User talk:Mysticshade

This is Mysticshade's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

But the O'Connell Bridge is iconographic too to Dublin

I have replied to your point User_talk:Trounce#But_the_O.27Connell_Bridge_is_iconographic_too_to_Dublin--Trounce (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Synchronism (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Lists of Irish Americans. Thank you. Synchronism (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Neeson

If you had bothered to look, it is explained on the talk page. Also describing him as an Ulster Scot is untrue and incredibly offensive. O Fenian (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia

Hello Mysticshade,

I am concerned about this edit. I noticed that you reverted to the last version which was your contribution effectively reverting all edits made by several contributors. The edit concerns me because it looks like you may have an ownership issue with this article. Have you read WP:OWN? The editors you reverted seem to be doing nothing but good faith edits. If you have specific concerns with these edits, you should take them to the talk page. I am leaving this note as some simple, friendly advice. I do hope you will take it as such. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"just whats wrong with mine ? I guess there is no vandalism, so whats the problem ?"

The problem is that I am worried that you may have an ownership problem with the article. If not, just ignore me; but, please read WP:OWN. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Article

I really like the picture that you have selected for the infobox in the Dublin article. However I'm not sure if it is representative of the city as say the Spire or Custom House or Liberty Hall. In regards Amsterdam, that picture is very suitable as Amsterdam is known primarily for its unique nightlife and its canals.

On another note, the images in the article were removed (again). I have done this in an attempt to get the article upgraded. The reviewer stated that there should be much fewer images, and there are also guidelines to suggest that images should only appear on the right to increase 'readability.' I'm not sure where you are from, but English is not your first language, I'm sure all these guidelines are available in your own language so you can see where I'm coming from.howth575 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Do as you please. The article will just not evolve into a 'featured article'.

Good luck.

User Page

It is considered bad form to edit another editors user page like you did with O Fenian. You added a user box to his/her page. Do you even know if that editor is Irish. Please refrain from making edits to other User pages thanks. BigDunc^Talk 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Hi. You need to consider reading the copyright policy. For here and at Commons. Those images you uploaded at Commons and have inserted into articles in this project appear to represent copyright violations. Guliolopez (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but I dont understand why - Can you provide much details about please, thanks Mysticshade (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is as simple as this: You CANNOT simply download images of whatever you want from around the internet and upload them for use here. And CERTAINLY NOT when you claim to be the copyright owner. Which you clearly are not. I strongly recommend that you read the Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Copyright policy before doing ANYTHING ELSE on this project. (I would also strongly encourage you to listen to what other experienced editors have already told you above about collaborative editting. Otherwise you will very quickly find yourself blocked from editting). Regards. Guliolopez (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YES TRUE THANKS FOR ADVISIN. I have accounts and Im assosiated to groups in FlickR precisely. I guess I have the total rights to do anything with those images. Mysticshade (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely DO NOT have ANY rights to those images! By virtue of being a member of Flickr you do NOT gain rights to someone-else's work. The people who took and uploaded those images to Flickr own the rights to them. You do not. Only if they release those rights under Creative Commons, GFDL or some other open/free licence can they be loaded to Commons. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the basic principles of the licensing and mores of this project, so - yet again - I advise you to READ the policies and learn the guidelines. Otherwise you WILL be blocked. Guliolopez (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image use policies

OK. Given that you are clearly ignorant of both the image copyright and image use policies, and - even though it is your responsibility to be aware of them (rather than my responsibility to ensure you understand them) - you are clearly hell-bent on doing whatever you wish. Regardless of whether this is disruptive, non-collaborative or in conflict with what other editors have pointed out in good faith.

As result, I am going to take the step to point out some key policies to you:

CONTEXT: Firstly, images in articles MUST HAVE context. See the Wikipedia is not a random collection of images policy. We really should only add images that illustrate a particular point in text. Adding multiple images of (say) Dublin that don't illustrate a particular or unique point is NOT appropriate.
COPYRIGHT: As stated earlier, you MUST HAVE RIGHTS to an image before uploading it under a free licence. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. As pointed out before, it is similarly NOT appropriate to fill an article with images you know to be in breach of copyright.
MANUAL OF STYLE: As several editors have tried to make you understand, filling an article with stacked images that interrupt, compress and interfere with the text is NOT appropriate. See the Manual of style for images. Paying particular attention to the parts that explain about "Avoiding sandwiching text between two images that face each other", and "Avoiding a layout which forces image stack-ups".

Just about every single edit you have made is problematic in terms of these guidelines. Or is otherwise in breach of the basic Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Edit waring guidelines. (As, everytime someone points these out to you, you ignore the guidelines and simply revert to the version you like). I appreciate that you think you are helping, and are possibly doing these things in good faith, but the fact that you are blindly ignoring all attempts to help you will VERY quickly see your efforts reverted.

So, to repeat: Either READ AND LEARN the guidelines. Or stop editting. Simple as that. Guliolopez (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". You can also leave a message on my talk page.

This is in regards to this BBC page. Canterbury Tail talk 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

You are making a huge number of image changes Republic of Ireland. I strongly suggest you discuss them first --Snowded (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All your image changes to Dublin and Republic of Ireland are inappropriate because the use of any image is supposed to add to the reader's understanding of the topic and not be used just for decoration. All your additions are only decoration and add nothing constructive to article no matter what you state in your edit summary. In fact your edits just clutter the articles with unnecessary images. Please stop. You have received several warnings and been reverted several times. Those actions by much more experienced editors than you should give you a message that you are doing something wrong. Besides that you have now been blocked for a week on the commons for copyright violations for many of the same images you have been adding to articles here. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Republic of Ireland. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You have been told here, and on other talk pages about this mass insertion of photographs. Please stop and seen consensus --Snowded (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RIGHT, I have just had to waste time searching and have discovered that you have again copied material from one article to the other (in this case from Republic of Ireland to Irish People). You have also been decorating Irish People with multiple photographs. NOW, some of these may be useful, but its excessive. Try the odd change and see if people agree, above all please learn to edit, maybe seek a mentor to help you challenge this energy into constructive edits. --Snowded (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dundee, you will be blocked from editing. Please learn to listen, and realise that your edits are transparent to other users.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Northern Ireland. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. You are getting worse, again the pattern of mass edits but this time including inaccurate images (the ulster flag). Please take the advice to request comment before making changes. If this happens again I am reporting the behaviour for admin action --Snowded (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take these warnings seriously. From your comment on my talk page you are not. If you want to make these changes then propose them on the talk page. Otherwise expect reversion and reporting for vandalism. --Snowded (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copy/past

I write now my own articles for wikipedia, precisely for Republic of Ireland, please do not revert it as it is necessary to an article such as Ireland to have a Prehistory-History section, thank you. Mysticshade (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK my friend. I am done trying to help you understand why your edits and editing style is inappropriate to this project. I am going to repeat my points one more time, and then I am escalating this for administrator action. Repeatedly and deliberately (and despite multiple suggestions and warnings from multiple users), you have:

Uploaded and included copyrighted materials (both images and text) in this project and Commons
Copied and pasted content from one topic to another (ignoring the GFDL authorship, redundancy and MOS guidelines)
Engaged in editwars, reversions and non-collaborative practices, despite multiple requests here and on article talkpages to engage with other editors
Introduced inaccuracies and POV terms into some articles
And generally demonstrated a lack of knowledge on both the topics you've editted and how you should go about editting them

Worse than all these however, you have refused to learn or listen to anyone. And for that, I will be requesting a block. Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said something that have nothing to do with the present situation, there is no copy/past, its my own edits, so keep the article complete. Dont remove for a reason you are attached with. Thats why wikipedia is now complete, its begin with editing and adding articles, what I do now. Mysticshade (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite clearly lying again. You copied and pasted that content from this site. I am done explaining to you why you cannot do this. I am moving for a block. Guliolopez (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

let me know if you need any support for the block request. I left the internet for lunch thinking the situation had calmed down! --Snowded (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued "copy and paste" from other sites

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Republic of Ireland. 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The text you included is quite clearly stolen from this site. You were warned about this same behaviour previously when you similarly copied text from the BBC and copied images from Flickr. So, stop doing it! Guliolopez (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im really sorry Im confused

I guess I write the second one (from 800 A.D) the Prehistory is hard to write,. Between I dont lie I write the History and the Cuisine section, dont treat me this, its totally wrong. And on more thing, Im sure the Rep Ireland article is shame, you gotta contribute truly to develop it, every edits on Ireland is lazy. Look into my transformation, its a good article (except prehistory, as Im not anthropologue). why you dont keep it ? If you help me on something in Prehistory to place it there its not bad thing. why not ? please accept this seriously, I need your help for improving Rep Ireland. please! thanks a lot. Mysticshade (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 simple points:

I don't know why you keep complaining to me. It was not me who reverted your inappropriate additions. It was another user.
You did not write the history section. It is quite clear that you stole it from several other sites. Word for word. You even replicated the spelling mistakes in those sites. The sites you stole it from are here and here (and probably others).
You did not write the cuisine section. You stole it from yet another site. Here.
You CANNOT COPY TEXT FROM OTHER SITES. Period.
I have tried to help you. I'm not sure why, maybe it's because your English isn't good enough, or because you refuse to listen, but I believe that you are beyond help. And I am not wasting my time helping you with the RoI article any more. (Or any other article. Or with guidelines. Any more breaches and I'm simply reporting you.)

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for a period of 31 hours due to your continued disruptive editing. Please listen to other established editors, and desist from incorporating copyrighted material into Wikipedia. Most importantly with the continued insertion of copyrighted material if you continue to edit in this fashion then you may be blocked from editing on a permanent basis. Please read up on Wikipedia policies. Canterbury Tail talk 16:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop lying

File:Leinester House Dublin.JPG is a transparent copyright violation from here, I look forward to you being blocked again, hopefully indefinitely. O Fenian (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is a copyright violation because you are already known for stealing other people's images by claiming they are your own, placing Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. For example File:Dublin Sunset7.jpg is watermarked Debbie Dunne Photography. Due to your rampant dishonesty I have no wish to communicate with you further, do not post on my talk page again. O Fenian (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello, Mysticshade. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have had no choice but to permanently block your account. You continually post copyrighted text, and upload copyrighted images. The then take known copyrighted images and remove the watermarks from them and repost them and claim them as your own in the hope no one notices. You put the entire project in legal jeopardy by doing so and, despite warnings, you continue to do so. As a result you leave me with no choice.

In addition I must consider every image you have uploaded as suspect copyrightwise and have to delete them. Canterbury Tail talk 15:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dublin. 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. ww2censor (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]