User talk:Sugar-Baby-Love/Archive

Current user talk is at: User talk:Sugar-Baby-Love

Hello, Sugar-Baby-Love, and Welcome to Wikipedia! As you have just started editing, I hope you find the following selection of links helpful and that they provide you with some ideas for how to get the best out of Wikipedia. Happy editing! Fæ (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Thank you! Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

LGBT issues?

Hey, regarding your comment on the LGBT page, do you have any sources for that? These sound like perspectives that individuals would be expected to have, but do we have some good documentation regarding the main proponents? Please advise, The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Masculism

Hi, just a reminder to assume good faith and remain civil when interacting with other editors on Wikipedia as, for example, in editing Masculism. Rather than engaging in a revert war (which takes two), work things out on the discussion page. Always feel free to solicit mediation if you feel you are not able to reach a consensus with other editors. Cheers, Vectro (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would be more than willing to that. But that Wikipedia user named his account after his sexual libido (in clear violation of Wikipedia rules). So we're not dealing on the level here. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've taken a quick look. The name RandyGeorge (I think this is the user you mean) is not particularly likely to offend or disrupt and appears to be within the guidance given at Username policy (especially as "Randy" is often used as a name in the USA). If you do find a user name offensive you can raise it for a formal review on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, though unless the name is fairly blatant we tend to assume good faith. In any marginal case you could always politely discuss the name with the user, pointing out that it might offend some people and should they want to change their name they can use the straight-forward Changing username/Simple request page.

Your edits look good, but you may want to take a look at WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle which shows one of the best ways to edit and avoid conflict. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Randygeorge (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard alert

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Randygeorge (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Jacques Dutronc

Please review Wikipedia:Non-free content, specifically WP:NFC#UUI for a better understanding of why the images are inappropriate. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read that and neither of the images have anything do with those guidelines, Mr.Sockpuppet. We have (a)A unique publicity photo image that is distinct from other pictures of him and has historical significance (much like Che's photo), and (b)An image describing his film performance for which he won the French version of the Oscars. Neither of those things have free image equivalents. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop insulting editors with whom you disagree. As I pointed out to you before, you must provide significant, substantive, sourced content related to the specific images involved before inserting nonfree images into a BLP can be considered. You haven't even sourced your claim that the "unique publicity photo" is actually a publicity photo. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well... well... well... once again, anon and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz act as one person. They think as one person. They function as one person. I talk to one, another responds. How interesting. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But, back to the point, I find your comment about "Stop insulting editors with whom you disagree" to be RICH given that your response to my first comment to you on your talk page was "BRING. IT. ON." That does not sound very civil, does it? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly post the same lies about two people, you should expect similar responses. And you misquote me, presumably deliberately. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope.

But, anyways, this discussion is pointless if you are willing to drop your flame warring and engage in a civil, productive discussion about what exactly should be in the Bloomberg article as you have been doing. So let's keep on that. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jacques-Dutronc.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jacques-Dutronc.jpg. 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. Skier Dude (talk 04:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful, Skier, you might become suspect as another sock of somebody or other. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, really, now I know that you've just been trolling this whole time. Nothing to do with sockpuppets. You've just been using Wikipedia to score points. I should have noticed this sooner. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't make any personal attacks on me. I've really had enough. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We can end this as soon as you retract your accusations of sockpuppetry. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I choosing to interpret this edit by you as a statement that you and I are hereby disengaged from this flame war and will continue on further edits by making civil, reasonable changes that are fully explained. This conflict is over- with your post and this post. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolfowitz

Many have tried to accuse HW of puppetry. Many have failed.

What I think we're dealing with is someone who has the time to do 100+, 200+ edits a day, working like a machine. A deletionist par excellance - he's very good at what he does.

He's an unfortunate specimen, sad, probably lonely and deeply unpopular, but I don't think he socks.

--89.211.230.227 (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Collaborative news on quippd

Hey, I noticed that you had recently edited the Muna Hotel attack article, and I hoped that you could help out on another collaborative community edited project.

I run quippd, a collaboratively edited social news site, which mixes elements of Wikis, social networking, and social news sites. You can get some more information about what we are doing at: http://quippd.com/about/intro

Basically, we want to get good coverage on news stories, collaboratively edited, like Wikipedia. We are trying to take the ideas of WikiFactCheck -- to make news less biased and speedier (unlike something like Wikinews). By combining social elements to the project, we hope to bring the benefits of wiki enabled fact checking and npov ideas to the masses.

I hope you check us out -- and feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns.

--Yoasif (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:TROLL-CAKE.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:TROLL-CAKE.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverting back addition of disputed content to articles on Scientology topic

Please do not revert back your additions of disputed content to articles on the Scientology topic, at the page L. Ron Hubbard, as you did here: [1]. Please note that all pages within the topic of Scientology are on article probation, due to the Arbitration Committee ruling from the case WP:COFS. Please note that other remedies apply within the topic of Scientology, due to the subsequent Arbitration Committee rulings in the case WP:ARBSCI. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Anonymous (group). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Anonymous (group). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with your transparently false attempt to turn the normal give and take edit process with pointless stonewalling icons.Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Democratic Party (United States). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your drive-by personal attacks are shocking and unhelpful. Please stop. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcasm was couched in such gibberish that it looked like vandalism; it certainly contributed nothing to the discussion. Additionally, you kept removing my remarks without explanation. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, your comments are making a false argument (what sources support what you're saying?) But that gives me no right to remove them as per Wikipedia guidelines.

You kept removing my remarks without explanation. I restored your remarks when I saw that they had been inadvertently removed.

I'd like to politely ask you to step back, cool off, have a cup of tea, and realize that this is just a website. There's no reason to treat it like a war. That attitude that you have demonstrated is in fact destructive to the cause of Wikipedia. This should not be like 4Chan or other websites where blood pressures are constantly high and everyone keeps insulting each other.Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It was the sudden outburst of non sequitur gibberish (accompanied by the deletion of my remark) that led me to identify your edits as vandalism. As to the actual subject matter; outside the boundaries of the United States, what I said is commnon knowledge among political scientists, journalists and historians (I've worked in two of those professions, and minored in the third [poli.sci.]). That part of the discussion can continue on the appropriate talk page, now that the misunderstandings are out of the way. (I'm drinking Mountain Dew rather than tea, by the way.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

TPM talk, Sig Remarks

That's cool. You'll understand how it might read like a jibe. I reckoned that because you've been around about 4 months you're familiar with editors customizing their kits. Sorry, then. All's well. No worries. -Digiphi (Talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Health Insurance Mandate: pictures?

I'm puzzled why you added a photo of a British NHS hospital and the Brazilian SUS logo to the article? As you correctly noted in the text, the British and Brazilian government services provide medical care directly rather than relying on insurance companies. If you are looking for graphics to dress up the article, you might consider a still from Michael Moore's movie Sicko (for example, the scene showing how much $ insurance and provider lobbies "donated" to American politicians). Your additions are usually helpful and I have never reverted any, but those two images seem unrelated to the text and possibly misleading.TVC 15 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can see I'm in the middle of uploading multiple graphics and also adding a bunch of graphics to articles. Your suggestion is well taken. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And there you go. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) However, the dates are in reverse chronological order; is there a way to flip it left-to-right so that the chronology would be in sequence? Also, in addition to insurance industry (AHIP) lobbying[2], one might also consider PhRMA[3], AMA, and AHA.[4] (I found these graphs via Google images, searched medical insurance lobbying, haven't yet tried to import graphs into Wikipedia.)TVC 15 (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The tax graphs may be OR, but they're nice.  :) Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Come-Christmas-(single-cover).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Come-Christmas-(single-cover).jpg. 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. Courcelles 15:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

health insurance mandate

I made 8 individually explained edits to this article. You deleted them all with one edit summary. This is, I believe,unreasonable. At least do me the honor of reverting each one with a proper explanation of each. I do not want to get into an edit war with you.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Parker-spitzer.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Parker-spitzer.jpg. 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Vedder

Great work on the article! May I suggest you nominate it for DYK here. Lionel (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message! I don't know about DYK... I'll think about it... Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in Distribution of Incomes graphic?

Looking at the source data, the numbers shown in the bar chart does not match. The order of the bars is:

Lowest Bracket - Second - Third - Forth - Highest Bracket - Top 10% - Top 5% - Top 1% - Total

The order should be:

Lowest Bracket - Second - Third - Forth - Highest Bracket - Total - Top 10% - Top 5% - Top 1%

Eng-Cliff (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to the exact image please? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_U.S._Federal_Taxes_2000.JPG#filehistory It looks like you fixed it, though. Thanks! Eng-Cliff (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Technopoly The Surrender of Culture to Technology.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Technopoly The Surrender of Culture to Technology.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rock of Life

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rock of Life, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.rock-of-life.com.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Caller

Your edits at The Daily Caller appear to be in violation of the 3RR rule. The edit you have reverted 4 times is not obvious vandalism, and the IP tried to raise the issue on the talk page but you reverted that too! I suggest you discuss the matter on the talk page of the article. Monty₈₄₅ 20:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read here. This is a clear-cut case of sockpuppetry and vandalism that can and must be reverted until such an editor ceases abusing multiple accounts to insert non-neutral non-cited language. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Restated again-- For example, the above user turned (The Daily Caller is a political journalism website based in Washington, D.C., United States with a focus on original reporting and breaking news, ) into (The Daily Caller is a yellow journalism website based in Washington, D.C., United States with a focus on politics, original reporting, breaking news, neoconservative ideology, and YouTube videos,) with no sourcing. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I responded at the editor assistance post, but basically I'm not sure it is a clear enough case to be exempt from the 3rr rule, so I would urge you to let uninvolved editors or admins take care of it at this point. Monty₈₄₅ 20:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.34.77 (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

April 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Daily Caller. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of vandalism is not subject to the 3RR. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.34.77 (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

STOP EDITING THIS PAGE OR YOU MAY FACE AN IMMEDIATE BLOCK!!! The edits are not clearly vandalism. You have been warned by multiple editors to take the argument to the talk page rather than continue your edits. Your edits are becoming just as disruptive as the purported vandalism you are trying to revert. DO NOT EXPECT FURTHER WARNINGS. Jsharpminor (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please go back and read here. Yes this is clearly a vandal who is guilty of abusing multiple accounts. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop doesn't mean continue

What part of stop is difficult for you to understand? NEVER engage anyone in an edit war. Clear policy; there are few exceptions, and they mostly involve libel, pornography, or obscenity -- this is neither. Do not assume you are safe because admins are now involved. Jsharpminor (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not an edit war. It's reverting of vandalism. No different then someone changing "G.W. Bush is the former President" into "G.W. Bush is the former putz" or similar. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Do not assume you are safe because admins are now involved." What on earth could that mean? He or she clear as crystal broke policy and I followed it. Noone is "safe" or "unsafe". Policy is policy. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. It is not allowed to remove other people's talk page posts as you did here, here, here, here. These posts are not vandalism; they are talk page comments. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, those posts are more vandalism and are not legitimate talk page comments. A constructive poster would not say that he or she is editing for pay. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

They look like legitimate talk page posts to me as they do not fit the definition of WP:vandalism and they are not personal attacks. Edit warring to remove someone's talk page posts is definitely not a good idea. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Are we reading the same comments? Seems like 100% clear vandalism.

Regardless, thank God you and other administrators are here. I'm totally ready now to wash my hands of that page and let you deal with the sock-puppetry and vandalism. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I thought I'd drop in and try to explain the vandalism situation. The IP was editing the article with the intent to improve upon the article (by making it more inline with his line of thinking). While his edits could be considered to violate WP:NPOV (and I'm sure several other policies), they would most certainly NOT be considered vandalism. Two sentences from the policy I'd like to point out are: "A user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it." and "The neutral point of view policy is difficult for many of us to understand...though the material added may be inappropriate, it is not vandalism in itself." Even if it's just plain wrong, it is not vandalism. I'm not saying the IP was correct, but calling someone a vandal when they are making good-faith edits tends to make them think that you're simply against them, turning "Us editing the article to make it better" into "Me versus you" (in their mind). This often causes them to revert your 'attack' on them instead of trying to discuss the content. The harsher you are, the less likely they are to work with you. I hope this gives you a clearer understanding, and thank you for reading this. :) - SudoGhost (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I really, really agree that even NPOV improvements on an article are not vandalism. I understand that. Turning "political journalism" into "yellow journalism" (like "concert pianist" into "concert penis", or "Marvin Gaye" into "Marvin Gay"/"Marvin Fag") is not an NPOV edit. It's just clear vandalism. A NPOV editor would not abuse multiple anonymous accounts in order to disguse himself or herself as well (that's just vandal behavior).

Thanks for you post (anyways). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mean to split hairs, but a POV-pusher most certainly would (and quite often does) use sockpuppets to further their POV, to give the illusion of support/consensus. Vandals, on the other hand, usually get bored after they are blocked, and go on. POV-pushers have an agenda, and are willing to work for it. I'm not sure which edits you're referring to, but this[5], for example, is not vandalism by any means. - SudoGhost (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That comment is referring to that editor's repeated claim that he or she is editing because her or she is being paid- e.g. for money. Which is what a vandal would say (an example of 'patent nonsense' as per Wikipedia policy). No non-vandal Wikipedia editor would ever edit for money. People don't pay for Wikipedia editing. It never happens. It's patent nonsense like saying "I'm editing Wikipedia because my life is in danger" or "Because the aliens tell me too". Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

While it is nonsense, it is not vandalism. POV-pushing is not vandalism, not in the WP:Vandalism sense. - SudoGhost (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I regret greatly ever getting involved with that page. I've mud wrestled with a pig and only resulted in pleasing it while getting myself dirty. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

a bit of harsh edditing on 2011 United Kingdom anti-austerity protests to.Wipsenade (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hauser

I came across a copy of the original chart he used, and as I recall it bore no resemblance to actual numbers. Can't find it again. Suggest you try to find it if you have the time; would be interesting to post alongside real numbers. It may have been in WSJ for Oct 24, 1994 as an editorial. Note also that Hauser was a player at Hoover Inst., a right wing group. I have often found that many otherwise reliable sources become lobbyists when it comes to taxes. Regards, Oldtaxguy (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I could find that.

As I've stated before, Hauser's Law is basically like "Righty-tighty, lefty-loosely." or "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." or "Has nipple piercings, will F%&* anyone". It's a vague concept like folk wisdom that is mostly empirically true in the past but has little help in informing policy. Recall the Daniel J. Mitchell piece I added saying that obviously (+)Taxes => (+)Govt Receipts. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)