Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, GoIrish24! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, and try to reinsert the link again. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi there. Thanks for getting in touch. The problem is you can't link to images that are not on your website (or any website outside Wikipedia). Instead you have to upload the image to our servers, then link to that copy. If you want to do this, make sure you are the copyright holder of the image. If you are not the copyright holder it cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. I note for this particular file its a signed photograph of Brady. I don't know for sure, but the picture looks likes its a professional shot, so you probably don't have the copyright to this file (unless you also took the picture). You'd have to ask an expert for more guidance on this.
If you are the copyright holder, click "Upload file" (its over in the "toolbox" section on the left of your screen, below the search box). That takes you through the upload process. Once you've uploaded the file it'll be called something like "Image:GoIrish_BradyQuinn.jpg" (you can call it anything, but it always gets the "Image:" prefix). You can then link the image into the article by typing [[Image:GoIrish_BradyQuinn.jpg]] into the article.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
my bad:
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to YouTube in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source.
Per WP:COPYRIGHT: External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of copyright infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.
You recently added an external link to YouTube in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source.
Per WP:COPYRIGHT: External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of copyright infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
sorry, you can't post copyrighted material. wikipedia is liable for it, read the links below :/
You recently added an external link to YouTube in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source.
Per WP:COPYRIGHT: External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of copyright infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.
...and stop adding the link please. Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. JoeSmackTalk04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hey, why don't you go bust the link to YouTube in the Troy Smith page at the bottom?!?
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Disruptive Edits, and intentionally and deliberately failing to address users suggestions, pleas, and, above all, Wikipedia's editing concepts are considered Vandalism. Continuously pursing to disrupt an article be re-adding information with zealous pride and oblivious reasoning is widely considered to be unhelpful, and is obviously not what ND or WP stands for. -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 04:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm also gong to stop reverting, and expect you to do the same. Making three or consecutive reverts is not tolerated on WP, and is immediately resolved with a ban of some sort. Since I'm equally at fault, I'll address the issue on Samardzija's talk page - Hopefully, if you feel mature enough you can do the same. -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 05:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Chauncey Washington, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Bobak18:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Yamla01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Yamla01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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).
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.
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).
You should believe I will stop vandalizing because I have done enough already and I understand how much you guys work to manage this site and deal with vandalism. I'm through with vandalizing.
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.
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).
Gwernol, please unblock me... when I try to edit a page it says I'm blocked...
Decline reason:
I can't unblock you. The account GoIrish24 is not blocked. The IP address you have given is not blocked. Unless you follow the instructions and tell us what the block notice says we are unable to unblock you. Gwernol00:27, 15 March 2007 (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.
