This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Hello.Your request was fulfilled.You can find a link to the article/s you requested in the relevant section at WP:RX.Please indicate when you've downloaded successfully and add a resolved tag to your request.Thank you.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 10:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! — Cupco 15:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Birth control, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Water retention ( 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed — Cupco 22:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for a comprehensive and thorough GA review. You caught me on a good cpl days, my first free time for Wikipedia in awhile. I went through the article, esp the history section and corrected the copyvio you noted. I also paraphrased the areas that sounded like close paraphrases themselves. I also added info on tuition and graduation rates as suggested. After I took excerpts from the article and googled them, no outstanding copyvios/close paraphrasing appeared. Feel free to check it anytime now that the majority of concerns are solved. If you have any further, I'd be happy to address them as well Bhockey10 ( talk) 20:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Pass \o/ — Cupco 22:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The following items were reviewed and none were found to support an opinion that a constitutional imparement to a wealth tax was "likely". In some case the full article was not available. Restricting the Legislative Power to Tax in the United States, The Vol 56, 2006 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20454556?uid=3739568&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101016396393 POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) 157 U.S. 429 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=157&invol=429 1895 Pollock case http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ccum21&div=22&id=&page= Do we really want a Wealth Tax in America? http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/umialr32&div=11&id=&page= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Wealth tax#U.S. Constitution, Article 16, Income Tax. — Cupco 04:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I just posted it. User:Churn and change 06:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Y Got it. — Cupco 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You might talk to a chemist before creating a topic in the chemistry area. We have a project and we discuss topics and debtate them. I suspect that Carbon-neutral fuel is something that would attract some debate. I also encourage you to upgrade or trim the references in keeping with the standard recommended here - WP:SECONDARY, which means that references should largely be to reviews, books. Books and reviews are venues that have undergone analysis and scholarly digestion, whereas journal articles are not of this quality. Things like MS theses are too weak for referencing. Memoranda within some government are probably not good enough either.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied [and ongoing discussion] at Talk:Carbon neutral fuel#Comments, Sept, 2012. — Cupco 18:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renewable energy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nuclear energy and Pipeline ( 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 17:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed. — Cupco 18:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TbUJHVUR3Umh3QjA https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TbUJHVUR3Umh3QjA

Let me know when you are done. Churn and change ( talk) 19:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but those are the same URL, for Jarass and Obermair (2006). I wonder if you were trying to give me the JSTOR article, too. Replied at User talk:Churn and change#Tax articles. — Cupco 20:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Second URL: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TZVN5MUt0c2dZeUU Let me know when you are done. Churn and change ( talk) 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5Tc0JzMkhCTW9qTDA Churn and change ( talk) 01:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

\o/ Thanks again! — Cupco 01:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. No problem. It was a very short article, actually. The content is here. Regards. -- Tone 11:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Keynesian endpoint

Keynesian endpoint is a phrase coined by PIMCO's Anthony Crescenzi in an email note to clients in June 2010 to describe the point where governments can no longer stimulate and rescue their economies through increased government spending due to endemic levels of pre-existing government debt. ^[1]

"Time, devaluations, and debt restructurings might be the only way out for many nations,” Crescenzi wrote in an e-mailed note titled “Keynesian Endpoint” that referenced the Great Depression era economist John Maynard Keynes. Debt-fueled spending programs aimed at combating the global financial crisis of 2008 are among policy tools now “being seen as a magic elixir that has morphed into poison.” ^[2]

See also

• Liquidity trap
• Quantitative easing
• ZIRP

References

Maybe I will re-create it after I look at the 50,000 verbatim google hits again. — Cupco 12:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to re-create it. It clearly has a wide variety of authors using it compared to when it was deleted just half a year ago. It's gone from neologism to why-isn't-it-in-here-ism. — Cupco 01:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

– Connormah ( talk) 23:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cupco. Just to reassure you, you did absolutely the right thing in reporting this article; I've locked it against IP and unconfirmed editors for a couple of weeks. If you want to check the official requirements for protection, here's the policy, but in this case you totally made the right call. It's a textbook example of an article needing temporary semiprotection. Cheers, Yunshui  雲‍ 水 11:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TYkRmMEFicG1mSzA

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TY05td1dTaFF6WTQ

Let me know after you are done, or if you have issues. I set things up so that only those with the link can access the file (so won't be visible to search engines), but you should still be able to get the PDF. If not, message me. Churn and change ( talk) 16:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TYzBSRWFwR1RvZEU

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TbzRNdkJiNlpiZG8

A usual, note when you are done. Churn and change ( talk) 19:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cupco. I am reviewing your latest DYK - Template:Did you know nominations/Carbon neutral fuel. You have proposed a hook about use of carbon neutral fuels to store energy generated by wind power. The source you have cited for the relevant statement in the article is a .pdf file by R.J. Pearson and M.D. Eisaman. I have tried numerous times to download this file, but without success. It may be a problem at my end or it may be that the file is no longer accessible. Could you have a look at it and see if you are still able to download it? Thanks. Dolphin ( t) 13:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Replaced courtesy link and replied at User talk:Dolphin51#Carbon neutral fuel DYK hook source courtesy URLs. — Cupco 15:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The new URL worked perfectly for me, first time. I can now complete my review of your DYK nomination. Dolphin ( t) 07:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have completed my review and stated that I think the DYK is ready to go. See my diff. Dolphin ( t) 08:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Would be great to get this article to GA. It is on the list of articles to be translated as part of this project. [1] To get it there we need to make sure we use nearly exclusively review articles or major textbooks from the last 3-5/10 years per WP:MEDRS. Anyway many thanks for your efforts. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at Talk:Birth control. — Cupco 22:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cupco, I've reviewed Birth control and it's almost there. I've hidden one image which seemed to have a flaky NFUR, hidden a few redlinks, fixed a few typos, ... and put the article on hold for the Citations needed tags. Actually the GA review criteria are a bit vague/contradictory/ambiguous on whether one or two tags are permitted; certainly there mustn't be "many". Hmm. The easiest way would be to fix all of them - one or two can I think be resolved simply by rearranging wording to avoid having sentences dangling after their citations; others could be fixed by cutting the claims or finding new citations. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm writing because you are listed in Category:Translators ar-en. It was recently pointed out at Talk:Innocence of Muslims#ARABIC Wikipedia version that the English Wikipedia article on the deliberately inflammatory film trailer Innocence of Muslims contains very much more detailed information about the deliberate deceit on the part of the filmmakers to try to obscure their identity and the nature of the trailers which has not yet been added to the Arabic version at ar:براءة_المسلمين which is getting about 8,000 page views per day presently. Would you please consider adding some of the details which might help Arabic readers understand some of the missing details of the trailers? Thank you for your consideration. — Cupco 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry dear, i am against this amateur hate message. and i will NOT be a part of this project by any mean. it is not even encyclopedic in my point of view.  A M M A R  08:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cupco, I would rather keep silent and say nothing either right or wrong. This whole thing is a political game with much in the shade than in the open. -- Haytham ^Abulela 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I am quite certain that one or more of my detractors have created a secondary account with the sole purpose of mimicking some of my posts in order to maliciously accuse me of operating two accounts and practising vandalism. Have you encountered this, before? I strongly suspect it is either 2001:db8 or Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556. Just curious if you have any insights into this sort of infantile behaviour which is expected given the demographic composition of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobinisrael ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Bobinisrael#Re: Honest inquiry. — Cupco 03:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please enable your mail so I will send you the link-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 07:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sent.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 07:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

On 18 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carbon neutral fuel, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that carbon neutral fuels have been proposed to store wind power, minimizing intermittency problems and enabling its use with conventional vehicles and existing natural gas pipelines? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carbon neutral fuel. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

\o/ — Cupco 00:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am in the midst of an edit war with AndyTheGrump, who continually deletes a well-written paragraph I composed documenting a controversy with CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien. This is obviously not being done in good faith, as no specific criticisms are being levied against anything I've composed aside from slandering the legitimate sources as "conservative blogs" (they are all reliable sources as per Wikipedia guidelines), with the edit being described as pushing a certain POV. An honest examination of the paragraph instantly reveals that it is painstakingly written with a NPOV, but again, these detractors are unable to be honest. They are more concerned with my demeanour and candour in the talk pages than with the actual quality of content in the article. Have a look for yourself here, and use the 'undo' and then 'show preview' button. The article I composed will be the first paragraph in the paragraph section under the year 2012. Thanks in advance. Bobinisrael ( talk) 06:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Bobinisrael#Re: Perhaps you can look at something. — Cupco 06:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Cupco, I have a problem with the tax chart you added to several of the articles from the left-leaning ITEP. In particular, some of the charts and the caption of the image supplied use a measure other than the tax base. This is mathematically incorrect and violates the definition. Some publications try to generically compare apples to oranges and apply it using a single base, which is fine for the point they're trying to make, but in the context of the article and proper economics - it's pretty bias. The tax base of sales, excise, and property is one of consumption, not income. So such taxes are proportional in application relative to the tax base (and that's minus the progressive effects of base exclusions). The chart being described as a measure of incidence is also misleading, making it sound as if these sales and excise taxes are primarily paid by low income, which is false - rich people obviously buy more stuff. So it's not the incidence of the tax, but the incidence of the tax as applied to the individual's income (assuming untaxed savings). Again, they're twisting the definition to fit their narrative. I have no problem putting a chart of income taxes to show a progressive tax (or any other tax measured by base), but this combination graph is extremely misleading in this context. Morphh ^(talk) 13:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Morphh, I got your message about the ITEP "Who Pays?" tax chart. You said several things, some of which I didn't understand, so let me reply to each of them:

I have a problem with the tax chart you added to several of the articles from the left-leaning ITEP.

I was not aware that ITEP was or had a reputation of being left-leaning. As far as I know, they are strictly centrist and go out of their way to not take sides in any political debate. Their "About" page is here. I see that our article describes them as left-leaning, citing an op-ed which calls them "a bunch of lefties" but that same op-ed also says they are accurate. Our article also calls them "non-partisan" as does every other third-party mention of them on the web I was able to find.

some of the charts and the caption of the image supplied use a measure other than the tax base. This is mathematically incorrect and violates the definition. Some publications try to generically compare apples to oranges and apply it using a single base, which is fine for the point they're trying to make, but in the context of the article and proper economics - it's pretty bias. The tax base of sales, excise, and property is one of consumption, not income. So such taxes are proportional in application relative to the tax base (and that's minus the progressive effects of base exclusions).

Can you please explain what you mean here? I don't understand what you are suggesting by "a measure other than the tax base". They use the proportion of income taxed by the various kinds of taxation, do they not?

The chart being described as a measure of incidence is also misleading, making it sound as if these sales and excise taxes are primarily paid by low income, which is false - rich people obviously buy more stuff.

Not as a proportion of their income, they do not. Please note that is the exact same basis as the Treasury's File:Distribution of U.S. Federal Taxes 2000.JPG chart I was replacing uses.

So it's not the incidence of the tax, but the incidence of the tax as applied to the individual's income (assuming untaxed savings). Again, they're twisting the definition to fit their narrative.

This seems completely absurd to me. I've never seen anyone measure tax incidence in terms of total dollars paid. Can you point to any such uses in the economics or government, non-political literature?

Our tax incidence article says, "tax incidence is the analysis of the effect of a particular tax on the distribution of economic welfare." If someone with a $200,000 income pays a $10,000 tax, would you say that has the same impact on their economic welfare as if someone with a $20,000 income pays the same $10,000? — Cupco 17:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Cupco, no problem.. I'll try to address your statements. I moved your discussion here to keep it all in one place (I'll watch your page).

I was not aware that ITEP was or had a reputation of being left-leaning. As far as I know, they are strictly centrist and go out of their way to not take sides in any political debate. Their "About" page is here. I see that our article describes them as left-leaning, citing an op-ed which calls them "a bunch of lefties" but that same op-ed also says they are accurate. Our article also calls them "non-partisan" as does every other third-party mention of them on the web I was able to find.

Non-partisan is a correct and accurate description based on the organization's 501(c)(3) not-for-profit status, which means they can't support a candidate or a party. It does not mean they are centrist and it doesn't restrict them from leaning toward a political philosophy. Regardless, being left or right leaning is somewhat irrelevant. I only included it to demonstrate that the organization is presenting a point of view. It's not simply presenting economic statistics in a direct way that everyone would agree with. In this sense, it's an opinion piece, so I don't think it appropriate to take that opinion and push it center stage. It would be undue weight. To clarify, I didn't state their material was inaccurate for what they are presenting - they explain what they're doing, but that doesn't make it fact or an even measure of comparison. It just makes it an opinion based on an accurate comparison using their definitions and assumptions.

Can you please explain what you mean here? I don't understand what you are suggesting by "a measure other than the tax base". They use the proportion of income taxed by the various kinds of taxation, do they not?

The definition of progressive and regressive is not a measure on income - it is a measure on the amount subject to taxation (the tax base). So if you're taxing income, which we usually are, then income is your tax base. If you're taxing sales, then consumption is your tax base. You have to measure the item that is being taxed. You can do otherwise, but it requires specific definitions and a lot of assumptions about spending, savings, time frames, uniformity, etc. So, a simple chart on income - great. A simple chart on sales, great. A chart that tries to compare the two using direct tax bases and indirect tax bases that include major assumptions and opinion - not good. At least, not good for a basic image meant to demonstrate a progressive or regressive process. There is no need to lead off with an chart of economic opinion, fuzzy math, and suggestions of U.S. economic injustice.

Not as a proportion of their income, they do not. Please note that is the exact same basis as the Treasury's File:Distribution of U.S. Federal Taxes 2000.JPG chart I was replacing uses.

The Treasury Department chart is based on federal taxes. The total taxes they describe that offset the income taxes are payroll taxes, which become regressive after the annual wage maximum is reached.

This seems completely absurd to me. I've never seen anyone measure tax incidence in terms of total dollars paid. Can you point to any such uses in the economics or government, non-political literature? Our tax incidence article says, "tax incidence is the analysis of the effect of a particular tax on the distribution of economic welfare." If someone with a $200,000 income pays a $10,000 tax, would you say that has the same impact on their economic welfare as if someone with a $20,000 income pays the same $10,000?

If you look at the tax incidence article again, you'll see it talks about how a tax is distributed in relation to the item taxed. It says "The key concept is that the tax incidence or tax burden does not depend on where the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply." See the examples given in the article. You'll see it describes where the tax is distributed, the factors of product and where those burdens eventually fall - the owner (shareholder), the employees, the consumers. Tax incidence is said to "fall" upon the group that ultimately bears the burden of, or ultimately has to pay, the tax. Which in the case of sales may not entirely be the consumer based again on elasticity (another assumption made by the publication). You'll note that the article doesn't say anything about a percentage of an individual's income being a measure of incidence.

I hope this helps clarify some of the points. Again, I'm fine with including a chart that demonstrates the basic effects on a tax - it would be great (something like this). Morphh ^(talk) 20:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're not disputing the ITEP figures or saying they fail to cover all taxes paid by U.S. taxpayers, is that right? And you're not saying that the chart is biased or inaccurate, only that it leaves a biased impression because it compares sales tax to proportion of income instead of proportion of consumption? Can you point to any other description of progressive or regressive taxation or tax incidence anywhere on the internet that measures sales tax in terms of proportion of individual consumption? I have never heard of such a thing. Am I understanding you correctly to say that you would prefer a chart which only shows one particular form of taxation, which happens to look very progressive, instead showing of all the taxes which fall on the U.S. taxpayer? And you don't think that would be far more biased than showing the grand total of all taxes? — Cupco 21:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The chart doesn't cover all taxes paid by U.S. taxpayers - it covers local and state taxes. Also, I do believe the chart is bias and it's inaccurate in the context in which you're using it. As for using the subject of taxation as the measure of said taxation, see the basic definition.

• Webster (4b): increasing in rate as the base increases (a progressive tax)
• American Heritage (6). Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases.
• Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Tax levied at a rate that increases as the quantity subject to taxation increases.
• Princeton University WordNet: (n) progressive tax (any tax in which the rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases)
• Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E. Anderson, Betty R. Jackson (1992), Concepts of Taxation, Dryden Press: Fort Worth, TX
• Hyman, David M. (1990) Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, 3rd, Dryden Press: Chicago, IL
• James, Simon (1998) A Dictionary of Taxation, Edgar Elgar Publishing Limited: Northampton, MA

Here is a quick example. If I purchase an item for $10 and pay 10% tax, what is the tax rate on that sale? 10% Do I need to know what my income level is? No, as income is not taxed. If my income was $1, my tax rate is still 10% of the tax base, not 100%. Another example, let's say I make $100,000 and spend it over the next 4 years. How do you measure that? Using income as a base like ITEP does in this publication, it would all fall on year one (10% * $25,000 / $100,000) = 2.5% - very regressive, but it ignores the consumption in year 2,3,4 (it considers all savings as untaxed income). If we happen to catch this analysis in year 2, this guy would be poor and have a very high tax burden relative to his zero income. Under a proper measure, we see 10% on consumption each year (10% * $25,000 / $25,000) = 10% year 1, year 2, year 3, year 4. This is what economic data shows - people save earlier in life and consume that savings later, which is why estimations on consumption tend to be life-time or multi-year analysis, but I'm getting off topic.

The articles that we're primarily discussing are not United States articles, they're global articles that discuss a generic distribution. It makes sense for an article that is discussing a progressive tax to show what a progressive distribution looks like. Similarly, a regressive tax article would show what a regressive distribution looks like. It doesn't matter if it's an income tax, sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, excise tax.. whatever - a progressive tax distribution looks like this (rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases), a regressive tax looks like this (opposite graph). There is no need to get into conflicts about what type of tax it is or what country or state the measures are from. No opinion or interpretation is needed and stretching it to include such a comparison just adds bias and pov where it is unnecessary and disadvantageous. This very discussion between two economically educated individuals proves that the graph is too complex for these basic articles. Morphh ^(talk) 00:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh! I thought I had excerpted the chart which included the federal income tax, but I clearly wasn't paying attention! — Cupco 01:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, this is the graph of the actual U.S. tax incidence including corporate taxes as individuals end up paying them. This is the graph I thought I was including earlier. I'm sorry for the confusion. — Cupco 03:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of the Progressive tax and Regressive tax articles, since it only depicts a single measure, I think it would be ok if we changed the caption to just describe the distribution that is taking place in the chart to something like "Graph demonstrates a progressive tax distribution with a regressive dip on top earners". In that case, I don't think we would need to attribute the opinion because it's not meant to advance a position (avoid pushing some 99% mantra). As for U.S. tax articles, CTJ is a progressive organization and the chart still includes a mix of methods, as it uses the ITEP paper for its local / state assessment, and who knows how they applied the incidence of employer payroll and corporate taxes. It would be much better if we just used something direct from the CBO or Treasury. If it was to be included, we'd need to attribute it and perhaps include another chart from the Tax Foundation, CATO, or Heritage to offset POV issues. It's not the best we could do, but it's certainly better that the other one. It's not a simple thing to put everything in one chart and anything that does is going to use a very subjective methodology. Morphh ^(talk) 13:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added that chart to the progressive tax and regressive tax articles and attributed the images in the U.S. articles. I removed it from the tax incidence article as it didn't help the reader understand the topic (it had nothing to do with the example and didn't help demonstrate the incidence of a tax). Morphh ^(talk) 14:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with all that; thanks. I don't understand why it's not suitable for tax incidence but that's okay with me. — Cupco 17:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)