User talk:Mateo SA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Supreme court

Sounds good. And it was probably rude of me to revert your change without taking the issue to the talk page first, and so I apologize for that. Take care. --Arcadian 21:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your translation request completed

  • Article: sl:Volitve 2004
  • Corresponding English-language article: Slovenia parliamentary elections, 2004
  • Worth doing because:
    • Material to incorporate into English-language article
  • Originally Requested by: Mateo SA | talk 18:37, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Status: "Translated, but review requested by Eleassar777 10:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)".
  • Other notes: The English-language version is just a stub, but is featured on Current events.

(and it looks like SteveW reviewed it)

[edit] Thank You

Just a quick note to say Thanks for taking care of the strange edit in the Articles of Confederation article. Lou I 16:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] your editing of my comments

please do not edit my personal comments on talk pages (including this one). your "copyedit" and "corrections" were not welcome. if you can point me to a wiki policy that supports you changing personal comments without leave of the writer, please do so. otherwise, i am asking that you leave my comments entirely alone. your opinions on how i type/write or what i say may be put around them, not in them. thanks. SaltyPig 23:52, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

[edit] Consitutional Respects

Nice work. --Cuimalo 02:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] stealing

because they stole thier lands or not doesnt mean we should nopt say the US did such, is it because you wish not to show this that you try to put sieze in? steal is not POV it is blunt truth, sieze tries to say in a way that it was justified, which it wasnt.

Gabrielsimon 18:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RfD

Just out of curiousity, did you notice the line just above where you added that entry, where it said "New entries go at the **BOTTOM** of the page"? Noel (talk) 01:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Nice shortening of the text I added about the U.S. Constitution, thanks. Sometimes it's hard to see how to write it briefly...! -- Dwheeler

[edit] Thanks for your support

Thank you for the support in the accusation of vandalism against me by an anonymous editor. I don't agree with that editor's moves on Norfolk Southern and Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway, and have stated as such on the articles' talk pages. I find it curious that I would be accused of vandalizing the same content that I'm working so hard to improve. slambo 01:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Thanks for informing me; I've changed my preferences accordingly. -- Emsworth 12:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irredentism

I've reverted your changes. Would you look through your edits and express the irredentist claims, from the irredentist points-of-view, as claims, rather than deleting material so wholesale. The more context, rather than less, we can give them, the better they'll illustrate the meanings of irredentism. Don't be cross: it's all for the best. --Wetman 02:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

Sorry - habit. -- BD2412 talk 20:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US Congress

I wasn't a big fan of spending a whole section in the article on the dual-office thing, but it seems to have evolved into a more general statement, which seems better. I haven't been keeping up with the fight, what exactly is going on? --Golbez 16:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent US Congress Edits

Hi, I noticed your comments on the edit summary of the edit you recently made to Congress of the United States. You said "revised horribly written section into grammatical English; more work needs to be done; deleted misleading statements about exclusionary rules". Although I agree with many of your changes, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from referring to my edits and "horribly written", as this was an ernest effort to improve the article. I understand that it was probably not perfect, but there is no need to be so attacking. In fact, as I was looking over your edits, I noticed a few instances which I would deem "grammatically incorrect", revision is just part of Wikipedia. Thanks, --Gpyoung talk 02:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you and I apologize if I seemed over-sensitive.

[edit] Income Tax

Thanks for taking out the copyvio tax-protest advocacy. I have been meaning to get my reference ducks in a row and do something about that article for some time, but I didn't recognize the copyvio. Robert A West 22:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exchange

I noticed your exchange with Septentrionalis. He and I share a trait that is both helpful and hurtful on Wikipedia: we have been voracious readers all our lives, and have a sizable fund of knowledge in which we are justly confident, yet for which we often cannot provide a source at a moment's notice. For one thing, once one has read a fact in half a dozen texts, it just becomes part of one's knowledge base, and one assumes that other knowledgeable editors will either agree, or recognize whence the claim came and be prepared to explain where one went wrong. In addition, recalling which book one read twenty, thirty or forty years ago gets hard. Finally, many of our respective sources, while authoritative, are not available on the web.

This sometimes produces mutually-frustrating episodes, such as the one you just went through. I do not criticize you for asking for sources, but I would regard it as a bad thing if you were left with a bad taste in your mouth, or with the impression that Septentrionalis is either doing OR or being cavalier. The three of us have interests in common, and we will surely see one another again and again. Robert A West 23:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I repeat here: I did not condescend, and I regret having said anything that could be perceived as doing so. I am, rather, grateful to you for making clear where I was relying unduly on assumptions some readers will not make; I think your protests produced a better and clearer text. I do not claim expertise in the matter; I do not read Mr. West's comments as claiming it for me.
But I have read several accounts of Marbury and their extracts from the decision; and they concur that Marbury lies exactly in the intersection between judicial review in the modern sense and the older theory that each branch of government is responsible for the constitutionality of its own acts. Are these theories genuinely distinct or merely different in emphasis? Which is better in either case? These are "political questions", and ones on which I prefer not to comment. Septentrionalis 22:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I certainly did not mean to claim "expertise" for Septentrionalis in this area. I encourage him to exhibit better temper when challenged, and ask you (Mateo) to give him another chance on another day. Further affiant saith not. Robert A West 23:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Your remarks are very welcome; and that's quite all right. Robert West thinks we met each other on spots already bruised - you by the tax-avoidance OR; and me by Ultramarine, whose favorite responses to citations of a standard printed authority are

  • to denigrate it as non-peer reviewed research
  • to demand exact citations at length, instead of looking the book up.

Do you want another watcher, or reverter, on Income tax? Septentrionalis 13:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Line of Succession

Sorry! I was just about to revert myself, myself. In partial defense, my mistake arose from the AP wire report on S. 442, which said Chertoff was at the bottom. I promise to be less stupid in future, but I'm always making that promise. :) Xoloz 18:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court

Hi, I have noticed (correct me if im wrong) that you are involved in the Supreme Court Cases WikiProject, and editing SCOTUS related articles in general. I have been working placing the {{United States Supreme Court Case}} template on articles about individual cases. I was wondering whether the WikiProject was still running (there is a strange note on the top of the talk page saying it was taken over by someone) and it would behoove me to make these changes/additions through the project. I you have any advice regarding this, I would love it hear it. Thanks, --Gpyoung talk 00:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I noticed it wasn't working right, but I also didn't mean to leave the edit like that. I was forced to leave my computer that night and hadn't realized that I had left an empty infobox on the page. --Gpyoung talk 22:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 10:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protester

Hi. I've restored the line regarding tax protesters claiming that courts selectively hear cases where evidence is not presented, and added as an explanation your edit summary comment that appeals courts decide questions of law. The reason I did so is because tax protesters do claim in various venues that courts deliberately pick "bad" cases in order to create "bad" law, and I think it's important to both acknowledge that claim and explain why it is erroneous. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 22:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Income tax spam

I took a look at some of the IP addresses adding the spam links, and noticed that one of these added a link to another article (which you reverted). If a fixed set of links starts being added to many number of articles by a lot of IP addresses, you might want to consider the Spam blacklist. --cesarb 02:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Irwin Schiff

Hi, responding to your request on my talk page, in what sense do you mean "deal with" 69.171.243.115? I'm not an admin, so I can't block him or protect the page. I've watchlisted the page, and I can try to reason with him, but I doubt that would be to any avail. -- BD2412 talk 21:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Clearup - Note of Thanks

Thanks for clearing up the senseless vandalism on my user page. Your help is very much appreciated. Andrew 23:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CP

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"

If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions.

After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:

{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~

Blank the page and replace the text with

{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

[edit] Amendment

Unfortunately, it isn't obvious to all who read such a detailed justification of the whacko arguments detailed in the Titles of Nobility amendment] article that they are in fact, whacko. It is misleading not to point out that no constitutional scholars read the amendment in such a way. NPOV requires labelling lunatic views as such, and normal views as mainstream. - Nunh-huh 00:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: your note

"Please stop disrupting income tax with unsubstantiated edits. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you wish to promote your political views, there are plenty of tax protester sites on the internet. — Mateo SA | talk 20:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)"

Stop vandalizing my substantiated sourced information on income tax. This is not your personal soapbox. I am putting tax honesty onto the proper page. Place your political views and incorrect assumptions on a different site.216.27.181.235 00:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)BB

[edit] You are blocked from editing on Wikipedia

Stop deleting valid content from Wikipedia. You have been warned that it is vandalism. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

It is you who are deleting valid content from Wikipedia and adding your unsourced and uncited assumptions. I gave you a last warning that you were vandalizing and you chose to ignore it. You are now blocked from editing on Wikipedia. 206.111.181.109 18:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)BB


You have been reported and are on Wikipedias watchlist for vanadalism206.111.181.109 15:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)BB

Wikipedia has wrote me back concerning your vandalism and has determined that my writing is not their definition of vandalism.

You have repeatedly been warned to stop vandalising articles on Wikipedia. Please stop it. You are welcome to contribute real edits to Wikipedia but all vandalism done by you will be reverted and you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you do not stop vandalising this site. You are already on Wikipedia's watchlist and have been warned. BB69 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)BB69

  • The user previously vandalized and has been warned multiple times and reported to Wikipedia.

[edit] Income tax

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Gareth Hughes 17:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Income is defined as gain or profit by the Supreme Court. Anything else is a PoV since it isn't even definied in the IRC. Please do not post any more of your PoV in the article, rather put them in a PoV section for Income Tax. Thanks BB69 17:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)BB69

I'll try to explain but it may be hopeless. By the way, I posted BB69 on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for his 5 reverts, but that is not a long term solution. -- DS1953 talk 18:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

Mateo SA, I am the creator of the Irwin Schiff article which you replaced with something antagonistic enough to suit your tastes. You continually remove my factual statement that Irwin Schiff was not allowed to present evidence at his trial by dismissing it as "nonsense". I believe this qualifies as vandalism. Please stop. --Metarob

I don't care what your definition of "create" is; the article did not exist on Wikipedia before I originated it. The material is not from a "tax protester site", it is from Irwin Schiff's site. Irwin Schiff is not protesting, he is litigating the misapplication of the Internal Revenue Code. I admit that the original article was somewhat biased, but why did you remove factual statements such as "His name was put in for the nomination for President of the United States at the 1996 Libertarian Party National Convention held in Washington D.C."? You simply remove anything which doesn't agree with your version of the truth without any discussion. The federal judge did not "rule against some" of Schiff's evidence, he forbade him from discussing the law he was accused of breaking. My citation from the "lunatic fringe" site? So, you're a psychiatrist now? That so-called lunatic fringe was in attendence at the actual trial and observed the proceedings; were you there? How is their account of what occurred less "valid" than yours? Who are you to decide what parts of the internet are not "valid"? It's not a neutral source? Your opinions about the definition of income are not neutral; the government's persecution of Irwin Schiff is not neutral; and there are many political philosophies detailed on Wikipedia which have links to sites that are not neutral. Instead of deleting information without discussion, you should observe the manner in which BD2412 prefaced the link to http://www.givemeliberty.org in his most recent edit.

[edit] Re: Irwin Schiff

Once again, could you try working on Irwin Schiff? I'd rather the article didn't exist, but the original contributor tried to use it as political forum for his views or an advertisement for Schiff. I've tried to create a NPOV stub. After helping out that tax protester editor, you didn't do anything. Maybe you could do a few edits, just a few. At least remove some of the tax protester editor's blatant distortions when he adds them again. Is that asking too much? — Mateo SA | talk 19:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I've done a little cleanup of the POV in Irwin Schiff. My general preference where outlandish charges are made is to allow them in the article, but to explain why they are outlandish. In this case, I think the nature of the accusations fairly directly undercuts their own credibility. BD2412 T 22:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, since you got me back into this one, care to add anything to the discussion? BD2412 T 03:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protester

BB69 is making repeated legally and factually inaccurate additions to the tax protester article (and continues to revert my efforts to remove his POV) - have a look? BD2412 T 18:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion vote: NA Temple Youth

Hi, since you were involved with the article, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Federation of Temple Youth - Mid-Atlantic Region (2nd nomination). Best wishes, IZAK 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks (Ohio Constitution)

Thanks for answering my question on the Ohio Constitution talk page. I have added a link to the Arkansas term limits case to the article. Richard75 00:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Glad you're back. Sorry I was a bit of a dick before. bd2412 T 05:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... come to think of it, why did I think you'd gone anywhere? bd2412 T 05:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federal Reserve System and Masters of the Universe

I see where you took a stab at the verbiage added by user GeorgeC on the Masters of the Universe. I agree, his verbiage makes little sense to me either. I put a comment on his talk page; maybe he can clear it up. The way he wrote it (and your edits seem to confirm my interpretation), he is saying that the film is saying that the "Federal Reserve" (which obviously is not a real, living, breathing person) somehow did all this stuff prior to the time the Federal Reserve even existed, as the Federal Reserve was not even created until the Federal Reserve Act was enacted. It's nonsensical -- but maybe the film says what he says the film says (I don't know, since I haven't seen the film). I just suspect what he really meant was that the film said that certain nefarious real people (bankers, whoever, etc.) did all this stuff. I say the paragraph still needs some work; let's see if he comes up with anything. Yours, Famspear 15:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "the court" v. "the Court

Thanks for your work on the Tenth Amendment to the United States. It looks like you do lots of editing on Supreme Court case articles, so I thought I would give you a helpful pointer. When a writer uses the words “the court” to refer to the court that handed down a decision, and that court was the Supreme Court of the United States, the “c” in “court” is always capitalized. (Bluebook rule 8). Any time you are editing an article and you see “the Court” referring to the United States Supreme Court, it should be left as correct. If you ever see “the Court” referring to, say, the Texas Supreme Court, it should be changed to “the court.” --Skeenbr0 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: For what it's worth, I don't follow the Bluebook (i.e., A Uniform System of Citation, also known as the Harvard Bluebook) religiously here in Wikipedia, even though, for example, I usually do refer to the U.S. Supreme Court as "the Court" rather than "the court." I also deliberately refer to a U.S. court of appeals as "the Court" -- though perhaps not consistently.
On a separate note, I sometimes deliberately ignore the Bluebook for a special reason, as in my elongated citation for the style of the case in the Supreme Court decision in Merchants' Loan (see Tax protester constitutional arguments). There, I want to make clear to non-lawyer readers that the taxpayer was the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, and not Merchants' Loan.
Some courts also do not follow the Bluebook precisely, and I would argue that deviations in Wikipedia should be welcomed where helpful to the reader. As a general proposition, however, I do agree that following the Bluebook is good practice. Yours, Famspear 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Post-script: Most Wikipedia editors -- who are neither lawyers nor law students -- are not aware of the Bluebook and probably cannot reasonably be expected to go find it and buy it just to edit in Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear 19:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, for anyone who is offended by my citation to the Bluebook, you can go online for free and check out Chicago Manual of Style rule 8.69 (“… the Court (traditionally capitalized in reference to the U.S. Supreme Court”).--Skeenbr0 18:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federal Reserve Act

Ahh, good call here [1]. And see my follow up comments on the talk page. Yours, Famspear 22:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, did you notice that we were getting a lot of personal attacks in the tax protester related material a few weeks ago? I was beginning to wonder if it was full moon, or sun spots or something. Famspear 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] conspiratorial template

Congressman Paul said: "Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on."; so you see, he does acknowledge cover-up (conspiracy if you wish)… feel free to join the discussion. Regards. Lovelight 02:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Federal Reserve Page

You wanted sources, I gave sources, and you still removed the criticisms of the Federal Reserve that I put in. What more do you want? Why are you not allowing any valid criticisms of the Fed to appear on the article?

[edit] Ancient history

Dear colleague: I was trying to relax and recover from tax season today, and was thinking about when I started in Wikipedia. I remember that in November of 2005 when I started, you were dealing with a user called "BB69" who was adding tax protester nonsense to tax articles. Taxman, BD2412 and others got involved in dealing with that problem, and I don't know if you have ever seen what happened to BB69. Here it is: [2]. The last edits in Wikipedia by that user were in December of 2005; he (and I assume he was a "he") finally gave up. Just thought you should see how that turned out. Yours, Famspear 18:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Federal Reserve System as opposed to the Federal Reserve Association of Delaware

Dear Mateo SA: Regarding this material, which you correctly deleted:

The Federal Reserve, a private non profit corporation incorporated in Delaware September 3, 1914 as the Federal Reserve Association. Delaware Division of Corporations

--I seem to recall that something like this had been added to the article before (and deleted of course) a long time ago. According to the State of Delaware web site, there actually is a non-profit or religious organization known as the "Federal Reserve Association" incorporated on that date -- but of course there's no indication that this organization has anything to do with the "Federal Reserve System." Might be just another clumsy attempt to say "Federal Reserve System equals private organization, private equals something bad, therefore Federal Reserve System equals something bad." I put this in the same category as the "Internal Revenue Service is a Puerto Rican trust" tax protester garbage. Even if the Federal Reserve System were somehow related to the Federal Reserve Association, that wouldn't change the fact that the System is composed of both governmental and non-governmental components. Regards, Famspear 20:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice catch...

...on the Bernanke quote I inserted in Federal Reserve System being repetitive. I gave it a cursory look, and when it didn't appear in the section that seeme dlikely, I thought it was missing. Cheers, DickClarkMises 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protester arguments

Thanks for your diligence in continuing to keep an eye on this and related articles. I watch all the "tax protester" related articles like a hawk, and you very often correct the craziness that seeps in before I can get to it. Hope your summer is going well. Yours, Famspear 21:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mateo SA: Speaking of craziness and tax protesters, have you read this one?: Edward Lewis Brown. Especially, check out the various quotations from him and his wife in the article. Yours, Famspear 02:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mateo SA: Here's another one: Tom Cryer. Sadly, this guy is a lawyer who knows (or should know) better. Famspear 16:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Unwarranted Removal of Fact

My comment on the 14th Amendment negating the progressive nature was sourced, and I'll thank you to refrain from removing it or dismissing it as rhetoric. Unequal taxation based on wealth does in fact violate the equal protection clause, and while the income tax itself is not unconstitutional (albeit unethical), its implementation remains in contrast with the demands of the Constitution. Sec. 1 Amendment XIV US Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesthead115 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

I've semi-protected it because I'm tired of the daily reverting. If the IP returns to this editing pattern after the semi-protection expires I'll explore moving from a minnow to a trout and implement a solution that will allow the article to be edited by all except our anonymous friend.--Isotope23 talk 14:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Bob

Just so you'll know, this guy Bob Hurt with whom you interacted earlier today on the talk page for Income tax actually has two Wikipedia talk pages, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BobHurt

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobhurt

His talk pages are, shall we say, "enlightening" as to how he views the world.

As you can see from his talk pages, he and I have been going back and forth since about the spring of 2006. He will disappear for months at a time, and then reappear to re-assert the same kinds of tax protester rhetoric over and over, then disappear again and reappear later. He fluctuates between personal attacks (against me, against the "corrupt" Federal judges, and against IRS employees and Department of Justice people) and, strangely, requests for my personal views about his tax protester arguments -- and just the other day a request that I help someone he apparently somehow knows who is charged with Federal tax crimes (I'm too busy to take on his acquaintance as a client). I believe he has had at least one recent "physical" run-in with law enforcement personnel at a Federal building somewhere. If you google his name on the internet, you may find his web site or weblog -- and some of his discussion of the, uh, unorthodox beliefs he has about various things, not just taxation. Yours, Famspear 18:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devvy Kidd

Well, I made a few additions to the above-reference article, but the one on We the People Foundation is the more interesting one! I've added quite a bit of information to that latter one, adapted from what we already had in another tax protest-related article.

Bob Schulz and his "We the People Foundation" are pretty notorious. I also contribute at the Quatloos web site forum for tax protester activity, at [3], and Schulz is well known over there.

I've been at Quatloos only since this past May; it's a pretty interesting place. It's run by people who expose tax protester garbage and other kinds of scams, with tax protesters being a very small and unhappy minority there. Dan Evans, an attorney who runs some of the world's leading web sites exposing the tax protester nonsense, is one of the administrators at Quatloos. There are lots of very good people there (and not just lawyers and CPAs, either). The rules on civility are much more relaxed over there, so tax protesters really catch a lot of heck.

Anyway, the web sites for "We the People Foundation" were substantially shut down, apparently just earlier today as it happens. The court order came earlier this month. There's still some basic information on the web sites, but most if not all of the tax protester garbage had to be removed because of the court order. Justice prevails, sometimes!

Thanks for the tip! Yours, Famspear 03:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for catching that

Duh, thanks. I keep missing that silly non-existent category that keeps getting added to Tax protester arguments! I need some more caffeine this morning. Famspear 16:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, on Excise tax in the United States, thanks for catching the recently added tax protester-related stuff. I think I had just recently added this article to my watch list without fully reading it. I had just made a minor edit in the article, and wasn't aware of the apparently tendentious material in it. Yours, Famspear 18:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I have edits to this article back in March. Maybe it was on my watch list all along. Heck, I don't know how I missed the tax protester stuff (except inattentiveness). Gotta take my vitamins. Famspear 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-03 Tom Cryer

I have decided to take the mediation case. I would like you to take part in the discussion--Phoenix 15 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA on Tom Cryer article

An RFA for the Tom Cryer article has been filed in which you are a party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpublius (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insulting other editors on Elihu Root discussion page

You have been insulting another user on the Elihu Root article, which violates Wikipedia behavioral standards. Please watch your behavior more carefully in the future.Mpublius 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll put my two cents in here. Dear Mpublius: I believe you are referring to the comments by editor Mateo SA here: [4]. My position would be that Mateo SA's comments do not represent an "insult" to you, or to anyone else. And Mateo SA is correct; other editors can easily see what you are doing. I am not the only editor who has complained about your own behavior. Famspear 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Wikiquette volunteer who is responding to the alert User:Mpublius placed on that page. The only Wikiquette violation I can see in User:Mateo SA's behaviour is a bit of a failure to assume good faith with the "Do you really think no one will notice what you are doing?" Obviously I'm not familiar with the full history of your interaction, so it's possible that User:Mpublius has done something that has caused you to stop assuming good faith on his part; unless you have a very good reason for not doing so, however, I'd encourage you to assume that any future copyright violations you see are errors, and not malicious. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

Your input in this RfC would be most welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protester constitutional arguments FAC

I have nominated Tax protester constitutional arguments as a feature article candidate. If you're interested in responding to comments and addressing any issues that arise, please add the above FAC page to your watchlist. Also consider voting on the article. Thanks Morphh (talk) 17:52, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

Mateo SA, where are you? Haven't seen you around in quite a while! Come back! Famspear (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Bill of Rights

I noticed the article on the Bill of Rights, to which you have contributed extensively, has an {{unreferencedsection}} template in it; possibly, the paragraph immediately following this template may need additional inline citations.

It may turn out that such citations are not necessary; on the other hand, detailed citations assist in guarding against copyright violations, so I think that discussion should be part of a formal featured article review, for which I have nominated the article. Please post your views on this matter to Wikipedia:Featured article review/United States Bill of Rights.

69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)