I noticed that you gave a link to the Laois GAA Bible as a source. It is a massive book, so page numbers are appreciated. That makes fact checking much easier. The Bannertalk04:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Killeigh parish. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Bannertalk02:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Ballinagar GAA. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Highlighting a Talk page discussion is not "vandalism"
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. (Placing a tag to highlight the existence of a Talk page discussion is, for example, not vandalism. And removing such a tag, in an edit with an edsumm of "Undid Vandalism", is not in keeping with related etiquette guidelines.) Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
November 2024
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guidelines. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia, as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not:
Why do you add double info to Ballinagar GAA? The lead is in fact identical to your addition.
Do you gave proof that the mentioned GAA-clubs are formally part of the catholic parish Mountmellick (parish)? That the priest is involved in the the GAA, does not make it part of the parish.
Can you explain to me why a barony, a civil administration entity, is relevant to a Catholic parish? I can imagine a parish grouping of some sort but not a civil entity. The Bannertalk11:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have request help to review your edits. The low quality of your work is bothering me, especially the lack of sourcing and the lack of relevance. it is not that I have a personal grudge against you, but seeing how you fail to adhere to advice and warnings, something has to be done. I hope you can do better. The Bannertalk12:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on File:Sarsfields Mountmellick LFC Crest.jpg, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.facebook.com/SarsfieldsLGFA. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
It is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content[1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles. (See section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then you should do two things. First, please state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to the image itself, the page which uses it, and the page which contains the license conditions. Second, please add the relevant copyright tag.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Bannertalk19:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article) and File) for a period of Indefinite for Copyright issues. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
Editing mainspace articles and uploading any file (i.e pictures) indefinitely. If you exhibit willingness to correct the issues that led to the block, you may be unblocked, but the block won't expire by itself. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean by willingness to correct the issues that lead to the block, any of the issues that were mentioned in the report were in the past and have already been corrected and are not seen in my recent edits Budisgood (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true, good. You will be unblocked very quickly. But if that isn't true, people will find out and your situation will get worse. You are blocked for "copyright infringement", so analyse yourself for why your edits are being marked as copyvio. Some editors have brought up advice, so as much you may dislike them, please take it on board. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
December 2024
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I am not a potential disruption or harm to Wikipedia I understand that i was blocked because of fear that I may be harmful to Wikipedia in causing copyright and I have reviewed the errors they were concerned about some of which had ready been corrected, as for uploads to Wikimedia commons the GAA crests that I was uploading are free to be uploaded but I have to make sure the correct detailed information is uploaded to ensure they do not breach copyright or other restrictions on use of themBudisgood (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello again! Looking at your unblock request, I appreciate you bringing up concerns regarding copyright violations. However, you are currently blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. As such, I would suggest taking the standard offer: do not edit Wikipedia for six months, then come ask and request an unblock. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the block notice, you are blocked indefinitely. That means you are blocked until you can convince an administrator that you won't disrupt the project if allowed back. You were checkuser blocked, which means there was very strong evidence you were socking. If you continue to deny it, you are likely to remain blocked. If you sock again, you are sure to remain blocked. If you make a bunch of unconvincing unblock requests, you may lose talk page access, which would make it much more difficult to get unblocked. I agree that the most likely way for you to be unblocked is to edit another project, such as simple wikipedia or one in another language you speak, for six months without any other problems, then request an unblock under the standard offer. This would show the administrators that you can contribute.
I have seen users be unblocked without the standard offer. Usually they discuss what they did, how it was disruptive, why it harms the encyclopedia, and a promise to not do it again. If you don't understand or don't admit that what you've done is wrong, trying this will likely be declined, and may lose talk page access if continued. I'm not an administrator, but my impression is that an unblock request would have to address copyright violations and socking EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For further clarity, we have no control over and don't generally care what happens on other projects. If you cause problems on other projects that we notice that we feel may not be obvious, we may warn them as good samaritans, but it will be up to editors and admins of those projects to decide what to do with you. Regardless of what we do, editors in other projects are likely to notice if you keep causing problems in their projects and will block you independently. It's possible that some projects may consider your block here as part of their decision tree in to how to handle you there, even if it's not something we generally do for other projects. Also while each project has their own policies in guidelines it's likely that all of them forbid spamming and socking; and they also cannot allow copyvios since that's a WMF ToU issue. 07:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede that the other ones you blocked as sockpuppets were in fact sockpuppetts but I have since given up on attempting this as it is clear there is no point in attempting to get around the block as for cautious editors like you who are dedicated to maintain the high standard of wikipedia, this is why I have decided to wait it out and if my block was ever to be removed I would ve grateful to make contributions to wikipedia again but before I sign off their are a few important notes I need to bring to your attention first of all, 1 of the ip addresses which you have blocked because of me is a public wifi and in blocking it you are unintentionally blocking other wikipedia editors, 2 not all of the edits that were done by me were malicious and could have contributed to wikipedia and if they were reviewed many of them there may be useful info that can be used and thirdly I would like to apologise to the recent editor who has been caught in the crossfire of my blocks and I hope this does not discourage them from making contributions to Wikipedia.
Finally on a closing mark I would like to thank you The Banner though we may have gotten under each others skin now and then it was with good intentions and you are a great asset to Wikipedia I hope that one day I may be able to make contributions to Wikipedia again, I acknowledge my wrongdoing and that I did not always approach things the best way but now I will wait and accept the block on my account and I can only hope that one day it may be removed even if its only a miniscule chance of that,thank you to all the editors that attempted to make me a better editor and I regret that I did not take it on board. Budisgood (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not creep under my skin. You made it clear that your editing was a risk for the encyclopedia. And I acted to protect the encyclopedia. The Bannertalk01:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue to block wrongly accused editors as sockpuppets if you wish but I have decided to no longer attempt to edit Wikipedia unless the ban on this account is lifted but that is not going to happen anytime soon, I included in my apology part of my reasoning for it which was that other editors were getting caught in the crossfire and has happened yet again just because someone might edit an article that I edited in the past does not make them a sockpuppet you should really carry out a more thorough investigation. Budisgood (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, and I am not the blocking admin or the actual investigator. The actual investigation is done by someone else who has specialized tools available to look in the technique behind an edit. So I can report, the final verdict is coming from others. The Bannertalk01:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I have removed the malformed {{coi}} template Bud added in this edit. Per Template:COI, it is to be used for articles, not to tag talk pages. Also, as there was no evidence presented to suggest The Banner has a COI (COI with what, exactly?) it could be interpreted as an WP:ASPERSION, and so I removed it under WP:NPA. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sign off
I will concede that the other ones you blocked as sockpuppets were in fact sockpuppetts but I have since given up on attempting this as it is clear there is no point in attempting to get around the block as for cautious editors like you who are dedicated to maintain the high standard of wikipedia, this is why I have decided to wait it out and if my block was ever to be removed I would ve grateful to make contributions to wikipedia again but before I sign off their are a few important notes I need to bring to your attention first of all, 1 of the ip addresses which you have blocked because of me is a public wifi and in blocking it you are unintentionally blocking other wikipedia editors, 2 not all of the edits that were done by me were malicious and could have contributed to wikipedia and if they were reviewed many of them there may be useful info that can be used and thirdly I would like to apologise to the recent editor who has been caught in the crossfire of my blocks and I hope this does not discourage them from making contributions to Wikipedia.
Finally on a closing mark I would like to thank you The Banner though we may have gotten under each others skin now and then it was with good intentions and you are a great asset to Wikipedia I hope that one day I may be able to make contributions to Wikipedia again, I acknowledge my wrongdoing and that I did not always approach things the best way but now I will wait and accept the block on my account and I can only hope that one day it may be removed even if its only a miniscule chance of that,thank you to all the editors that attempted to make me a better editor and I regret that I did not take it on board. The Banner Thank you and so long I intend to wait a substantial period before requesting my block is removed to allow me review myself and prove I will no longer be of threat to wikipedia. Budisgood (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
