User talk:Energynet

Hi: I'm new to this system. I wrote the original piece about the redstone building. I am the current building manager of the redstone building, and one of the oldest ongoing individuals, having been at the building since 1984.

After typing in the original piece, I made a copy of it and posted it to my website at http://www.energy-net.org/REDSTONE/DEFAULT.HTM

After this stupid process began, I moved the page from that page to another page http://www.energy-net.org/REDSTONE/histor.htm.

Some other former tenant has since attempted to take over control of the work that I did, making changes to the original document. I was not even barely started with the work that wanted to add.

Why don't I have control over the document on the computers I wrote the document originally? I opened an account to start the page. I am demanding that if the person who is not "energynet" who is taken control over the page is not me! Some of his material is excellent. It is clear that this person who found out about the original post when I notified people who were on my (the redstone building's) mailing list about my posting this document.

I was not aware of the implications or happy about what has happened. I had hardly finished the first draft and had a lot more material I wished to add, and then put links to. The original, if it still exists will clearly point to my beginner status in figuring out what I'm doing.

However, I would like help on what has just happened. I don't like the idea that someone else has taken over control of a document that has extensive resouces that I and only would have available to write the document...

The redstone building manager aka energynet

Copyright violation in Redstone building
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Redstone building, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Redstone building is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Redstone building, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

- Krakatoa  Katie  07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Redstone (building)
I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. However, you must read Copyright policy. If you do own the website in question and wish to donate it to Wikipedia, either email or write the Wikimedia Foundation to give formal licensure of your site's content under the GFDL. You also must learn Wikipedia syntax to write an article correctly, because I'm having a terrible time cleaning up your text – Wikipedia internal links are not external links, and there's a difference. Learn how to write the article in your user space, then put it into the article when it's ready. :-)

Tutorial is a good place to start, and it's where I started 10,000 edits ago. Soak up the Wiki-knowledge, and be sure to visit and read each and every one of the links I've provided in my welcome message. Welcome again, and don't be afraid to ask questions! - Krakatoa  Katie  07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, please note that any articles uploaded to Wikipedia...take on a life of their own once they're here. Original editors do not "own" the articles they start. Other editors are free--and encouraged--to improve the articles. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:MVC-275F.JPG
I was shocked to see a common file name for a camera was deleted. The next time, i will rename the file to a unique file name - the picture was taken by myself.

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:MVC-275F.JPG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:MVC-275F.JPG is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:MVC-275F.JPG, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation
I saw your article on the Redstone Building and figured this project would be of interest to you. (I'm the author of a couple articles on related topics, San Francisco Armory and Mission School.) Peter G Werner 03:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit
This removal is inappropriate. It's a valid disambiguation link like many pages have. C T F 8 3 ! 00:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

November 2017
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Rancho Las Camaritas (Noé). You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:California First Nation (Indian) Reservations and Cessions has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:California First Nation (Indian) Reservations and Cessions. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:California First Nation (Indian) Reservations and Cessions has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:California First Nation (Indian) Reservations and Cessions. Thanks!  DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: California First Nation (Indian) Reservations and Cessions has been accepted
 California First Nation (Indian) Reservations and Cessions, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=California_First_Nation_(Indian)_Reservations_and_Cessions help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Electric Bond and Share Company
When noticing that the incredible history of the Ebasco had been deleted by authors working on Ebasco Services and had its original article removed, I felt it critical that the history of the largest most powerful of JP Morgan's attempts to monopolize the entire U.S. electric industry was removed.

For this reason, I have been working to construct this history which apparently has never happened. However, I also have several jobs, so hopefully readers/editors will be patient as I'm not the greatest writer grammatically speaking. Since this history reflects upon a number of major industries in this country including GE, I assume that once discovered that a certain amount of pressure will likely be brought to bear since the story about Ebasco which was one of the largest U.S. legal battles in history was clearly meant to disappear. Besides the company's early history, it also played a major role in the U.S. and global nuclear power industry that more or less collapsed due to economic and safety issues. I'm not at this point going to turn it into a summary of what happened to this country's nuclear as I have other activities.

But its clear that a number of major segments of this piece could be expanded upon. These are project areas that need addressing:

The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 is clearly in need of being expanded and updated. It fails to fully document the scope and size of what the act did. First off, the act itself was meant to reign in an out of control corporate raid on rate payers that played a dominant role in the 1929 stock collapse. Few in this country are given even the slightest inkling that a substantial part of the depression was caused by an electricity bubble if you will where the public in urban areas were buying up electric gadgets like never before, but at the same time corporate holding companies were syphoning off huge profits from local operating companies while refusing to bring services to most of rural America. This took FDR's New Deal to reverse, the development of major public programs like the rural electric cooperative movement and the TVA which helped to finally give the South East and much of the rural plains states power where private companies refused to go.

The history of how FDR, who ran on a public power campaign that highlighted the collapse of Samuel Insull's middle West utilities collapse at the start of his election campaign made electricity the single biggest issue in the country for the 1932 national elections. Eisenhower's library even acknowledges this socalled "creeping socialism"

Public Power in the Eisenhower Administration

What Cambridge archive fails to do is document the dirty tactics the industry employed to undermine this country's once important public power movement. When FDR took the issue to the federal level, it too the sails out of local efforts nationally that quickly became reliant on the federal programs. In particular, this played havoc in the state of California where the largest power project of them all, the Central Valley Project was intended to take most of northern California into a public power system. Instead republicans at the last moment, who had taken control of congress stripped the massive public works project of its funding to build a grid to all the communities in the state that were preparing to receive the power from the program and allowed Pacific Gas to construct the grid across the region and sell the wholesale power. This historic theft by PG&E of course had been produced once before when it was able to do the same thing with San Francisco's public system, eventually making the company the largest producer in the state, as as pointed out in this piece, the promoter of the Eisenhower strategy.

This history should be made public as it defines an era based on piracy of public resources. The documentation exists. Sadly, its been all but removed from history by the country's textbook companies at the public education level and its this documentation by the public power movement going back to the 1920's on how this was attained.

Today, this country's corporate control of discourse and attacks using a history of red baiting that was used not to just smear a few Hollywood writers and the labor movement, but also to undermine the public utilities ownership movement, that had fully documented the benefits of these services from Seattle, Los Angeles, Cleveland, small programs in the North East and the massive Rural cooperatives, and the TVA. This was big money and game the private bankers and big electric companies played was evil. If our public highways and schools could have been privatized back then they would have upped the "Red Scare" if it would have made a difference. The fact that the largest NY banks were the benefactors in this agenda and why the country has one of the worst election systems in world all go into play over just how horrific this situation has become. To take the subject public becomes an ideological attack which is absurd. Today, the people being hurt the worst by this are those who just don't understand how they were robbed by bankers and the electric industry.

In an update - a trilogy has been put together NELA - PUHCA and EBASCo - that documents the evolution of the electric industry going back to 1906 when it hid an agenda to manipulate public opinion on its fight against municipal ownership. Full documentation of this history is embedded within the NELA' proceedings and carefully camoflaged as part of their "co-operation campaign" that was echoed in their trade journals. By 1926 this campaign had become so large that tens of millions of dollars a year were being spent annually by the industry as part of its larger public relations campaign. Opponents, from municipalities to labor unions and western states fought back and were able to pass senate resolution 83 in 1928 that called for an investigation of the industry that was done by the FTC between 1928-35. The dramatic findings in these large scale investigations led FDR and supporters to pass PUHCA on 8-24-35. This was followed by 25 years of legal fighting to break up the industry by the SEC. The documentation of this immense battle has always been on the industry's mind since which took them nearly 20 years, starting in the 1980's to repeal the act in 2005.

The entire issue, with the 1973 book by Phillip Fungiello documenting the blow by blow details of the PUHCA legislative battle along with the rest of the New Deal's energy policy initiatives like the rural electric cooperative movement and the large public dam projects. The REA was possibly the single most important move by FDR that brought electricity to rural areas where nothing existed because there was no money to be made - by the mid 1920's the industry's own internal statistics showed that 95% of the country's 6.5 farmers without power. These federally funded projects are still active today and cover nearly 75% of the country compared to the fact that most corporate electric development is focused on urban areas.

Fungiello lays out the immense battle, minus Senator Hugo Black's dramatic radio broadcast on Aug 8th 1935 where his committee found up to $5 million spent by the industry to try and kill the PUHCA during the 7 month battle over its passage including a fake movement and vicious media tactics. The extensive details documented by the author are backed up by the library of Congress' own newspaper archives where both articles, editorials and ads could be found as part of the nationwide campaign that focused primarily however on NYC, Chicago and DC. The best example of this dramatic campaign was with the Washington D.C. Evening Star that exemplified the conservative press at the time. Black's investigation of the lobbying campaign showed that the industry's many front groups and internal news network were able to quickly compile a list of 1,000 editorials (with 62% being opposed) against the legislation (PUHCA-Wheeler-Rayburn Bill) in just ten days. Try to do that on Google today! The fact that this history is all but unknown today can find the reason for this embedded in the FTC investigation where the commission found that the industry had become so powerful that it had veto power over the country's textbooks. The PR campaign mentioned above has been described as the largest of its kind with the FTC identifying its start in 1919, but then this date was actually articulated because that was when documents it received by the NELA were made available back to. Digital access to earlier NELA proceedings documents the real start, even though it only lasted two years back to 1906, but was again restarted in 1913.

This single issue has dramatic historic relevance today because it clearly lays out the details of how organized the industry became and that this political and financial network via NELA and then EEI lays the groundwork for its ultimate privatization of this country's energy policy and how rate payers financed the PR/propaganda campaign that has really never stopped. A last note, when the FTC used the word propaganda to describe the PR campaign in the 1920's, it do so accurately in its final report - that included references to the industry's own use of "propaganda" in its deliberative strategy against the public which it felt was stupid and manipulatable. Thousands of pages of testimony and exhibits went into the investigation detailing this propaganda campaign and who it was directed at. The impacts of stigmatizing public ownership as "soviet plot" to overthrow american values today is the single largest ongoing fear based tactic of its kind in this country's history and can be found dating back to the 1870's when labor unions first started to organize. These fear based tactics became the most shrill during FDR's administration and were openly thrown at the New Deal by the industry and its allies that were under direct threat due public perceptions of their role in the 1929 crash. FDR's brain trust for example was smeared repeatedly as an invasion of unamerican ideas when in fact most of these people as well as FDR had no intention of nationalizing the industry as shown in all administration historic documents from the time.

File:Roosevelt's Warning - Water & Power Monopoly - America's Greatest Menace.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Roosevelt's Warning - Water & Power Monopoly - America's Greatest Menace.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Securities and exchange commission v. electric bond and share company moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Securities and exchange commission v. electric bond and share company, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. Further articles should not consist entirely, or even mostly, of published court decisions. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that all materials were taken directly from wikisource. I was under the impression that wikipedia's link to this very same article suggested that it was a legitimate article - thus taking its content as a viable reference. This is the first supreme court legal piece I've done, so if it does not pass then what to do? Energynet (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also quite upset that I was actually still working on the piece when you moved it! How is it that I had spent less than a few minutes on this piece when it was moved? Energynet (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry for not responding earlier - I hadn't realized you left a message until I just had cause to revisit the article. You might want to ping people you're responding to by using so that they know you've replied. As for the article itself, I'm sorry for any confusion and frustration. I would encourage you not to give up - article creation can be difficult. As to what happened and why: I partake in new page patrol - we attempt to ensure that all new articles comply with Wikipedia's polices and guidelines. These policies and guidelines are different from Wikisource and so the whole text of the article is appropriate there in a way it's not appropriate here. Most US supreme court cases likely are notable - our word for what qualifies for its own article. However, as  pointed out they need to have context and analysis for our readers. An example of an article that has been rated as a "good article" is Lafler v. Cooper which gives the background for the case and also examines its impact. As for the time to work on it, at new page patrol our general guideline is 10 minutes or so is enough time before we take action.. However, there is no deadline in terms of improving it in draft space (though if nothing happens on it for six months it can be deleted). I hope that helps. If you have further questions please feel free to reply to me here with a ping or to leave a message on my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

== Your submission at Articles for creation: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company (August 24) ==  Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Javert2113 were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_v._Electric_Bond_and_Share_company Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Javert2113&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_v._Electric_Bond_and_Share_company reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

&mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 21:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

== Your submission at Articles for creation: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company (August 30) ==  Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.


 * Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Energynet Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishal_Shrestha&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Energynet reviewer's talk page] . or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bishal Shrestha (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? but what materials are copywrited? Energynet (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The copypaste were from this and this. Please view the comments on Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company for more updates. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company. Thanks! Bishal Shrestha (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

== Your submission at Articles for creation: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company (August 30) ==  Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.


 * Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Energynet Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Energynet reviewer's talk page] . or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong I'm very concerned how out of the nowhere the entire project is being threatend for deletion!??? I was at the teahouse attempting to resolve this there, and then come back to the piece and see this? I have removed the materials even though there appears to be a split about whether it is copyright or not since its a federal decision released by a court. The site it came from had no copywrite on the piece. But as suggested, I have taken it off the article and linked to it at wikisource. But I have no idea now how to protect the rest of the piece.

This feels very unfair that I'm being forced to stop my regular life and being threatened by the loss of all this work when I was making an active attempt to solve this!
 * The page you copied from https://www.leagle.com/decision/1938722303us4191677 clearly says at the bottom "Copyright © 2017, Leagle, Inc." Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong Thanks for pointing this out! However, I had deleted all of the copied Leagle.com material from the page - so it was no longer in the article! Yet, the entire piece was still deleted! Besides this, how is it possible that a private entity can copyright public domain materials - in this case a supreme court case decision?Energynet (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Roosevelt's Warning - Water & Power Monopoly - America's Greatest Menace.png
Thanks for uploading File:Roosevelt's Warning - Water & Power Monopoly - America's Greatest Menace.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I was under the impression that anything from 1923 and older is available for fair use. The image is from an organization that has been long gone. Energynet (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company has been accepted
 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Thanks Roy for standing up for me on this! Kind of crazy time for me, lots of lessons learned. Energynet (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_v._Electric_Bond_and_Share_company help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

A Barnstar for you
It was originally going to be a "hit and run" - cut and paste the decision in. Boy was I in for a surprise. I must have spent hours trying to comply with Tea house comments. I'm not even sure I'm still there yet, as one person said that I need to find a modern summary of the decision - couldn't find anything from a legal scholar but did find a prominent writer as well as a guy that played a major role in overseeing the act back when it passed. If more concerns arise, I may have to go to a law library, but maybe somebody else can chime in that has access to better resources than I do.

thanks for the shout out and support Energynet (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the cooperative movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Grange ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/History_of_the_cooperative_movement check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/History_of_the_cooperative_movement?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Energynet, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Cecile Pineda have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Central Valley Project, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mercury and Oakie ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Central_Valley_Project check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Central_Valley_Project?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Energynet. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Redstone building, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.

''Please do not edit Redstone building directly. Use the talk page if you have requests.''  --- Possibly &#9742; 15:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

COI and PAID editing
Hello! regarding the tenant list, we do not included long indiscriminate lists like that, so please kindly do no add it back. You also need to stop editing that page directly. Wikipedia values itself on being neutral, and someone who is employed by the article subject is both considered a paid editor and an editor with a conflict of interest. You can see how to declare your paid status here: WP:PAID. In future please use the talk page to request changes to the Redstone building page, as mentioned above. Thanks. --- Possibly &#9742; 15:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cecile Pineda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkeley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)