Talk:Union for Peru

Latest comment: 16 years ago by BetacommandBot in topic Fair use rationale for Image:Union por el Peru.png

Untitled

edit

I'm not so sure that the UPP continues to be "liberal." It's merge with the PNP made it pretty leftist, did it not? --Descendall 06:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that is what I was thinking. The only reason it says "liberal-centrist" is because it is referring to the organization's position when it was used as a vehicle for the campaign of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. After Perez de Cuellar left it has pretty much been a shell organization until Humala and the Peruvian Nationalist Party brought it back to some level of noteriety to back Humala's campaign. This really needs to be updated to show that.--Jersey Devil 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Union por el Peru.png

edit
 

Image:Union por el Peru.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply