Talk:Wage/Archives/2017
 | This page 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. |
"Wage" and "Wages"
A user called "TaxCracker" appears to be engaged in an edit war over his/her insistence on including, in the article, his/her idiosyncratic (and incorrect) theory about a supposed substantive difference between "wage" and "wages," possibly based on mis-readings of the Internal Revenue Code and Black's Law Dictionary. The sources he/she is citing do not support the interpretation he/she has formulated. Famspear (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Dear Famspear: I do not like your false accusations. The information I have provided is reliable and verifiable. I will continue to provide truthfull and verifiable information. --TaxCracker (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
No one has made any false accusations. However, you are breaking the rules. First, you are engaged in an edit war. Second, you have removed the talk page comment of another editor (me). Third, you have repeatedly added material that is not supported by the sources you cite. Despite having had things explained to you on your own talk page, you have failed to discuss your edits, and you have repeatedly re-inserted material in the article after other editors removed your material. Famspear (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Famspear, removal of the talk page comment was unintentional. I admit it, and apologize for it. Never the less, the Wiki WAGE page has a banner stating that the page needs help, and I agree that after seeing what was posted there, it clearly did need help. So I did help. AND I provided references, namely the Internal Revenue Code and Black's Law Dictionary demonstrating quite clearly that there are separate definitions for wage and wages, this is true both in Black's and in Websters. So I don't understand your claim that I have added unsupported material. The material that I added and YOU removed was clearly spot on. It even harmonized with other information you posted that I left there. --TaxCracker (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Dear TaxCracker: I was talking about the material you originally inserted into the article. I explained on your talk page why the material violated the Wikipedia rules. And, the fact that there are separate definitions for "wage" and "wages" in various places is not the issue. Lots of words have more than one definition -- even in the same dictionary. The point was that your original material consisted of your own interpretations of the source materials, and your own interpretations were not supported by the source materials.
- Your most recent edits are better. The point is that if you add something to an article and another editor removes your material, you violate the rules if you re-add your material over and over. In that situation, you are required to discuss your proposed changes to the article. If you obtain consensus from other editors, THEN you may re-insert the material.
- And, the claim that the information provided "is reliable and verifiable" and the statement that "I will continue to provide truthfull [sic] and verifiable information" are not acceptable as a solution. You have to work with other editors. And, when you insert new material, the burden is on YOU to persuade other editors who disagree with your edits. Famspear (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)