I removed some recent edits regarding the definition of direct versus indirect in the article Direct tax and the article Indirect tax, for the following reasons. The following material was the source material, and is found in Encycl. Britannica regarding direct versus indirect taxes:
In the literature of public finance, taxes have been classified in various ways according to who pays for them, who bears the ultimate burden of them, the extent to which the burden can be shifted, and various other criteria. Taxes are most commonly classified as either direct or indirect, an example of the former type being the income tax and of the latter the sales tax. There is much disagreement among economists as to the criteria for distinguishing between direct and indirect taxes, and it is unclear into which category certain taxes, such as corporate income tax or property tax, should fall. It is usually said that a direct tax is one that cannot be shifted by the taxpayer to someone else, whereas an indirect tax can be.
The above discussion is not a discussion of the terms direct tax and indirect tax in the U.S. Constitutional law sense. This is a discussion regarding the "literature of public finance."
By contrast, legal scholars and, more importantly, the U.S. courts, have rejected the concept of a direct tax as being "one that cannot be shifted to someone else."
Under the U.S. legal system, a federal direct tax is simply either a capitation (a head tax) or a "tax on property by reason of its ownership." Anything that does not fall into those two categories is an indirect tax. Period. From about 1895 to 1913, taxes on income from property were also treated as direct taxes, but that treatment ended with the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913.
Perhaps the removed material (on which the above quotation appears to be have been based) can be modified, however, to clarify the difference between a theoretical "public finance" view of direct taxes and the separate legal (constitutional law concept) of direct taxes.
I reworked the material and added it back, with some reorganization to (hopefully) clarify the difference. (I put it back in both the "Direct tax" article and the "Indirect tax" article.) Famspear (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who has the authority to say that
The above discussion is not a discussion of the terms direct tax and indirect tax in the U.S. Constitutional law sense. This is a discussion regarding the "literature of public finance." ?
A Wikipedia article should be about all usages unless it is broken out into separate categories, such as (public finance) and (law). I don't see a need to do that, since the two areas have historically influenced one another. I will be providing additional cites to support my edits on the constitutional law meaning when I have the time. Bracton (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello--You're right about the capitalization of Game Theory in Communication Networks. The standard way to handle this is to "move" the article to the new, fixed name. ("move" should be one of the tabs you see along with "edit" and "history".) WP usually handles any necessary redirecting from there, making the redirect from the mis-named page to the newly-named page.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Direct tax. 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. .
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The undoing of reversions by other editors were the result of them doing so while I had the article open for editing and didn't know they had made any changes during that time, so that my further edits, when I saved them, overwrote theirs. A better solution, commonly used by other group editing tools, is some kind of locking mechanism so multiple concurrent editing sessions don't stomp on each other. It would also be helpful if other editors wouldn't be so quick to revert what are clearly not some kind of vandalism, but za work in progress, such as adding content, saving, then adding cites for it. Reverting something just because it doesn't have cites yet is too aggressive.
Decline reason:
See WP:Guide to appealing blocks. Comment on your own actions, not those of others. Explain what you will do differently in the future so that you will work cooperatively with the other editors. It would help if you would agree to obtain consensus on the Talk page before making such large changes to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
Okay, but the time on the IP was extended from 01:48 to 16:17, which is beyond 24 hours. I request return to 01:48 as originally set. This is blocking not just edits on the Direct tax artcle but on my sandbox edits that I need to work on while waiting for the unblock. Bracton (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use the extra time to think about it. I'd suggest leaving it alone until the block is lifted. You may end up annoying an admin into extending this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just to let you know, I removed some information you added to Atwater v. City of Lago Vista here [1] because it was uncited and possible defamatory. Wikipedia has a very strict rule against that at WP:BLP. If you can find some citations for the information, I encourage you to revert my edit (and add the citations). Thanks. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Michael Kammen photo2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Michael Kammen photo2.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.
Thanks for uploading Image:Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus(Talk)07:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of metonyms. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of metonyms. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on constitutional militia movement. I gave up on Wikipedia because the entire leadership structure/network is so biased that I found it impossible to work on militia movement related articles without having several far-lefties tag teaming me with their edit warring and POV. I hope you haven't given up on Wikipedia, and if you're still at it, I hope you'll find additional sources to include in these articles. Dig deep; the "lamestream" media has occasionally admitted their deeply ingrained left-wing institutional bias, and one has to go to alternate parties to find usable material here. Best wishes, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.39.185 (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ward republic, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Denization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert de Vieuxpont, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages King Henry III and Simon de Montfort. 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.
You are commenting on one step in a chain of edits. Should wait for a hour or two to allow the edits to be completed. To the best of my knowledge the error you cite was correct about two minutes later. Bracton (talk)
No, footnote #44 in the current version of the article (a cite of Perkins v. Elg, containing a mention of Ankeny v. Governor which you added today in the middle of a URL) is still broken as best I can see. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)04:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I see the problem. Must have inadvertently pasted a copied string while the cursor was in the wrong position. Corrected now. Made an endnote out of it. Thanks for spotting it. Bracton (talk)
You removed a whole section (Ecological factors) under the "Animal studies" heading without providing an explanation.
You added unrelated material (about intergenerational discounting) instead, which was unsourced and, while interesting to read, seems to be original research.
Hello, Bracton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Bracton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Bracton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Since you defended the inclusion of James Madison in the Game Theory article in the past, I thought I should explain why I took him out.
The text as I found it said that James Madison "is now recognized [as having done game theory]." This is different from saying "James Madison did game theory." To say that James Madison is recognized as having done game theory, the appropriate source is a history of game theory. I examined most of the books here, notably Dimand, and as far as I could tell James Madison was not mentioned. In some cases, I could do a text search of the contents, in other cases I looked at the index, in other cases I relied on Google Books' "search inside this book feature." Obviously, this isn't foolproof, but I don't think the burden is on me here.
You seemed to place great reliance on Rakove as a source for your claim. Rakove is an American historian, not a historian of mathematics. As such, he's not a proper source for "Madison is recognized for doing game theory" but only perhaps "Madison did game theory." Reading the paper of Rakove's you refer to, I can't tell whether he wants us to literally regard Madison's analysis as equivalent to game theory, in the same sense that other older work was literally game theory, or just as an analogy, saying his reasoning was similar to game theory or something. But even assuming he does mean it literally, and that he understands game theory enough to make this point credibly, it still just means that one guy put forth the novel opinion that James Madison did game theory. This is sufficient to include a reference to game theory in the James Madison article, but not to include a reference to James Madison in the game theory article.
I noticed in the talk page that you mentioned another source, Iain McLean's "Before and after Publius," which presumably contained another independent opinion that James Madison's reasoning in Vices was equivalent to game theory. McLean is a much better source for this kind of thing, since he's a Public Choice guy instead of a straight historian. However, I wasn't able to find "Before and after Publius" on the internet, so I can't tell what he said. However, even if he had equated Vices to game theory, I don't think this rises to the standard of "recognized" (and/or warrants inclusion in the game theory article) for the same reasons I mentioned above.
FWIW, my own opinion is that game theory shouldn't even be mentioned in Madison (although I grant that there is a prima facie reliable source for this claim, and so it could be mentioned). Madison's reasoning in point 7 of Vices does not strike me as any different in kind from the sort of informal reasoning about the behavior of various parties that every political theorist uses. If it counts as literal game theory, why doesn't, say, Plato's Republic? If we ask why Madison is more important than other political theorists, the ordinary response is that he was better at it than them, and that he had a greater impact, not that his political theory included game theory. Dingsuntil (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Direct tax. 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. .
