User talk:Ifcp1

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Linfieldfc.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Linfieldfc.gif. 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 21:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kilmore.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Kilmore.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 08:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Institute.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Institute.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 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Godset.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Godset.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 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coleraine.png

I have tagged Image:Coleraine.png as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Limavady.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Limavady.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 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Crusaders.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Crusaders.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 may 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 (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Oxfordunitedstars.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Oxfordunitedstars.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ilfsg1.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ilfsg1.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Glenn-ferguson.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Glenn-ferguson.jpg. 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 STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Glenn-ferguson.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Glenn-ferguson.jpg. 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. 07:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Connellsonesimpleword.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Connellsonesimpleword.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fountains

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Fountains, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070104072749AAiPIjN. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Thefountains.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Thefountains.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Falcon8765 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Newry.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Newry.png. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 06:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Institute F.C., did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

The city is known as Derry on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles). O Fenian (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Godset.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Godset.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linfield F.C.

Would you care to explain your edit summary "removed vandalism by Mo ainm who is intent on tarishing the name of Linfield Football Club" and while your at it read WP:VANDAL so you will understand what vandalism is. Mo ainm~Talk 16:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop edit warring and take your concerns to the article's talk page. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mo ainm~Talk 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, Wikipedia has a very specific definition of vandalism. From WP:VANDAL, it's defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." None of the recent edits from Mo ainm or Eamonnca1 on Linfield F.C., Glentoran F.C. or Portadown F.C. qualify as vandalism. You might find a careful reading of WP:NOT VANDALISM helpful.
Because you weren't reverting vandalism, unfortunately you were edit warring. Under normal circumstances I'd now be issuing you a 24-hour block for violating the three revert rule on Linfield F.C.. However, you can take this as a final warning instead. Any further pattern of edit warring may result in you being blocked without further warning, even if you don't break 3RR. If you do you can definitely expect a block; the three revert rule applies to everyone and is a bright line, but we expect editors to adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of the policy.
If you disagree with content added by other editors you should discuss it with them (ideally on the talk page of the article concerned). This will allow you to judge consensus for your position, and may be helpful in developing your editing skills because others may know about rules and guidelines that you don't. If discussion fails to resolve the issue you should follow the advice given on out dispute resolution page. EyeSerene^talk 17:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to look at the edits of Mo Ainm, he has a clear anti Northern Ireland policy in his editing, he should be taking the neutral point of view on such matters. Ifcp1 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you back up that accusation? What the hell is an "anti Northern Ireland policy"? Mo ainm~Talk 18:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to get upset at me, i think you know exactly what i mean, Wikipedia should be a neutral point of view, not a place for peoples own agendas. Ifcp1 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are not going to back up your spurious claim? And I am far from upset with you I'm just curious what you are trying to say. Mo ainm~Talk 18:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me your interest in Irish League football and Linfield Football Club? Ifcp1 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in making all articles on Wikipedia the best they can be with factual information that is reliably sourced with verifiable references. So what is you interest because at present it appears to be the removal of content that you don't like. Mo ainm~Talk 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ifcp1, I've replied further at the ANI thread linked above. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 19:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i am trying to remember to do so. Ifcp1 (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to ask you to stop your disruptive editing, i have re-added a section that was completly deleted, and removed an unfair one-sided section that is there for only one reason, and thats to tarnish the name of LFC, i wonder what your interest in the subject is? is it as one-sided as your two friends who continue with their nationalist slant against Linfield.

Linfield FC

What do you dispute in the section you keep removing from the above article? Mo ainm~Talk 07:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want a fair neutral point of view, while showing the problems it should also should the work that LFC has done to combat this, this is what i have been asking for all along, its clear to me that this is not happening, its sad that when people are confronted by this issue they try o sidestep it.Ifcp1 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem whatsoever with the addition of content that shows the efforts made by this club in combating the sectarian element which plagued it as long as it is reliably sourced also in regard to the flags I always leave the UB in place if the player has even played schoolboy internationals for NI despite the fact that until they play a full international they can switch between both NI and ROI. So your comment at ANI that I am removing them is false. Mo ainm~Talk 10:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring at Linfield F.C. despite being warned of the consequences of continuing to do so.

Furthermore, because your edit warring has involved subjects that fall under the Arbitration Committee's ruling in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, I'm placing you on a formal one-revert restriction in all areas related to the Ulster banner, Irish nationalism, republicanism, sectarianism and the like. This means that if you make more than one revert per article per day in those areas you will be blocked (initially for up to one week, with subsequent blocks increasing in length each time they are necessary). Your restriction has been logged at Wikipedia:TROUBLES#2011.

Once this block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. EyeSerene^talk 08:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset your block and added 12 more hours because you appear to have been using an alternative account (or someone has been editing on your behalf) to continue your content dispute at Linfield F.C.. The alternative account, Graemerz (talk · contribs), being newer than this one has been indefinitely blocked. In future please stick to a single account and avoid edit warring. You have already been pointed to WP:DR - that page describes all sorts of ways you can resolve disputes within site policy. EyeSerene^talk 17:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been using another account or asking someone to edit on my behalf, i decided to wait out the ban so i could further discuss this issue, i think its crazy that i am being blamed on using several accounts, frankly i don't have the time, i would like to see some proff that i have done this, surely you can see who is editing? i have tried to contribute to Northern Irish football artciles as it is a passion of mine and feel this is unfair treatment towards me.Ifcp1 (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyserene i looked at your talk page and see you have further discussed your reason for banning me which is untruthful and unfair, you took the words of Mo Anim and his friend Eammonca1 without letting me give my side of the story and just decided to ban me.Ifcp1 (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of Linfield F.C., which you should still be able to do (the "History" link at the top of the article page) you'll see another account who only returned to editing after a long time away to make the exact same edits you'd been making. It looked to me like you were operating two accounts and using the other one to evade the block on this one, or that someone was editing on your behalf. Neither are allowed (see WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT for fuller explanations). There's always a chance that someone is mischievously using an old account to make you look bad and get your block extended, or that they just made those edits by complete coincidence, but in my opinion those possibilities are pretty small. However, if you think I've been unfair you can ask for an independent admin to review your block by copying {{unblock|REASON}}, pasting it below, and changing REASON to your message. It will help if you can show that you understand why you were blocked in the first place, and if you concentrate on discussing your conduct rather than trying to blame other editors. EyeSerene^talk 20:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not even worth the hassel anymore for me, i run a Irish League website and thought i would contribute to this site some of my knowledge on the subject, but the protocol on here has been used against me, guys like Eammonca1 and Mo Anim have a biased view on Linfield Football Club and i am shocked that they are allowed to vilify LFC through their use of Wikipedia.Ifcp1 (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC) ~ On the issue of looking at the history on the LFC page, i have looked at it several times today and seen that there has been a lot of editing here, its certainly not me i am certainly not using another account, i have seen no proff from you that i have done so, if other people want to edit that page then that is up to them, but you are judge and jury in this and decided that it was me which is wrong.Ifcp1 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair it's seemed to me that you've been your own worst enemy. If, instead of edit warring, you had discussed your edits and made use of the dispute resolution measures you were pointed to (like asking for outside opinions on the article or on some of the content noticeboards like WP:NPOVN), you would never have been blocked. If you feel as though site protocols have been used against you, it's you that has enabled that to happen by not following them. Even now you don't seem to recognise that it's your conduct, not anyone else's, that led to your block. Regarding proof, like all admins I was elected to the role on the assumption that I'm able to apply my own judgement in fairly enforcing site policy. Wikipedia doesn't have anything like a legal system - instead we tend to rely on experience, precedent and transparency. I'm not saying I always make the right call, but when I do get it wrong anyone can pull me up on it and if necessary ask for my actions to be reviewed (maybe at WP:ANI or through Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges). You're welcome to do that, though I think first you should ask yourself how your persistent reverting and personal attacks on other editors didn't break site policy.

If you decide to return to editing, my sincere advice is that you first try to establish what the general consensus is regarding the article content. One good place to raise your concerns would be at WP:NPOVN. Here you'll be able to get the views of a number of outside editors, who might agree with you, might partially agree, or might disagree. You could also ask at any of the projects listed on the article talk page (Northern Ireland, Belfast and Football), though you need to be careful that it doesn't look like you're forum shopping until you get the answer you want. The really important things to avoid are 1. edit warring on the article, and 2. speculating about the motives of other editors. Both of these are direct policy violations and either one is likely to get you blocked again. I hope you understand this because it's really important - when your edits and conduct are looked at, no-one will care what other editors did or didn't do. Claiming you were provoked, or others were wrong too, is never a defence. Every editor is judged based on their own actions, so you need to make sure your conduct can't be criticised before you start challenging others. I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 08:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that fact that i was banned for editing that page in the first place, as i said i am waiting out the ban, what i dispute is the fact that you banned me for a further 12 hours without reason, as i said earlier you made this decision based on what Mo Anim and Eammonca1 have said, and that is not fair Ifcp1 (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I explained above the decision to extend your block was based on these edits by now-blocked account Graemerz (talk · contribs). If you look at the diffs for the last few edits you'll see they were the same as those you'd been making. The unavoidable suspicion was that either 1. you were operating another account; or 2. that someone was editing on your behalf or at your behest. Neither of these alternatives are acceptable where block evasion or the continuation of an edit war is involved. Standard practice is to block the sockpuppet/meatpuppet account and reset and/or extend the block on the main account. You are adamant that you know nothing about those edits; if that's truly the case then you do have my sincere apologies. EyeSerene^talk 09:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Crusaders F.C. logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Crusaders F.C. logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]