Empyrium
April 2010
edit
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rape in the United States, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Rape in the United States. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. HarlandQPitt (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- You appear to be rapidly vandalizing pages. I've gone through your list of contributions and reverted most of them. Consider this your warning: on your next bad edit you will be blocked. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Rape in the United States. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. HarlandQPitt (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Rape in the United States, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Belinda ♥ 06:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Unblocked
editI have unblocked your account, but under one condition: please do not remove information referenced to reliable sources without reaching consensus on the article talk page (or project talk page) first. Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Empyrium, it seems to me that you were an IP first--User talk:189.61.152.142. I am going to move a discussion you started at Talk:Rape to the appropriate place, Talk:Rape in the United States. Besides that, I urge you to adhere to the guidelines here, and not simply remove information a dozen times--that's not how we reach consensus here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Samjones.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Samjones.jpg. 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.
As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
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 created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
