User talk:Lvillealumni

Image copyright problem with Image:WendyAndLisa.png

Thanks for uploading Image:WendyAndLisa.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 09:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WendyAndLisa2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:WendyAndLisa2.png. 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 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Glee (TV series). Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. CTJF83 chat 09:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on William Phipps (actor). If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, likewise, I should be more than free to change it back to the way it was. I do not make, nor have I ever made, any claim to own the article. However, if I feel information being provided is unnecessary, superfluous, or just plain silly, I will remove it, the same as I would do with any article, whether I created it or not. --Lvillealumni (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Phipps (actor) 3RR

Same edits as 99.1.97.13 (talk · contribs)

Your recent editing history at William Phipps (actor) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jim1138 (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respect is a two-way street. I've given, in the past, detailed reasons on why I feel the article should be left as is, and why the information that was added by others was unnecessary, but, apparently respect is only to be given to the vandals. --Lvillealumni (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvillealumni, I improved the William Phipps page a few months ago. Feel free to return and help out. Cheers! OscarL 15:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]