem doesn't exist, then by all means go ahead and link to the old RfC, but if I might suggest, perhaps take some time to prepare what you want to acheive from such an RfC and identify some actual examples before doing so. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EllenCT. I've seen hundreds of edits made by Collect over the past few years. I can assure you that he believes in the rule of law, including the Geneva Conventions. When I read his comment "it fails the laugh test", I wasn't exactly sure what "it" was referring to. I sort of thought he either meant Democracy Now! as a reliable source or the awards given to Amy Goodman. I did not think he was referring to violations of the Geneva Conventions by US military personnel. No one in his right mind, and that includes Collect, would think such violations are a laughing matter. Collect is under duress at the moment—he and several other innocent bystanders are about to be barred from editing the Tea Party movement article for six months, without a shred of evidence being presented against them. So, he has gone on strike in protest. Thanks for listening and thanks to your family members who are serving in the armed forces of this great country. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that reporting on bad-apple misbehavior endangering all our troops is even tangentially laughable is repulsive to me. EllenCT (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New features
The previous version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf13) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on August 15. It was enabled on non-Wikipedia sites on August 19, and on all Wikipedias on August 22. [37]
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf14) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on August 22. It will be enabled on non-Wikipedia sites on August 26, and on all Wikipedias on August 29. [38]
You can now use the <wbr> HTML5 tag to say where a word can be cut. (52468) [41]
Gadget authors: you can now use the wikipage.content hook, so that your scripts are re-run when a page is changed after the document-ready event (for example using Ajax). (30713) [42]
Problems fixed
There was a bug where file redirects didn't work when a file was renamed; it is now fixed. There is still an issue with purging, but it should be fixed soon. (52200)
Maintenance reports provided by special pages will now all be updated on each wiki every six months. This will for example give you recent information on uncategorized pages, unused templates and most wanted pages (see details).
There was a bug that caused false positives for anti-blanking edit filters; it is now fixed. (52077) [43]
The "edit" and "edit source" tabs and section edit links can now be changed more easily; for example, some wikis are using "edit source" for wikitext editing, and "edit beta" for VisualEditor. You can ask for the same change in bugzilla.
You can now edit references that are added inside a <references> block. (51741)
You can now test on mediawiki.org new basic tools to add and edit struck text (with the button for the <s> tag), lower text ( for <sub>), upper text ( for <sup>), underlined text ( for <u>), computer code ( for <code> and <tt>), math text ( for <math>), Egyptian hieroglyphs ( for <hiero>), and to say that text is in another language ( for lang="ar" dir="rtl"). (51609, 51612, 51611, 51590, 51610, 52352)
You can now use VisualEditor with the Opera browser. [44]
Future
Starting on August 26, you will be able to use data from Wikidata on Wikivoyage sites. [45]
Starting on August 27, you will also get notifications on the mobile site if you're logged in to a wiki using notifications. [46]
Starting on August 28, all users with an account will be using HTTPS to access Wikimedia sites. HTTPS brings better security and improves your privacy. Some countries (like China) will not use HTTPS. If HTTPS causes problems for you, tell us on meta. [47]
Starting on August 29, you will get the code editor interface to edit JavaScript and CSS pages on all wikis. [48]
The plan to use Solr for search in MediaWiki was changed; instead, Elasticsearch is now planned. [49]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New features
Special:Listfiles can now display old versions of files a user has uploaded. A new link was also added (Special:AllMyFiles) that gives a list of all files the current user has ever uploaded (that haven't been deleted).
There is now an Android application to contribute to translatewiki.net from mobile devices. [50]
Hi EllenCT (or is it Ellen?), I hope I don't come off as inflexible on the need for strong source to support that graph. You are a great asset to Wikipedia and I've noted your many positive contributions to the project. I wanted to ask you directly whether you understand the point that we, as editors, cannot construct a point of view on facts from disparate sources. Quoting from the wikipeda article on Logical fallacy:
A logical fallacy associated with this format of argument is referred to as affirming the consequent, which would look like this:
If P then Q
Q
therefore P
This is a fallacy because it does not take into account other possibilities. To illustrate this more clearly, substitute the letters with premises.
If it rains, the street will be wet
The street is wet.
Therefore it rained.
So the frenzy around your idea on the graph is that there are potentially other explanations for the changes in job growth outside of marginal tax rates. Presenting that graph as is, without an outside authoritative source that directly draws that comparison is the nub of the issue. Your sources seem to address other items related to, but not directly addressing this issue. It seems like a lot of energy is being exerted around this so I thought I'd check directly outside of the noise. Mattnad (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Taxes are a leakage from the income stream in the same sense of saving. Equilibrium requires that leakages in the form of net taxes plus saving must be offset by investment expenditures and government purchases of goods and services.... 'our fiscal policy targets have been recast in terms of "full" or "high" employment levels of output, specifically the level of GNP associated with a 4-percent rate of unemployment.'" —Peterson, Wallace C. (1992). "Chapter 9. Public Expenditures, Taxes, and Finance". Income, employment, and economic growth (7th ed.). New York: Norton. pp. 364–70. ISBN0-393-96139-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Quoting Walter Heller.
"inequality in land and income ownership is negatively correlated with subsequent economic growth.... there will be a strong demand for redistribution in societies where a large section of the population does not have access to the productive resources of the economy.... rational voters have to internalize this dynamic problem of social choice." —Alesina, Alberto (1994). "Distributive Politics and Economic Growth"(PDF). Quarterly Journal of Economics. 109 (2): 465–90. doi:10.2307/2118470. Retrieved 17 October 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
"high unemployment rates...have a negative and significant effect when interacting with increases in inequality.... increasing inequality harms growth in countries with high levels of urbanization, as well as in countries with low levels of urbanization in which there is high and persistent unemployment.... High and persistent unemployment is likely associated to increasing inequalities. Furthermore, there are sensible reasons to expect that this process of high and persistent unemployment, in which inequality increases, has a negative effect on subsequent long-run economic growth.... In sum, unemployment may seriously harm growth not only because it is a waste of resources, but also because it has serious distributional effects: it generates redistributive pressures and subsequent distortions; it depreciates existing human capital and deters its accumulation; it drives people to poverty; it results in liquidity constraints that limit labour mobility; and finally it erodes individual selfesteem and promotes social dislocation, unrest and conflict. Hence, the experience of the 1980s, and the subsequent cycle of low long-run economic growth is a cautionary tale about the future risks for growth of high unemployment and increasing inequality in our current times. «The economic slowdown may entail a double-dip in employment... exacerbating inequalities and social discontent... and further delaying economic recovery» (ILO, 2011). Policies aiming at controlling the dramatic rise in unemployment associated to the current crisis, and in particular at reducing its inequality-associated effects, are not just pressing for the obvious current difficulties that they represent for society today, but also because of the handicap that they represent for future long-run growth." —Castells-Quintana, David (2012). "Unemployment and long-run economic growth: The role of income inequality and urbanisation"(PDF). Investigaciones Regionales. 12 (24): 153–173. Retrieved 17 October 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
The first would be P, the second would be Q, and the third is the gigantic leap across a logic chasm you are proposing with no reliable source saying that.Mattnad (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier you wrote "Putting aside none of your sources even mention the US". Clearly you didn't bother to follow the link to Walter Heller who is quoted in the first excerpt. I am interested in discussing this topic with those who are interested enough in it to read about it. That means all three excerpts. EllenCT (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The edited quote you provided did not mention it, but even if it did, that's minor compared to the leaps you are proposing from the source material to the graph or sentence you would like included in various articles. I'll admit that I did not go to a library, get the full text, and try to read it to see that minor point. Perhaps you could provide the P and Q logic you see, based on your full knowledge, to show the connection between the sources and your desired conclusion.Mattnad (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ellen. I think you may not be aware that an editor is accusing User:MilesMoney of being a sockpuppet of a banned user with whom you may be familiar: See here [57] and here: [58]. SPECIFICOtalk21:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey EllenCT, you're welcome to comment, but wanted to let you know that this is not about supporting or opposing any content. It only relates in that recent content disputes presented a pattern (across several areas) that matched with prior sock puppet Nrcprm2026 activity. Regardless of if we agree or disagree with editors, we should all be interested in identifying banned users that are circumventing the system. We've debated fairly aggressively on the same topic - it's not the content. I hope I'm wrong about the whole thing - I'm overly paranoid after being deceived by the sock over and over again. Anyway... I've been meaning to write you anyway. I wanted to say that while we're disagreeing on these recent points, I've thought many of your edits were really good. That doesn't come across in our debate. Also wanted to say that my family loves horses too. :) My daughter rides and competes in hunter / jumper with a 11 year old mid size welsh pony. Morphh(talk)00:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope your daughter has the privilege of living in a world where decisions are made according to logic, reason, and observation above ideology. EllenCT (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
You can now create and edit references inside media captions. [60]
You now need to press the "delete" key twice to delete a template, reference or image; the first time, they only become selected, to avoid accidental deletion of infoboxes and similar content. [61]
When you resize images, you will now still see them, and their size will also be seen in the center. [62][63]
MediaWiki 1.22wmf22 was added to test wikis on October 17. It will arrive to non-Wikipedia wikis on October 21 and all Wikipedia wikis on October 24 (calendar).
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New features
The "Toolbox" section in the site sidebar is now called "Tools" in English. You can do the same in your language by editing the interface text on translatewiki.net. Someone else may have already done it. [66]
On wikis with VisualEditor, you can now use it on pages in the File, Help and Category spaces. [67]
Problems
On October 22 (UTC), an error in the site settings caused *.wikimedia.org sites (like Meta-Wiki and Commons) to redirect to wikimediafoundation.org for a few hours. [68]
Future
MediaWiki 1.23wmf1 was added to test wikis on October 24. It will arrive to non-Wikipedia wikis on October 28 and all Wikipedia wikis on October 31 (calendar).
In the next days, servers in San Francisco will start providing (cached) content to users located in Oceania. If you are in that area and notice problems, please tell us. [69]
You will soon be able to test new features easily using the "Beta Features" view. VisualEditor will be in the list on sites where it works and isn't automatically enabled. Another example is a set of changes in the article text style.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New features
The style and colors for warning boxes, error messages, and success messages in all skins of MediaWiki has been changed. [70]
You will soon be able to switch from editing in VisualEditor to editing wikitext directly without having to save the page. You can't yet switch from wikitext to VisualEditor but developers hope to make it possible in the future. [71]
Problems
There was a problem on October 31 during the activation of MediaWiki 1.22wmf2 on test wikis. mediawiki.org was also broken, and if you had problems logging in, it was probably because of this as well.
Future
Because of the problem with MediaWiki 1.22wmf2, the calendar has changed. It will be added to mediawiki.org and non-Wikipedia sites on November 4, and all Wikipedia sites on November 7.
JavaScript / Gadget developers
Due to a recent change, gadgets and user scripts that use jQuery UI should explicitly load the appropriate modules, as they may not be loaded by default. [72]
Developers have started to remove long-deprecated methods. You should check the JavaScript console (in debug=true mode) and look for deprecation warnings and their stack trace. [73]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "United States".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk02:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New features
You can now use the "Autonym" font of the Universal Language Selector (ULS) to display the name of languages (for example in navigation templates) in their correct script. To do this, add the CSS class "autonym" to the elements that include language names. Note that this font only works for the name of languages, not for any other text. [74]
Problems
There was a problem with Parsoid (the program used by VisualEditor to convert wikitext to annotated HTML) on November 4, between 19:40 and 20:40 (UTC). Encoding issues caused non-ASCII characters (including those with diacritics, like "é") to be broken when converted to wikitext and saved to the page. [75]
Future
The Beta Features tool is now available on Commons and Meta-Wiki. With it, you can test new features before they're added for everyone. The plan is to add this tool to all wikis on November 21. [76]
MediaWiki 1.23wmf3 was added to test wikis on November 7. It will arrive to non-Wikipedia wikis on November 12 and all Wikipedia wikis on November 14 (calendar). [77]
The MassMessage tool will be added to all wikis on November 14. It will make it simpler to send messages across wikis. [78]
The button of the Search page will soon be changed to be blue and bigger (see the difference). [79]
You will soon be able to add a page name as parameter for {{REVISIONID}}, {{REVISIONUSER}} and {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} and similar functions, by writing for example {{REVISIONID:Apple}}. [80]
In the future, when you hide a CentralNotice banner on a wiki, it will also be hidden on other Wikimedia sites. [81]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New features
The Beta Features announced before are now available on all Wikimedia wikis. You can test new features easily by changing your Beta preferences. VisualEditor is one of those features on sites where it works and isn't automatically enabled. There is also a new media viewer and changes in the article text style. [82]
Tools developers can now create tools that use the OAuth protocol to connect to accounts on Wikimedia sites. As a user, you can use those tools to make edits and other changes with your account without giving the tool your password. [83]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The CommonsMetadata feature was added to all wikis. It creates metadata information about multimedia files (like their license) that can be read automatically by computer programs. It not only works for Commons, but for all wikis, and you can use it for files on your wiki by editing templates used to describe metadata. [85]
You can now paste formatted content copied from external sources (not just as plain text) into VisualEditor; this includes copy/pasting from other VisualEditor windows. [87]
You can now open VisualEditor by adding ?veaction=edit to the page URL, regardless of your user preferences. [88]
Many bugs have been fixed, and VisualEditor should also look faster, for example when you save a page. [89]
Problems
Due to issues, the new search tool ("CirrusSearch") was recently removed from wikis where it was enabled, then added again. [90]
Future
MediaWiki 1.23wmf6 was added to test wikis on December 5. It will arrive to non-Wikipedia wikis on December 10 and all Wikipedia wikis on December 12 (calendar).
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Economic inequality, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You really need to pay attention to what you are inserting into articles. Not only did you re-insert the same unsourced material for the third time, but you re-inserted no less than 3 "citation needed" tags right along with it. Obviously, you never even looked at the content.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The toolbar is now simpler; all text styles (bold, italics, underline, subscript, etc.) are in the same menu, and the "More" menu is called "Insert". [94]
You can now use a basic tool to add special characters to your text. You can add more characters (useful in your language) by editing the MediaWiki interface on translatewiki.net.
The tool to add and edit mathematical text is now called "formula". [95]
Problems
There was a problem with the "Create a book" tool (Collection); books could only be exported to PDF format. The change has been undone. [96]
The log-in system for external tools ("OAuth") was broken on wikis that tested the new search tool. It was fixed last week. [97][98]
MediaWiki 1.23wmf7 was added to test wikis on December 12. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on December 17 and all Wikipedia wikis on December 19 (calendar).
You will soon be able to select the language of SVG images that have translations using a drop-down menu on the image page. (see example) [100]
GLAMToolset, a tool to help GLAM groups (like museums) upload many pictures to Commons, will be added to Commons on December 17. [101]
A Draft namespace will be added to the English Wikipedia to make it easier to create new pages. You will be able to use VisualEditor for drafts if you have enabled it. [102][103]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf8) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on December 19. It will be enabled on non-Wikipedia wikis on December 31 and on all Wikipedia wikis on January 2, 2014 (calendar).
You can now test the new search tool ("CirrusSearch") on all Wikisource, Wiktionary and Wikimedia chapter wikis hosted on Foundation servers. Enable "New search" in your Beta features preferences. [105]
There was a bug where notifications were not sent when the signature of the user leaving the message linked to a translated namespace. The problem was fixed in the software and will soon be fixed on Wikimedia sites. [106][107]
You can now use the log-in system for external tools (OAuth) on all Wikimedia wikis that use the unified login. [108]
If your wiki adds stars or other icons to interwiki links for featured articles in other languages, you may need to change the JavaScript code. [109]
You can thank other users for their edits even if your browser does not have JavaScript. [110][111]
You might be interested in this meetup and joint editing experience; I understand that quite a few of the editors participating are women. I've made a conscious decision not to participate, mostly because I'm not hugely in favour of creating biographical articles on people who aren't really, really notable (it's hard enough to keep inappropriate edits out of well-watched articles), but it may be an area of interest for you. Risker (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I deeply regret I will be too far to attend then, but I will try to wikiparticipate, more likely timeshifted than not unless my calendar changes. EllenCT (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And stop abusing Talk:United States. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article not for your own ramblings and personal attacks calling for the blocking of a user. Any moderately experienced user would know this. WP:TALK allows for the removal by anyone of anything in blatant violation of the guidelines. If you are actually serious contact an administrator yourself or post your ramblings somewhere they will be more relevant (not sure where). Cadiomals (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Cadiomals: I strongly object to your continued attempt to try to censor my complaints about abusive behavior on the part of other editors. You clearly do not understand WP:TALK's prohibition on removing others' comments. Carefully documented abuses on articles where the abusers are active serves to improve the article by warning other editors and administrators. If you are so sure that they are not allowed, but have no idea where would be more appropriate, what does that tell you? If you think my behavior is against the rules, then you are the one who needs to be contacting the administration, just as I have been doing with my comments where multiple administrators have placed a talk page notice saying they watch the page. EllenCT (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read through WP:TALK which I highly doubt due to your inaccurate statements, you would know that Wikipedia does not prohibit the complete removal of user comments, it only prohibits their alteration to try and change what the editor was saying. It allows removal "sometimes" for blatant violations and simply advises to "err on the side of caution"... you should notice that I normally only collapse off-topic discussions, but your off-topic ramblings ("Shame!") and attacks against a user which had nothing directly to do with improving article content were a blatant violation and I need to put my foot down once and for all. Stop skimming over Wikipedia guidelines and actually read them, because it seems every time you link to a set of guidelines in trying to back up your statements it is a gross misinterpretation of them. So many of your views on things have been at odds with the majority of editors. You are among the users that hijacked and severely bloated this article over the past year through constant additions of biased excess detail and I now sense a resentment that you don't have free reign and there are finally people to check your actions.
As for me, I have no severe grievances against you that I feel merit the contacting of an administrator, I just honestly find it annoying how misguided you seem to be in terms of how United States is supposed to look and how you drag on issues in trying to get your way even after consensus had been reached. The past two RFC's and many users' opinions strongly back me up on this. Talk to an administrator about your vendetta against VictorD7 if you really wish, but Talk:United States is absolutely not the place to broadcast your grievances and you need to understand this. I myself have never had grievances against a user so it is your job to research where your posts would be more appropriate, not mine. I have nothing more to say to you on this topic because I know it will only result in going around in circles. Cadiomals (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
You can now see the text of DjVu and PDF files in search results on wikis testing the new search tool (CirrusSearch). [125][126]
With the new version of the Wikibase DataModel extension, you can install it outside Wikimedia wikis. [127]
CirrusSearch will be added as the second search method for Spanish (es), French (fr), Portuguese (pt) and Russian (ru) wikis on December 30. Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies and Wikinews users will also be able to enable it in their Beta Features options.
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Single-payer health care". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 January 2014.
Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. In this edit: [136] it looks like you are accusing TParis of being a lurker. Whether in the Wikipedia or internet sense, WP:lurker is a derogatory term directed at the person, not content. And it certainly does not apply to TParis. I have not removed the remark. You should please go back and strike the remark yourself. Thank you. –S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Per the remarks of TParis, below, the issue is resolved. – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at WP:5P. Civility is much more important. Also, I see Johnuniq's comment. He referred to lurkers, plural, e.g., those who may come in to make comments. Your comment was directed at TParis – as the closer. Again, please strike it. (Morphh's comment does not address the lurker comment, but does suggest another NPA message.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Srich32977: if TParis says that he considers being called an experienced ANI lurker a personal attack, and you answer my question about whether the actions separating the Sheep from the Goats at the Last Judgement are "feckless", then I will consider replacing the word "lurker" with "volunteer". But not until then. But by all means, if you feel the need to continue with the politics of pile-on political railroading, please do so. EllenCT (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into the merits of this ban here, I think there may be a little bit of a misunderstanding reflected here. The general rule is that a community sanctions discussion is closed by an administrator who has not expressed a view in the discussion, rather than one who has already expressed his or her opinion in the discussion. This is a sound practice for what I think are obvious reasons. Since the administrator won't have commented in the discussion, he or she may seem like a "lurker" in the sense of someone who was reading but not previously participating, but in this context I don't think that is really a criticism. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NYB, I'm hoping that your benign description is the case. (Note, I did not strike the remark myself.) If this is the case, then I'd hope EllenCT will substitute the term herself and thereby clarify her meaning. (I'd think TParis has other things to do than follow this talk page thread.) Ellen? Will you do so please. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the question, Srich. Would you like me to make your edits for you before or after you answer my question about whether the actions separating the Sheep from the Goats at the Last Judgement are feckless? And would you like to do that before or after you explain why you think being called an experienced lurker is so offensive? EllenCT (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Call me a Newyorkbrad stalker, but I tend to get curious when he starts poking on my user talk page. In any case, I'm not sure what EllenCT meant with the "lurker" comment but the issue surrounding this is fueled with enough drama that I'd rather not contribute to it. So for the sake of the comment, I'm not offended by the remark and I hope we can all put it to rest.--v/r - TP00:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I knew. Maybe American society is so moribund with surveillance that any hint you could be reporting on congressional COI editing to the POTUSMISO command threatens to give away potential OPSEC. I wish I was joking. EllenCT (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen, would you be willing to email me? I don't think you're handling these disputes in the most effective way possible. I see where you're coming from but it's easy to miss the point in the midst of the passion. And by the way User:Srich32977 "lurker" is not an insult. It's basically a neutral term. Let's not go searching for imaginary insults when there are enough real ones to go around. II | (t - c) 01:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would feel more comfortable if you would explain why you called VictorD7's incessant attempts to push his political point of view into articles based on non-peer reviewed sources against abundant peer reviewed secondary sources "a valiant effort." Exactly what do you think valor is? EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said that because he had valid arguments, and when he explained further I thought the arguments were even more valid (the ITEP's federal income tax has yet to be explained in-depth). I have yet to see a rebuttal from you which addresses the substance. Do you think you're editing in a completely nonpartisan fashion? I don't have time read the tens of thousands of bytes you and him have expended in your arguments, but I do notice that you keep saying he wants to use non-peer-reviewed publications but the peer reviewed literature you're relying on isn't immediately apparent to me, especially since you don't like the Tax Policy Center, which publishes working papers on its model, but are partial to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) model, which does not appear to publish details on its model. In any case, the debate over the substance is somewhat irrelevant to the bad faith tone and insults. II | (t - c) 03:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[137] is the best peer-reviewed source (secondary because it's based on multiple OECD datasets) and [138] is the peer-reviewed source closest to supporting the idea of a 0% corporate tax incidence on consumers, from the same issue of the same journal, but it's a primary source, with new methods and much weaker conclusions about labor instead of consumers in general. The vast majority of other peer reviewed papers agree with the former in that about half are above and half below its concluded incidence rate of about 60%. The traditional figure on which the ITEP models was based was 45.5%, but that figure is from the 1940s and there are good reasons to believe that tax avoidance and evasion is very different today. There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion. Refraining from editing reinforces the status quo which is mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense. The only way to achieve neutrality is to counter that systemic bias. It's not a case of both sides being equally valid. They are not; one side has models that can predict historical outcomes from prior empirical data, and the other does not. The same side has far more support in the peer reviewed literature. The same side is mathematically accurate. Trying to give equal weight to both sides introduces bases against valid hypotheses, biases against the peer reviewed secondary literature, and biases against mathematical accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen, your so called "best" source doesn't even mention the word "consumers". This is an irrelevant tangent to begin with, but do you have a single sourced quote supporting your claims about consumers? VictorD7 (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe with Srich that civility is more important than accuracy then give me a reason to think that you aren't willingly letting yourself be misled on how many inflection points [139] should have for optimal growth. Continuously using non-peer reviewed sources against peer reviewed sources, and then pulling out a list of sources that talk about the total amount of tax instead of its progressivity is just as incivil as calling someone an asshole. If VictorD7 had a leg to stand on, he would have answered my 11 questions on quality of sources at Talk:United States by now. I stand by my characterization. EllenCT (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen, your question was "Which is more important? Civility or accuracy of representing personal experiences?" Setting aside the importance of Civility as one of Wikipedia's 5 Pillars, isn't it possible to represent personal experiences civilly? And in what context were you asking the question? E.g., whose personal experiences are being represented inaccurately? Would you clarify your question please? Perhaps I will have a different answer. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen, I think you've been neither civil or accurate, but that seems to be the contention with political topics - both sides claim to be right. The problem is you seem to not recognize your own bias - there is only one truth and it's yours and everyone else is mislead, lying, incompetent, pathetic, inaccurate, suppressing, etc. (Perfect case in point 90mins ago) As for your new charges, most secondary sources in Wikipedia are not primary peer review research. Nevertheless, I dispute your claim of continuously using non-peer review against peer review - you continually distort this. As for the list you described, while some of those sources were specific "Howard Chernick, Tax progressivity and state economic performance, 11 Economic Development Quarterly 249-267 (1997).", I think if you read some of the other sources, you would have seen that many of the economic growth changes were due to things like harm on investment, what we would consider taxation on the high end. The point was, we had additional academic sources if need be, since it seemed you were objecting to providing the other prominent point of view. Morphh(talk)01:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf9) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on January 2. It will be enabled on non-Wikipedia wikis on January 7 and on all Wikipedia wikis on January 9 (calendar).
On January 2, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata and all Wikivoyage projects were broken for 2 hours due to language cache update issues.
On the same day, it was not possible to edit most wikis for about 30 minutes, due to a database replication problem.
Future software changes
The new search tool (CirrusSearch) will be added as the default search method for Italian Wikipedia, French Wikisource, Wikidata and all Wikivoyage sites, and as a second search method for the German Wikipedia and all Wikibooks sites on January 6. [141]
Spanish, French, Portuguese and Russian Wikipedia users will also be able to enable CirrusSearch in their Beta Features options. [142]
Plural form rules for some languages will be changed. Many translations of the user interface for Belarusian, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian and other languages will need to be changed. [143][144][145]
You will see a warning when you try to delete a page linked to from other pages. [146][147]
You will be able to use keyboard shortcuts in the Translate tool, by pressing Alt+1 and similar key groups. [150][151]
E-mails sent by MediaWiki will include the name of the site in their From: line. You will be able to change this name on your wiki by editing the MediaWiki:Emailsender page. [152][153]
Hello, I'm Srich32977. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Economic inequality seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yes, there is a discussion involving you and Morphh. But the issue (in the real world) is not resolved. Seeking to skew the Garret study as an "early" one was not proper. – S. Rich (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
! – S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
button for the 
for 
for 
for 
for 
for 
for 
for 
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Economic inequality. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. If you don't understand the objections, perhaps it would be best to obtain an explanation before inserting OR and unsourced material into the encyclopedia. Roccodrift (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Economic inequality, you may be blocked from editing. Roccodrift (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Economic inequality, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You really need to pay attention to what you are inserting into articles. Not only did you re-insert the same unsourced material for the third time, but you re-inserted no less than 3 "citation needed" tags right along with it. Obviously, you never even looked at the content.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BLP violations, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing by Tdadamemd. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. In this edit: [136] it looks like you are accusing TParis of being a lurker. Whether in the Wikipedia or internet sense, WP:lurker is a derogatory term directed at the person, not content. And it certainly does not apply to TParis. I have not removed the remark. You should please go back and strike the remark yourself. Thank you. –
