User talk:Membender

File permission problem with File:Kramer-CARB-testimony.png

Thanks for uploading File:Kramer-CARB-testimony.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

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:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Felix-kramer-2002.png. —Bkell (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 20:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Your recent editing history at Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

That information is not false or meaningless. That's what he's known for. -- Valjean (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE ON SUPPRESSION OF LEFTIST PROPAGANDA I guess editing this page is how one "talks" on Wikipedia. I was looking over the past edits on the RFK Jr page and saw that, back in January, you got into a confrontation with these leftist pukes over the same inflamatory, prejudicial word I objected to. Wikipedia is becoming known more and more as a left-wing propaganda site, and nothing better demonstrates that than their insistence on using the word "propaganda" in this case. If it's conservative, it's "propaganda", if it's libtard, it's "activist", like the "peaceful" BLM looters, rioters, arsonists, and murderers. Ironically, their insistence on using the work "propaganda" is pure propaganda in itself. I even got a message from an editor saying I need to follow the "neutral Point Of View" rule, when the whole point of my edit was to change their inflammatory word to a neutral word. I see they threatened you with being banned. I'm sure that's coming next for me. Oh well, it'll take me about 30 seconds to create a new email/username/IP address if they do ban me. I just wanted to let you know you're not alone. The libtards won't rest until they control every bit of information around us, but we have to keep fighting them.Bmeyette (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Buena Vista Pumping Plant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Buena Vista Pumping Plant is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buena Vista Pumping Plant until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]