User talk:Lneal001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Lneal001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — ξxplicit 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page User talk:Fastily has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Struck as these were not unconstructive edits... No idea why this warning was given. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Int Household Income Page[edit]

Hi Lneal001. Thanks for letting me know. I was wondering what was going on at International Ranking of Household Income. Glad to hear it's been cleared up. Regards, FASTILYsock (TALK) 05:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

List of countries by household income[edit]

Hi Lneal001,

I've left a message at Talk:List of countries by household income that may interest you.


Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, and thanks for your message.
The problem is that you're not the only one who's edited that page. See, for example, this edit and this edit. I can't tell whether those were honest edits made to correct typos or whatever, or whether someone's mischievously vandalising the article. I see there were similar edits way back last year (eg).
If these edits really are vandalism, then the best thing to do would be to make sure we can refer to a correct version of the article, then apply for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. That should stop drive-by vandalism once and for all.
By the way, do you also edit as (talkcontribsinfoWHOIS)? I'm just trying to make sense of the article history.
Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 18:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Average wage article[edit]

Hi, I just read through the link you gave me and it seems like the data was indeed incorrect. The numbers didn't seem to correlate too much with PPP-adjusted GDP per capita, so I did have my own doubts about it. Shame I just found it out now..the OECD could have put a reference of some sort on their database.

I was actually about to re-edit the article with the correct numbers you showed me. I'm not sure how to use a tax calculator but this is my method of calculating the net value:

1. First get the numbers from the OECD Tax Database, which will allow countries to be compared uniformly. 2. Now, countries tax people differently according to different incomes and family structures, so we will assume that it will be a single person with no child and an income 100% of the average wage, which seems to be the standard method the OECD uses in their database. 3. That should give us the disposable figure.

There might be a better way to calculate the net values but this is the most accurate way of doing that to my limited knowledge gained so far. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Hoppyturn (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right, the OECD compulsory payment ratio includes basically everything that a citizen must pay before they are free to spend their income on something, like non-tax compulsory payments (compulsory insurance, for example). So it definitely covers everything that is taken off the gross wage. The single, no children category with 100% of average wage is the standard scenario that the OECD uses in their tax database, so this is what I'm proposing to use in our data. Of course, like any data, this will give an estimate of the well-being of the citizens, rather than something 100% accurate, but that estimate will be much more accurate than the gross figure. Let me know if I can go ahead with this. Thanks! Hoppyturn (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just done the calculations and edited the page so you can see how it works out. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Hoppyturn (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly a good idea to compare the OECD figures with external tax calculators. What I'm concerned though is if the external tax calculators also include non-tax compulsory payments which are not classified as "taxes". Many countries deduct this from their gross income, sometimes this can be significant. Have a look at this article from the OECD Tax Database, which includes NTCPs and let me know if the tax calculators take into account NTCPs:,3746,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html#NTCP Thanks! Hoppyturn (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about non-tax compulsory payments, which are mandatory payments other than tax and social security contributions. The figures I used include NTCPs (non-tax compulsory payments) and I was wondering if the external tax calculators included these NTCPs (which I doubt since the OECD has developed these NTCP figures directly with the national governments). Read the following form the OECD tax database about NTCPs:

"In many OECD countries employers have to make compulsory payments on behalf of their employees which do not qualify as taxes and social security contributions. These mainly arise either where the payments are made to organizations outside the government sector or because they are not unrequited in the sense the benefits provided are directly related to the level of the payments. In the same way, employees often have to pay additional contributions that are not classified as taxes.

"However these “non-tax compulsory payments” (NTCPs) operate in a similar way to taxes in that they serve either to increase the employer's labour costs or to reduce the employee's net take-home pay. The OECD has therefore calculated a set of “compulsory payment indicators” which are designed to show the combined impact of taxes and NTCPs net of benefits." Source: See the link I posted earlier on. Thanks. Hoppyturn (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Then I think it's better to use the OECD figures for consistency. It was a good idea though and if we can find the rates of NTCPs, then we can definitely think about using the external calculators. I also added disposable income growth today, check it out. Thanks! Hoppyturn (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I see your point. For some countries like UK and Spain (20% -> 30%), the rates are so high the OECD figures don't make much sense. You can go ahead with this, just make sure to calculate all other columns for each country's new deduction figure. Also make sure that tax rates are valid for the year 2010, which must be stated in the source. Thanks! Hoppyturn (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, it would be a good idea if you could let me know the calculated figures on my talk page before editing, rounded to the nearest decimal point (i.e. 22.8%, for example). Thanks. Hoppyturn (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I just calculated the net wage for the UK using the tax calculator link you provided and the compulsory deduction comes out to be 25%, on par with the OECD figure. Gross wage in the UK was £30,834.00 in 2010 according to the OECD StatExtract, and I used the 2010/2011 year. How did you get the 31% figure? Thanks! Hoppyturn (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe I did include national insurance (I didn't check the box on "I pay no NI"). If you're talking about "Employers NI", it is not deducted from the the net wage as far as I know, but rather paid by the employer, and hence is not counted. The OECD figures don't include these either, which is specifically stated on their tax database. Hoppyturn (talk) 07:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Net wage comes out to be £23,314.20 when I plug in 31,000 pounds, which translates to 24.8% deduction. I haven't touched anything on the calculator, it's the standard 2010/2011, under 65 setting. For your reference, the tax due comes out to be £4,905.00, the national insurance at £2,780.80 and total deductions at £7,685.80. Thanks. Hoppyturn (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The disposable per hour is easy. Simply divide the disposable income by the annual hours worked from the OECD StatExtracts (link: [1]) For example, in the US, the average worker worked 1,778 hours in 2010, and divide that by the disposable income of the US for 2010 ($40,560), then we get $22.81 earned per hour. As for Germany's figure, you need to tell me precisely which options you used to make a fair comparison because there appears to be a substantial number of options we can't directly compare with the OECD rates (like living in East Germany or Saxony, or the variable health insurance rate). Thanks for the follow-up. Hoppyturn (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The figures do seem rather high to me as well. But it seems to me that the 39% figures includes a substantial amount of NTCP (non-tax compulsory payment) that is not covered by the tax calculator. Any details you claim must be verifiable by others. You told me earlier that you phoned the OECD to verify about the deduction rates. Could you give me the phone number of the OECD official you talked to so I can double-check about this? I would also need the contact details of the German government official you talked to. Thanks. Hoppyturn (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I've checked out Tax rates around the world and the tax rate for Germany is not unusual. It is the second highest in the OECD after Belgium (in line with OECD's 2010 figures and much higher than the 28% of the United States at the time), with mean personal tax rates over 50% in 2005. Germany charges 41% on payroll taxes, with 15% for one of the many public health insurances (fixed rate by law), as well as a solidarity tax (depending on income) and a 26% social security tax (retirement + unemployment). Note that some components are not covered in your tax calculator, and hence why you are getting a lower number than the OECD's figure. Hoppyturn (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

South Dade Killer[edit]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of South Dade Killer, and it appears to include material copied directly from

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.) MadmanBot (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Median household income[edit]

Ok, agreed. Are you OK with me re-calculating the time series table using the PPP for private consumption instead? Pristino (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you see problems comparing a single country throughout the years because of data quality/coverage changes, then what we're doing right now is even worse: comparing different countries on different years. Pristino (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We still need a direct source for the OECD numbers[edit]

Please head over to the discussion page to see the issue I have raised: [2] 15:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You said that you would be happy to show me how to get to those OECD numbers. Do that now. Give the directions on how to see those numbers on the stat database. If you simply tell me to remove them, it suggests that you haven't been honest about those numbers being up on the stat database in the first place. If that's the case, then admit it now so we can remove it. Massyparcer (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Lneal001 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Lneal001. You have new messages at Ahecht's talk page.
Message added 16:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ahecht (TALK
) 16:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

AVERAGE wage[edit]

hi I am making 2 list, one regrouping your figures updated PPP and an other for current USD, so I respect your work. I am searching for ILO why it disappeared so during this time lets work normally without problems. Thanks for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techastrax (talkcontribs) 16:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Please update the UNECE list with my PPP list ASAP. I still do not agree with ILO list given what I said and have contacted other admin on their opinion. Lneal001 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Greetings, Lneal001 -- On the List of countries by average wage page where the references are to broken links or where citations are obsolete, we run in to Wikipedia policy which negates utilizing untetstable, unfalsifiable references and citations. All refs and cites must be to valid links, obviously, and a great deal of effort is utilized to attempt to reduce "link evaporation" which can render a Wiki page's accuracy questionable. So if you find dead links, references or citations which do not support the text, that has to be fixed. If you find other editors wishing to keep those references and citations, that's a problem which may require a third party request or another RFC.
Yet as you saw, an RFC was issued for this discussion already, then responses were solicited by the 'bot, and a few people responded. If there is still contention after the RFC cycle, the next step is to ask for a third party to weigh in and if there is no joy ask for an arbitration editor to evaluate the issues, examine the RFC responses, and make a decision, discuss that decision with other editors, hope to tailor the decision with useful comment, and failing all else the arbitration editor dictates her resolution and editors are asked to comply with her decisions.
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, there are many ways to resolve editor debate which can't get resolved by themselves, and it can get daunting. Still, it's volunteer work and editors must not get discouraged and abandon the Wikipedia project since it's become virtually the source to go to for the whole world, so even if RFCs and decisions go against an editor's desired results, well there are other pages that need work. :)
Good luck! Hang in there! Everyone appreciates the work you do, the worl that a great many editors do. From time to time edit conflicts come up, editors power through them and maybe nobody is fully satisfied but in the end it gets done. Damotclese (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, Lneal001! Thanks for your note. I think you should, well, surrender and accept the results of the RFC on that page. As I noted in the Talk:: page, your account here on Wikipedia looks like it's a WP:SPA Single Purpose Account and attempting to propose edit changes that are different than proposed updates others have (in general) discussed and agreed to could get your "Single Purpose Account" account suspended if an editor gets annoyed.
As I said, it's not always that every editor can be happy, some times we lose battles. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


Instead of engaging in potentially endless edit wars with clearly sockpuppets of User:Ichek, I suggest you help me out finding diffs for their behaviour that are very similar to User:Ichek. They're all currently undergoing investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ichek, where an admin has asked me to provide diffs for their similarity in behaviour. Massyparcer (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so what exactly do you want me to do? Lneal001 (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
To provide edits as proof that they're emulating a certain behavior of the mastersock. Don't worry for now because I have provided those evidence and the admin has blocked those socks indefinitely..but who knows when they will come back as new users. Look out for anyone who has little to no edit history and is suddenly arguing against the prevailing and legitimate consensus to use PPPs and reverting without discussing first. Those are usually socks that we must deal with the procedure as I have done with the current socks. Now, we seriously need to restore that OECD list with net figures which were abused by the socks so many times.. Massyparcer (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Just as feared, they have showed up yet again..this seriously needs to stop. I have reported the new IP sock to the case.. Massyparcer (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I have been very busy recently. Thanks for blocking them! Lneal001 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

How to report the sockpuppets[edit]

See here: [3]. Massyparcer (talk)

Your report at WP:AN3[edit]

As you may already know, I blocked the IP you reported, but I have a couple of comments I wanted to leave here. First, it's not enough to say that you are reporting the IP as you did. You should use the template at the top of the AN3 page in the instructions. Second, and not really related, you shouldn't invite users to comment on your user page. You did that a long time ago and perhaps have forgotten, but I'd remove it. User pages aren't intended to be used for communications with other users; that's what talk pages are for.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I did use the correct template in my report? Lneal001 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm talking about the template that's used to notify the user you are reporting on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Developed country shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dr. K. 18:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I simply updated the page with more up to date information from 2015. Also, it's impossible to have consensus when there are only 2 editors on the page, so I simply updated the incomes to 2015 with a reference. Lneal001 (talk)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lneal001 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 20:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

3RR block[edit]

You've been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to violating the Three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 23:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  NeilN talk to me 05:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lneal001 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Hi. In the article for Developing Country, I simply instructed the editor that the information he used had little to do with the subject at hand, and would set precent for users to swamp the page with many other lists. The lists used were all duplicates from other pages. However for sake of compromise, I added a more up to date income list, but then was blocked after the other editor kept reverting this version Lneal001 (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui  08:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

Simply put, it's not okay to continue edit warring as soon as you come off a block for edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 05:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but it was the OTHER editor who began the revert after the block and I simply put it back to where it was before. Why am I being penalizing for putting it back to where it was before? Also, on the talk page I offered a rational and logical reason for the change and he since hasn't responded, claiming to have consensus which is untrue since it's me and him onlyLneal001 (talk)
Please see WP:3RRNO for exemptions to the rule. Your reverts do not qualify as exemptions. Dr. K. 05:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
At the time the other editor initiated the change, he was violating policy and therefore was constructively banned (even though it took an hour to materialize). Thus my revert falls under "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." Lneal001 (talk)
Nobody is considered banned, unless the community has explicitly banned them after a discussion. Noone gets banned "constructively" just to suit one's purposes during edit-warring. See WP:BAN. This discussion, if anything, proves the necessity of your block for edit-warring. It seems you need a rather extended time to come around to the conventional understanding of what constitutes edit-warring. Dr. K. 06:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have unblocked you as the other editor has now been revealed to be a sock puppet. You understand that if you are claiming the "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." exemption, it needs to be clear who the originally blocked editor is? --NeilN talk to me 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wise up[edit]

So you're aware, one does not leave comments on a userpage. Please do not solicit such, as it creates confusion. Also, you need to learn how to discuss changes. Being a good faith editor is pointless with your strategy. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I never made any edits to another usernames page. I am confused. I simply modified a page due to original research. Lneal001 (talk)
An IP made edits to your userpage, which is typically considered vandalism. I dutifully reverted it. I imagine they left a message because your userpage says "Leave any comments below", and much as I like to bite new users I hate to do it over a simple misunderstanding. As for the OR issue, please discuss that on the relevant talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok. So the attack wasn't on me then right? Lneal001 (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I no longer think I want to discuss anything with you. Congratulations. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of countries by median wage. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Stop it or you're going to ANI and another block. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you kindly request dispute resolution for the OR issue on this page? Lneal001 (talk)
I did already. Here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeine091 (talkcontribs) 18:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "List of countries by median wage". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 July 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


Since you're a reviewer, I'd like to ask you to review this edit I made: I used Credit Issue's Global Wealth Report as a source. Between you and me, I was really surprised to see the U.S. so low in that rating. They usually very vocal about their middle class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeine091 (talkcontribs) 18:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That is based on wealth not income. At the middle level, "wealth" is a function of basically one thing: non financial assets, which is primarily connected home ownership. And this in itself is comprised of three main factors: home prices, mortgage models, and home ownership rates. While the USA has average levels of home ownership rates, it has low property prices vs many other developed countries, and it has a mortgage system where you can buy a house with very little upfront cost, which results in low equity and more debt. This is the reason why median wealth (i.e. home wealth) is rather low. In Germany it is not too high either, but that is due to low home ownership. In Australia it is high due to high home prices. Remember that in terms of liquid wealth, the middle has basically very little in any country you look at. The differences are all a function of home wealth, which does not mean much. You cannot buy anything which your house unless you sell it.
If you want an analysis of income, which is what is used to buy goods and services, please see this report below. It says that on a relative basis US middle class is smaller but in absolute terms it is second highest to Luxembourg. Pay attention to relative vs absolute. Your list is based on middle wealth which means home equity. That's all it means and explained by the factors above. Income is much more important. Using the wealth metric, Italy is above USA, Germany and Denmark which is ridiculous because on an income level they are well above it.
Well, it's still a small number for the country that claims to be the richest. In terms of median income by OECD, though, it looks better. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeine091 (talkcontribs) 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
But to be honest, the key numbers for me it the minimum wage, because you can be 100% that you will earn it. US, unfortunately is behind the majorite of advanced countries in terms of min wage. Jeune091 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I also have a compromise proposition. If mediation and reviews won't solve this problem, what if we'll leave only those numbers that explicitly stated? Like, hourly gross median wages in euro for europe, median employee compensation for the us and gross average wages, minimum to median and minimum to average ratios for OECD country. And let the reader calculate median wages and taxes deduction on their own. I'll leave a small guide on the talk page to explain how to calculate. It won't be in the article itself, but would be useful for those who's not too fond of math. What'd you say? Jeune091 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
RE WEALTH--Like I said, when you realize that the Credit Suisse report is only based on wealth, which at the middle level only means home equity, then it is not surprising at all. US home prices are rather low compared to many other places and thus median equity will be low and median wealth as well since median equity is effectively 90% of median wealth. This is why places likE Italy do better than Germany on this measure, even when Italy is much poorer. It's a very misleading measure because it's solely based on home prices. If you take away home equity, median wealth is near zero in every country. However, for rich people, wealth is a good measure because rich people own much more than their own house---they have other properties, bank accounts, stocks, etc. For millionaires and billionaires, wealth is definitely a good measure, and in fact one's own residence is typically excluded for that derivation. At the middle level, wealth is only a function of home equity, which which does not tell you much about how much money you have to spend.
RE Compromise: I think we have a page on minimum wages, which I think is great, because it all comes from one source and uses PPPs, which is recognized as the proper converter. I have absolutely no problem with that page. Your proposal sounds interesting. I would like to add that the US source from SSA is for all workers and rather misleading because for Eurostat they only include full time workers. Therefore, to make it more comparabale you must use these figures which is for full time year round workers:
A mean and median is provided, so no need to "derive" median wages and go into the OR territory. As you can see on that page, mean full time wages is $61,151 (similar to OECD) and median is $46,571. A ratio is .75 by the way. This is for full time year round workers and more in line with what Eurostat produces. Lneal001 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

For median in the us I meant this one It already has median, and taxes could be calculated by the readers. And if you're not sure about full-time workers, eurostat gives hourly wage. Full-time worker means that someone works for 2080 hours per year. So, one can easily calculate, by multiplying median hourly wage by 2080 and calculating tax. And I didn't mean median income. We already have median income page, both from Gallup and OECD. I meant only median wages. And the ratio is 64,897 as you can see.

There are two problems. The Eurostat data cannot be converted to net using tax calculators because of the rule I mentioned before. There are too many assumptions that have to be made to know tax liability. So we are stuck with median gross income. The SSA data for the US does indeed show net income, but the SSA wage data is not exhaustive because its only W2 wages and exclude employee contributions to health plans, and includes part time workers, thus making the figure much lower. This is why the Census figure is much higher (in addition to the fact that it is gross). Unfortunately, the Census does not provide net wage statistics,only Gross. The Census figure I cited was not for income it was for wages. Read the table again. Lneal001 (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how well you were reading, but I mentioned that Eurostat reflects HOURLY wage. Per hour. Not per week, not per month, not per year. Per hour. That means, that it could be used to calculate any work hourse, from part time to full time. Yes, they will be gross, but still.

That's why we could use that SSA data, with part-time workers included. Because Eurostat give hourly wages, not any others. You should also read this: It explicitly states, that annual compensation includes health contributions.

Although, nevermind. Hard to talk when our POV make us biased. I'd rather just wait until mediation decides the fate of the article.

Well, at least I know that I didn't make anything up and used all the number from the OECD. Even if it has no place in wikipedia, no matter what I think, it'd still be on my page, so people could see it anyway, without breaking rules. Numbers are accurate anyway, as you know.

If it's hourly as you say, then we are making yet another assumption when you extrapolate that to full time. You have no authority to dictate what is full time or not and this is yet another OR issue. So you must leave at hourly. I am pretty sure Eurostat provides annual tables. BTW your link has nothing to do with the SSA data, it's a generic description of the term with no evidence that the SSA uses that same definition. Why else do you think the Census numbers are much higher? It's because they include only full time earners and include employee contributions. Lneal001 (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You could say that. Although these are average numbers, so it'd be worth mention that since the US has the highset income inequality among those countries, the median age ratio would be lower than in the other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeine091 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well now we are getting off topic and nobody ever said US had lower income inequality, which is completely besides the point (OR is the issue). The page is there for review, and lets see what the dispute admins say. Lneal001 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It's just an observation that even with taking average wage the US is number 8 in terms of net salaries, considering much higher tax rates in virtually all countries from 1-7 places. You know, kinda like an off-topic observation, an interesting fact, nothing more. Jeune091 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That's because you are confusing sources with different methdologies. The fact is that USA is number one in terms of gross average wages according to OECD, and thus must be first in net wages if it has lower tax %. And in terms of all income, the US is number two in terms of overall median household income according to the Pew study I gave you. If we look at disposable adjusted household income from OECD, USA is also number one, please see the Household Income page. Lneal001 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
According to Gallup USA is not number one or two in median household income. According to OECD USA is not number one or two in median personal income by PPP. And you were the one who speculated about annual wages provided by Eurostat. Well I gave you the link to it. And you have no authority to dictate which methodology is right or wrong, remember?

And I forgot to mention that that ratio of 0,75 between median and average is OR as well. I will put Eurostat average net salaries statistics to average wage by country. I hope in this case there won't be any problems with OR, as I just copy from the source, like in case with middle class percentage. Jeune091 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, The Gallup figure is from a single poll asked through a telephone. It severely understates income as it says in the footnote. And the Pew numbers actually are consistent, except that they inflate the numbers to a 3 person household, giving different results vs OECD median personal. You need to find Annual MEDIAN wages from Eurostat not average. Where are the Median net annual wage stats from Eurostat?Lneal001 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Still, the Gallup figure was considered reliable enough to use as a source, so it's legitimate to look up to. After all, it was on wikipedia longer than I was. And you didn't do anything to remove it, so you were okay with it too. :) I already found median wages from Eurostat. They are hourly and you agreed to add them as gross hourly earnings, without making them annual or monthly And I suppose you didn't read my message well. I meant, put average net wages from eurostat to this article. It already has OECD data and UNECE statistics. Eurostat will be the third, and the only one with net wage. Jeune091 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I would rather you put average net wages from Eurostat in the List of European countries by average wage. Since it's only Europe that it is covering. The Average wage page should ideally be for all world regions or at least all developed countries from the same source. In fact my position is that anything from Eurostat covering European wages should be 1) on European page, and 2) with minimal modifications except conversion to PPP. Eurostat has its own specific methodology for example excluding enterprises with less than 10 persons, excluding certain industries, excluding mini jobs, etc. So it cannot be compared with other national wages stats from other agencies. That's the good thing about the oecd list is that is used the same exact methodology but it's gross not netLneal001 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I would've put it there, but I'm afraid that USA and Japan are not european countries. So, this table will do better in world's average wages. Had it been only european countries there, then sure. But, rules are rules. Jeune091 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

But the Eurostat figures use a different methodology than the US and likely Japan so not strictly comparable. We ALREADY have a table on comparable Net Take home pay. No need to recreate something that's already there. Lneal001 (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it from eurostat? I think not. Besides, I could've told that OECD uses different methodology for european countries, but I don't. You know why? Because wikipedia cites reliable sources, that's why. We don't define whether that source using the methodology we used to or not. If it's reliable -- we use it. And Eurostat is reliable source. Plus, if it did calculation for Japan and USA, then we should include it on par with european countries. If we don't, it'd be OR and it's a violation of the rules. And when I try to find net-take home earnings, it redirects me to this page: Household income with 2004 year data about income. Thanks, but we have income. We need net salaries. You know. Jeune091 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you delete the Net Take home pay article? You cannot do that. This all comes from the same template and source. No issue or OR there. Lneal001 (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
...What? I never touched that. I'm not petty enough to delete articles for my own gain. I have no idea deleted it, and what it was before, so if you need it, you can restore it. And in the meantime, I'll go to add Eurostat statistics to the article. Excuse me. Jeune091 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok but you cannot add the US or Japan to that list because you will be giving the impression that it comes from same source and are strictly comparable. It will be deleted so you should stick to only the European countries for now. Lneal001 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Why can't I? Show me the rule that restricts me from doing so. Besides, you should visit that link with eurostat

As you will soon discover, because numbers for Japan and USA do come from the same source as european countries. Namely -- from Eurostat. And they are strictly comparable. Like OECD countries, which include both european, and non-european countries. Jeune091 (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

are you saying Eurostat has Data for USA and Japan ?
Visit. The. Link. Please. Jeune091 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Link does not work Lneal001 (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Works for me and will work for the others. Here's a screenshot, if you still can't visit site.
Eurostat net wages.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeine091 (talkcontribs) 22:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That is fine, though I have every right to add footnotes to clarify whatever cited methodological differences I find. For example, if the US figure includes part time and others excludes them, then I will make note of that. Lneal001 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I've got a volatile feeling that something's going on... But okay, now I'll finally do some work. Hated to sit and do nothing. Jeune091 (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That's more like it :) Here you go:
Basically, these figures have come up through the years and there have been edit wars on them in the past. These net earnings figures from Eurostat come from the Taxing Wages publication of the OECD. . The Taxing Wages publication gets an estimate of wages for each country but they are not strictly comparable as you see below on Table A.4:

In the case of the US, they include part time workers while most others do not, creating bias. In addition, the wage figure from the US excludes bonuses, government workers, and irregular overtime. We can calibrate the bias by comparing the gross average wage figure in table A.6 to the other OECD average wage figure. A.6 has the gross average at $48,000, a full $10,000 lower than the national accounts based OECD figure. This is because the former includes part timers, excludes government workers, and excludes irregular payments, resulting in a much lower figure. So there is a caveat with using these figures, and I will definitely make a foot note of that. In addition many other countries exclude wages of people working in small establishments, creating bias there too. Lneal001 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Make any footnotes you want :) As long as people will see net wages, I'm fine with it. Forgot to say. You have no authority to dictate, which source is biased and which isn't. As long as the other source doesn't explicitly state it, it's OR. Jeune091 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning List of countries by median wage, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Median income[edit]

Hello @Lneal001:, just to let you know, I did a friendly revert on your edition of the Median income but after that I also reverted all of my changes and I correctly edited the amount of other countries to the exchange rate which use most countries. For example for Spain I wrote exactly the amount which was prior to my editions, while on the UK or Slovenia I had to edit it. Slovenia had a $ to € change of more than 1.50 (which is very wrong) and the UK had low than in reality, as the numbers for the UK were in GBP (local currency) not in Euro as the number on the article. Regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The figures are all originally in national currency units. So for UK it would be UK pounds. PPP exchange rates are being used NOT actually exchange rates. Please make sure the figures are correct, and show me where you got the PPP exchange rates. Thanks Lneal001 (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I know, that's why i'm saying that for the UK they were wrong, because it was much smaller than the GBP/USD change. Slovenia was using a conversion rate bigger than 1.5$ per €. I let Spain untouched before my changes, as I didn't notice it until you did the change!
For Slovenia I used the PPP exchange rate on the page as most of the other EU countries and for the UK I used the actual change rate, because above from the chart, the page says this: "Data are in United States dollars at current prices and" (I didn't edit it).
Regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Lneal001. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)