Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I've added my reasons to the talk page[1]. --JD554 (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at the history of this article and its talk page please. It looks like User:TheColdDick has been editing anonymously while blocked, and engaging in further personal attacks. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the 134.244.xx.xx IPs may well be User:TheColdDick, but it's not conclusive; this kind of article tends attract a lot of this sort of thing from diverse users. If you want to pursue it, I'd suggest filing a request for checkuser. CIreland (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The username had been reported at UAA (since it has "revenge" in it) and he had been warned by an admin I trust ... I thought there was something more to that story there. I have indicated that I would be willing to soften the block to let him open a new account under an acceptable name. Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting involved, I hope along with my talk page and the relevent discussion page - you are also aware of the entries that I made on talk and talk (if these entries have been deleted by the page holders, I have the text available - should you need it). The source image was from [[2]] however, it has obviously been significantly altered. The source image was 295 × 362 , my image is effectively 10 x 13. As I have mentioned on the discussion page, amongst other places, the IRFU has a mini Icon that it uses on its webe site (http://www.irishrugby.ie/305_73.php), which is used for browser tabs. This image is nearly identical to File:All Ireland Rugby Emblem .jpg and, if I am correct, that places it in the public domain.Bloodholds (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you foresee a problem if I use the mini icon from the IRFU website? I can replace my image with that one - which I trust you agree is in the public domain. Thanks.Bloodholds (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a "tabbed" enabled browser the image will appear in the tab within your browser. I am pretty sure that any "mini-icon" used for tab identification is 100% public domain. This is a consideration I have had in some software develepment I have done. Bloodholds (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. However, because the mini-icon in the tab is not technically on the page it falls outside that copyright notice.Bloodholds (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copytight in Ireland is implicit snd doesn't have to be explicitly declared. They would have to explicitly say it's not copyrighted Gnevin (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What action does the IRFU have to take (that will satisfy Wikipedia conventions) to release the mini-icon in to the public domain? I believe (I will try to find evidence to prove my assertion) that mini-icons are a special case. If I know what is needed I will request it from them, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't like to see the Ireland Rugby Team depicted on wikipedia in an inferior way to the other five nations (without an emblem/symbol or icon). For presentation purposes there must be some image, even a blank rectangle would do in the short term.Bloodholds (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typically they would email WP:OTRS with the license details or state the licensing on their website. CIreland (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I get the IRFU Webmaster to upload the mini-icon to Wikipedia under the appropriate license (Cc-by-sa-3.0 has been sugested, but presumably there are other options) will this be acceptable?Bloodholds (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he emails WP:OTRS to confirm his identity since anyone can create an account. cc-by-sa is fine. Things to avoid are "non-commercial", "no derivatives" and "permission to use on Wikipedia only" CIreland (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question regarding the IRFU uploading the image. Untill this image is uploaded by them, the "[[ |noflag]]" should be used in all tables on the page - so everything is alligned properly.Bloodholds (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of the tables and the use of non-free content is something to be established by consensus on the article talk page or relevant wikiproject - having the correct licensing information for the image is a separate issue. Note, however, that "making the tables align" is not a remotely acceptable reason for using non-free content. CIreland (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood me, I wouldn't condone copyright infringement for any reason, what made you assume I did?Bloodholds (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't talking about copyright infringement above, I was saying that Wikipedia has strict policies on the use of non-free content and that, if the image was not released under a free license, there would be internal Wikipedia policies restricting the ways it could be used. These policies go beyond the simple requirement of avoiding infringing copyright because their purpose is to advance the goal of producing a free content encylopedia. Thus there are many images we could legally use but choose not to. CIreland (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for protecting Orthomolecular psychiatry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) against edit-warring. Now that Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked for 24 hours a few hours ago for edit-warring on another page, I wonder if we could try unprotecting the page so that we can edit it? In the 33 hours before the page was protected, Orangemarlin was the only editor who was reverting to a redirect against the RfC close by an uninvolved admin which stated there was "no consensus for the merge" and "However, as I said below, the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge". Thank you for considering my request. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query: If I remove the protection and a user (Orangemarlin when he is no longer blocked or any other random user) reverts to the redirect, what, in your opinion, is the likelihood that you or some other editor will revert? CIreland (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. If someone reverts to a redirect again, it's almost certain that someone (perhaps myself) would revert back to article form. I'm sorry to have taken up your time with this request, because anyway by now there are only about 7 hours left in Orangemarlin's block so it's probably not worth doing based on that anyway, although you still can if you wish: it seems possible to me that the reversions to a redirect may have stopped, and if not the page can be protected again. It seems possible that Orangemarlin may edit more carefully after having recently been blocked, which was part of my reasoning in making this request. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my request. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite frank, I think it is likely that some edit-warring will recur even if the 5-day protection is left to expire automatically. I suspect this is likely to be the case regardless of whether any one user is blocked or not. I think that if the protection were lifted early, there is a good chance the edit-warring would be more severe. For these reasons, I would rather let the protection run its course. CIreland (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very reasonable. Again, I'm sorry I took up your time with this request. By the way, one of the three editors who had converted to a redirect after the RfC has stated that they will no longer do so: [3]. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not long ago, you blocked me and this User for edits at Sean Hannity. This user has followed me to other pages and is now violating the 3RR at Tammy Bruce. I won't revert his edits for now. Will you please do something? Thanks.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS--I did warn the User and he deleted the warning from his talk page.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at Tammy Bruce but I couldn't see the the three-revert-rule violation you mentioned. I will watchlist the article for a while. CIreland (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last reincarnation of the page was deleted via a speedy deletion. There was no AfD discussions at all. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 04:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the webmaster of Derekkale.com I created everything on there and maintain it. I own all the rights to what is on the biography page.

--ProcupPosse (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]