User talk:Kellycrak88

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

August 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Sennecaster (Chat) 23:15, 12 August 2025 (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).

Kellycrak88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Sennecaster

I believe this copyright block is based on a misunderstanding, and I can show that I am the original author of the disputed text.
Timeline:
• 18 May 2025 – I first wrote the "Toponymic and Archaeological Continuity" section in the Ó Comáin article. Diff.
• 24 May 2025 – On my mentor’s advice, I moved this text to Draft:OComainDraft for further work. Diff.
• 24 May 2025 – The Wayback Machine captured the ocomain.org site for the first time (archive link), and it already contained my text from Wikipedia. This capture post-dates my edits, which suggests the site copied from Wikipedia.
I understand how, without this context, it could appear that I copied from the external site. I also know my editing history shows a few copyright and close-paraphrasing warnings, some of them during content disputes. I recognise how that might look like a recurring issue, and I will be more careful with wording and sourcing from now on.
To avoid any doubt in the future, I’ll check with other editors before adding anything that might be borderline and will make sure all material is clearly paraphrased and sourced.
For context, I created a few Ó Comáin-related articles to support the clan page and avoid red links in the article for historical Irish figures.
Thank you for reviewing my request.
Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on the discussion below, and the lack of response to a query in over a week, I am declining. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2025 (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.

Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 18 May diff already cites ocomain.org, it clearly is not a reverse copy. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@REAL MOUSE IRL Incorrect — ocomain.org is not cited anywhere in the “Toponymic and Archaeological Continuity” disputed text section of the 18 May diff. That section only cites [16] (Arnold & Gibson: Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State, Cambridge University Press) and [6] (Cotter: The Western Stone Forts Project, Wordwell Ltd). The ocomain.org citation on that page is only for the coat of arms and crest images, which is permitted under image-use policy. As a primary source, it was never used as a text citation anywhere on the page — not just in that section — in line with Wikipedia’s policy on primary sources. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To spell it out for you (and your friend ChatGPT) the website was clearly online before 18 May, the fact that there was no archive.org snapshot before 24 May is not proof of anything. AGF would apply if this was your first time promising to learn and grow, but it isn't your first time, is it? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m aware ocomain.org existed before May — the domain was registered in February. My point is that those two sentences in the disputed text section were my own wording, written on Wikipedia first on 18 May. They were not on the site at that time. The first capture showing that wording is from 24 May, after my edit. On Wikipedia, the site was only cited for images, not text, in line with policy on primary sources.
I also have irrefutable proof from my actual citations. I based the section on two published works — Cotter (The Western Stone Forts Project, pp. 83–87, 90) and Arnold & Gibson (Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State, p. 144). The ocomain.org version that later appeared is a direct copy of my wording and does not cite those page numbers or sources at all. As a courtesy, I can email the relevant PDF book pages so this can be cross-referenced independently and prove this for a fact. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand from here that the block was described as follows:

“Indeffed, but waiting for a week to open to let some of these AFDs go through would make our life easier.” — @Sennecaster (link)

This prevents me from answering allegations raised in ongoing AfDs and from defending my work in those discussions. I believe this is procedurally unfair, as I cannot provide clarifications or sources where they are most relevant.
I respectfully ask that this be taken into account in reviewing my unblock request. Kellycrak88 (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sennecaster ? Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking admin is not usually the one to handle the block appeal. If an uninvolved admin wishes to unblock, I will not stand in the way, but I oppose an unblock at this time. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For any reviewer here is the irrefutable evidence for the disputed text NOT violating copyright infringement.
Please see the citation source page with highlighted text.
I used this citation on with my written text on wiki on 18 May "Toponymic and Archaeological Continuity” section.
The citation was and is NOT mentioned on the website or 24th May wayback machine they copied my text.
Viewing both the text I wrote and the source proves beyond doubt I am the original author.
Indef block is unjustly applied. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above by REAL MOUSE IRL, "the website was clearly online before 18 May, the fact that there was no archive.org snapshot before 24 May is not proof of anything." I see the website is now proclaiming the "Recognised under patronage of the President of Ireland by Clans of Ireland" nonsense, as if Michael D. Higgins was personally involved - something you repeatedly inserted into articles here. Do you need to declare a WP:COI? Or have you already declared one, and I missed it? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
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).

Kellycrak88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi @PhilKnight I don't understand why I am being blocked when I've provided irrefutable evidence to the contrary, this is a miscarriage of justice. The recent AfD for the recognised modern-day Clan Commane / Ó Comáin, I couldn’t respond to concerns because of this unjustified block applied in error. That AfD was closed as “creator has been blocked for copyright violations and this article is presumed copyvio,” which isn’t accurate — the content was checked by other editors and only two sentences were flagged, which was actually my own writing not copyright violation, evidence provided here. Those two sentences were copied by the website later, not the other way around. I am accused of copyvio over two sentences, but the evidence proves I am the original writer. In reply to @Bastun he is missing the point. The source citation [1] I used is not on the website (ocomain.org) or Wayback Machine. Comparing the disputed text with the cited source shows clearly I wrote my text from the source. As for President Higgins, he is the official Patron of Clans of Ireland and formally hosts ceremonies with recognised clans,[2] including presentations of the Order of Merit. It’s therefore neither “nonsense” nor any sort of exaggeration to state that he’s involved. Clans of Ireland have two categories, clans and historical families. It is their role to vet the history of recognised clans (pre-1691 clan territory and ancestry) and approve all promotional materials used by registered clans under a published code of practice,[3]. They also decline applications if eligibility cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt. [4] Their committee reviews applications.[5]. 1691 is seen as the end of the Gaelic order in Ireland. @Bastun has repeatedly dismissed the President of Ireland’s role in supporting the credibility and heritage work of Clans of Ireland — but these are documented facts, backed by reliable sources. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2025 (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.

To respond to Kellycrak's post in the above 'Unblock request' of 14:25 today, re the involvement of the president of Ireland - that warrants a rebuttal. Many, many charitable, sporting, educational and other organisations have patrons, whether they're religious figures, current or former politicians or office holders, or otherwise famous people. Those patrons play no hand, act, or part in the day-to-day running or decision-making of those organisations. Yes, Michael D. Higgins is the patron of Clans of Ireland. That fact merits a mention in that article. However, including the phrasing implying that Clan Commane was admitted to Clans of Ireland "under the patronage of the president of the Ireland" - as if he was somehow involved in the decision - is absolutely misleading, and was being used as some sort of appeal to authority. Bishops don't approve the timetable of schools for which they are patron; Archbishop Kieran O'Reilly (bishop) doesn't decide when the All-Ireland football final will be played; Stanislaus Kennedy doesn't decide that Mary will be housed but Patricia won't be. Mary Robinson doesn't decide if an application for membership from a particular research institute to join the International Science Council gets approved or not. And Michael D. Higgins doesn't decide that as "Clan Commane" paid their application fee, they should admitted as members of "Clans of Ireland". I'd like to say I'm surprised that Kellycrak is still arguing this point, but... no, I honestly can't say that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun Thanks for the note. My wording reflected the organisation’s own description (see governance: “Clans of Ireland is an independent authority operating under the Patronage of the President of Ireland.”). The President’s public ceremonial association is evident in receptions at Áras an Uachtaráin and official messages to recognised clans—this is the limited sense in which I use [“involved”], I never suggested operational decision-making. For accuracy on criteria: recognition isn’t just a fee. Applicants must evidence pre-1691 existence and identify and verifiably link to a geographic territory. Where the clan designation is sought (as distinct from historical family), the organisation states recognition depends on demonstrating a distinct historical clan identity, including links to a geographical clan territory. In any case, the AfD is closed, this wording dispute is now moot. I’ll leave it there and keep this page focused on resolving the block. ~~~~ Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, patrons turn up at ceremonial events. That's not in dispute? It's pretty much a patron's job description. I see the site was updated in the last little while, and appears to have actually changed membership criteria from "filled in the application form and paid a fee" to the additional stuff there now about 1691. Interesting. Curious where their claim to be an "authority" devolves from. For the record, I never "dismissed the President of Ireland's role in supporting the credibility and heritage work of Clans of Ireland." What I have done is point out that it's an incredible overreach to use your wording, which implied that Higgins was or is somehow involved in recognising clans. Present awards that the board has decided to give out? Sure. Have clans admitted "under his patronage"? Nope! Speaking of Clans of Ireland, you didn't reply to my question above, re conflict of interest. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-1691 criteria have been on the COI site for years; if helpful I can check the archive links. There is no recent website change that I can see, and I have no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise; I just wasn’t able to respond due to the block. The wording I used — “recognised by Clans of Ireland, under the patronage of the President of Ireland” — mirrors the clan’s public description and aligns with COI’s governance phrasing. COI’s Code of Practice provides oversight of registered clans’ literature. Reference to the President reflected ceremonial association only, not involvement in approvals. Similarly, King Charles does not personally approve each coat-of-arms grant made by a Herald under the Crown’s authority. ~~~ Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reviewing admins: the above content dispute and misunderstanding with this editor regarding the president wording is irrelevant to this block. In any case, the AfD closed, while I was blocked here unable to answer concerns, so it's a dead subject. The block rests on a copyvio allegation about two sentences; those were my wording and were first published on-wiki. Any later off-wiki appearance post-dates that. Regarding these topics I am happy in future to work via talk-page proposals on related topics for a period. I’d appreciate a reconsideration of the block on that basis.~~~ Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just wasn’t able to respond due to the block. Of course you were. I asked you about WP:COI on this page. You're responding here now, while still blocked. Reference to the President reflected ceremonial association only, not involvement in approvals. - so is therefore entirely irrelevant to Clans admitting an additional member. Similarly, King Charles does not personally approve each coat-of-arms grant made by a Herald under the Crown’s authority. Exactly!!! And if someone's article gets updated to say they were granted arms, we likewise wouldn't say "was granted arms by whatever King of Arms, under the authority of King Charles." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]