Talk:Tom Cryer

message: The article has been reverted because too many changes were made, many completely with out discussion. Some of your changes, like formating and section headings, are acceptable; but far too much was simply rewritten without the permission of the other editors. Minor edits, like punctuation, are okay, but ALL MAJOR changes should be discussed before, during, and after. N0 D1C4 14:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes were significant, I agree, and I was watching them as Famspear made them.  None of them really seemed to me to push a POV or to be out of line, so I didn't say anything.  We have been having a rather detailed discussion about this article brought about by Mpublius' RfC as listed above.  Can you elaborate on which of Famspear's changes you disagree with and why?  Into The Fray T/C 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a footnote and, again with all due respect to the editors here, I am still not convinced that this article/subject is of sufficient notability to warrant an article.  The lone claim to fame here is that he was acquitted on tax evasion charges, something that doesn't seem to have been covered by any reliable secondary sources save for the single local newspaper in the references section.  I am not by any means a deletionist, though.  Are there any other reliable secondary sources out there for which attributions might be added?  If not, I will probably nominate this article for AfD to seek a broader audience in discussing its notability.  Into The Fray T/C 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have previously given Famspear, a lot of leeway; since Famspear's changes could not help but push his POV, whether his view is positive, negative, or neutral, it is still his POV, which is to be expected of any editor. But this time Famspear's changes were essentially a complete rewrite of sections he did not write. If you  do a history comparison of before and after, it is clear that virtually everything was changed. Such major changes, should have be posted here in the talk and discussed before transferring the finished version to the article. In short, I disagree with how he went about it, because such major changes can cause rv wars and degrade the quality of the article. N0 D1C4 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I reverted N0 D1C4's reversions, as it reintroduced clearly false material which may also violate WP:BLP.  We should not leave a trace of evidence that someone thinks Cryer's arguments are valid, without approriate commentary that they've been rejected and considered frivolous by the courts.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe his changes degraded the quality of the article, nor do I think it matters if sections he did not write were edited, though I can understand how such changes to the article would raise an eyebrow.  I don't honestly think that that is automatic call for a reversion of all his work, however.  Can you give us some more detail on what aspects of his changes you consider to be disruptive?  Also, the issue of POV/NPOV was discussed ad nauseum above.  Can you elaborate on which of the edits you found objectionable?  Into The Fray T/C 16:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, "sections he did not write"?  Can you elaborate on what bearing this has here? Into The Fray T/C 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Into The Fray. If there was unsourced materials please contribute by adding sources or removing the offending material. Also, Arthur Rubin reverting a valid revert is rude and is disrespectful to all the editors and from an SYSOP such actions, without so much as a word on the talk page, can appear to be an act of favoritism. N0 D1C4 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I read the history correctly, the unsourced objectionable material was deleted by Famspear.  If you want a "clean" revert, you're going to have to revert much further back, to September 19 or earlier.  That would lose signifcant productive changes, but if you insist that all edits be discussed, we need to revert to a more-or-less accurate and NPOV version.  17:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm.  So, you agree with Into The Fray that your reversion was unwarrented.  That's what he appears to have said.... — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for your question Into The Fray, if you check the history ( and do a compare) the "Rulings by the courts" section was almost completely written by Famspear, and no surprise was the only section not changed. N0 D1C4 17:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Arthur, by him I meant Famspear. His edits were too radical. N0 D1C4 17:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (double ec) I have to admit to being confused by the statement that you agree with me, NO D1C4.  I didn't say anything about unsourced statements.  As I said above, I have already gone through Famspear's edits (though, at your request, I just did so again), which appear both factual and balanced according to the lengthy discussion that we had regarding it above.  I do think your reversion was a touch unwarranted, though perhaps understandable given the contentiousness that this article has invited.  I remain confused by your comments regarding "sections he did not write", unclear on what, exactly, you find objectionable in Famspear's edits and I fail to see how Mr. Rubin's actions here relate in any way to his Administrator status (which I didn't even know, actually), given that he used no Administrator tools and made no Administrator warnings that he might use them, etc.  An admin is no different than you or I.  Into The Fray T/C 17:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Into the Fray for the mix-up, from now on I will have to avoid pronouns. What I was agreeing with you about was that Famspear’s changes were significant, and to me overly aggressive, considering no prior notice was given. If Famspear thought a rewrite was warranted, the clean up template (or similar) should have been used. Also, Famspear's major edits were made without any discussion with other editors. When editors are given free roam to rewrite articles, the quality of those articles suffers. N0 D1C4 17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv Famspear's POV rewrite session. 

message: Mpublius is still at it. He has now opened a request for arbitration:
Yours, Famspear 17:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go

message: This page was getting quite large, so I archived a good deal of it, up to the point where the RfC was started.  More could probably go, but I didn't want to remove anything pertinent to the current discussion.  Cheers, Into The Fray T/C 02:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housekeeping 

message: Dear editor N0 D1C4: You reverted another editor here, identifying the other editor's contribution as "vandalism":
That in my view was clearly not vandalism.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism
Whether you or I agree or disagree with a particular edit is a separate issue. When in doubt, assume that the edit is NOT vandalism. Yours, Famspear 17:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Careful about labeling things as "vandalism"

message: The truth attack site fails on two points at least:
# Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
# Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
The IRS site does not provide meaningful content for the article at hand that could not be included in a featured article. Therefore, they do not belong. Pro links vs. Anti links is not an appropriate mechanism to create npov. Tmtoulouse 17:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EL links do not meet basic standards

message: A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment]] 

message: Just a reminder that I have proposed to call for a conclusion to this discussion on tax protester rhetoric on February 6. If anyone has anything more to add to the discussion, speak now! bd2412 T 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment]] reminder

message: There seems to be a controversy over the two spellings of this word. Both spellings are correct. See, e.g., p.1168 (supercede) and p. 1170 (supersede) as variant spellings, in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G.&C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976). More to the point, the legal document in question used the spelling "supercede," not "supersede." So, the spelling "supercede" is the correct spelling to be used here. Famspear (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Supersede and supercede