User talk:Cl0udmaster

Your recent edit to the page Hawaii (island) appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you may do and take a look at the welcome page, if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. HkCaGu (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida highway numbering

While I agreed that the highway numbering details were best omitted from the state article, they could be forked into a separate article, if you are willing to take the time. See, for example, Great Britain road numbering scheme.Student7 (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Florida highway numbering

-- There is one already, Florida State Roads

Re: Elca Solutions Article

Re your message: I have restored the article to your user space at User:Paraplegicemu/Elca Solutions so that you can work on it. What you need to do to keep the article about a company on Wikipedia is to establish the company's notability per the notability guidelines for companies. Just because the company exists does not infer notability. Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kindledx.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Kindledx.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Sfefcu.gif

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Sfefcu.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - I don't see any problems with it! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tax protestor arguements POV

Hey - sorry for not responding any earlier, ran out of time. I understand what you're saying - the articles seem to you to dismiss the points raised by the protestors and do so in fairly unflattering terms. When other read the articles, they will get a certain view of those arguements and those that support them, and that doesn't seem right to you.

Wikipedia has a couple of core priciples - use verifiable, reliable sources and maintaining a neutral point of view are the two biggest. NPOV is probably the hardest principle to really define. It doesn't mean that all views of a given subject are presented equally, but more than views are generally presented as reported by verifiable, reliable sources without additional tilting towards one view or another.

Along with that, articles should present the mainstream view of a subject, noting different views, counter arguements, etc, in relative weight. When views are significantly far from the mainstream view, they're considered fringe, and generally aren't found in the main article except as a side mention. Tax protestors, as a stand-alone subject, isn't considered something that's fringe. It's quite obvious that there are a good number of them in the US and other countries. Likewise, tax resistors are treated the same.

The problem, and this is directly to your comment, is when you look at specific arguements. Take the Sixteenth Amendment arguement - we've got an article on the amendment itself and on the tax protestor arguements about the Sixteenth Amendment. In the latter article, the various arguements are presented, including cases where the arguement was used. NPOV requires that the article also include the results of those cases and the declaration that the arguement is considered legally frivolous. No editor here is saying that the arguement or the people that believe in it are "ludicrous", but we do say that the arguement is frivolous as that has a specific, legal meaning that is relevant and supported by notable, reliable sources.

Do various editors here believe that these positions are crazy? Sure - when someone tries to sell another person advice that has been legally declared false and will result in a penalty just to use it, that doesn't make sense. It takes a lot to get something declare frivolous, but multiple specific, on point court rulings will result in that happening. These aren't just casual mentions by a judge in a hearing, but reasoned, argued points in a ruling.

I strongly believe that you and I will disagree on this point, and certainly that we're not going to change each other's mind on the legality of the positions (I find it quite humorous, though, that while in most cases ignorance of the law is not a defense, the sheer complexity of the tax law can be used as a defense against criminal tax charges). I'm hoping this will help you understand some the points that were raised on the tax article. Sorry for the rather lengthy response, but hope it helps some. Ravensfire (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

This is completely unacceptable. Please refactor it. Steve Smith (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a fellow editor a moron is unacceptable. It doesn't excuse your words. If you want to provide a diff of Mateo's incivility, I'll issue a warning to him/her too, but I'd still request that you refactor. Steve Smith (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

Paraplegicemu -

I never told you that you could not read Wikipedia. What I referred to in my comment was the fact that Wikipedia has rules for contributors. Foremost among these is that editors must provide reliable sources for their contributions. This means that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Something you think you heard somewhere is not a reliable source. A law code section is not a reliable source for your idiosyncratic and irrational interpretation of that law. In fact, posting your own interpretation in an article is prohibited original research. If you do not wish to follow these rules, I suggest you find someplace else to contribute—because you will not get very far here.

As to why you received an immediate and negative response to your edits, you should expect such a response when you replace well-referenced material with your own unsupported claims (this includes claims "supported" by patently unreliable sources). Such a response is all the more likely when you trot out shopworn absurdities that have been repeatedly refuted not only here on Wikipedia, but repeatedly and unanimously in courts of law. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 03:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of episodes of The Marriage Ref. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mdc verticalweb color.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mdc verticalweb color.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Best Buy Connect

A tag has been placed on Best Buy Connect, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Best Buy Connect

Hi Paraplegicemu. Although it may have not been your intent, your article, "Best Buy Connect", read like an advertisement. Here on Wikipedia, we have a policy in which advertising/spam is speedy deleted per deletion criterion G11. Please note that articles for deletion are judged on their own merit, not in comparison to other articles (See WP:OTHERSTUFF). You are certainly welcome to resubmit the article, but please revise the text so that it complies with the policies and guidelines noted at WP:ADS, WP:MOS, and WP:GNG; otherwise, you run the risk of having the article deleted again. FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Doralpdcruiser.png

Thank you for uploading File:Doralpdcruiser.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Ottawa Senators 2020-21 Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ottawa Senators 2020-21 Logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 04:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ottawa Senators 2020-21 Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ottawa Senators 2020-21 Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sfefcu.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sfefcu.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Educational Federal Credit Union

The article Educational Federal Credit Union has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Run of the mill coverage including community engagement, but nothing that approaches WP:CORP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Star Mississippi 20:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]