User talk:Morphh Information & User talk:Morphh Links at HealthHaven.com

; Archives
	Archive 1: Prior to Jun. 14th, 2006; Archive 2: Jun. 2006 to Dec. 2006; Archive 3: Jan. 2007 to Jun. 2007; Archive 4: Jul. 2007 to Oct. 2007; Archive 5: Oct. 2007 to Jul. 2008; Archive 6: Jul. 2008 to May. 2009;

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

[edit] Economics sidebar

Thank you for finishing the job on above, Morphh (way beyond my pay grede ; ). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, M. I have ttried to formuate a response but wanted to give it a little rest for now (like 18 hrs.). Hope you'll keep an open mind, as I have attempted in trying to in meet your concern. --Thomasmeeks (talk)

Thanks, look forward to the response. I'm open to the idea but just not convinced at this point that it makes it better. :-) I posted a quick notice at the Economics WikiProject to get a few more people to offer their thoughts. Morphh ^(talk) 12:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've done some more more moodling around and hope that it will be non-issue per changes indicated. Wish I had taken action on that earlier. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Low-importance Economics articles

You may want to check your bot. You listed this as empty along with several others and they are not empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

They contain no articles, only sub-categories, which we're trying to get rid of as well. I think the bot for the quality/importance intersect is seeing the importance category and not moving them properly to the priority cat. Morphh ^(talk) 11:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Motto of the Day

Hi there, Morphh! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Glen Beck

What are your ideas for compromise on the Glen Beck article? Personally, I see the whole "Media persona and commentary" as a POV section just to throw in negative incidents about Beck. None of it is noteworthy. Comments? Bytebear (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think his style and critical positions are part of his notability. So, while no one particular incident is notable, I think we should put together something that describes these aspects. I'm completely against listing or bulleting incidents like how it was presented earlier. I don't think the details are all that important, but I think we need to properly portray his media persona. I think part of the compromise is adding examples of that controversial personality. He's an opinionated person and he's going to (and likely wants to) create waves. So long we follow NPOV policy and Beck's view is not misrepresented by the critical statements, I think we should include something. It needs to stay summarized and brief (NPOV undue weight policy), and be related to the notability (BLP). I think a couple paragraphs would be fine that included both points of view on criticized statements. We also have to consider that Beck may not get the type of attention that we would usually require for something to be properly notable to him (Beck's controversial views might not be big news).

On another note though, there are many other aspects of the article that could use a good bit of expanding (like his NYT bestselling books that get one sentence each). Morphh ^(talk) 2:07, 03 August 2009 (UTC)

Intellectually dishonest horseshit, Morphh, and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.157.106 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I will have the time to do more on the Glenn Beck talk page next week. Thank you for participating. --Hardindr (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Making a Wikipedia user page

Hi Morphh,

I love your page. Can you please show me how to put up cool graphics like yours? Thanks,Malke 2010 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Morphh ^(talk) 1:20, 07 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. . .thanks Morphh. Also any tips on editing would be most appreciated. I'm trying to clean up Karl Rove's article. It's a mess. I want to make it neutral and accurate with real references and not the references that refer to someone who knew someone who once said, blah blah blah about Karl Rove. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please Help

Hi Morphh:

Do you have any suggestions for editing an article? I'm trying to neutralize the article on Karl Rove. I made changes but they were all reversed immediately. I understand that this is a hot topic for some, but the article is so badly written and truly one-sided that I feel it violates the spirit of Wikipedia.

Also, how do you avoid editing wars and do people ever enlist the aid of an administrator? Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How do I flag an article?

Hi Morphh

I want to put up a flag on an article citing the intricate detail.

How do I do that? Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glenn Beck. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of the rule and will not break it. I just happen to be watching the article at the time. Morphh ^(talk) 12:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Beck.

What I want is a balanced article; one which doesn't leave people thinking he's a saint, just because he's a Mormon, which is what it pretty much says now. ANd what I see on your part is either unintentional enabling of Bytebear's biases and intention to white-wash, or a deliberate accomplice to it. Beck has saied incredibly stupid things, repeatedly, then stuck to them. He's a master of the 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' questions, and then bombastically expounds on any failure to thread that needle of an answer. This article does almost nothing to address that. We've now got in ONE, and only one of his major blunders; we need to include more, since it seems no one's yet cataloged his idiocies and written about them directly, though I'm working on finding such articles. ThuranX (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I started out working from the point of view that good writing and understanding of policy would fix the situation as well, but quickly saw that any time bytebear raises another 'objection';, you facilitate it by expecting everyone to stop and listen to him run his spiel again. you are enabling his semi-civil POV Push, in my eyes. You need to stand up for the policies, and for a good article, and not for the editor. An article which remains neutral is NOT achieved by pandering to one editor until that hold-out says it's ok in his eyes; it's by respecting the wider consensus and telling an editor who unreasonably won't budge to go jump in a lake. Look at that section now. FOUR editors have come in since the WP:AN report and all agree the page is a travesty. Instead of respecting that, you continue to advocate for Bytebear, as though he will suddenly desire a constructive participation in the article. He won't. Go read the removed critique of his behavior on the talk page. There is no way he will even accept any amount of negative criticism of Beck, no matter who says it. It's time to move beyond Bytebear, and do what is right for the article. ThuranX (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No... My point is that although the reparations statement was made contemporary to the Gates incident, it was not predicated on it, as the Obama is a racist statement was. 'Obama is a racist' and institutional racism stuff went to the matter of calling the cops stupid and making racial assumptions, the reparations is thoroughly different and about health care. A case could e made that both are indicative of Beck's own bigotries, but we'd need a serious stack of citation for that. In lieu of that, we need to keep the two separate, lest we run into a SYNTH violation, and because they are about two different issues. There may be a way to restructure the entire article to put both into one section, but that would probably also violate BLP/POV, because it would stick two similar things close together without a legitimate sourced bridge. ThuranX (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how differently you work without Bytebear. And it's GlenN, not Glen, by the way. He's just two Ns classy. ThuranX (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (File:File:Taxanalysts.png)

Thanks for uploading File:File:Taxanalysts.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Userboxes

I'm not sure if we have any userboxes for specific awards, but there are a listed of user boxes with ranks located here. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just an American Citizen. Thanks Morphh for contributing for the H.R. 25 FairTax. I hope that this article achieves a better status soon.

To be fair I will have to read the rebuttals.

Incidentally, I read the book FairTax Book, Brookings and Cato and really need to hear/read more GOOD skeptical opposition arguments, and rational rebuttals from supporters so that I can feel more comfortable about my pursuits. I am NOT an economist or a debater so I need the ammunition for my doubts and the doubters

[edit] RfC at WT:ECON

I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. Thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Beck

Actually, Morph - I did insert something in the talk section of the Glenn Beck article regarding the verbiage used in the Live Events section of the article. No one replied and that's why I made the change myself. However, those who are not enveloped in what I see as an obsession over this article and the seemingly endless hair-splitting that's occurring (that's just an objective, personal view - not meant to be a negative criticism), and would edit the article when noting irregularities and errors, shouldn't be expected to read the talk page. ESPECIALLY considering the overwhelming length and width, and bredth of it at this point (IMO). It's also my unsolicited opinion that you guys are not seeing the trees for the forest and are taking the whole thing a little too seriously. For what it's worth. ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation for WikiProject Economics Guidelines

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, LK (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's come to this, but edit warring continues on the project homepage. LK (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

Citing WP:Naming conventions, boldly moved the article about the anti-Beck spoof wesite to Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy, which I belive to be something less imprecise and ambiguous than the name it had before. But please feel free to move it to something else. The article has been barely worked on by anybody -- which, by a certain measure, shows its subject matter to be of less interest to WP editors, for whatever reason (and perhaps less notable?), than I had previously thought. (It is a pretty crass joke/parody.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For erasing nonsense at Income tax in the United States. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 20:27, 08 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines

Hi there. Please refactor your statement so it's under the 250 word limit - it's simply going to get out of hand if anyone had more space than that given the number of parties. Kind regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How bout...

"The Beast 50" (link)? ;^)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

haha, funny article. :-) Morphh ^(talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arguing with Idiots

Whether you've changed your position or not, will you come and respond here at your earliest convenience? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 03:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] advice

I've followed your advice, but am being edit warred with ... see here --Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mockery - apology

SlamDiego has identified that what I said in reply about your concern about weight and bias could be taken as mockery. I am sorry if I offended you that way, I meant no mockery. I was just expressing that one has to come down and say something at some stage when writing and if one doesn't go by the most reliable sources as far as bias is concerned then I don't know what one can go by for Wikipedia. I'm fully behind the idea that one should look at non-academic sources for weight - for instance I put in a bit emphasising it was important to check other sources for actual practice when assessing weight in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Economics/Reliable_sources_and_weight proposal. Dmcq (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Contents