Talk:Tim Eyman

message: I cleaned up some of the biased language, renamed a heading "Controversy".  I think the article can probably remove the bias flag, and probably the source flag at this point.
Krisdahl (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look around for him, you'll see that he gets very little good press, partly because of what he does, who he works for, etc. He's not a popular man and is not well liked. I saw him at the grocery store once in Mukilteo, Washington and saw him get booed (not by me). Aep 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your right--he does seem pretty despicable.  But there is a way to write an article about a despicable person--it's difficult, though.  See Adolf Hitler, Goering, Ivan the Terrible, Osama bin Laden, etc. Adambiswanger1 16:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any of those people had an initiative filed to declare them a horse's ass (Washington Initiative 831)... Aep 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they did, or specifically David Goldstein did.  I just added the link to the written text of I-831 in the I-831 section.  You can find this information by clicking on the David Goldstein link.  I think it's pretty ingenious and hilarious, actually.  BobCubTAC 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Saddam Hussein's article has a lot of negative stuff in it as well, that doesn't make it POV. Some people are not very positive experiences, and saying so doesn't make it POV... WiccaWeb 16:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: I tagged this article with cleanup because it's kind of clumsily written. I feel like it has so much detail that it doesn't make sense and should at the least have a quicker lead and better summarization of the facts. Aep 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I am the webmaster for Eyman's PAC site and would like to add what his supporters think about him, instead of just his critics. How can I edit the introduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.186.92 (talk • contribs) 
:Use the "edit this page" function to impliment those changes.  I do not agree with Eyman, but I do believe that this page needs some counter-POV in order to balance it and increase its credibility.  - Fearless Son 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about his supporters? 

message: After spending all night editing out Tim's narrative - so the definitions were reduced to accurate fact - instead of your skewed opinions, all previous edits were erased by someone uninterested in facts.
Wikipedia - the free dictionary with an agenda, not truth. I will never send donations to this waste of internet space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.186.92 (talk • contribs)  Protip: You can revert it back
:Wikipedia itself has no particular agenda, other than expanding its content and trying to keep everything loosely-professional.  However, Wikipedia is openly edited by literally thousands of people, many of whom might have agendas of their own.  Basically, think of Wikipedia articles as big white boards, and anyone who comes by can write on them, erase them, etc.  If you write something on that white board and someone else comes and erases it, you cannot really say that the white board has an agenda that takes offence at what you wrote.  Tim Eyman is a very public figure in Washington state and is very political, so it is understandable that he would attract many detractors who could come here to try and vent their frustration.  That does not give them justification to deface him though, and as the ultimate goal of all Wikipedia articles on contraversies is neutrality, it would help to have some Eyman praise to match the criticism, balanced on a fulcrum of facts.  If you feel like certain parts of an article is in despute, then you can always place tags onto those parts of an article flagging it for discussion in the talk page.  If that does not help, you can nominate that article to be seen by an administrator and have it locked up until the despute is resolved.  Unfortunately, given your last post I doubt that you will ever look at this again, but I felt that this needed to be said anyway.  I hope that your opinion on Wikipedia softens enough for you to come back.  Finding balance in political articles is very difficult without multiple points-of-view who can agree to disagree.  -  Fearless Son 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  so you won't let me make changes? 

message: I have removed several talk posts from this talk page (still viewable in the history.)  These posts were clearly not in keeping with the topic of improving this Wikipedia article.  There were all about the political issues that Tim Eyman is involved in and looked more like debate about those issues rather than debate about this article.  Several of them were addressed directly to Mister Eyman in a form that would be suited to a letter or email to him.  Not only are those off-topic, but they are also of an improper format for a discussion of a Wikipedia article.  At least one of those posts made the entire talk page difficult for my browser to read due to its unusual formatting.  I know that it is highly irregular to delete sections of a talk page, but those things seemed more like vandalism than discussion.  If someone disagrees with me about this, then they are free to revert my edit.  - Fearless Son 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I Strongly disagree with removing "talk" entries irregardless of the slant of the post. The post(s) may give a dissenting or assenting view/opinion of what T. Eyman is trying to do via his intuitive missives.  The ‘talk” entries about the entries are just that – “talk.” Unless of course the entries were pure crud or vandalism. Bdelisle 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed talk posts 

message: First off, I found this article to be ridiculously full of POV. I have tried to reduce it as much as possible, but it may require someone with a detailed knowledge of the legal issues to really get down to the heart of it. Remember, POV does not counter POV, it just causes more. When addressing concerns of bias, work to identify and remove the source of the bias, particularly with regards to the original motivation of the writer. Its not very difficult to tell what sections where written by supporters and which by detractors. Certainly not in the previous version of this article. 
Organization got a serious revamp. Why was it that the article talked about initiatives, stopped to cover two other subjects, then returned to initiatives. If the reasoning was chronological, it would have made more sense to list 2007 after 2005. Regardless, the initiatives are now grouped together, in the section called Initiatives, and further organized by year. All other subjects retain their original headings, and come after.
Finally, this article needs serious citations, and names. It sounds as if it was written for a conspiracy theory novel. It is full of mysterious unnamed opponents, and a they which are out to get Eyman. I have left a few  tags to highlight this, but the entire article needs more in depth citations, as some of the claims are fairly serious. RevZoe (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made some changes to the opening paragraphs.  They previously used some buzzwords that made the tone very favorable to Eyman, and I hope that my change has made it a little more neutral without going too far in the other direction.  I personally am not a fan of the man, but I hope the edit is neutral. Ryanfrei (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of recent copy edit

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tim Eyman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080617155443/http://www.permanent-offense.org:80/ to http://permanent-offense.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is there no mention of the initiative, and lawsuit, fully covered by reliable sources, that sought to have state law declare "Tim Eyman is a horse's ass." I came here to find out some background material on that. I didn't expect much, but the timeframe and links to source material would have been a good start. There is none. 23:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Horse's Ass Initiative

message: Storing useful links for others or later
* https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/tim-eyman-loses-in-court-faces-possible-lifetime-ban-on-managing-political-finances/
:That link is to an April 2019 news story about a potential punishment; the court didn't actually hand down a decision. A later story, about what actually happened, is more appropriate. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 20:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019 development resources 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/tim-eyman-forced-to-sell-house-to-pay-campaign-finance-fines-debts/ Guavadeign (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 2022 news