User talk:Impm

License tagging for Image:The Who 018.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The Who 018.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 06:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Some image help
If you need Wiki policy support in order to keep your image in the Pete article....simply quote WP:FAIR. By that policy screenshots are only fair-use, and allowable, in an article specifically written about the video/movie from where the screenshot is taken. In other words, the Pete1977 pic, which is still a good pic, is only fair-use in an article written about the source of the screen shot...iow...it's only allowable in an article about "The Kids Are Alright". If any ignorant IP's(you know who) try to remove your pic simply quote the fair use policy in your rv edit summary. If the user is persistent, report them to WP:ANI and an administrator will deal with them. Good luck. 156.34.142.110 18:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Liam 2005.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Liam 2005.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Lenono.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lenono.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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Noel image still not right
The new Noel pic is good. But it still doesn't have the correct license information tag and it doesn't have the fair-use rationale information. It's been auto-tagged for deletion if the correct info doesn't get added in. Match up to your Townshend pic(the one I've fought a long battle against a certain belligerent IP just to keep your shot in the article) It seems to have passed the "Wiki-test". If the admins catch an image with a big red tag on it they'll delete it. And then we're back to the "ape" shot. Good luck. 156.34.216.116 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please always follow our core policies. Acalamari 23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:TheInvisibleElephant.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TheInvisibleElephant.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 03:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Johnmaccy.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Johnmaccy.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Johnmaccy.jpg
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee vs. a candidate
I've reverted your change to call Barack Obama the "presumptive nominee" in the lead section for Barack Obama. I have also created a discussion on the article's talk page to see what other editors' opinions is of this. If you would like to participate in this discussion, please do so at the article's discussion page prior to re-adding that Obama is the presumptive nominee. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And please refrain from calling other editors names, like "Clintonite" in your edit summaries - they really don't add to a congenial atmosphere.  Tvoz / talk 18:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that there was no reason for you to include that "denomination" in your edit summary other than to suggest that the other editor was being partisan - and please don't pretend otherwise. We have enough bias in the editing of that page - we don't need to add to it.  Tvoz / talk 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008
By all means, please participate in the poll discussion at the bottom of Talk:United States presidential election, 2008. However, please do not continue to edit war. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please use discussion page. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, stop now, please. Please note that edit warring is a blockable offense. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee vs. a candidate, again.
You've been reverted on this subject and others repeatedly and have refused to accept the consensus view or even to discuss it on the article's talk page. Telling me to "chill out" and to stop being a "lecturer", as well as the disparaging comments that you've left the many others who have reverted you are not helping the situation. Also, from your comment to me it seems that you believe that your not specifically violating the three strike rule makes your actions not an edit war. As you have been told above repeatedly, edit warring is the underlying behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time. Please try to gain a consensus for your edits on the article's talk page, and label those edits accurately, especially when those edits have a long history of controversy and reversion. Quenn (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work 22:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Obamar.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Obamar.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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.  fetch  comms  ☛ 22:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Electoralmap.jpg


The file File:Electoralmap.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned and obseleted derievative work (probably screen shot - evident by link to polls). Image only 'predicts' what is to happen."

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)