Talk:Jim Bell/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Dead pool game"

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call his "game" an "assassination market game" instead of "dead pool game". There are a few distinct differences between the two terms, and "assassination market" seems to fit here better. Jgw (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Skomorokh ^incite 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

GA notes

Article is well cited and fits GA standards, but I have two issues. First, the only picture in the article shows someone else, which could be confusing. Second, I had difficulty keeping the timeline straight. The "Politics" section goes up to 2002, then "Investigation" jumps back to 1997, and it wasn't clear what if any connection that had with his essays. Apparently in July 1997 he arranged a plea bargain, but then "completed his sentence" on April 15, 1998 according to the first sentence of "Release", after serving 11 months according to the infobox. Something doesn't match up. He probably didn't start serving his sentence in July, either. Cite [23] from that sentence dates from 1997 so it's only good for citing the amount of the fine. Can cites [12] and [13] be combined, since they're used together and are related? Gimmetrow 07:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your rigourous reading; the date on one of the references was awry and I have significantly reworked the timeline so that it should now be coherent. I have searched high and low for a free image of Bell but to no avail. I thought including some image would be better than others. Do you think, given that Bell is in prison for a long stretch, a fair use rationale for an unfree image would be possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 08:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Solid fair use involves commentary on the image (like details of a painting), or iconic historical photographs. If there's a photo of a defining event in his life, and the photo appeared in a lot of press, maybe.

The lead section could probably be two paragraphs. It seems fairly standard, unless the article is really short, to have one paragraph identifying why the subject is important, and a second paragraph summarizing broadly the rest of the article. Gimmetrow 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll get working on the lede. There are no pictures that I am aware which meet those criteria, but I presume policy wrt images has not changed of late and imageless articles can still qualify as GA? скоморохъ ^ѧ 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Imageless is fine if no images are possible, WP:WIAGA#6. I think the lead might be a bit long now at four paragraphs ;) Gimmetrow 23:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you're killin' me. I'll get to work. скоморохъ ^ѧ 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, looks like a GA now. I did remove the one image because it seems to imply something to have a picture of someone the prosecutor compared him to. If you want to take this to FAC, there may be some bits of POV to address, such as having "harassment" in a section header. Gimmetrow 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate Illustrations

The inclusion of the photo of Bob Murphy, in the absence of a photo of Jim Bell himself, is misleading to the casual reader, scanning the page, who is likely to think the photo represents Jim Bell. Bob Murphy's photo is also on his page, and I think including it here is downright spammy: Policy says "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic", but Bob Murphy's picture is neither. Aminorex (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have shown on User talk:Aminorex and User talk:Skomorokh, this argument is without merit. The relevant section mentions Murphy in more than a passing fashion thus justifying beyond reasonable doubt the image's inclusion, no superior alternatives to the image have been offered, and the accusation of spam is downright bizarre. As for readers mistaking Murphy for Bell, I think given the caption this is an insult to the intelligence of the reader. Skomorokh 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

скоморохъ has reverted edits by multiple contributors which remove the Murphy photo. It is my contention that even the mention of Murphy on the Jim Bell page is of very little value, because his critique of AP is not original, but merely a restatement of Kay's practical critique from an anarcho-capitalist ideological position. That's why I think it tastes spammy. I'm hoping that additional persons will voice their opinion here, to clarify a consensus. Aminorex (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You admit that the image is of value. No images is of no value. By your reasoning, including the image adds value to the article. Clearly, if your desire is to add more value to the article, your focus ought to be on sourcing superior images. The Kay argument is a red herring; if you can produce a reliable source that confirms what you say, we should by all means add the information to the article, but in the article's current state, it has no bearing. Regards, Skomorokh 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative value is also possible. Spam has negative value.Aminorex (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop throwing that word around. Not only is it discourteous, but directly contradicting our policy: "There are two types of wikispam. These are advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spamming." Skomorokh 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Since I've been accused of 'drive-by removal's and edit-warring, I'm adding my opinion to this debate.

As my edit probably made clear, I agree with Aminorex that the picture should not be included. I don't know about spamming, but I think it's a clear choice based on purely editorial grounds.

1. It is misleading. When I came to read about Bell, I only barely noticed that the picture wasn't of him when I became curious about the long caption. I could easily've gone away thinking Bell was this balding white man.
2. It adds no value. OK. So we now know what one, minor, Johnny-come-lately critic (whose criticisms may not even be original) of assassination markets looks like. Wonderful. How about a picture of Bell, or of the judge who imprisoned him, or of the two fellows who tried to start assassination markets, or of a market itself, or of... there must be dozens of pictures more relevant if you'd look.
3. To expand on this point: Murphy has two lines. These two lines are poorly written - not to say repetitious of other articles, and could easily be turned into one line. There are many one-liners in this article, and quite a few of those have articles with pictures. MIT, Wired, the IRS, email, Kaczynski and McVeigh, etc. Should we copy over all of those? I don't think so.

--Gwern (contribs) 18:17 5 April 2008 (GMT)

Possibility of a fair use image of Bell

I asked here a few days ago about the possibility that copyrighted images of Bell could be used, on the grounds that his imprisonment makes it currently impossible to create free images of him. Skomorokh 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that'd really work. You could visit him in prison and take a photo. You could wait and then take a photo. You could persuade a copyright holder to license appropriately. You could hunt down a picture taken by a federal employee in the course of their duties, which would be public domain. There are a lot of still possible ways which means you don't really have that out. (Maybe you'd be within the letter of the policy, but not the spirit.) Just being inaccessible for a set period isn't enough. --Gwern (contribs) 16:37 5 April 2008 (GMT)

Thanks for the reply, I thought as much. Skomorokh 16:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a note that a USN&WR photo of him appears in reference [1] ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SalineBrain (talk • contribs) 08:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Kay source

I was asked for a reference to Kay's critique: http://packetstormsecurity.org/papers/contest/Richard_Kay.txt Aminorex (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting, but does not seem to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources as it appears to be an email/usenet posting. Is the material published anywhere? Skomorokh 22:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I hold that it is superior, by WP's standards, to Bob Murphy's self-published critque. Both are web pages, neither was published in a mainstream or peer-revenued venue. Kay's is at least not self-published. It was not an email or usenet posting. It was a submission to a contest for papers addressing DDOS security topics. It is customary to give priority to the first expression of an idea. It would be better for the text to reference Kay's article than Murphy's, on that ground alone. This would result in no textual reference to Bob Murphy on the Jim Bell page. My conclusion is that the photograph is misplaced. I'm not trying to beat the topic to death, just clarify some of my reasoning. Obviously not all can be recorded, but these are points which seem to have been omitted from the foregoing discussion.Aminorex (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if it were the case that Murphy's work was little more than a restatement of Kay's, and if Kay's work had been published in a manner acceptable to Wiki standards, there would be no reason to make more than a passing reference to Murphy and thus no real reason to include his image. Neither of those ifs have been shown to be the case unfortunately. The Murphy piece meets WP:V under the criteria for self published sources because his work in the relevant field (Chaos Theory) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Furthermore, as Murphy was the senior editor of Anti-State.com at the time of publication, we can be reasonably certain that the cited work is in fact written by him and untampered with.

An argument specifying which criteria of WP:RS Kay's work meets has yet to be made. Skomorokh 23:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Status Incarcerated

Instead of "Status Incarcerated", wouldn't it be more accurate to list the scheduled release date (publicly available from the Bureau of Prisons)? Especially since "Status Incarcerated" will be wrong whenever the release occurs, and the conviction date plus the sentence does not calculate the release date, due to various factors? SalineBrain (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Current Climate Change Research

Currently, Jim is working on solutions to climate change. How would this be added per Wikipedia's TOS? I have personal letters from Bell, but no citations anywhere on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.184.248 (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia is an amateur tertiary source, so can only take its information from professional secondary sources. For more information, you could read Wikipedia:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Regards,  Skomorokh  07:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely due to various issues. Unproductive discussion is now archived.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Except that on studying many Wikipedia articles, I frequently (usually?) see comments and claims that are not citing 'professional secondary sources'. Obviously, there is a double-standard at work. It appears that there are semi-professional 'drive-by-editors' (aka busybodies) who get their jollies tampering with other people's work. My own, initial definition of 'drive-by-editing'? Editing (almost always, quickly removing) edits by others, which are not inherently objectionable, by persons who do not regularly contribute to the specific article in question. Such 'drive-by-editing' rarely, if ever, includes waiting for the consensus of the Wiki community, or (first) posting an objection or question in the 'talk:' section. I suggest that unless a posting is OBVIOUS graffiti or sabotage, it should be allowed for at least as long as is necessary for the group to develop a CONSENSUS as to the merit of the posting. Anyone who takes it upon himself to IMMEDIATELY, and/or REPEATEDLY remove a non-malicious contribution, and not attempt to FIRST bring the issue to the attention of the community to the alleged problem, is a JERK, a busybody, a 'drive-by-editor'. James dalton bell (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Bell has been a victim of a 'persistent vandal' Since about 48 hours ago, I have repeatedly attempted to upload a paragraph to the article "Jim Bell". It seems to work, but a few hours later the paragraph mysteriously disappears. I call this 'persistent vandalism'. And, it is STILL 'persistent vandalism' even if somebody thinks he can warp Wiki policy to 'justify' it. Wiki policy refers to 'verifiability': Simple! If somebody needs to verify that I, James Dalton Bell, really said something, just give me a phone call at 360-696-4308, and ASK. I am beginning to suspect that Wiki policy is DEFECTIVE in regards to biographies of living people: A person, who is the presumptive EXPERT on his own situation, even if not entirely unbiased, certainly should qualify to enter material about himself. James dalton bell (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC) The following is the paragraph I have been attempting to enter to the 'jim bell' Wikipedia page: Recent Events: Global Warming Solution. In late June 2009, Bell discovered that only the carbon dioxide molecules containing C-13 isotope (1.1% of carbon) or Oxygen-17 (0.038% of oxygen) are responsible for most or all of the longwave infrared absorption. So, removing these isotopes from the fuel and oxygen would eliminate the alleged 'global warming' problem. Cryogenic distillation of methane (main constituent of natural gas) and atmospheric oxygen would remove these isotopes. Conversion of coal to 'producer gas' (carbon monoxide and hydrogen), followed by distillation of the carbon monoxide, would produce a fuel that would not add to the 'greenhouse effect' when burned. In late July 2009, Bell wrote letters to Al Gore, over 40 foreign embassies in Washington DC, and over 30 Congressional committees and government agencies, informing them of this solution. As of late December 2009, Bell had not received any answer to these letters. <end of paragraph to be added> Bell's current comments follow: By deleting this material, and ignoring its contents, some person has demonstrated himself not merely to be hostile and malicious, and not merely traitorous to the entire human race, but potentially traitorous (depending on the validity of the 'global warming' problem) to all life on Earth. I need HELP to publicize this very important discovery. (it is, in fact, only a very tiny tip of the iceberg of a huge number of inventions I have made in the last year.) I urge anyone who is interested in THE SOLUTION, even if he doesn't believe in 'the problem', to contact me IMMEDIATELY at jimdbell@q.com, or by telephone at 360-696-4308. The situation is not merely urgent, it very well could qualify as an EMERGENCY. James dalton bell (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Double Standard in enforcement of "Rules" I have just noticed an obvious double standard: I have accessed another article, which contains an automated 'warning' that the page does not cite any sourced content. So, what is the date of the warning? 2006! And, it says such content MAY be challenged and removed. (not, 'must be...') Whereas, I posted (on three separate occasions, in 36 hours) paragraphs, in 'Jim Bell', where I am the subject of the article. And golly, in EACH case, the 'offending' material wasn't removed years later, nor months later, nor weeks later, nor days later. Just a few hours. Hmmmmm. Seems a lot like a 'double-standard' to me. It is easy for people to hide behind enforcing 'the rules', in order to justify their malicious actions. Therefore, I accuse the person who removed my postings of an obviously malicious action, done under the pretext of following 'the rules', but in reality being an attempt to cause trouble. In fact, let me suggest that if such a deletion were done NON-maliciously, the text would be 'automatically' (by the person doing the deletion) put into the talk:jim bell site for the consideration of the rest of the community. In other words, the person deleting would be immediately exposing his actions to the view of the entire community, who could then override his action. To fail to do so, and the person who deleted my text THREE TIMES failed to do so, evidences an obvious desire to BOTH conceal my additions, AND to conceal his attempt to conceal my addition. Will such a person end up....EXTINCT? James dalton bell (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Please read these sections - WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V and it may help you understand that there are no double standards being applied here, and that BLP policies are cut and dry. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC) You, like 'Dodo', are wrong. Notice that 'Dodo' hasn't bothered to EXPLAIN, in detail, his actions. This is quite revealing! He must know that I am a 'new' user: Only on for about two weeks. Logic suggests that he should, carefully, EXPLAIN why he did something like deleting my posts, repeatedly, without even as much as asking the community. After all, why should he be RUDE, as he has been, when he cannot claim that I 'should know' not merely what the rules say, but also the way they are followed. Well, the simple answer may be that he does this kind of thing a lot: He may ORIGINALLY have been respectful, but maybe he's developed a practice of 'drive-by-edits'. He seems to have that reputation! But as tempting as it may be to assert that, I think his actions are far more detailed and specific, and malicious: His pattern of deletion of my posts is to delete ALL ALL ALL of my posts, not merely some fraction that (he would argue) violates some rule. So, the 'rule' (actually, the practice) he seems to be showing is this: "Do not allow James Dalton Bell to post ANYTHING, on any article, and certainly not on 'jim bell'." Will 'Dodo' deny this? So far, he's avoided commenting! 'Dodo' seems to do this by simply finding SOME reason to dislike my post (even just a small part of it, though he doesn't say), and then use this to 'justify' deleting everything. The best explanation, I think, is that somebody has put him up to it, and he wasn't careful enough to cover his tracks. And, a few other non-thinkers back him up. (Is that called 'sock puppetry' or 'meat puppetry'?) James dalton bell (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Gogo Dodo explained in detail why he deleted your addition on your talk page on December 27th. --NeilN talk to me 18:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Go back and re-read my numerous comments about that. No, Dodo merely used 'boilerplate' documents, pre-written, as if that was sufficient. It wasn't. I have raised MANY objections since his initial deletorreah, and no, he has not addressed 98%+ of what I said. Hint: Templates, or 'boilerplate' text, is only appropriate if the person who uses it has applied it correctly, and modified it to address case-specific issues. Templates may be the BEGINNING of a good response, but they are rarely the END. 'Dodo' (and most others 'addressing' the issue, to the extent that they 'address' it) pretends that he can point his finger at my posts, but at the same time ignore HIS OWN actions! THat's not surprising: His actions were thoroughly premature, improper, rude, and abusive. Unless you are willing to actually address my specific objections to his actions, your defense of Dodo is no better than 'meat puppetry'. Others have behaved exactly like you, so you're in bad company. James dalton bell (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Is Dodo extinct? I notice that Dodo, and some of his meat-puppet wannabes, have run away. Dodo, and his supporters, don't seem to understand that this issue is, "Did Jim Bell say that?", and NOT "Is what Jim Bell said, TRUE?". The fact that I said something is VERIFIABLE, with ease. Thus, it belongs on Wiki 'Jim Bell' page. It would even be proper to place references onto 'Global Warming' and/or 'Greenhouse Effect', if prefaced with a statement that I, Jim Bell, claimed something. Moreover, I ALSO tried to edit to accuse the government of forgery. On the Wiki page, 'Jim Bell', the issue is ALSO, "Did Jim Bell accuse the government of forgery?". The issue is NOT, "Is what Bell alleged, TRUE?". The fact that I ALLEGED that can be easily found on the Internet via Google: "Jim Bell 99-30210 forgery". The fact that I alleged it can also be confirmed by calling me up on the telephone. Thus, this allegation BELONGS on Wiki 'Jim Bell'. Only an "Info-Nazi" believes otherwise. James dalton bell (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC) No, we just recognize it's useless discussing things with you and pointing out Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:RS. Calling you would violate WP:NOR. Using the court document would go against WP:PRIMARY and if your allegations were not covered by reliable secondary sources they're just not that notable. --NeilN talk to me 15:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC) You quickly forget that I am objecting to the MISINTERPRETATION of a 'rule', and the MISAPPLICATION of a 'rule'. (or, do you not concede that, hypothetically, a VALID, proper rule can be MISINTERPRETED and/or MISAPPLIED?). Merely citing the RULE is pointless, when the problem is the misinterpretation or misapplication of the rule! Further, Dodo violated WP rules, by not allowing a consensus of the group to develop. He also misapplied a rule, claiming that something I said must be 'verifiable'. But what does it mean, to be 'verified'? Dodo implied that what I said must be verifiably, scientifically TRUE. I claim, quite to the contrary, that since the article involved is 'Jim Bell' (subject, ME), that the only 'verifiability' issue is this: Did 'James Dalton Bell' ACTUALLY make these claims. (Or, conversely and hypothetically, 'is someone else forging his identity?, etc.) For example, there was no need to RUSH and delete my posts. Rather, somebody (preferably, one familiar with LOGIC) could have said, "Bell, how do we know that 'you', 'jimdbell@q.com', is in fact the 'jim bell' (James Dalton Bell) who is the subject of the 'Jim Bell' WP article? We need to be able to VERIFY the fact that 'jim bell' actually said/did this." (To ensure that 'jim bell' is not being libelled by a stealth forgery.) In response, I would have immediately said, "Good question!" And I could have promptly proceeded to do whatever was necessary to establish this fact. Perhaps I could also have donated a recent (current!) photograph to the article, which (of course) could be compared with other published (even if not public domain) photographs which are available on the web. But as John Belushi was so fond of saying, 'BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO!' Rather than HELP a 'newbie' (to WP), AND wait for a consensus, and actually help VERIFY that 'jimdbell@q.com' is actually, 'jim bell', Dodo decided to be an ass and repeatedly delete my edits. And, he deleted ALL my edits, not merely some portion which (allegedly) was not 'verifiable'. I will give an example, to the contrary: I also posted a claim that I accused the Feds of forgery in a criminal appeal case, 99-30210. In fact, in June 2003 I wrote a lawsuit (195 pages) which has (I believe) LONG been posted on the Web. (Probably Cryptome/JYA). It (as I recall) makes exactly this accusation. So, if Dodo had actually acted INTELLIGENTLY, he would have edited my edit to cite my lawsuit, which has been posted for perhaps 5+ years. (Or, he would have said to me, "Bell, you need to show a cite of your lawsuit..."). THAT would have been productive, useful, and helpful. (As opposed to being hostile, counterproductive, and malicious.) So, why didn't Dodo do THAT?!? The answer is quite simple: Dodo is hostile, counterproductive, and malicious. He's a 'control freak'. (Apparently, WP attracts 'control freaks'.) Rather than being assisting, supportive, and helpful, Dodo wants to slap around newbies who upset his apple cart. James dalton bell (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC) You seem to be under the mistaken belief that everything you state could be added to the article. We only add events which are notable enough to be written about by an independent third party. This prevents articles from being self-promotional soapboxes. As for Gogo Dodo not helping you, what portion of "Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Jim Bell" did you not understand? --NeilN talk to me 04:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC) "Excessive Vandalism"?!? That's odd! User:Explicit refers to 'excessive vandalism'. As in, 'more vandalism than we'd like to see'. As in, 'some amount of vandalism is okay'! Fortunately, there is a WP article, "Freudian Slip". How much vandalism is okay? Well, it isn't so much 'how much' vandalism is okay, but "whose vandalism is okay?". See, 'Jimbo' Wales made a good rule, when he said: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism; although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism." (end of quote from Wikipedia: Vandalism) Please note the comment: 'Any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is NOT vandalism.' That's the rule. But that's NOT the way you act. You used the term 'vandalism' as if to mean, 'Any edit that I don't like, or edits that I didn't do that my buddies don't like, is 'vandalism'. So there! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!' Here's what EXPLICIT did: (cur) (prev) 06:18, 10 February 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) m (24,341 bytes) (Protected Jim Bell: Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 06:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 06:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)))) I happen to believe that anyone 'reverting' non-vandalism, especially if he calls it 'vandalism', is actually COMMITTING vandalism, himself. Actually, it's the worst form of vandalism possible. Naturally, you will be aghast at such a logical conclusion. By saying that there was 'excessive vandalism' on the article 'jim bell', EXPLICIT has demonstrated himself to be A VANDAL. And, he has greatly assisted vandalism by others. Therefore, I challenge you to show that there was ANY 'vandalism' on the article 'jim bell' on 2/9/2010, OTHER THAN repeated vandalism by reversion of non-vandalism edits. I proved that I'm right. I did a test: The 'jim bell' article said, in a number of locations, that Jim Bell wrote the Assassination Politics essay in 1996. In reality, Bell wrote it...in 1995. So, attempting to correct the incidences of '1996' to the correct '1995' cannot possibly be described as vandalism...but the actions of repeatedly reverting the correct '1995' to the incorrect '1996' certainly does qualify as 'vandalism'. If there was anyone here with a gram of ethics and honesty here, this kind of thing would not be happening. 71.36.125.36 (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia works through WP:CONSENSUS. Get consensus for your edits on the article's Talk page, stop edit warring, and be sure you understand WP:COI. Woogee (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC) No, Wikipedia only claims to work through consensus. And you are clearly misrepresenting the need to 'obtain consensus' to use WP. None of the thugs do it, and besides, let's look at wp:consensus. What does it actually say? "Someone makes a change to a page (any page other than a talk page), then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages. This is the simplest form of consensus, and it is used in everyday editing on the vast majority of Wikipedia's non-talk pages." Notice that it doesn't speak of 'obtaining consensus' for an edit. We are told to go ahead and edit. "Be bold!", they say. The REALITY, however, seems to be quite different. The REALITY is that some thugs revert and revert and revert and revert. And never, it would seem, do they even try to obtain any sort of 'consensus', except for the kind of faux 'consensus' that they and their thug-buddies came to weeks, months, or years ago: "Let's REVERT and REVERT and REVERT...Whenever we want! Let's not bother to seek 'consensus'!" Another thing these thugs do is to call edits 'vandalism', when they are not vandalism. You know the drill: if somebody you don't like makes an edit, REVERT IT! And AGAIN! And AGAIN! And if you come up against the pesky WP "three-revert rule", well, just call your meat-pup...er...buddies and say, "help me out again, guys!" Yep, that's how things really work around here! 97.120.255.206 (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC) This edit needs to be seen, I think. (I reformatted it, a bit.) (excuse me, 'Explicit', NeilN, Woogee, and the long-lost 'Gogo Dodo'). I don't suppose it has occurred to you how much damage you did to yourselves and your collusive cabal by your stunt of REPEATEDLY reverting (for example) the correction of the date of the writing of the AP essay (1995) back to the erroneous "1996". The date of the writing of that essay is, of course, a FACT which other records will readily disprove. That this 'fact', as erroneously stated in the article 'jim bell', was originally false may (arguendo) have simply been a mistake: That error, alone, it might be argued, would be understandable. The problem is that when such an erroneous 'fact' is corrected (to 1995), multiple times within a relatively short period, and repeatedly returned to an INCORRECT status by an ILLEGAL (for the purposes of dealing with NON-vandalism) mechanism, 'reversion', that is so obviously malicious as to be astonishing to a jury. Yes, I said, a JURY. The 'jim bell' article may very well not have been started in an effort to be libelous to jim bell's reputation: The Feds didn't want to give Bell any more publicity than 'necessary', but somehow 'Skomorokh' 'discovered' it within about a month of its initiation, and went on a virtually uninterrupted spree of libel, so far as to claim that 'jim bell' had been charged with "High Treason"! (To cite just one wacky example: Bell doesn't even think he was in any sort of position to commit 'High Treason', even if he's wanted to!) The pattern of Skomorokh's entry of the text of the article will provide enormous evidence as to his motives. But, he 'invested' a great deal of time and effort, and his 'handlers' obviously didn't want him wasting his effort (and having to flee, just like Steven Walsh/Steve Wilson, at the MCCLC, in 1997) by engaging in a one-sided revert war with jim bell in late December 2009. So, they brought in 'meat puppet' 'Gogo Dodo' to do that dirty work, despite the fact that 'Dodo' hadn't ever made a single edit on 'jim bell' in the article's two-year+ existence! (and Gogo Dodo ran away after that, too!) Isn't that just a bit too obvious, guys? Give us a bit more credit that than! It is quite simple: There are a few people around here who aren't what they want to appear. Almost certainly, they are 'plants' whose job it is to prevent ANY changes to the article 'jim bell'. In their immense zeal to do what they see as their job, they have made the enormous mistake of repeatedly reverting, with no 'discussion' or 'consensus' obtained, provably false information, when someone tried to correct it. (And, the virtual absence of any discussion about these events, in 'talk:jim bell', reveals that these guys aren't acting as individuals: They are acting as an organized group, a cabal.) Was that 'reasonable'? Nope. The WP rules clearly state that making such correction edits (particularly in a biographic article, about a living person) is one of those 'controversial' facts that are potentially libelous. Such errors must be removed immediately, so says the rules, right? Perhaps someone will say, 'okay, what's libelous about saying Bell wrote AP in 1996, rather than in 1995'? Good question. But there's an equally good answer. The Feds wanted to misrepresent the situation in order to suggest to the public that merely writing AP was, itself, 'wrong' and even a crime. The public records unambiguously say that Bell was arrested and charged in May 2007. It would appear enormously embarrassing for the government to have been revealed to have: 1. Actually been aware of the existence of the AP essay in about April 2005 (!), yet they did NOTHING. For 24 months! 2. Infiltrated the 'Digitaliberty' list during that time period, despite the fact the Feds had no legal (probable cause or reasonable suspicion) reason to do so. The Feds also wanted to conceal the fact that their 'plant' (and employee) Walsh/Wilson attended the Portland, Oregon MCCLC meetings MANY MONTHS prior to the first meeting Bell attended. And the Feds certainly want to conceal the fact that the only reason Bell attended even one of those MCCLC meetings was his belief that this organization would very likely be infiltrated. (and, of course, Bell was quite right, and Bell identified Walsh/Wilson as the Fed in question.) A look at the Fed publicity (propaganda) over the years reveals that it consistently implied that they 'had to' infiltrate MCCLC 'because they were putting Federal employees on trial in absentia'. What would happen to that phony story if it had been publicly revealed that not only had Walsh/Wilson actually been in attendance at MCCLC for many months prior to any such trial, but also many months prior to Bell's first-attended meeting?!? That's right: The Feds would have been not merely 'embarrassed', but in fact quite incriminated. The Feds manufactured a story, an excuse, months later, to conceal their misconduct and even crimes. So, even today (2010), the Feds retain a powerful interest in seeing that the WP article 'jim bell' not be corrected to remove ANY errors, even some of the seemingly tiniest ones, for fear that their story would unravel. So Explicit, NeilN, Woogee, Gogo Dodo, and others couldn't possibly have waited, even a few hours, to actually check to see if the 2/9/2010 were in any way 'wrong'. (Or, at least, more 'wrong' that Skomorokh's loony initial assertion that Jim Bell had been charged or convicted of "High Treason"!). And this desperate need let them to repeatedly revert "1995" (the CORRECT date of writing of the AP essay) to the INCORRECT 1996. Did they even take long enough to even learn what they were reverting? Or, were they merely aware that SOMEONE UNKNOWN was making 'unauthorized' ('unauthorized' by their collusive cabal) edits to 'jim bell', and they had to remove all of them as soon as possible, regardless of whether they were in any way 'wrong', let alone were 'vandalism'. 'Explicit's assertion of 'excessive vandalism', in addition to being an amazingly funny Freudian slip, will also be incredibly incriminating not merely to him, but also to the rest of the meat-puppets. 'Explicit' will be unable to identify even a single example of 'vandalism', except for his buddies' flurry of unjustified reversions themselves, and of course Explicit's malicious 'protection' of the article 'jim bell', to 'protect it' from the correction of the facts. The Wikipedia rules say as much. Making edits, even repeatedly, for 'good faith' reasons IS NOT VANDALISM. It never was. But repeatedly reverting correct information, and intentionallyh replacing it with old, incorrect information, IS 'vandalism'. It is also 'libel', is a civil conspiracy, and it is quite possibly a 'criminal conspiracy' as well. For now, here's one last comment: You may want to hire lawyers, and ask them how you can go about 'withdrawing from a civil conspiracy', or even 'withdrawing from a criminal conspiracy'. It's much harder than you might think! It isn't as simple, for example, as just 'walking away', or (in the Internet era) never 'showing up' again. Generally, a person must take an active, affirmative, provable step in order to withdraw from a conspiracy. Even if he does, he remains liable for any 'foreseeable damages' as a consequence of the objectives of the conspiracy, even if the person withdrawing did not participate in their commission, and particularly if that person did not take steps to ameliorate the effects of the conspiracy. 'Up a creek without a paddle' is an excellent label for your positions. There are many factual errors and 'false-light' libelous statements and omissions in the article 'jim bell', and your cronies Explicit, NeilN, Woogee, Gogo Dodo, and others have carefully impeded people from correcting even some of the tiniest and most blatantly obvious ones. Since those who wish to correct the article 'jim bell' have been repeatedly impeded from doing those corrections, those persons impeding those corrections have become liable for all of those errors, omissions, libels, and 'false light'. "Oops!", I hear you say. That's a big liability: Do you have what's necessary to pay the judgment? I don't think 'Jimbo' Wales is going to be very happy to lose Wikipedia to Bell: To avoid this, Wales will, therefore, 'roll over' rapidly, denounce the thugs, and profusely apologize. He has to: The rules of WP aren't being followed, regarding 'consensus', 'vandalism', 'reverting', and he is ultimately responsible for failing to enforce those rules. Wales will disclose the identities of these 'plants', and their connection as tools of the Feds will be quickly revealed. Remember what Harry Callahan said: "Do you feel LUCKY?" —Precedingunsigned comment added by 97.120.255.206 (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) In future, could you please condense your comments so they are easier to follow, format them so their present more neatly on screen, and review the no legal threats guidelines, particularly with respect to your last two paragraphs? That said, I gather there's an issue with the publication date of an essay. I'd change it, but I can't find the reliable source in any of the above to verify it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC) On inspection, the references to '1996' in the 'Jim Bell' article are not footnoted. (And, they never have been, since Skomorokh added them 2 years ago). The AP essay was begun about April 1995, and eventually grew to include 10 parts. The first 7 parts were written in 1995, and were published immediately as they were written. Part 8 was a copy of an article by a journalist, Paul Maxwell, writing in the Asahi Evening News (English language newspaper in Japan). : It and parts 9 and 10 were written about February 1996. You can be sure that by July 1995, 'the Feds' were well aware of the content of the (then-growing) AP essay. The Feds subsequently concealed their early knowledge of the AP article: One technique they used, when the applied for a warrant, was for the affiant to claim something like, 'I first became aware of the AP essay on....' That specific affiant ['affidavit writer' for you who don't know the law] may very well have 'first become aware' on some late date, but that doesn't mean that other Feds weren't aware, months or well over a year before. It served the purposes of the Feds to make it appear not merely that the AP essay was written far closer to Bell's May 1997 arrest, but also to conceal the fact of their agent Walsh/Wilson's involvement perhaps one year prior to Bell's first attendance of MCCLC meetings. Why? It sounds much more like an 'emergency' if something happened yesterday, or last week: They certainly wouldn't have wanted to have to tell the judge, 'Well, Bell wrote this TERRIBLE essay...two years ago' !!! This explains, I believe, why Skomorokh claimed the AP essay was written in '1996', and furthermore gave no references. '1996' (at least, December 1996) sounds reasonably close to early 1997. 'April 1995', on the other hand, sounds like an eternity from May 1997, the month Bell was arrested. 71.36.117.224 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'm sure there's a legal threat somewhere in that wall of text. The IP has been blocked. TNXMan 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I'd appreciate if the above comment was left intact so I can look into the concerns expressed; I haven't reviewed the content of the article thoroughly in quite a while. 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I've reformatted the long comment above without, I believe, in any way altering the content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC) So, let's see what we've got, here. Tnxman admits (or, at least claims) that he's "not sure what's going on". In other words, he won't be able to claim (later on) that he was confident in the propriety of what he has done. Further, he claims "I'm sure there's a legal threat somewhere in that wall of text". In other words, he is aware that somebody is exercising his right to object to libel. Tnxman's response? Yup, he goes ahead and blocks the IP! For what is, at most, a SINGLE vague, questionable (at most) claimed violation of one (vague and poorly-defined) WP rule! (With no apparent connection to any other incidents). Yes, that's exactly the way WP is run around here. 'When in doubt, revert! Block! Ban! Punish those people with different opinions than us!'. Some administrator should immediately block Tnxman for this: That would, at least, be a fully-justified block. Will that happen? Don't think so! How many times (a dozen?) has some unknown person been blocked(in the last 2-3 days) from posting in all of WP, over the last couple of days, not for a specific, identifiable current, clear violation, but merely because he (or she) simply reminds somebody of somebody else, where that 'somebody else' simply objected to misconduct by other editors, especially Administrators. You guys are really digging your legal graves at astonishing speed. Hint: It is not a violation of WP rules to post from an IP address. Yet, it is clear that you are treating it as if it were illegal. Your unsupported blocks prove it. 71.36.114.161 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.117.173 (talk) I notice that tbsdy tried to revert the above paragraph (beginning 'So, let's see what we've got, here'), just like Tnxman tried to revert the prior text ("I don't suppose it has occurred to you that..." by User 97.120.255.206) . What's the explanation? The Cabal is, obviously, trying to manipulate the encyclopedia article 'jim bell', to keep its errors and omissions from being fixed. But that's not enough. They want to (need to!) conceal evidence of their nefarious activites, and that includes instantly (if possible) removing critical references to their misconduct, even on the talk:jim bell page. (And all references to their misconduct will be critical: The Cabal ignores all objections to its manipulations, other than to delete, reverse, erase, or otherwise conceal them.) It remains no violation of WP rules to post from an IP address, particularly if the Cabal is preventing people from correcting an articles errors by any other means. The Cabal blocks people illegally, so the public is forced to employ other tactics to avoid the Cabal's finagling fingers. Fortunately, the identities of the Cabal are now (at least, in part) being exposed. Skomorokh, strangely, is holding back, perhaps fearful of losing control over his high-priority 'assignment'. Actually, if Skomorokh were honest and ethical, he would by now either have weighed in on the subject, or he would have explicitly dissociated himself from the dispute. (Rather than merely remaining silent.) And since most of the incorrect 'misinformation' on 'jim bell' originated from Skomorokh's edits, he should be willing to step aside and allow his errors to be corrected. 71.36.117.224 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC) You were previously offered an explanation on how to request a correction to the article, which you have not done to date. Instead, you persist on these long tangential diatribes. It is clear, based on similarity in content and style, that these IPs are the same user as indefinitely-blocked James dalton bell (talk · contribs). I would much rather be working on editing constructively on this article and others, instead of dealing with this continued disruption. Unfortunately, these long rants are disruptive, and they are violations of Wikipedia rules for circumventing policies or sanctions, namely your prior block. If the disruptions continue, do not be surprised if you find either this talk page protected against edits by unregistered users or a ban placed on you and any/all accounts or IPs you use, such that all of your edits are reverted on sight with no further discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correct date of Assassination Politics

I see the debate going on here and have done some research and it looks to me as though the bulk of AP was first published in 1995. I get this from the page http://jya.com/ap.htm - specifically from the first sentence in Part 9 where Bell writes (in Feb. '96) that "for more than six months I've been sharing the subject and my musings with you, the interested reader". So it appears to me as though the comment from 71.36.117.224 is correct as at least parts 1 through 7 were produced in 1995, and 8-10 in 1996. As I am new to editing Wikipedia, I would appreciate any advice on whether I need to document this anywhere else than here. Thanks. Keystroke (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A week has passed, so I'm making further changes to the article today and hope to be doing it correctly. There seems to be little activity here as of late, so please contact me on this talk page if there are any comments or suggestions. This topic is quite a slippery one due to many claims and counter-claims, so I am doing my best to cite all sources, sometimes multiple times in the article if necessary. There have been a number of incorrect claims (not sourced at all) in this article for some time, and my primary goal is to eventually remove all of these to adhere to the biography of living persons guidelines. I am making multiple edits as it is easier for me to see what has changed, and will be easier for everyone else later if we have to dispute any individual points or specific edits. I thank everyone for their patience with my contributions and look forward to working with all of you. Keystroke (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about the way you're using sources. Many of them are legal documents - have you read WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLP, specifically, "Exercise great care in using primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that until recently, there were serious violations of WP:BLP in the article which went uncommented on for years. I have not made any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" about the material in the court documents. Keystroke (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

More eyes are on this article because of Bell's editing and mentions at WP:ANI. I've skimmed over the article and get a sense that some of Bell's claims are represented as fact. I'll take a closer look later in the week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why single out Bell's claims rather than just giving a critical look at all of the claims in the article? I just did a check of one POV word (selected basically at random), and found that the word was not included in the original source. It was instead an interpretation of an editor added on 30 January 2008. The addition was summarized as "rework for coherency, timeline consistency" but includes multiple POV statements. Keystroke (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out the POV statements? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A few that have been recently changed to be more neutral would include: "Bell had previously boasted of producing sarin of the type used in the 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway"- unsupported by the source. "He was arrested in 1989 for illegally manufacturing methamphetamine" - read the source and you'll see that no charges along those lines were ever filed, the particular arrest in question was for a misdemeanor of having a chemical. "Bell claimed to have developed a "phobia" of tax-related issues and became a Libertarian Party member" - this sequence implies that these two are directly related when in the article, they are not correlated with each other at all. "He involved himself with the militia movement" - a strong statement requiring strong evidence that is not supported by the sources and from what I can tell in news coverage, no evidence of this aside from three meetings of the common law court was cited by the government. "The purpose was to intimidate the IRS agents and others into no longer enforcing tax rulings and tax and other laws."-- still no citation for this years later, and I don't even see IRS agents specifically mentioned in the original Assassination Politics essay. "Itinerant musician Carl Edward Johnson" - the first phrase is a copyright violation lifted directly from the article cited at the end of the sentence, and at no time is Carl Johnson referred to by his middle name as well. This implies some sort of POV on the part of the inserting editor (as many serial killers, etc. are referred to by all three of their names). In the next edit[2], the idea that two people who were "acolytes" of Bell were "swiftly charged and jailed" is inserted. It's extremely misleading, as one was arrested for vandalizing an Australian McDonald's (no mention is made of jail at all) and one was charged with sending threatening email messages to Bill Gates, among others, unrelated to the actual bot Dead Lucky. If such misleading statements and violations of BLP can remain in the lede of the article unchallenged for years, I'm sure there are other inaccuracies in the article as well I haven't yet recognized. At that time the article was even included in the categories "American terrorists" (he was never convicted of anything related to terrorism - talk about POV and a strong violation of BLP!), "American tax evaders" (never directly convicted of tax evasion) and at a later point, "Americans convicted of drug crimes" (as mentioned above, he was never convicted of this). These violations of BLP were only removed recently.

These are just things I've noticed from reading some of the sources and fact-checking some of the statements in the article. Keystroke (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Acolyte" section

The IP 97.120.252.231 removed the quotation from the acolyte section, and I believe this to be a good edit as a blockquote from another individual shouldn't really be in this article. I think the acolyte section should either be deleted or moved to the Assassination market article, so I will make this change soon. Keystroke (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I shall revert, 97 is a sock of James dalton bell (talk · contribs).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. You were talking about it in another way. Never-mind. I have no real qualms about your proposed edit, but please wait for others who have edited this page(Not JDB) to comment before making your edit. Your edits have been good so far, so I support, but please wait.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for saying my edits are good, I really appreciate it as I am pretty new to editing Wikipedia. I have worked hard trying to make this article less biased, as indicated in my Feb. 28th comment in the above section (Correct date of Assassination Politics). No one has been editing except for me lately, and I have not received a response to the above comments. I believe the last editor to make any changes other than reverts was Gloriamarie on 7th. I will wait a few days to see if there is a response as you suggest. Keystroke (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived Talk Page

Daedalus969 - would you please add a box to this talk page which links to the archived version of the talk page? I would do it but I'm not sure how. Thanks! Keystroke (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The auto-archiving hasn't kicked in yet. When it does, links to archived pages should appear. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Already anticipated that, the listing template is at the top of the page. It's the one that asks users to sign. When the auto-archiving kicks in, as Nei says, the links should appear.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin help

{{admin help}} The auto-archiving hasn't kicked in yet, despite the fact that some messages here are older than 3 months. Why?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect because the page Talk:Jim Bell/Archive 1 did not exist (I just made it), or perhaps the settings aren't quite right; I'll check them over, and also I will check back here to see if it is working, in a day or so.  Chzz  ►  03:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

...and, it would appear to be working. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  06:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits not neutral

These edits aren't WP:NPOV; rather, they espouse Bell's point of view:

• "Bell was targeted and identified by the..." -> "Bell was targeted for his exercise of his freedom of speech by the..."
• "Bell was arrested and subsequently jailed for 11 months on felony charges of harassment and using fraudulent Social Security numbers." -> "Bell was arrested and subsequently jailed for 11 months on felony charges of harassment and using incorrect Social Security numbers."
• "Bell subsequently became involved in a tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service, which ruled that he owed $30,000 to the federal government." -> "Bell subsequently became involved in a tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service, which claimed that he owed $30,000 to the federal government."

And I'm not sure about the unexplained removal of Matt Taylor paragraphs from Acolytes section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have modified some of my edits to get closer to the meaning I originally intended, which is a neutral article. For example, the word "fraudulent" describing the social security numbers is not used in any of the sources as far as I can find. This word strongly implies that other people's social security numbers were used, but I cannot find this claim anywhere. It is possible that in fact "fake" numbers were used which were not stolen from anyone, which is made even more possible by the fact that the court documents do not accuse Bell of stealing any SS numbers. As such, the article should be written so as not to imply either case, until a valid source can be found. Hence, I changed the word from "fraudulent" to "incorrect" - I have now modified this to "false".

I explained the removal of Matt Taylor above; in fact, I question the need for the entire Acolytes section, which would be more appropriate for the Assassination market article. I did not receive a response. I would also like to note here that I have not received a response to my detailing of the previous bias I mentioned in "Correct date of Assassination Politics". As I noted there, and as I removed in this edit, I deleted the part which states he targeted IRS agents in Assassination Politics. Nowhere does Bell specifically single out IRS agents.

The idea about freedom of speech is from IRS raids a cypherpunk, where "Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra Law School, says that Bell's writings are protected by the First Amendment" and "a prosecutor might be hard-pressed to prove they're dangerous". This plus the timeline of the case implies that he was originally investigated solely because of the publication of his articles. However, I do see how this can appear to be not NPOV, so I will leave it out - however, I think it is unfair to say my edits constitute a "whitewash", as stated in the revert.

I also removed this phrase: "While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that advocating violence against government officials is protected by the First Amendment, realistic threats can be punished, and "Assassination Politics" put Bell under the scrutiny of federal investigators in late 1996." This juxtaposition implies that Bell was a "realistic threat." I have not removed it again after the revert reinserted it, so it still needs to be fixed.

I do not believe the IRS can actually "rule" on money owed to them - courts do. So I changed the word "ruled" to "claimed" as you mention - I have now changed it to "stated" which should please everyone. Keystroke (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In a tax dispute, the IRS makes a formal "statutory notice of deficiency" at some point if they cannot come to an agreement with the taxpayers about the tax. 90 days after that, the IRS can assess the tax, recording it on the books and allowing them to take measures to collect the tax. The notice would be the IRS "ruling" on what is owed and to whom. Between that and the formal assessment, the taxpayer can appeal to the Tax Court or a federal district court (see the tax court article for some more detail). Saying that the IRS ruled that X was owed is accurate. Ravensfire (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:James dalton bell

I have an email to OTRS from Jim Bell, he makes some serious allegations (which we've seen before) and also makes it plain that he's watching this page, which is fine. I've asked him if there are any specific errors of fact which we can fix, supported by sources of course. In the mean time this is a heads-up to let everybody here know that he has contacted us by email (as I suggested in January, I can't find an earlier mail though there may be one) and that if I do make any changes I'd appreciate it if people would discuss rather than reverting, at this point. Oh, and let's all remember the hatnote about WP:BLP :-) Self-censorship is a Good Thing, feel free to redact any comments you feel may display excessive rhetorical exuberance. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)