User talk:CFVertigo

Materials deleted from article on Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Dear fellow Wikipedia user: The materials you twice inserted into the above-referenced article were apparently copied and pasted from from other places on the internet. The materials are claimed to have been authored by a Mr. Otto Skinner and are found at, among other places, his web site at http://www.ottoskinner.com/articles/Who_worded_16th.html

These materials are presumptively subject to copyright, and probably should not be inserted into Wikipedia articles. Especially, they should not be inserted without attribution with respect to authorship (whether the actual author is Mr. Skinner or someone else).

Also, Mr. Skinner is a notorious publisher of Tax protester materials. Therefore, although his status as such does not necessarily disqualify him from being a source for materials, you should take care when citing to Mr. Skinner as a source for authority in tax law matters. Yours, Famspear 16:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the 16th Amendment as it stands today was written by Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island. This is a matter of public record via the Congressional Record. Now the political discussions regarding the 16th Amendment and taxes in general are numerous and will likely continue for many years to come. [Note: This unsigned comment was inserted by CFVertigo on 26 June 2006.]

Greetings! A copyright violation with a few lines reworded is still a copyright violation. In any event, the statement that "if the amendment authorized a direct tax, it would cause one part of the Constitution to come into irreconcilable conflict with Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4" is pure idiocy on the part of its author. Virtually every amendment to the Constitution is irreconcilable with the portions of the Constitution which it alters, otherwise an amendment would not be needed at all; Congress could just pass a law having the effect sought by the amendment. After all, the Constitution originally recognized slavery, a position irreconcilable with the 13th Amendment prohibtion of Slavery. The Constitution once required Senators to be elected by their state legislatures, a provision irreconcilable with the direct election of Senators enacted by the Seventeenth Amendment. Also, the "rich soaking the rich" is nothing out of the ordinary - John Kerry is one of the wealthiest men in America, and the Kennedy clan has long held an enormous fortune; Franklin Delano Roosevelt had an immense fortune when he enacted massive wartime tax increase. The senior George Bush enacted a tax increase on the wealthy. Donald Trump has called for a 17% property tax against the wealthy, and Warren Buffet supports tax increases on the wealthy. Remember also, the Sixteenth Amendment was passed around the same time that Congress passed new antitrust laws forcing large corporations to dissolve and costing industry tycoons billions. Around the same time, Congress prohibited child labor, began regulating working conditions, strengthened unions, and held lengthy public investigations in which concentrations of wealth were portrayed as a base evil. So, there's your historical context. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove other people's comments.

You removed material warning you about copyright violations not only from your own talk page, but also from the talk page of the relevant article. This is not considered good behavior and could result in your being blocked. Please don't do that again. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does all this rambling about Donald Trump and Warren Buffet have to do with the 16th Amendment? [Note: This comment was added by CFVertigo on 26 June 2006.]

Dear CFVertigo: Your second deletion of other people's comments from your talk page has been restored. Please stop removing other people's comments from this page. Thanks Famspear 04:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Anne Marie Howard 6006-sm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Anne Marie Howard 6006-sm.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Silva

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Michele Silva, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.wbir.com/company/bios/bio.aspx?storyid=18915. As a copyright violation, Michele Silva appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Michele Silva has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Michele Silva. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Michele Silva, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ditech.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ditech.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anne Marie Howard for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anne Marie Howard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Marie Howard until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Bgsu98 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]