User talk:129.137.3.208
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please insert your proposed changes on the talk (discussion) page for this article, with your explanation of why you believe your changes correct what you feel are "historical inaccuracies." You and other editors can then evaluate the material and reach consensus. Yours, Famspear 01:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding your personal attacks in edit summaries for Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Dear anonymous user: Please do not engage in personal attacks against editors of Wikipedia as you did in describing your edits to the above referenced article here:
“remove historical inaccuracies & anachronsims by an incompetent author”[1]
and here: “remove historical inaccuracy by an author too incompetent to gain tenure at any university”[2].
See WP:NPA.
You may want to consider reviewing the following materials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (official policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ (official policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability (official policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research (official policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources (guideline)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources (style guide)
Yours, Famspear 05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please stop making personal attacks
Dear anonymous user: I note that you have now responded to the previous request that you stop making personal attacks with verbiage on my talk page that includes the following:
-
- “ I'm a diff't anon user, one who is questioning the use of language that does not reflect the meaning at the time. The article could be much more specific in terminology. As it stands, it employs stereotypical usages which trivialise the issues. The Pollock case is best explained in the Brushaber decision, which was written by Justice White who wrote the minority opinion in Pollock. He explictly wrote that Congress had the income tax act collect the tax at source as required for any excise. This requirement has been upheld by every revisit of the matter, such as Gurley v. Rhoden. White knows better than anyone alive today. He did not mention wages as an item of taxable income. The original 1040 for 1913 implemented exactly what Congress intended to achieve with the 16th. You can read it at the irs.gov site, and see that it does not include wages as taxable income. The 1040 spanning 3 decades until WWII did not tax wages, and so was not an issue in 1913.
- “ The onus is now on the authors to show that Justice White did not consider 'substance' to be an issue. Do you internet people have the intellectual honesty to admit that it was, or the diligence to study the decisions cited? His decision explictly states that the Pollock court acted as if it was their duty to disregard form and consider substance alone: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1#17
--The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.137.3.208 (talk o contribs). Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Famspear"
Please reconsider, and review WP:CIV. Yours, Famspear 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
--Okay:
The Wikipedia mentality is the kind which keeps Newton's flawed theory of gravity as a Law, and prevents Einstein's theory from becoming one, despite repeated observations bearing out its most outlandish aspects.
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
