User talk:Marbhna/Archive 2

Orphaned non-free media (File:ShowMeMoyaBrennan.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:ShowMeMoyaBrennan.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting
Please don't mass revert an edit that had a lot of changes without an explanation. The edit you reverted on Altan has a lot of corrections and fixes to the article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards are per the manual of style and best practices. If there is a particular part of the edits you have a problem with then let me know. Your revert put several items that are against the manual of style back to a non conforming manner, and reintroduced spelling mistakes that were corrected. Canterbury Tail  talk  00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the talk above. We've been through this.


 * I agree we've been through this. You can continue talking in the section at the top kind sir.--Theosony (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:MOS, the manual of style. Also stop reinserting edits against the Manual of Style, stop reintroducing spelling mistakes into articles. Please stop reverting removal of overlinking as per the MOS. My edits fixed spelling, removed excessive overlinking, clarified locations for the user, and avoided redirect pages. If you have a problem with part of the edits then fine, however continual reverting of fixes to article without explanation and against the MOS, especially reintroducing excessive linking and reinserting misspelled words, is disruptive to the project.


 * I realise for some reason you dislike the phrase Northern Ireland being in the article, but that is no reason to deliberately reintroduce errors into the article by wholesale reversion of the article because you don't like a term. As I've mentioned before the article is based in the country of Ireland. However when Belfast is mentioned it should be pointed out to the user we are now discussing another country. In an article about a French subject and we suddenly mention Milan, it should be pointed out that this is not the same country to the user. You cannot assume that the reader is completely knowledgeable about the topics under discussion. We cannot assume that the reader has a complete grasp of the geography and nuances of the article.


 * If you for some reason have issues with the phrase Northern Ireland (an accurate phrase to denote the country of context) being in the article then fine, change that. However please do not continue to reintroduce errors and against MOS edits into articles.


 * In addition do not accuse other editors of attempting to be provocative, comment on articles not on editors. Assume good faith and others will do the same for you. Canterbury Tail   talk  02:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the right to say that you are being provocative if you are.--Theosony (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which I'm not. You still haven't addressed the issues. I will have to redo those edits to bring the article back up to standards as per the manual of style and best practices, and fix the spelling errors you're reintroduced. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Sands
The problem with that is he was born in Northern Ireland, which also makes him a British national. This is also biographical, but you'll notice there is nothing about that in the article. This isn't accidental. As soon as someone sees fit to mention his nationality as Irish (and you are not the first), its not long before the links to Britain get added in too, which upsets the Republicans, which leads to more revert-warring.

Please do us all a favour and leave his nationality out of the lead. Rockpock e  t  00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a biographical page therefore it should be accurate. There are rarely edit wars to do with nationality, only the ridiculous Derry/Londonderry edit wars. Saying that he was Irish will create no problems whatsoever. Not mentioning it is a diservice to the researchers who use Wikipedia for information on the subjects they are interested in.--Theosony (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are rarely edit wars to do with nationality. Really? Clearly you haven't spent the last few years editing articles of Northern Irish Republicans then. You'll see. Rockpock  e  t  01:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear god, grow up. Why is it the people who have been here longer feel they own the place.--Theosony (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, and neither do I know where you get that impression from. Your assertion is not supported empirically, and if you were familiar with these articles you would be aware of that. The point is, your edit has been made previously and that link reflects the consequence and subsequent discussion. It's my opinion the article is better served without it, and that was the consensus last time the issue was raised. One could just as easily ask, why is it those people who have just arrived feel they know better than the consensus of those who came before? Rockpock  e  t  07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could someone please start an interactive therapy course on here?--Theosony (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Vicipéid
Hi Theosony, saw your message about Vicipéid at Irish Wikipedians' notice board. I've done a bit of editing over there myself and I would say you should ask one of the regular contributors what there is you can do, as there will certainly be things that you only need quite basic Irish and www.focal.ie or www.irishdictionary.ie for, e.g. you could write articles about particular years such as 1420 giving a list of Births and Deaths that year or they might be able to give you a sort of template for a topic of your choice which you can use to write short articles. 143.239.70.31 (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Blowdart | talk 15:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Maps
I'm curious about a copyright issue. Since you brought it up I thought I'd ask you. Are homemade maps based on other maps a copyright violation? I'm fairly sure no one holds the copy right to the outline of a territory or the postitions of places. I'm not so sure about information presented in maps. For example the number of people who have beards as a percentage of the population presented in different shades of colour representing 0-5%, 5-10% etc. Would a homemade map presenting the same information with different dotted and striped patterns be a copyright vio.?

These may be examples 'photoshopped' versions of copyrighted originals File:ScotsLanguageMap.png, File:Scotsdialects.png, File:RossScotLang1400.JPG, File:ScotlandGaelicSpeakers2001.gif

Nogger (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Listen, it's not for me to hunt every map I see that is inaccurate. I seen yours on a page I was interested in and noticed that it was completely inaccurate. Stop taking things so seriously, if a map is wrong, it's wrong. End of.--Theosony (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Afroghost (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and report me.
Really, do that. You are awesome. Afroghost (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Flaming?
With regards to the edit history for this edit, no such flaming was intended. Your mistake was a very minor one, the actual mistake was made earlier by someone else just liking to Londonderry City (which was wrong), you just made a change in support of Wikipedia policies regarding the naming. However it should link to the constituency (which it never did originally.) No flaming or attack was intended on my behalf, just a correction, and I'm sorry you saw it that way. Canterbury Tail  talk  16:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. On Wikipedia it's really hard to tell if someone's flaming or not, I just get a bit over-the-top, especially with the tiring Gaza debates. As you'll know, Wikipedia's not the friendliest site on earth.--Theosony (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's okay, I know how these things can get to you. My best bit of advice that I can give for situations like the Gaza debates is simply to know when to walk away and do something else for a few hours or a day. If things are brought to the attention of others, usually things work out as they should in the long run, so don't let people get to you. It's not worth a block over just because of a bit of temper occasionally. I see it so often, and it is the single best piece of advice I can give you for editing on Wikipedia. And just remember, no matter how logical you are, there will always be someone around who will argue black is white :) Canterbury Tail   talk  00:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:AlythMcCormack.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AlythMcCormack.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you've uploaded several other images that are considered replaceable according to Wikipedia policies. The question isn't whether a free replacement exists or you can find one, but whether one could be created. And images of living people who are not reclusive or incarcerated are considered replaceable. Also, musicians are considered especially public, as they frequently tour and make appearances at record stores and such. --Mosmof (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But it has to be remembered that not all musicians tour often, if at all. Also, most venues that aren't outdoors or stadiums for massive bands, don't allow cameras or flash-using cameras, therefore for a lot of musicians these images aren't replaceable, especially in the case of Alyth McCormack, who has only performed small venues as a musician.--Theosony (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but does the artist make promotional appearances? Failing that, you could always contact her management or a photographer to see if they would be willing to release an image into the public domain. Anyway, my point is, you'd have to demonstrate an extraordinary case to use a copyrighted image of an image of a living, active musician. Wikipedia's policy on this is pretty strict. --Mosmof (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll email her photographer to find out if he can release any of his shots.--Theosony (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy and Paste moves
Again, please do not perform Copy and Paste moves, they are not the correct way to move articles as they destroy the history. Please see WP:MOVE. Performing a copy and paste move is against Wikipedia policies and takes a lot of work to correct. I have corrected it again, but in future do not use copy and paste to move an article, if you cannot move it yourself please put a request on the article with the following template  Canterbury Tail   talk  12:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have to if you researched before moving pages. The first few results on Google showed the name of Logainm.ie as the actual entity...--Theosony (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I simply moved it back from an unreferenced page move. A reference has now been supplied so it has been returned. The site in question refers to itself by the description within itself, not as Logainm.ie so it is easily seen to be that as its name. Satisfactory references have now been provided (and need incorporating into the article.) But please don't perform copy and paste moves again in the future. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't move pages when you've done no research or found any references yourself, too. You cannot move a page simply because you feel it's right, you need to back up the reasoning for moving it in the first place - Google's top results for logainm.ie, simplí dimplí.--Theosony (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Irish Sinn Féin MEPs serving 2004-2009
I have nominated irish sinn féin meps serving 2004-2009 for merging into gue–ngl meps serving 2004-2009. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Nóirín_Ní_Riain.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nóirín_Ní_Riain.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the admin of this artists website. Is there some way I can validate the permission to use this?--Theosony (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Clancy-Brothers-Vangaurd-Visionaries.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clancy-Brothers-Vangaurd-Visionaries.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a non-replaceable album cover for a band. They haven't performed live in decades.--Theosony (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking and other issues for new editors
Hi. You might want to review the latest guidelines about Wikilinking at WP:CONTEXT. In Michael Longley, you added a link to "poet", which is a common enough word that it doesn't require linking.

Also, could you leave an explanation, even for your simple edits? Out of curiosity, I was looking at some of your changes, and discovered one here which adds material, but also (incorrectly) removes an "orphan tag" placed by another editor. It takes awhile to get the hang of the dozens of Wiki guidelines, and in the meantime, leaving comments makes it easier for other editors to note where edits could be improved. Thanks! Piano non troppo (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not an orphan at the time. My other changes are well referenced and most of my edits have been sumarised.--Theosony (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ps, the page linking to Muire was Mary (given name), so it wasn't an orphan page.--Theosony (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As a guess, you're reading "orphan" to mean no other links at all. The definition of "orphan" in Wiki includes "An Orphaned article could be defined as an article which has less than 3 links from some other article". There was only one other article link, a reference in passing that you, yourself added. The orphan tag on Muire was and is categorically, objectively correct. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)