User talk:Famspear/Archive 5

Time to archive
You should probably archive your talk page - it's 135kb, which is about four times the recommended size limit, so I recommend creating three archives and splitting about a quarter of the content of your talk page into each. Most users divide their archives chronologically. I do mine by subject matter, but this is something of a pain. If you'd like, I'll set them up for you. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was reading about the process of archiving the other day. I'm gonna see if I can figure out the best way to do it. I guess I need to learn how to do this -- but I might be asking you for some guidance to help me do it right.


 * On another subject, you may have noticed that I went ahead and started making some edits to the article on the Supreme Court decision in Brushaber (regarding Sixteenth Amendment) without using the separate page you had set up. So far so good. I really haven't completed a complete analysis of that case yet, though.


 * I also want to eventually get to the tax protester project that you had gotten started. I agree Wikipedia might want to develop a consensus on standards to be applied when people start throwing nonverifiable or non-neutral POV junk, etc., into the tax related articles - stuff that has already been addressed over and over. The problem in part is that almost every tax protester that comes along feels he or she has a burning mission to persuade the rest of the world about a frivolous point that has already been exhaustively covered and -- bluntly -- shown to be "unencyclopedic" for purpose of Wikipedia. They keep citing the same cases, statutes and regs for the same ridiculous, nonsensical theories that have been disproven over and over -- not just in court, but right here in Wikipedia. It seems the urge to insert non-neutral POV that can be read by gazillions of people in an on line encyclopedia is very strong with some people. Human nature I guess. Yours, Famspear 15:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the Wikipedia structure, the only available course of action is to maintain a core of knowledgeable editors who can recognize and revert inappropriate edits. Material from unreliable sources is verboten.  Most of the so-called exceptions are not really exceptions -- a book is reliable as to what are and are not the contents of the book, even if the contents are unreliable, much as statements introduced only to prove that the statements were made, and not to prove the underlying assertions, are not hearsay.  Edits that violate NPOV are verboten.  A specific policy on these types of articles would really not do much.  In the end, some group of editors has to say, "No.  That material does not belong."  WP:V and WP:NPOV should suffice. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

New Template
I added a template, legaldisclaimer that allows a section, or a list, to be tagged with an appropriate disclaimer. This strikes me as better than the individual disclaimers you put on the links, which looked just a bit much. What do you think? Robert A.West (Talk) 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I saw that this morning. Pretty cool! Actually, my disclaimer had been copied from something someone else had written. Yours really gets the reader's attention and will undoubtedly in my view be more effective. Yours, Famspear 20:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's been quite some discussion in the past about not having legal disclaimers on article pages... perhaps we should just have a link to Legal disclaimer? bd2412  T 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm...I hadn't read that discussion before. If you think it inappropriate, we can rephrase into a more explicit warning, or remove it altogether.  Perhaps bring the issue up on Village Pump (which would increase Famspear's project-related edit count as well?  ;-)) Robert A.West (Talk) 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
By the way, I came here to let you know that I was planning to nominate you for adminship, but then I saw this one, and thought that the same issues would likely arise... if you're at all interested in a potential adminship, you may wish to check that one out and see what the community is looking for (rather unreasonably, in my opinion) in potential admins. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the legal disclaimer, I hadn't really thought about it. I just added that new template to a few tax related articles a few minutes ago, but maybe I should read up on what other Wikipedia editors have said pro and con about the topic. Do you remember where the discussions took place?

Regarding adminship I don't know much about it, but I'll check it out. I'm on my way out the office door now, but I'll look at it tonight. Thanks, Famspear 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, some here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law... bd2412  T 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, wasn't the 11,000-not-enough a joke? I just ran into a case of editcountitis myself. Many of my edits take over an hour, with research, phrasing, etc.  How on earth do people average 50+ edits a day and maintain any quality? Robert A.West (Talk) 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But voting based on edit count is easier so that's what people do. They more or less ignore the quality of the edits, and other intangibles, and that's sad. And people that do that many edits a day either have tons of time to allocate to WP, or they don't do as much significant content editing. But on the more important note, I'd encourage you Famspear to work on some policy and community related projects because I think you'd be a valuable admin too. It's sad that the fashion of the moment is that people need ridiculous numbers of project edits to pass RfA even if they are completely trustworthy, but I think you'd get by with a few hundred based on your contributions. Maybe pick up something like WP:PR and review subjects you know. - Taxman Talk 20:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear BD2412: Thank you for thinking about me for possible adminship. I have done some thinking and reading about this for the past few days and I would like to wait a few months before making a decision on whether to throw my hat in the ring. I could be of additional benefit to Wikipedia if named an administrator. I would like to obtain more experience and do more studying of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, etc., before asking other Wikipedia editors to consider me for the additional responsibility. Yours, Famspear 14:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

At-will employment citation issue
The citation looks correct to me! --Coolcaesar 06:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

401(k)
Two requests for you :) 1) While you're at a related issue, do you want to take a look at that talk page and see what you can dig up so we can be accurate, but not go so far into picky details as to be wasteful? My information that I have access to and understanding of is typically tertiary sources or the code itself. I don't really have access to the regs and letter rulings, etc. 2) An issue came up on my Wiktionary talk page, that I also didn't know how to research about the IRS definition of religion. Would you mind helping out on those? Thanks - Taxman Talk 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Taxman, sure I'd be glad to look into this. On item 1, the 401(k) talk page, are you talking about the discussion on the definition of "profit sharing plan?"


 * Regarding adminship, thanks, I will follow your advice. Yours, Famspear 20:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: 401(k), yes specifically that, but anything else too, of course. :) - Taxman Talk 22:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:CFVertigo
I reverted his deletion of your comments about copyvio from the talk page, and placed a moderately-stern warning message on his talk page. I noticed that he also deleted a remonstration by User:BD2412 concerning what appears to be the same copyvio. Alter as you see fit. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Robert A West: Thanks, I'll replace the rest of the comments he or she deleted. Yours, Famspear 03:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw that you replaced again after he deleted again. Sigh! Robert A.West (Talk) 04:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Freedom to Fascism article
Famspear,

I haven't seen freedom to fascism either, but anyone can see the preview on the movie's website: www.freedomtofascism.com I based my article on that. There were enough lies, deceptions, and half truths in those 15 minutes to write a book about. Don't get me wrong, I don't like income tax or the IRS any more than the next guy, but if someone is going to oppose it he should do it right.

I'm new to wikipedia, and therefore clueless. I'm still trying to figure out how it all works. I would like to have my original article published and let it stand. I understand from your comments that it is considered commentary, so maybe I should make it more objective and re-post? Like I said, I didn't know what the ground rules are here.

I could write a much more extensive article with good hyperlinks, however I wanted to get at least a basic refutation of Russo's lies out there as quickly as possible since the movie is airing very soon.

Next attempt at an article regarding freedom to fascism
How's this for a revision? Let me know if I'm on the right track and I'll continue working on it.

America: Freedom to Fascism is a movie produced by activist Aaron Ruso. Russo maintains that there is no law requiring U.S. citizens to pay federal income tax. In the movie, he interviews citizens from all walks of life and challenges them to find any law requiring that the tax be paid. Russo also maintains that the Federal Reserve bank is a private organization and is largely responsible for our nation's debt. Again, he interviews people and asks them if they were aware that our national debt was owed to a private corporation. He then explains his position on this.

The examples above are just two of Russos stated objectives. The film is already creating controversy, however. Many people believe that the movie does not fully disclose the facts regarding such topics as income tax and the federal reserve.

For instance, in the case of the federal income tax, the 16th amendment clearly states that, " The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration". Furthermore, the current federal income tax code is a matter of record. Title 26 of the U.S. code enumerates current tax law, as authorized by the 16th amendment.

A more detailed examination of Russo's claims about the federal reserve raises more questions as well. The federal reserve bank, created in 1913 by an act of congress, is a unique entity that operates independently of the US government, but still subject to its authority. The federal reserve banking system is comprised of 12 regional banks. A board of 12 governors, appointed by the U.S. President and confirmed by congress, preside over the banks. They collectively have the authority to alter economic conditions in order to influence the economy. This is accomplished though such activies as changing the prime interest rate (the rate member banks pay for short term loans from the federal reserve), increasing or decreasing the reserving requirement (the amount of deposits that member banks must retain in relationship to loans), and stock margins (the amount of stock that may be purchased on credit). There are other powers that the Federal Reserve has, such as buying and selling government securities, which influence the supply of money.

A bank that is a member of the federal reserve is required to purchase stock in the federal reserve. This stock is unlike traditional stock, however, because the rights of the stock owner are very limited. For example, the stock cannot be used in personal transactions such as assignment and collateral. It cannot be sold or transferred. Dividends are limited to 6% by law, however the federal reserve itself does not operate for profit. Instead, the interest revenue it collects is used to pay operating expenses only. All remaining funds above operating expense are despoited back into the U.S. Treasury. Thus, critics of the film maintain that the Federal Reserve is not strictly a private corporation, although it can be said that it is not strictly a branch of government either.

The reason for the autonomy of the Federal Reserve is to shield it from the demands and pressures of politics. Since neither the governors nor the member banks stand to gain from the fed's decisions, they are free to set market conditions as they see fit. This prevents the corruption that could arise should the government be allowed to speed up or slow down the economy, such as in an election year.

Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code
Started an article on Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, would appreciate your input. My limited knowledge is what you see on the page! bd2412 T 16:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)