User talk:69.116.60.228

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear anonymous user. Some of the material you have repeatedly inserted in this article is frivolous tax protester rhetoric, and is incorrect. Other parts of the material are quotes from various sources that are essentially already covered in the related articles (see below).

Per Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment, tax protester rhetoric will be removed on sight. The other material will also be removed, as it is either duplicative of material already found in Wikipedia, or is unsourced.

Wikipedia is not the proper place to push tax protester arguments. Specifically, the argument that compensation for labor is not taxable is completely frivolous from a legal standpoint. Tax protester arguments about compensation for labor are in fact already extensively covered in the article Tax protester constitutional arguments, complete with extensive citations to actual court decisions.

By the way, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the tax on compensation for personal services, whether called "income from labor" or any other name, is constitutionally valid. Famspear (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The text you keep on inserting has nothing to do with "Arguments that the U.S. Federal income tax is unconstitutional or invalid" Nothing at all. Please add something that explains the tax protester's "arguments" instead of off-topic drivel that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand in that paricular section. --69.116.60.228 (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)-anonymous user

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Tax protester (United States), you will be blocked from editing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, "Rubin" --69.116.60.228 (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC) anonymous

Dear anonymous user: I am not "inserting text" so much as restoring the text that you deleted without explanation. The text you keep deleting has everything to do with arguments that the U.S. Federal income tax is unconstitutional or invalid, and is very much on topic, so the thrust of your comment above is wrong.
The material you keep re-inserting appears to include a collection of quotes from or paraphrases of material from the U.S. Constitution, plus some tax protester argument or arguments. All this material is already covered in the applicable articles. The article Tax protester (United States) is merely the introductory article for a group of articles on tax protesters, etc. Please follow the links in the text, etc., to find the related articles. For example, much if not all of the material you are trying to insert is already covered in an encyclopedic form at Tax protester arguments or Tax protester constitutional arguments.
Please provide descriptions for the reasons for your edits and discuss on the talk page for the related article, especially where other editors object to your changes. Wikipedia works under the concept of consensus. Repeatedly inserting tax protester arguments or other nonsense without explanation, or material that appears to push tax protester arguments without explanation, after it has been rejected by other editors -- may be considered vandalism, for which an administrator may block you from editing.
The articles on tax protesters and tax protester arguments are not here in Wikipedia for the purpose of trying to convince readers that tax protester arguments are correct, but rather to describe those arguments in a neutral manner and to show how the U.S. legal system treats those arguments -- without Wikipedia itself "taking sides." Tax protester arguments constitute fringe positions for purposes of Wikipedia, and under the U.S. legal system are legally frivolous. Therefore, Wikipedia does not afford "equal weight" to tax protester arguments when compared with actual court rulings, etc. Please read the related articles and the talk pages for those articles for more information. Famspear (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia official policies, guidelines, etc.

Here are some links to pages that may be of interest:

WP:Five pillars

WP:POL (official policy)

"Neutral Point of View": WP:Neutral point of view (official policy)

"Verifiability": WP:Verifiability (official policy)

"No Original Research": WP:No original research (official policy)

WP:Consensus (official policy)

WP:Assume good faith (official policy)

WP:Etiquette (behavioral guideline)

WP:What Wikipedia is not (official policy)

WP:Fringe theories (content guideline)

WP:Three-revert rule (official policy)

WP:Edit war (editing guideline)

Yours, Famspear (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)