Jump to content

User talk:Cupco: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tax chart
m →Tax chart: copyedit
Line 106: Line 106:


==Tax chart ==
==Tax chart ==
Cupco, I have a problem with the tax chart you added to several of the articles from 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 tax|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. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>13:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)</i></small>
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 tax|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. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>13:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)</i></small>

Revision as of 13:53, 20 September 2012

I am working on writing Good Articles on my topics of interest.
Please consider reviewing a good article nomination. The oldest unreviewed nominations are:

Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) • UNICEF club (talk | history | start review) • 2022 Fife Council election (talk | history | start review) • New England Revolution in international competition (talk | history | start review)

If you review one of these articles, please remove it from the list and add the next oldest. See the report for more information.

Read these first: Good article criteria  · Reviewing good articles

My interests include:

Specific articles I'd like to improve are listed in my sandbox. —Cupco

not affiliated with Cupco.net or @Cupco on Twitter

Birth control

Would be great to get this article to GA. It is on the list of articles to be translated as part of this project. [3] 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)[reply]

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

Gadget for subst'ing Cite_journal

I have created a quick gadget {subst:Template:Fcite_journal/subst|...} which can store subst'ed {Cite_journal} entries as simple wiki-text, omitting the <span class=...> and tedious COinS metadata. Unfortunately, there are still some formatting characters stored, such &#32 for space and "<b/>;" for semicolons, due to restrictions in storing lead-spaces or semicolons in text. However, the resulting text is portable to other wikis, which lack {Cite_journal}. Example (edit this talk-topic and look inside for results): 

{{subst:Fcite journal/subst
| last1 = Chin | first1 = H. B. | last2 = Sipe | first2 = T. A. 
| last3 = Elder | first3 = R.   | last4 = Mercer | first4 = S. L. 
| last5 = Chattopadhyay | first5 = S. K. | last6 = Jacob | first6 = V. 
| last7 = Wethington | first7 = H. R. | last8 = Kirby | first8 = D. 
| last9 = Elliston | first9 = D. B. 
| doi = 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.11.006 
| title = The Effectiveness of Group-Based Comprehensive Risk-Reduction and Abstinence Education Interventions to Prevent or Reduce the Risk of Adolescent Pregnancy, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and Sexually Transmitted Infections 
| journal = American Journal of Preventive Medicine 
| volume = 42 | issue = 3 | pages = 272–294 | year = 2012 
| pmid = 22341164 | pmc = 
| url = http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(11)00906-8/abstract
}}

Subst'ed result: Chin, H. B.; Sipe, T. A.; Elder, R.; Mercer, S. L.; Chattopadhyay, S. K.; Jacob, V.; Wethington, H. R.; Kirby, D.; et al. (2012). "The Effectiveness of Group-Based Comprehensive Risk-Reduction and Abstinence Education Interventions to Prevent or Reduce the Risk of Adolescent Pregnancy, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and Sexually Transmitted Infections". American Journal of Preventive Medicine  42 (3): 272–294. . PMID 22341164.
The {Fcite_journal/subst} handles most options of {Cite_journal} and puts "et al." for author9. Meanwhile, I am still working with Template:If to replace the "&#32" with simple spaces, but feel free to use it as needed. I know many articles have like "46" {cite_journal} entries, which can be too tedious for wiki-reformatting by hand. The next step, below, is to replace all {cite_pmid} entries.

Subst'ing Cite_pmid to Cite_journal to Fcite_journal/subst: To answer your original problem, edit the new page twice, copying all {cite_pmid} to the new page. First subst all of the {cite_pmid|222333} as slashed {subst:cite_pmid/222333|noedit}, and then re-edit that subst'ed page and subst all the new {cite_journal} entries:

  • Edit 1: Subst every {cite_pmid} with "/"
{subst:cite_pmid/111222|noedit}
{subst:cite_pmid/111333|noedit}
{subst:cite_pmid/111444|noedit}
Upon SAVE, all {cite_pmid/...} become {cite_journal} entries.
  • Edit 2: Subst every {cite_journal} with "F /subst"
{subst:Fcite_journal/subst |... pmid=111222|...}
{subst:Fcite_journal/subst |... pmid=111333|...}
{subst:Fcite_journal/subst |... pmid=111444|...}

By that 2-step process, then all {cite_pmid} will become simple wiki-text cites with no more templates in use. Should take just a few minutes to convert all 46 {cite_pmid} to clean, portable wiki-text. Ask below if any questions. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Power-to-Gas

Hello! According to this page, the project is supposed to go on line in autumn 2012. --Eike sauer (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danke schoen! —Cupco 20:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Concerning your message in the "Auskunft": Thank you very much, although most of us are not directly involved. ;) Looking at your machine translated text (the term "deutsches Volk" is somewhat unusal nowadays, see Volk (disambiguation)), it might be better you just ask in English though. :) Most poeple will understand it anyhow. --Eike (Diskussion) 19:29, 11. Sep. 2012 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eike sauer (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Innocence of Muslims film trailer

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. --HaythamAbulela 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honest inquiry.

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)[reply]

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

RX

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

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

DYK for Carbon neutral fuel

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

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

Perhaps you can look at something.

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)[reply]

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

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Tax chart

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cupco&oldid=513712513"