Jump to content

User talk:Yamla/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Image:Marthajones.jpg

Hi, Yamla. You recently removed this image from the Doctor Who article, saying that it lacked the required detailed fair use rationale. The image page does have a four-point rationale on its page — what more would be required in order to keep the image? (I'd like to learn.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The rationale is only for Martha Jones, not Doctor Who. If a picture of this companion contributes meaningfully to the article on Doctor Who, a rationale for use there must be added. It is not at all clear that it was contributing meaningfully to that article and the article is already quite long. --Yamla 18:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The rationale says that she is a main character in the programme, and there's a short paragraph at Doctor Who#Companions about her. I don't really feel strongly that this particular image should be included, especially since the character has yet to appear in the series, but I do feel that it's important that an image of a companion appear in the article. It had previously included the image Image:Rosetyler.jpg, which does have a specific rationale for Doctor Who — would that be more acceptable?
I agree that the article has become very long, but I don't think that removing that image was necessarily the best way to start cutting. There are far more extraneous bits. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, the reason I cut the image is because it was missing a rationale for that particular article. Making the article shorter was just a side-effect. The image definitely does have a rationale, but for an entirely different article. It's clearly valuable in that other article but not so clearly valuable in the article on Doctor Who. With an appropriate rationale, I agree it would be appropriate to have an image of a companion. Ideally, it should be a companion significant enough to merit at least a full paragraph discussion in Doctor Who. Which specific companion is probably less relevant. --Yamla 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I've provided a specific rationale for Doctor Who and restored the image. I didn't realize that the rationale needed to be repeated for each article. Thanks for educating me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

c14u

What happened? And I also noticed that her talk page was protected. Is there a chance we could unprotect it so we can discuss her unblocking?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

She was caught editing the Wikipedia from yet another anonymous IP address. The problem is that she is not on a static IP so it is easy for her to continue to violate Wikipedia's block. I am not the person who protected her talk page, that was Yanksox, but there's really no point unprotecting it. There's simply no chance of her being unblocked at the moment, and not for at least another year, not given her continued abuse (despite the block) of Wikipedia policies. And given her history of continuing to abuse Wikipedia while blocked, I think it is unlikely she will ever merit an unblock. This is on the basis that I can't imagine her leaving the Wikipedia alone (and thereby not violating her block) for a full year. That said, perhaps with another year or five of maturity, she'll smarten up, be willing to abide by Wikipedia policies, and be willing to contribute productively. --Yamla 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I thought c14u created another sock again.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats and thanks for the cupcake

Hey Yamla. Long time no see. Congratulations on your milestone! :-) You do essential work to keep Wikipedia up to encyclopedical standards. Please, keep it up. Also, thank you for the cupcake and for your kind words. As usual, I'm at your disposal should you need any help. Cheers, Redux 03:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Hawkins

Hi! Isn't the photo you tagged as copyright violation a TV screenshot? I've seen that clip on several news shows and almost every entertainment tabloid show out there, not sure who would own the copyright. Would they all own the copyright? Or would that shopping mall own the copyright, or is it public domain since it was a public event? Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.161.99 (talk • contribs)

Which image? The original creator of the image would own the copyright, as a general rule. Subsequent news shows, etc., would not own the copyright unless it was transferred to them. If the photo does not identify the copyright holder, the image needs to be tagged as having no source. --Yamla 05:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor

Kareena Kapoor's birthday is on the 21/09/1980, but its says on the page 1977 which is wrong. Please check the internet and change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartikey12 (talk • contribs)

In that case, please provide a reliable source for your claim. See WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:V. It is your responsibility to provide this when making the change. Thanks. --Yamla 17:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kareena_Kapoor&oldid=87766464

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/kareenas-goa-bday-blast--wish-her/22098-8.html

http://server1.msn.co.in/Profile/KareenaKapoor.asp

The first one is wikipedia's own old page, which says her b'day is in 1980. I have a diehard fan of hers, this is the first time in 5 years that I have seen a website claiming her birthday is in 1977. MSN is also very reliable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartikey12 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. ibnlive is claiming she was born in 1981. It says she is celebrating her 26th birthday in 2006. Your first birthday is when you are born. So that does not help. The msn link is at best a tertiary source and does not seem to meet the criteria under WP:RS. The information it provides is probably accurate but we need a better source. Thanks. --Yamla 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, your first birthday is one year after you are born. If what you are saying is true, then i am born in 1992 and i am not. Also, IBN have their own news channel which is one of the most widely watched in India, they are not just some small news channel they are very big and their website is very popular.

http://www.kareina.info/kareena_section/background.asp http://celebs.ceeby.com/actresses/KareenaKapoor.cfm

I would also like to see where you saw that she was born in 1977, i only saw imdb, and that is wrong because it says abhishek bachchan b'day is 1965, and he was born in 1976. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartikey12 (talk • contribs)

These citations are most definitely not reliable. I will remove the date of birth from that page until someone can provide a reliable citation as per WP:RS. --Yamla 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please warn the users of the images

When you add an {{rfu}} tag to an image, please consider adding these tags to the image caption:

{{speedy-image-c|[[2006-11-22]]}}<br />{{replacethisimage}}

I have found that it stimulates quick action in finding replacements. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do! It looks like someone made the effort to add a refu-c to the templated warning so this should basically just be a matter of copying and pasting. Thank you for the excellent suggestion. --Yamla 15:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me about the new {{refu-c}} template. I just thanked Sherool for creating it. -Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect 3RR warning given

Hello. I see you gave 4.191.245.163 (talk · contribs) a WP:3RR warning over War Eagle. However, I had looked into the article issue from the AN thread and the anon was removing uncited negative information about a living person (which was being re-inserted by other editors). As you know, WP:BLP requires the removal of such uncited negative info, and such removals are not subject to the 3RR rule. (I have just noticed that a source has been found for this, so it's somwwhat a moot issue now, but thought I should remind you of this anyway) Regards, MartinRe 00:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. It was always my intention that the editor understand that no 3RR violation had yet taken place, but I'll point out that no 3RR violation was about to take place either. --Yamla 01:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Abbie Cornish

I understand why you took down the picture there, but did you mean to take out the information regarding her affair with Ryan Phillipe? If so, why? This seems like legitimate information. If you did not intend to delete this, is it acceptable that I put it back up there?

Jinxy

It is acceptable if you can find a reliable citation (not just the gossip magazines). Please see WP:RS and WP:CITE before adding it back. If you can find a reliable citation, I'd love to have the information there. --Yamla 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

uploaded image

I uploaded an image and im not sure if it is uploaded with the correct information needed. I dont know how to put the link to the photo in here. It is the image for this article, The Runners. If it is not correct please go ahead and delete it. Thanks. —Darkneonflame 01:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the image. WP:FUC requires that we use freely-licensed images to depict living people, so we can't use this one because it is copyrighted and not freely-licensed. In general, when adding a copyrighted image to an article, you need to explain why it is fair to use it in that article. Why is it necessary to use an image at all? Why this particular image? Why not a free image? Why is it particularly unlikely that the copyright owner would take offense? You also stated that this was a promotional photo from an issue of XXL Magazine. We cannot use photos from inside a magazine, and promotional photos must come from a press kit. That is, you need to provide evidence that this came from a press kit (or promotional kit). Certainly, XXL Magazine would not be the copyright holder in that case. This is a lot of information to take in in one paragraph. If you'd like me to clarify any bit, please feel free to ask. As you can see, there's a lot of requirements. If it strikes you that Wikipedia seems to actively discourage copyrighted images with lots of policies and requirements, you are most certainly correct. We much prefer free images. --Yamla 01:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What are some sources for "free images", is myspace considered as one? –-Darkneonflame 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the images on myspace may be released under a free license, most aren't however. If you find an image which states it is released under most Creative Commons licenses or the GFDL or is public domain and the source of the image is reliable (so, fan sites claiming that images are public domain are not reliable, see WP:RS), you have found a freely-licensed image. I estimate probably 99.5% of the images on the Internet are not licensed under a free license, however. The Creative Commons article has some links to a way to find freely-licensed content. Flikr can also be a source, though again most of the images there are not freely licensed. --Yamla 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What info would I need to upload a cd cover from amazon.com? I've seen many album cover images with nothing but the link for the source. --Darkneonflame 02:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a copyrighted image, so source (in this case, the name of the album), license, and detailed hand-written fair-use rationale justifying each use. Plus, it may only be used to depict the album. You can't use it, for example, to show what the singer looks like. --Yamla 02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible sock of c14u

After comments left on my talk page [1] from Tennislover, I checked out User:Pumpkin Pie. It does seem like there's a similarity to c14u's original writing style. The user has transcluded a status template much like mine.... I'm also going to have someone from a Japanese Wikiproject check out here Japanese userpage.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, this was a confirmed sockpuppet of the banned user. The account has been shut down and the contributions (mostly) deleted. I took a look at the Japanese user page but unfortunately, I cannot read Japanese. --Yamla 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a good hypothisis from me. I didn't know for sure.Tennislover 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, sure was. Please let me know if you find any others. --Yamla 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I sure will. She doesn't really do a good job hiding herself.Tennislover 03:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

responding to the most recent messege: AMEN!Tennislover 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked someone from WikiProject Japan to translate the userpage. Check out my talk page for details.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to be against the user's block or anything, but what exactly was the evidence against PPie?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In order not to give anything away, I'd rather discuss this via email. Please send me an email and I'll let you know. Not until tomorrow, though, as I'm signing off for the evening now.  :) --Yamla 04:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I sent the Japs an alert on [2].--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes

Hi. I was just looking over your revert on A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes, and followed the link to User talk:Pumpkin Pie for the reason why. Do you mind if I reimplement that edit? It corrects the Orlando Brown wikilink, and rightly removes the extra listing for an actor who guest starred on one episode of a series. I don't have to call it a revert, if that's helpful to you. (In fact, I really should work on fleshing out the substantive part of the article, but that's not a task for tonight.) I just thought I'd check with you first - don't want to get in the middle of a mess! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The key point, though, is that you would then be taking responsibility for the edit. So if for example redoing the edit introduced some slander or something, you would now be responsible. Not a problem here, of course, but I'm just letting you know. We don't let the edits from banned users remain but there's no problem having someone redo them. --Yamla 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 05:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lieutenant Dol Grenn/Gerzi

I've removed all his comments from my talk page if it'll put an end to this nonsense. Cheers, HamishMacBeth 12:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I very much appreciate it. --Yamla 15:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use

Could you explain to me what is this fair use? I am sorry for that, but I really cannot understand what it means. You see, I am from Poland and English is not my native language, so I sometimes can't understand what you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varda (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:FU. Thanks. --Yamla 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Riya Sen Image

Hey dude, I have added a fair use rationale for the biopic on the article Riya Sen. Please take a look at it. And, oh, since I have removed the deletion tage from the image as advised on the tags (i.e. the tags mat be removed if provided with a fair use rational), I also have removed the line from the article page that says the image is scheduled for deletion. I also have changed the licensing information from screenshot to fair use in Riya Sen and Style (film). I also have looked for another image to be used (yes, using google), and have done so. Well I admit that it didn't vary much, if any, in source and copyright status from the earlier one. But, I think before there is a replacable picture available it may stand. Please, check and advise. - Aditya Kabir 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I already responded prior to this message, but just to be clear... WP:FUC prohibits the use of a fair-use image to depict a living person, so this still fails the criteria. We can't wait until a replacement image is provided, that's not sufficient grounds under WP:FUC. Additionally, this is a film screenshot so we cannot use a different license. And given that, we are not using the image to provide critical commentary on the film but rather, just to illustrate an actress. It still violates the license. I know you are working hard here and you definitely are editing in good faith, but the image still violates WP:FUC. Please feel free to ask for more detailed explanations. --Yamla 18:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I was checking for the proper rationale I came upon Rglovejoy's image contributions] - all copyright images from Playboy, all depicting living persons, and all uploaded without a fair use rationale (well, alomost all). Either they have not been noticed or I am failing to see the point here. I thought, if the article expounds heavily upon one aspect of the subject matter then in case of a living person that particular aspect may be illustrated to enrich the informaiton further. Was I wrong? And, yes, I would like to take the opportunity and ask about the replacebility thing. What should I understand by that term? - Aditya Kabir 18:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) - (p.s. please don't quote me verbatim on my talk page, it looks a bit silly (hahaha), I know what wrote to you)

They have not been noticed. There are in fact a large number of similar images currently in violation. It takes time to track them all down and tag them. WP:FUC was tightened up recently. It used to be permitted to use a fair-use (non-freely licensed) image to depict a living person (with appropriate rationale). This is no longer the case. As to what "replaceable" means, it really comes down to whether it would be reasonable for someone (not necessarily you) to create a free image. For example, you may not own a particular car but if this car is or was sold, someone else may and could take an image. You may not be able to take a free image of a living person but someone else certainly could. In both cases, the fair-use image is replaceable. --Yamla 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(In response to you comments) I think I met the WP:FUC on 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 (1 and 9 not being applicable in this instance). I have found nothing on living persons on the page. And, I don't see how the iamge may be replaced wthin the give time. If you check history of the article you will find that at list 3 contributors, including myself, have taken an attempt to provide a biopic for the subject (all revolving around Style the movie) and failed. Please, advise. - Aditya Kabir 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does 1 not apply? Is the person dead? If so, I apologise. But if the person is still alive, criteria 1 most definitely applies. "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. [...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." If the person is still alive, the subject of the photograph still exists and a free equivalent "could be created that would adequately give the same information" (in this case, what the person looks like) simply by having someone take a picture of her, or having her agent release a promotional image under a free license. As to having the image replaced within the time, this follows from the current image violating WP:FUC so therefore, see the non-compliance section in WP:FUC. Images that fail WP:FUC must be deleted within 48 hours or 7 days, depending. --Yamla 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But, FUC #1' says nothing about if the person is dead or alive. If it does, I apologise. I have already stated in the rationale that it may be replaced if a free image is available, which may not be coming soon. Besides, according to the Policy Page - "Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use... (8) An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." I did not do that, rather I uploaded an image that describes a significant event in the subject's life/career. - Aditya Kabir 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." A living person is a subject of the photograph that still exists. A dead person would be a subject of a photograph that no longer exists. I agree that it is not spelled out explicitly but I assure you this is how it is meant to be understood. As to your other point, that you are not using the image merely to show what she looks like, I disagree. The image is in the page's infobox and thus is definitely showing only what she looks like. If it was not in the infobox but instead was attached to a paragraph discussing that particular movie and that paragraph made specific note of what the character looked like, then it would be an example of an image not being used solely to depict the person. As of now, though, it is not attached to any such paragraph and in fact the article makes only passing reference to that movie. --Yamla 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm here again

Is it possible to restore my user page and your comments on my discussion page again? XXMad99ManXx 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You asked to disappear. Why did you recreate this user account? If you plan to keep editing from this account (and no other), I can reverse the deletion but this is not something we generally do. --Yamla 19:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Yamla for hard work on anti-vandalism that makes Wikipedia better for everyone

Thanks for the recent rvv! I appreciated it. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A little help, please?

If it's okay, I'm requesting assistance in dealing with the user Jinxy. He continues to blatantly disregard civility and edit warring rules, despite warnings. Not only did he attack edits to the Abbie Cornish article (see page history) - but take a look at my talkpage, his talkpage (which he's been generously deleting things from against Wiki policy, I might add) and both the talkpage and user page for 124.177.248.52. Perhaps the voice of authority from an admin he's listened to before might calm him down a little? Cheers. misanthrope 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! misanthrope 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. He's done it again. Take a look at his talkpage, calling me a "kid", saying I'm being " being impudent to my betters", don't know "smack about smack", etc... this flame-baiting is getting ridiculous. He really needs another warning, or something, because he's not going to cease of his own accord, be it hostility directed towards me or anyone else. misanthrope 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice cupcake, thanks

Yeah, sure. Nice cake. Loved the taste. I really appreciate what you admins are doing here. Great job. Sorry about the "existing" thing, my page search with strings - "living" and "dead" overlooked it. Not a right procedure, I guess. But, I still have points of disagreement, if you are no already tired of arguing over one little picture of one indian starlet. They are:

  1. "...if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken", along with "...having her agent release a promotional image under a free license". Hahaha, you ever tried taking a picture of or talking to the agent of Bollywood people? I did. It's far from "simple" as you said.
  2. "The image is in the page's infobox and thus is definitely showing only what she looks like." Well, the caption said it showed the subject of the article featured in line with the subject of the image (i.e. Riya Sen in Style). That "definitely" doesn't count as a depiction of merely how she looks like.

Anyways, I have removed the offending image, and hoping for either a better rationale or freer image to appear. I intend to take this article as a case of becoming encyclopedic for myself. It still needs a lot of work.

And, oh, here are a few more fair use images you may like to take a look at. They fail more miserably than Image:Riya Style1.jpg on the rationale for deletion you provided to me. It is only fair, otherwise, another poor soul may be misled by their existence and do the same mistake as I did.

Thanks again. - Aditya Kabir 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not tried taking a picture of any celebrity, actually, but I have worked with some celebrities and non-celebrities to get a freely-licensed image for use on the Wikipedia. None of them were Bollywood actors or actresses, however. As to the infobox, these are used to provide basic information and to depict what the person looks like. If an image is to be used to provide critical commentary on a film, it needs to be attached to a paragraph providing that critical commentary. Often, an image which was attached to a paragraph and was fair-use there is moved up to the infobox but then must subsequently be removed for exactly this reason. Some of this stuff, unfortunately, is not explicitly spelled out. Other times, we try to spell something out (criteria #1 of WP:FUC) but people understandably read it differently than was intended. And then what about a situation where, say, the person is still alive but is in hiding? They still exist so a strict reading of #1 says we cannot use a fair-use image of them. But it's not reasonable to create a replacement. Now, try to write out a clear policy that will take all of these crazy situations into account, and you can see the problems. In the end, the only way to really go about things is with discussions like this, even though they take time. And thanks for noting the other image problems. I'll try to mark at least some of them when I have a moment.--Yamla 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to know that

OK, I just wanted to know that because I'm a curious man. Ciao XXMad99ManXx 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


SJ revert

I think it comes off as a little elitist, and a tad creepy, that you immediately jump on this and throw it out citing the lack of a wikipedia article, as if that makes or breaks someone's notability. The band in question is internationally touring and signed. So to some extent they are artists with influence in pop culture. I understand you don't want vandalism, but what's the point of information exchange if interesting tidbits are left out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachelor Steak (talk • contribs)

Do they meet the notability criteria guidelines outlined in WP:MUSIC? --Yamla 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive page and re to email

I added an archive link because the bot was archiving to archive 8, which didn't have a link on this page.

Also, thanks for the reply to the email I sent you. I realize that Wikipedia doesn't have the regular complicated justice system, but it's always good to verify my facts. =)--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For the advice and the response. I responded as well. I look forward to communicating with you in the future under more pleasant circumstances.

J.

User:Chadbryant

I apologize for bothering you about this but I noticed you have dealt with Chadbryant previously. I posted a warning on his talk page so that he will perform proper reversions, while also asking him to stop claiming that I am a sock puppet. He has refused to abide by either. Instead of a polite response he made this edit: [3]. To make the story short, I am not a sock puppet. I came across what I thought was a questionable edit by a poster on the recent changes page. I reverted and looked at the poster's history and saw other questionable edits. I reverted them and asked him to use the talk page. I haven't reverted since, meanwhile he refuses to use the talk page (he used it until I oointed out the application of WP:Notability) Chadbryant has somehow confused this with sock puppetry. I don’t know what else I can do? I have asked him to use talk pages. He refuses. I have asked him to explain him stating how I have supposedly harassed him. He refuses. I have asked him to abide by basic wikipedia policy. He refuses. I am trying to abide by the rules. Is there anything you can do?

Again, I apologize for bringing this minor issue to your attention. I simply find it annoying. I didn’t know what else to do. Thanks. CraigMonroe 03:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

From WP:SOCK:
Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits.
And from the same policy, under "meatpuppets":
A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate.
The "CraigMonroe" account first edited on 12 October 2006, and almost immediately jumped into several AfD discussions (see [4]; this account was being used to comment/vote on AfD discussions before its 20th edit). Interestingly, this account (as of this writing) does not even have a userpage set up by the user in question. The majority of this account's recent edits are reverts to my deletion of non-notable content in several sports facility articles. This account is at the very least clearly exhibiting the characteristics of a meatpuppet, and quite possibly is a sockpuppet of another user who also continues to Wikistalk me and revert/delete my contributions in bad faith.
If the continual (and obvious, at this point) harassment from "CraigMonroe" does not cease, I will file a RFCU on the account. - Chadbryant 01:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

""I would like to encourage Chadbryant to file a RFCU so he can be proven wrong. The Wikistalk guideline says "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information. I have not made any threats, I have not nitpicked any good faith edits, I have not made personal attacks or posted personal infomation. Both CraigMonroe and i have been WP:CIVIL as seen here [[5]] he makes it impossible to communicate with him as he removes items from his talk page with no reply. So also i have no idea what to do. DXRAW 05:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please request a checkuser. I hope you do. By chance, who am I a sock puppet of? DXRaw? Again, I am not a sock puppet. Please stop calling me that. You have no proof other than your personal opinion. I have been nothing but polite to you. I have not harassed you. In fact,when I asked you to provide an example of the claim of harassment. You refused, and called me a sock puppet. Will you provide an example now? As far as knowing the "rules," I am a law student. The rules interest me. I like to help make decisions. Is this wrong? Apparently it is to you, as you equate knowing the simple rules wikipedia has with being a sock puppet? I spent a few days looking the rules over while attempting to figure out how to edit. Are the rules that complicated to you? As a question, if I am a sock puppet, why don't I revert your posts? Why don’t I vandalize? Why do I act polite even when you make baseless accusations against me? I have tried repeatedly to get you to use a talk page. You refuse, and continue to refuse. Instead you violate numerous wikipedia policies, including WP:Point, WP:Edit War, and WP:AGF (or is claiming I am a sock puppet, and harassing you by begging you to follow the rules an example of acting in good faith?). I am not the only person that pointed this out to you. Even the admin posted on your talk page mentioning the issue. So please request a checkuser. I beg you. If you think I am DXRaw, ask for what ever they do to check the identities. I am tired of the baseless accusations. However, until you do, stop calling me a sock puppet. I do not call you names. I have been respectful. Can’t you do the same? Isn’t that one of the primary principles of wikipedia? Maybe your mother never taught you to treat others the way you want to be treated. However, my mother did. I have treated you kindly.
As for the admin, is there anything you can do to stop this? I am trying to be cordial, and follow the rules. It is tough when an individual is making libelous statements. Is this the type of behavior wikipedia condones? I sure hope not. If it is, I won’t be posting for much longer. Not that it really matters. Thank you. CraigMonroe 05:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I also want to point out that accusatory comments such as claiming I am a sock puppet, or harassing you are a violation of WP:No Personal Attacks. Not to mention the numerous parts of WP:Sockpuppet not cited. Specifically:
  • If it appears that sock puppets are being used as part of an edit war or to distort the outcome of a vote or survey, one possible rule of thumb is the so-called 100-edit rule. This suggests that any account which already has more than 100 edits across a range of other articles, or has been active more generally on Wikipedia, can often be presumed not to be a sock puppet. If there are unusually many accounts with few edits participating, you may want to check if they are sock puppets, by looking at IP addresses or times that edits were made. However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sock puppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sock puppet without justification, he or she will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia.
I easily pass the 100 edit test. I ask to be treated with the respect anyone else deserves. A differing opinion is not a basis for accusation.

CraigMonroe 05:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

64.131.196.204 05:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)ChadBryant has had very little success enforcing his version of Wikipedia. In fact, his efforts to harass and accuse and multi-revert others have recently resulted in a few forcible vacations. He's also decided that I'm a "sock puppet" and an "anonymous vandal" this week, and I'm neither. Some users are more excitable than others.

All I'll say is don't worry, CraigMonroe, and don't leave. Squabbling is a feature of the site. When people wonder why I don't just register a Wiki ID, I can point them to certain User Contributions pages out there (no names) whose long histories of pettiness or obstinance explain precisely why I've chosen to remain a step outside of the "Wikipedia community." Somehow, I doubt that if I registered some Wikiname, my edits would instantly become more acceptable or reliable in the eyes of some. Again, I direct this observation at no one in particular.

User:Mines45

I hope it's alright posting this; I wasn't sure whether it'd fit on any of the noticeboards. Could you do something about User:Mines45 please? He adds incorrect information to articles, and has removed the warnings from his talk page to stop. He then posted this on my talk page, which, according to my Googling [6], is quite offensive. Thanks a lot, SteveLamacq43 15:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has been blocked for a month. He was previously blocked for one week for similar behaviour and his continued blanking of his discussion page showed bad faith. --Yamla 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Cheers, SteveLamacq43 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment on my talk page about adding an external link to the Kate Beckinsale page. I am aware of the policies and did think carefully before adding one - however, I think you may be over-interpreting the rigidity with which this rule should be applied. I do very much agree that commercial links should not be added willy-nilly, but that was not my intent. If you look at my contribs record, I carefully defend quite a number of pages against exactly that. However, I do think that surely on a star page, at least one prominent fansite should be referenced. This also happens to be the case at a casual browse with the following randomly selected star pages - Sean Connery, Kirsten Dunst, Helena Bonham Carter, Scarlett Johansson (Yahoo Movies), Jenna Elfman - I could go on! In each, just one typical example of a good-quality fansite is shown, and that is what I was trying to show on the Kate Beckinsale page, about which, I assure you, I care a good deal on both quality and accuracy issues. Thanks for your time and attention. Best regards, Mark. MarkThomas 16:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ted Hughes

Hmmm. I see that you also deleted a perfectly good academic site link from another page I pay a lot of tlc to, Ted Hughes - can you justify please? MarkThomas 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Are you acting as an editor or administrator when you reverted Jennifer Morrison three times between 15:47 and 18:56 on 17 November 2006? --Oden 19:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting a simple case of an image which violated policy and so had to be removed. It is not considered a 3RR violation to enforce policy. --Yamla 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kristen Bell

Whatever you say ;)... MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A vandal to keep an eye on

I'm not particularly interested in hunting down vandals, and you seem to be willing, so I thought I'd let you know that 66.64.223.2 seems to be capable nothing but vandalism. Perhaps you can take care of it. Just a thought. Gamiar 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Images

On another talk page, you wrote

Wikipedia has decided the choice is between a free image or no image at all

That is simply not true. In fact, Wikipedia:Copyrights clearly says All original Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL. Occasionally, Wikipedia articles may include images, sounds, or text quotes used under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine. It is preferred that these be obtained under the most free (libre) license (such as the GFDL or public domain) practical. In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available). Please don't mis-state the facts. Jenolen 23:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The full quote is "It may not always be feasible to find free images all of the time but for subjects where it is possible, Wikipedia has decided the choice is between a free image or no image at all". This is indeed the case, please see WP:FUC, first criteria. --Yamla 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that quote in the article. Dionyseus 01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The quote isn't in WP:FUC, it is in what I wrote. Jenolen was quoting only part of what I wrote. As to the truth of my statement, I urge you to reread WP:FUC. The first criteria of WP:FUC makes this statement in different words. --Yamla 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Drdanmcd

Hi Yamla, I saw that you had blocked Murphscout not long ago. I think he's back as User:Drdanmcd -- this account was created right around the time of your block and has produced pretty much nothing but vandalism, much of it (such as his edits to Talk:Steven Weinberg) identical to that done by Murphscout. Just thought I'd give you a heads-up. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 03:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a pretty clear-cut case, so I went ahead and blocked the user. Don't people have better things to do with their time? --Yamla 04:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Yamla!

Thanks for reverting my user page.I don't know why he couldn't go to my discussion page and state his issues there. Georgia Peachez 06:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Homeward Bound II

Can I ask why you took down the link to Jinxy? After all, the cat in the movie was portrayed by the same cat who played Jinxy in Meet The Parents. This wasn't me trying to be cute about my namesake. It's actual information. Seems kind of petty to take it down, especially since it was simply a "See Also". I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Jinxy (talk • contribs)

If that is the case, my apologies. On one of the pages, I saw that you had a link to your own user page so I did indeed think this was you "trying to be cute". I appreciate that you pointed out my error and did so in a civil manner. Please feel free to readd the removed information if it is valid. --Yamla 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute 14u(again)

I think pumpkin pie(cute 1 4 u) will be trolling her user page. She's all ready left a messege on User talk: pumkin pie. Check it out.Tennislover 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Collumns?

Hey, I was wondering, How do put lists of things into collumns? --Darkneonflame 18:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please

Yamla,

We do not get along. I would prefer that you refrained from discussions on my Talk page, and would rather we both stayed away from each other overall. Please respect my feelings on this.

FYI, while there was no Copyright Law specifically, there was likewise no Public Domain, which is also an aspect of law. Nevertheless, there were aspects of Common Law, and before that people just knew that if it wasn't the fruit of their efforts, it amounted to Usery and was wrong to take it. This entire discussion all along has been about ethics, not the rules lawyers and judges play by.

Again, probably best we just leave each other alone.

Sincerely,

JT --JT 04:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry yamla dude

forgot to put up the ext. links and i dunno how do do all this image tagging shiz wb chris and btw i cbf reading those shitful paghes u give me about image tagging can u jst tell me in english instead ChrisMHMChris

2nd pair of eyes needed

Take a look at the photo gallery on the M. G. Ramachandran article. The editor who uploaded all those images was born in 1978, which means that he was only nine years old when the subject died. Yet all the photos are tagged as being his creations. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it seems rather curious. I left a note for the user so I will see what he says, but I wanted to get your thoughts on the matter. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that the uploader did not take the images. If I was you, I'd tag them all with nsd/nld (or perhaps in a day or two, if you can remember). I think the user is confused as to what license to select and so decided on one that seemed to allow the images to exist. There's no way that the uploader took the photos, however. --Yamla 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it is possible that his father took them, but how would he go about proving that? I suppose if he actually owns the originals he could take a picture of them and post that somewhere. Otherwise, I'm not sure what he could do. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
He now wants to know which license he should use to indicate that they are his father's pics, and are being released into PD. I'm not sure which one he should use. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 00:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Quit the abuse of [rollback]..

Hello. Please do not abuse the [rollback] button. Furthermore the image you removed is allowed per the FUC as it is providing critical commentary within a body of text, is unrepeatable, and an un-free picture of Jeri Ryan as Seven of Nine would be unobtainable. I advise you to self revert.

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo#ChrisO edit wars and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco,_MarkSweep,_et_al#MarkSweep_misuses_rollback MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 17:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No violation occurred. Until you added the necessary information, the image had a false license, no source, and no rationale. --Yamla 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I had to figure that out however.. and would of never had I not seen your contribs.. this is why you don't [rollback] good faith edits.. if you leave a summary i'd known this and we could avoid the confusion :-) MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email)
I did inform the uploading editor about the multiple violations on that image. As a serious and honest question, do you believe it is inappropriate to use administrator rollback to revert violations of Wikipedia policy such as the addition of this image? Please don't take offense at my question, I'm not trying to get a rise out of you. You subsequently fixed the problem with the image, even though you did not upload it. I ask you this because my understanding is that it is reasonable to use rollback to enforce violations of policy, particularly when combined with notifications of the violation. In this case, though, my notification was only to the editor who uploaded the image. --Yamla 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well a split answer of yes and no tbh.. as it was me adding the image who had been reverted I would of like to known.. I personally didn't check because I was under the impression that the person who added it to the article who I had worked with before had uploaded it and hence I believed she had already done the FUR/source/summary etcetera, as it stands she didn't upload it. If you had been reverting the uploader however.. then I'd understand use of [rollback] because you would of already told them on there talk. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 18:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally I don't mind use of automated reversion if the editor is notified - though I do believe edit summaries are preferable so others with the page watch-listed know your reason. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 19:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It was still your responsibility to ensure that the image had a detailed fair-use rationale for that particular article. Fair-use rationales which attempt to justify the use of the image on all Wikipedia articles are not valid (point #10 on WP:FUC, rationale must indicate the name of the article the rationale is for). I understand your concern, though, and frankly I'm a little surprised at myself that I didn't give you a note as to why the image was removed. Thank you for taking the time to clearly spell out your concerns, I appreciate it. I will try not to make this mistake again. --Yamla 19:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use disputed

Yamla, Need your input at Image talk:Tirupathi.jpg. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yamla

This IP (142.68.200.65) keeps vandalizing T.I.'s and Akon's page, he's been doing this all day yesterday and now he's doing it today. His IP changes too. Georgia Peachez 19:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

194.80.32.8

Hi - I've changed the block of 194.80.32.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to allow account creation, with it being a complete university! This was after a request on unblock-en-l. Just an FYI . Keep up the good work - Martinp23 22:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Another possible sock of Cute 1 4 u?

Hey, Yamla. I think that User:PumpkinPie is a sock of User:Cute 1 4 u, because User:Pumpkin Pie (who is also a sock of Cute 1 4 u) welcomed User:PumpkinPie, and the only content that's on User:PumpkinPie's page is the word "testing." Could you do a CheckUser to see? Of course, maybe it's just a coincedence that User:Pumpkin Pie welcomed User:PumpkinPie, but it helps to be sure. Thanks - The RSJ ¿Qué? 01:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem a little strange that User: Pumpkin Pie and welcomed user:pumpkinpie. We should look more into this.--Tennislover 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Cruise Research

Yamla man wtf is up with you i showed my research links n all and you go deleting shit on me wb plz chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisMHMChris (talk • contribs)

Please be specific. Are you talking about these edits? If so, you are mistaken. You did not provide any citations whatsoever, let alone reliable citations. Please reread WP:CITE, along with WP:V and WP:RS. Also, as an aside, please refrain from uploading any more images until you have fixed the problems with the images you have already uploaded. Wikipedia takes your continued violations of Wikipedia image copyright and fair-use policies very seriously. WP:FU gives you some information about fair-use on the Wikipedia. Thanks. --Yamla 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I read your message about the Tanuja image, which violates WP:FUC. I had a look around and these images may need to be deleted: Image:EmraanHashmi.jpg, Image:RM KANK.jpg, Image:Kareena MDK.jpg, Image:UrmilaMatondkar.jpg and Image:IshaSharvani.jpg. I'll have another look around for any other images that need to be deleted. -- Pa7 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for fixing this!

Oden has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--Oden 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sob Sob Cry Cry

It seems that the speed that you had in tagging Riya Sen's image I uploaded is not manifesting in addressing other images. Let me remind you of the images I posetd for you to take note:

Please, take a look, and let me know - why the image of Riya Sen from Style the movie was less of a fair use image than msot of these. Precedence is as good as law (even in the US, as far as I know), and these images set a very different precendence over the one that got the image in discussion deleted. - Aditya Kabir 20:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of these were not in violation. Image:ALI IBN RABBAN AL-TABARI.jpg is missing an accurate source, but presumably the painting was never protected by copyright. Image:Abdul Hamid.jpg is not replaceable as far as I can see, though it is missing a rationale for its current use. However, it was uploaded before the rationale requirement was added, so that image is okay. Similarly, Image:Abdul Rahman(convert).jpg and Image:AdamRyland.jpg. As to the non-specific images you have also listed, I am sorry to say that I am kept above capacity and am not looking for more work. If you believe these images are incorrectly tagged or are missing mandatory information, please mark them as such. Also, I direct your attention to WP:POINT. Thank you. --Yamla 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the point. It stated exactly my sentiments. Thankfully I sought advice from an admin, before I did anything else. I guess, to remain on the fair side, I am going to mark pornstar images uploaded by Rglovejoy, they are mostly from Playboy, a source that's pretty thick on copyrights. They have right to, considering the amount of infringement they face. Thanks again. - Aditya Kabir 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Surely Image:3180834 Bernardo Bertolucci.jpg could be tagged. It too is an image of a living film personality, although a director and from Europe. I am sure these criterions are not good anuogh to warrant a fair use. - Aditya Kabir 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your efforts. --Yamla 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism???

I didnt 'vandalize' anything you fool. Those are their actual heights. But if you wanna be a punk about it, I'll leave it alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.124.130.91 (talk • contribs)

Not according to the official profiles. Please cite your sources. See WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. Also, please refrain from future personal attacks, as per WP:NPA. --Yamla 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I know that the addition of incorrect information to articles is frustrating, but in this case, it doesn't really qulify for vandalism per WP:VAND, but there are other warnings to use (WP:WARN) for unsourced additions to, for example, biographies of living people. I think these are more appropriate, as they teach the newcomer, rather than biteing him/her. Thanks :) Martinp23 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The information was being changed from that presented on the official profile pages to information that appears to be a person's best guess. These were not unsourced additions, they were the replacement of well-sourced information with information of, at best, dubious accuracy. Given that this was being done to multiple articles and that in all cases, the information was changed from that presented on a reliable source, it appeared to be a deliberate attempt to reduce the accuracy of these pages. --Yamla 21:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that for repeated offences the vandalism warnings should be used, but for the first couple of times, I feel that an explanation would help (like from one of those templates). Of course, if they continue to not add sources, it's clear disruption and can be looked upon as vandalism. I hope you know where I'm coming from here! Martinp23 21:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:ALFRobinWebbSHAC.jpg

The image is not replaceable for obvious reasons. He's addressing a SHAC meeting, which is why the image is being used. It's only replaceable if you're prepared to pay to restage the meeting. At the request of which user? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the image also did not require a detailed rationale which meant that it was not clear that this is why it was being used. As an image of any old SHAC meeting, it is certainly replaceable. If it is being used to depict this specific event, it is not. You can check my discussion page for who requested it be tagged. --Yamla 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I did check your page but I can't see anyone asking that it be tagged. Can you tell me who asked?
It is not replaceable "as an image of any old SHAC meeting." It has to be Robin Webb addressing one. Please read the policy. The image must be "reasonably" replaceable. You can't expect editors to stage special meetings and invite particular speakers just so they can reproduce a shot. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. But the other user wasn't asking for the Webb image to be tagged; he was asking why you had tagged his. That's what confused me. Anyway, I'm glad it's sorted out. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

More vandelism on blue moon

On 150.101.101.74 talk page it has the last warning template so i feel that ip should be blocked because of recent edits to Blue moon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wompa99 (talk • contribs)

I'll check it out. --Yamla 23:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Information Request

Yamla, Jinxy here. Can you point me in the right direction as far as figuring out how to add my username and timestamp when I leave a comment on a Talk page? Yes, I admit that I don't understand some of this stuff and am new to some of the format requirements and rules, but I am wise in knowledge and experience. Thanks,

Jinxy

Two minus signs, then four tildes, like this: --~~~~. Sorry, I haven't had a chance to look in to your other message from earlier today, I'll try to get to it tomorrow. I tend to get a bit overwhelmed. --Yamla 03:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. As I suspected, the 18 year old Australian who originally complained about me went to one of her Australian administrators and complained to him as well as you. Then she either logged off and posted something anonymously and complained again, had one of her Australian friends complain, or some random Australian just happened to also complain. They went after one of the articles I had worked on. Regardless, I'm over it. I'm not interested in getting in a pissing contest with a bunch of kids. I've got better fish to fry. Thanks for the offer, though.

--Mister Jinxy 12:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"totallytitmuss.com"

Yamla, why can't you accept the fact that this IS Abi's personal website?

Jinxy

It seems the Australian contingent has been vandalising sites I've contributed to ever since the dustup about Abbie Cornish. I'd appreciate it if you'd check it out over at Jinxy. There have been three different individuals, all based out of Australia and including misanthrope, who have been involved. As previously promised, I've been a good boy and have been working on actual substantive articles.

Jinxy

Sigh... Jinxy, before you accuse someone of something, you should make sure they've actually been involved first. You're taking my advice and gentle warnings far too personally and you apparently think I'm engaged in some silly vendetta. Before you're a "good boy" you've got quite a bit to learn and will seriously have to change some of those attitudes. First, assume good faith. Secondly, no more flame-baiting on talkpages or attacking another's edits. Believe me, I am telling you these things for your own sake - it's not like I care if you eventually get blocked or not, but methinks that you will. Also, you realise part of that "Australian contingent" (ie User:Cyberjunkie) is an admin, right? Before you reply to this, think about what you say - if you must ignore my advice, respond on my talkpage because Yamla probably doesn't want arguments on his; I would have posted this on your own talkpage, except I wished to clearly defend myself against your claims of vandalism. misanthrope 07:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mis,

  • You were involved. Both you and I know it. I followed what you said from your user contributions page. Even for a novice, it's not difficult. Regardless, I've moved on per below. I suggest that you do the same. In the future, please stay away from me. I ask that you don't post on my talk page and try to stay as far away from my contributions as possible. The sooner we forget about each other, the better for all of us. Watch the flame-baiting yourself. Regards.

--Mister Jinxy 02:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Methinks that if you can use the user contributions link, then you'd be well aware I haven't touched Jinxy. I ought to remind you that you were the one who brought me into your dispute over Jinxy with the above post. misanthrope 10:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale

I can use a magazine cover under fair use, but I have to explain why it is fair use? I guess for now on I am going to mention the article in the magazine, and then state that the magazine is mentioned in the article and the magazine is relevant due to its coverage of the bodybuilder in question when I upload the image. Cool, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruinpena10 (talk • contribs)

Yes, on an article about that magazine, and if the image is used to comment on that particular issue of the magazine. No if you are using the magazine cover to depict a person. So, if you are using it to illustrate a bodybuilder, this would not be acceptable. --Yamla 22:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Darkneonflame 00:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)==Collumns?== Yamla, how do you put a list of things in to collumns? --Darkneonflame 00:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know, I've never done that before believe it or not. --Yamla 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway. --

User Talk:Fidocell

Hi. This user has been blocked before for image-related violations (check the Talk page further up) and seems intent on uploading images willy-nilly despite the automatic notices pasted on his talk page. This, compounded with the fact that he does not respond to any comments on his talk page left by other editors and further, makes repeated edits to articles without consultation against the consensus of other editors, leads me to believe that his disruptive behaviour will not cease any time soon. I would like you to consider a imposing a longer block please, if you feel it is warranted. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 10:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nore the godfather

Ok..he (Nore the godfather) keeps adding pictures of the wrong rappers on different pages..for ex. on Birdman's page, he added a picture of Lloyd Banks, I reverted, then he just added a picture of Chingy. Georgia Peachez 04:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has now been blocked indefinitely as the account was used only for blatant vandalism. --Yamla 15:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Now he's posting under an IP address (72.81.115.195). He was on Birdman's page today. Georgia Peachez 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Eva Green Picture

Why do you insist on taking every picture down? Using fair use picture in wikipedia articles is pretty commonly accepted if no free image can be found. Why not use the picture on Vesper Lynd? You haven't taken that down. Nor have you taken down any images from the Casino Royale article. I also have to say I object to your warning about posting images. The wording is very negative and will likely scare people away from contributing any free pictures. --Phoenix Hacker 08:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this is not the case. Fair-use images may not be used to depict living people, it is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. However, the image on Vesper Lynd is not being used to depict a living person, it is being used to depict a fictional character and the image page contains a detailed fair-use rationale justifying its use. It is, therefore, acceptable there. The warning on the article about Eva Green is to prevent people who, like you, mistakenly believe the image would be appropriate there, from adding an inappropriate image. This is happening quite frequently and so the wording needed to be strengthened. The previous standard warning was being blatantly ignored. I fail to see how a warning that specifically states, "Only freely-licensed images are permitted here" would stop someone from adding a freely-licensed image, however. What do you base this on? --Yamla 15:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm blind. I can't find any mention of living people on WP:FUC. Are you referring to some other policy? Also, I took no issue to the warning, but the line "the image you are about to add is almost certainly in violation of Wikipedia policies and may result in you being blocked." is a bit negative and I could see it driving people off. --Phoenix Hacker 20:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Veronica Mars.jpg

I personally had a quick look at that page today and there was no boilerplate and there was a fair use rationale.. it appears you are now making out of process deletions with false deletion reasons? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Rationales must be specific to the article it is being used in. This was not done for that image and so the image was deleted according to process as having been marked as missing a rationale for more than seven days. Please see WP:FUC. --Yamla 15:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't marked.. and you know as well as I even if it was it is a {{sofixit}} situation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It was marked on October 18, 2006. If you wish, I will undelete it and you can provide a detailed fair-use rationale for each use. --Yamla 15:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes you may and please restore the edit dated October, 18, it may also be advisable to warn the editor who removed the boiler plate not to remove them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I am writing up a nice detailed fair use rationale now. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
All done. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. You did a great job with that image. It now stands as one of the great examples of a well-sourced and well-rationalised image on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

IDIOT - DEFINITION - YAMLA

Yamla has to be one of the worse so called 'administators' that I have ever had the misfortune to get screwed over by. How the hell you managed to get voted in as administrator, only you know, I imagine it was only you in the room that day when the 'votes' were cast.

You seem to have no idea on Wikipedia policies, and seem to get some sort of cheap thrill with the power that has been entrusted to you.

I just wish they would remove you as administrator as soon as possible, it's a shame users who enjoy the whole Wiki experience have to put up with you power hungry fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.246.218.85 (talk • contribs)

Personal attacks are not permitted here. Please see WP:NPA. --Yamla 19:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm

Dude, I kinda feel that you are being a little bit too hard on me. You are acting like I am a michevous troublemaker just becasue I want to illustrate Wikipedia articles. Like with the Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser images, I don't think it is bad to link a ten year old image of a car made by a company that doesn't exist anymore. And with JoJo, I don't think that just putting the high road album cover for her head image was worth blocking me over. Reverting it would have just been enough. Just wanted to get it off my chest. Karrmann 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please reread WP:FUC. --Yamla 05:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

842.gif-rohun

but this image really doesnt infring any copyright law ,you can search the net anywhere if you'll find this file anywhere ,i created this file myself,using a fully registered version of ulead gif-animator and my own video file !!! ,its not from any internet site or any other sources ,me and only me has this image ,no-one else .Now can you be so nice to please leave a message for me that its okay to modify the page with 842.gif file :)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohun (talk • contribs)

But I don't think it was your own video file. It looks like a video file from a movie. That means that you don't own the copyright to the result, the people who created the movie do. --Yamla 15:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

it is a gif file ,mr yamla,the difference and what is gif file and how it differs from a video file ,you can read at wikipedia itself !and what do you think most of the wallpapers come from in exsistence ??all are made from the video source of the movie, so now why dont you go to every movie related webpage here and remove the pictures from there??jesus man ,whats wrong with a self made gif file ?--rohun

Simply stealing a few frames from a video does not give you copyright over the image, an animated GIF would also likely not qualify as fair use when a single frame would suffice. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
No, gif files have nothing to do with it. The problem is that the screenshots are from a movie. Wikipedia is not permitted to use movie wallpapers either, except as per the film-screenshot license (just as in this case). That is, we can use a screenshot (or an animated screenshot) from a film to illustrate and provide critical commentary on the film. However, the copyright for that screenshot would remain with the film creators regardless of whether you took the screenshots or not. You say "self-made gif file" but in fact, you did not make it entirely by yourself. You simply took screenshots of a copyrighted film, which means that the copyright still rests with the film. --Yamla 20:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Not being used to provide critical commentary. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 15:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC) and putting {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced|month=November|day=25|year=2006}} "

1.What the problem with [[Image:HoleInTheHead.gif]] ???--hottie 15:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Are you watching my contributions?

3. You just deleted almost all the pics from the Sugababes' single articles but you also removed the singles chronology it means you're not actually reading the things you remove you just remove remove remove, so would you added back those singles chronology you remove since it's not illegal and doesn't need a "fair use sentence"--hottie 16:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As to number 1, I don't know. Can you be more specific? Which page was it removed from, etc.? For number 2, yes. Your recent image uploads have been including detailed fair-use rationales but if I remember correctly, your earlier contributions were not. I'm still not convinced that the images you upload are being used to provide critical commentary in the articles they are being used in, though. Note that it is not sufficient just to use an image to illustrate an article, the image must make a meaningful contribution to the article. As to #3, if you can find a single picture I removed which had an appropriate fair-use rationale, please let me know. I had no idea I was removing your images, but the ones I was removing did not have a rationale for the articles they were being used in. ALL fair-use images require a detailed fair-use rationale, so you are mistaken that one is not required for a singles chronology. Additionally, the images must make a meaningful contribution to the article, which was not the case for the singles chronology. --Yamla 18:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamla. I think the point about #3 is that when you removed the images, you also removed a section from the infoboxes that was meant to be there. I've put it back in, but could you be more careful in future? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What!? Blocked!?!?

Hi. I wonder why did you blocked me. There is nothing wrong with the Image:Starbuck Season 3.jpg. The other images from this series and a lot of the images from other articles (as 24, ER, etc) have the same discription and are considered ok. I`m sorry if you don`t understand the concept of "Promotional image" (this already say everything about the fair use), but don`t do this anymore ok? Block people for nonsense reasons is not good for you and for anybody. And, however I uploaded images with mistakes on the discription field in the past, my recent uploaded images have nothing wrong and you are the only one to complain. Hope you don`t start to use your "power" just to show "who is in command".Rockdolly 18:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, that image is still missing a detailed fair-use rationale. I cannot speak to these other images you list but this particular one fails WP:FUC. Please note that I am not "in command" of the Wikipedia by any stretch of the imagination. As an administrator, it is my responsibility to enforce Wikipedia policy, however. --Yamla 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

c14u

I saw the checkuser request. Shocking that we might have another sockpuppet, isn't it?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually a little surprised it is taking us so long to find them. I really wish I knew what the next step was when someone is this blatantly abusive. It already takes a good hour or so to roll back all of the contributions when we catch a new sockpuppet. --Yamla 03:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
c14u has abused Wikipedia too much already. I might have to alert WP:DEFCON.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember Twentyboy/Hungrygirl?

Your 1 month block on this IP has just expired, and he's reappeared as User:Lonelyboy. Same pages, same comments, same habit of editing his edits twenty times in a row, same trolling (this and this are nice examples...). He hasn't started issuing insults yet, though. I'll keep a check on his contribs to see what happens. yandman 08:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

U and ur fair use rationale on pictures i contribute

Not to be offesive or threathening but honestly look at all the images in Professional wrestling aerial techniques or even Professional wrestling attacks none of them whatsover have any raionale they have one Fair use copyright tag and thats it .So why in hells name are you coming after me only? It just makes writing up rationales useless and i just feel frustrated and just want to leave wiki forever because of this injustice so in the end your warnings on my user page are like a threath and a violation of something you are trying to inforce WP:NPA --Wally787 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not coming after you only. Please check out my contribution log. Warning users about violations of policy is not considered to be a personal attack. All copyrighted images must have the source (including copyright holder), an accurate license, and a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale. Your images are missing this information --Yamla 17:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Could you tell me if this image is correctly sourced, Image:The Runners.jpg --Darkneonflame 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Also this image, Image:Famous logo.jpg. Just delete them if they arent correctly sourced. --Darkneonflame 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
They are sourced but are not provided with any rationale justifying their use on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 17:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

Your welcome! :) Jtervin 21:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Image:Furtado02.jpg

Hey there, I was told to have a fair use rational for this image, but i didn't actually upload this image into Wikipedia. I clicked on this picture a long time ago when i didn't know how things worked, and randomly clicked a button and my user name appeared right next to the edit...so what should i be doing? should i just leave it alone or let someone else edit it..thanks Ô 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd just leave it alone if I was you. It'll be deleted automatically in a few days. Thanks! --Yamla 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


JonBenet

Hi Yamla, You're really not giving me an explanation of how the license is being violated. You keep complaining that there isn't a detailed fair use explanation -- I elaborated last night and gave what I believe to be ample evidence that the picture is eligible for fair use, and at the same tiem you are not giving a clear or detailed explanation of why you keep removing it. Please advise.

---Mellowaim10 17:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The license states that the image may be used "to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question, with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above". The publication name is not visible in the image itself, nor is it written in the image description. The image is not being used to illustrate the publication of the magazine or newspaper but rather, to identify Ramsey. We may not use the image under this license to depict Ramsey but only in accordance with the license itself to illustrate the particular newspaper or magazine article. --Yamla 22:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Advertisments accusation

You have Recently sent me a PM ascribing that I have added advertisments to the page of sombody called Evangeline Lilly ( a lady whom I have neither heard or visited the page of)


Please Do Not PM me again with such non-sense accusational rubbish again.


-TDK1987



(unless it was some kind of joke then I don't realy care; I would have thought there is more things to life then randomly accusing people) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.169.208 (talk • contribs)

Please see the message at the bottom of your discussion page. Someone from that IP address clearly violated WP:EL: here. If you don't want to get confused about messages, please ensure you log in as your discussion page indicates. --Yamla 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

image deletion

WRT to this out of respect to other editors, please explain at the talk page how you arrived to the conclusion that the dispute is not valid. TIA, --Irpen 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No explanation was given as to why a free replacement could not be created. You provided a rationale that tried to claim this could not be replaced except by a professional photographer but that is insufficient grounds for a dispute. The subject of the photograph is still around so by the first fair-use criteria, a replacement could be created. Admittedly, it may not look as good but this is irrelevant. If the entertainer is unhappy with a free image, they are certainly free to provide a replacement freely-licensed image themselves. Then you brought up the issue of whether it would be reasonable to create a free replacement, again not a criteria under WP:FUC. --Yamla 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
please read the talk page and explain your position wrt to other editor's points there. TIA, --Irpen 23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That page has been deleted as per speedy G8. None of the disputes raised had validity as per the fair-use criteria policy. --Yamla 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Read talk again. Also, even if you disagree we oviously have a good faith disagreement here which is impossible to discuss since you single-handedly deleted thew discussion page. You owe it to users who disagreed with the image's being disputed to treat their arguments with respect and respond to them rather than delete the whole page. --Irpen 00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The disagreement is, I'm sure, in good faith but as an administrator, it is my responsibility to enforce the policy. And I did so. The problem with the objections raised (actually, that the objections were not sufficient grounds for a dispute) was clearly explained by Quadell and by Postdlf. Your objections were with the policy itself rather than to do with this particular image. You believe, for example, that the fair-use criteria should allow for fair-use images if they are of a higher quality than likely freely-licensed replacements, but this is not what Wikipedia policy allows for. The image violates WP:FUC and has been deleted accordingly. If you disagree with the policy, please suggest a wording change though I'll note that several such have failed to garner consensus in recent weeks. --Yamla 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy is not clear-cut and is subject to interpretation. You owe an explanation not just to myself but to all users who opined at the talk page. You failed to provide any and dismissed others' argument by deleting the talk page where the arguments where placed along with the image. I request you restore it until the issue of policy interpretation is resolved between users who discuss it. Again, this is not only about the policy as I explained at the article's talk. --Irpen 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly straight-forward. The subject of the photo still exists, therefore Wikipedia assumes the image is replaceable. Replaceable images are deleted after two days (or seven, for older images). No evidence was given that the person was dead or in hiding or that there was any other reason to believe the image was not replaceable. It was deleted according to process. I have nothing further to say on the matter. --Yamla 02:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

If you read the whole description page on Image:Fergalicious cd.jpg you can clearly see the rationale for fair use, its right there, Im not sure what more your looking for, if you look at all the other CD covers used on Fergie (singer) they all use simuliar rational and those images are fine, whats the difference? Aspensti 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have specifically pointed out, WP:FUC requires that the fair-use rationale specifically list which article it is for. The fair-use rationale for that image does not. If you find other images which also fail WP:FUC, please mark them appropriately. --Yamla 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Your the one whos so hard up on it, so you can go ahead and delete the image, just make sure you delete every other album cover on that article, and corresponding articles, and if you feel that strongly about it, you can start looking at every other singer and band article and delete all their images which use the same liscencing. Aspensti 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User IAF

Hi Yamla, could you have a look at these repeated vandalism by IAF which are blatantly POV vandalisms. I have explained to him that his edits are unacceptable, but User_talk:IAF#IPKF he has admitted that he is deleting things he deems propaganda. As such these are blatant vandalism. Please could you have a look? Rueben lys 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Help mold a newbie

I appreciate your recent advice. I am new to Wiki and am trying to learn all I can because I want to contribute in the future. I added the citation to the Jennifer Connely page because I felt that the statement that the Hulk was a box-office disappointment needed sourcing. I am trying to learn more and more about Wiki policies, so can you please direct me to a Wiki policy page with more information about the types of statements that need sourcing and to a policy that would exclude the source I cited. I can assure you that I have no connection to the site I linked to, I just thought it explained the opinion the statement expressed. I would also be interested in knowing why you would assume I have a connection to that site because if I choose to contribute something in the future, I don't want to be labeled a spammer. Thanks again for your help. BHFeller 16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'll add the 'welcome' template to the top of your talk page if it isn't there already. As to the specific questions you have raised here, I urge you to check out WP:V, WP:CITE, and in particular, WP:RS. WP:SPAM and WP:EL are worth reading as well but don't specifically apply here if I remember correctly. If you have any questions after reading these, please let me know. And once again, welcome to the Wikipedia! --Yamla 18:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. That really helps. I read all the stuff you told me too and it clears up a lot of my q's. Hopefully I'll make it around the learning curve soon. Maybe as a rule of thumb for myself, should I only add potential sources to the discussion pages of topics? Or can I feel confident adding stuff right to pages knowing that I may get reverted or reprimanded? I'm just trying to get a sense of where the boundary of getting blocked lies. I am so pumped right now to have found out about Wikipedia and found out how fun it is to edit stuff and contribute and I would be very saddened if I was cut off from it by my own ignorance. I'm basically home bound with health issues (except for the occasional Nascar trip with my dad -check out a few of my picture contributions) and was getting so sick of surfing useless, spammy crap online. That all changed a few days ago when I read an article about Wikipedia. I feel now that I can contribute something meaningful to the world.

Well, you can never go wrong adding the sources to the discussion page first.  :) But you should be safe adding them to the main article, particularly if you say in the edit summary to please remove source if not reliable. In general, people get a number of warnings before being blocked and we try not to block people who are legitimately trying hard to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Even if you are blocked, the first block is almost always for 24 hours, after which you are once again welcome to contribute. Heck, some of our best contributors violated a number of policies and were blocked several times and then turned things around. But in reality, we try only to block editors who are wilfully disregarding Wikipedia policies. --Yamla 15:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind and if you have the time, I would really appreciate if you could explain something to me just to help me in the future. After reading through the policies I want to make sure I understand why I have been reprimanded by you for my contribution to the Jennifer Connelly page. I think I read in one of the policy pages that you told me to read that online pages which are peer reviewed can be considered reliable when other experts are the editors (or something to that effect -I could be misquoting the policy). I can't remember the source I cited off the top of my head, but I think it was a movie industry site that had a lot of experts listed as contributors. What was it about that citation that caused you to label it as spam and unreliable in under 30 seconds. I am not trying to be critical of you at all, I'm just trying to learn. After reading the Jennifer Connelly article and being suprised that The Hulk was considered a box-office disappointment (I liked The Hulk), I searched for a good source for an hour to back that statement up. I'm just trying to figure out how I could have been so wrong with the source I cited that I almost got kicked off Wikipedia. Is there some type of an automated newcomer skepticism that I should be prepared for, or was my source just so bad that it set off some type of alarm at your house or something. I was stunned with how quick I was smacked. That's great that it happens so fast, but I just want to avoid it in the future cause it stung. Maybe I just need to develop thicker skin cause reprimands, accusations and threats of being kicked out happen all the time here at Wiki. I just don't want to spend a ton more time researching how to be a good editor if I am already on thin ice of getting thrown out. Can you speak to this issue for me if I'm making any sense? I'm just trying to get a sense of the culture here to see if I even want to contribute any more stuff. Thanks in advance for any help.BHFeller 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You certainly weren't almost blocked, you got only the first-level warning. Even if you had totally ignored that, you'd still get another warning or three before being blocked. As to the specific citation that you added (this one, I believe), I rejected it because it is clearly a blog. The article makes unverifiable claims. Now, if this was the New York Times, we'd know that even though the sources weren't spelled out, the reporter relied on two independent sources or whatever. But it's a blog. It's also inherently point-of-view. Now, WP:RS gives information on how to determine what is a good source and what is not. But in general, blogs are not. An exception would be made, though, if, say, Bill Gates had a blog and made a claim. In that case, the blog may serve to cite that Gates's claim, though not necessarily on the accuracy of the claim itself. Please let me know if you have any more questions or if I missed one of your questions. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. --Yamla 15:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! The GFDL stuff will take a little digesting so maybe I will hold off on submitting new pics I took until I understand it better. Thanks again. BHFeller 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use

After you didn't respond to my last message, I've continued to upload in a manner which I feel precendent clearly shows is legitimate. I see again, despite the lack of response to the previous message, you've continue to monitor and attack my uploads. You're vilanizing me on Wikipedia and I would appreciate justification. Sean Hayford O'Leary 02:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You've clearly been active since I posted this message, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to have expected a response by now. Now I feel made a legitimate argument defending my uploads, and I'm only asking that you back up your behavior. Thank you. Sean Hayford O'Leary 03:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

After you abruptly ended our last discussion on the legitimacy of my logo uploads, I see you've now gone after more recent uploads on the accusation that I'm still violating fair use policies.

You'll find the precedent is clear. On many popular articles, you'll find logos with the same or less source information provided:

And many, many more. Here's my issue:

  1. Our last conversation never received an affirmative response from you. This lead me to the reasonable belief that you had not opposed my final arguments.
  2. Logos, unlike other fair use images, are more comfortably nestled in fair use as they are blatently representative of the organization or product.
  3. There is a clear precedent (listed above) of logos -- even in popular articles -- being used with limited source information. This is legitimate because, again, the logo is clearly representative of the content of the article and used by the organization or product to promote itself. Unlike other fair use images, it has no risk of damaging the organization.

Sean Hayford O'Leary 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In the long time since you wrote these comments. the first image you mentioned above was deleted due to violating WP:FUC. Of the remainder, Image:DaimlerChrysler.png and Image:Time Warner.svg were uploaded before the fair-use rationales were required. The rest have now been marked as missing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationales and if these are not provided, will be deleted in seven days. ALL fair-use images require a detailed fair-use rationale justifying their use in the particular Wikipedia articles. This is specifically mentioned in the license text. Additionally, this is part of WP:FUC, our fair-use criteria, and is explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. Obviously, this is not required for freely-licensed images. And generally, most logos can get away with much less detailed a rationale then, say, a promotional photograph could. But still, they are required under Wikipedia policies. In general, using other articles or images on the Wikipedia is a natural but not a particularly effective means of arguing. I'm not accusing you of anything by that statement; my point is simply that a lot of Wikipedia articles violate policy. This is grounds for correcting the infractions, not for doing the same on other articles. Of course, this is countered by the fact that Wikipedia has a lot of policies and so it is entirely natural to do on one article what others do on another. --Yamla 03:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Woody Allen image

I tried to upload an image of Woody Allen Image:476px-Woody Allen - statue.jpg from Wikimedia Commons to Woody Allen, I'm not sure if I did it properly because when I viewed other Wikipedia pictures that reference wikicommons I do not see any text on the edit page. Also I can't find the template for: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below", I was wondering if you could tell me how to upload a picture from Wikicommons for an article? :) Valoem talk 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know how to do this. However, my understanding is that you don't need to do this except for an article about to hit the front-page. The point of Wikicommons is to share such content amongst the various Wikipedia projects, so you should just be able to reference the image in the commons. --Yamla 15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I figured out how to do it :). You can delete the image Image:476px-Woody Allen - statue.jpg as it is just a copy of an image from wikicommons now. Thanks Valoem talk 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:LonelyGirlWiredCover.jpg

G'day mate, Regarding the recently uploaded LonelyGirlWiredCover.jpg and you subsequent dispute of its fair use, would you consider my addition to the summary as fair use rationale? I didn't upload the image but I believe it helps strengthen the remarkability of the article. Hope to hear back. -Lemike 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've already responded on the image, hehe. I understand entirely what you've appended, thanks for clarifying. -Lemike 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is sufficient. Of course, it was being used to depict Lonelygirl which is a violation of the license, but I just took a look and it seems that you have moved the image further down. But now, the image seems to be used simply to illustrate this section of the article and does not really contribute meaningfully to the article as a whole. As such, it is still in violation of WP:FUC. This is particularly true as the article itself does not discuss her appearance on the cover of the Wired magazine which tends to imply there's no reason to depict that cover. --Yamla 17:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
So if I wrote a bit on her appearance on the cover, would it qualify? Also, regarding LonelyGirl15 Bree.jpg, I've added a little bit of rationale to the summary. The image that was in the respective articles infobox prior to the Wired magazine one was a screencap of one of the videos so I figured I could use the same theory (but of course with a better capture :P). Help me out, if you would. -Lemike 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if and only if the image adds meaningfully to the article. We are not permitted to use fair-use images solely for illustrative purposes (that is, simply to add more images to the article). It is unclear to me if the wired cover could add meaningfully to the article, however. --Yamla 17:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I'm with you now. I think the only fair grounds for usage of the Wired image would be to, as very briefly mentioned on the image page, illustrate the fact that a videoblog (which is of course one of hundreds of thousands online), has been surprisingly and extensively covered in traditional media. What do you think? -Lemike 17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur. That the character made the cover of Wired indicates that the coverage has been fairly extensive. --Yamla 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Having found an online copy of the Wired article it seems the focus is definitely on YouTube and not lonelygirl15 itself. I presume this could hinder the aforementioned fair use rationale? Either way I am going to write a little piece on the extensive media coverage. -Lemike 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have that edition of Wired but have not read the story yet. The safest approach, of course, is not to use the cover. However, if you write a paragraph or more on the extensive media coverage and in that paragraph, specifically mention the Wired article, I'd support the inclusion of the image if you thought it appropriate. It seems to me that you have a pretty good understanding now as to whether or not it would be includeable. --Yamla 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

c14u sockpuppet (13th time???)

Would you mind checking User:PumpkinPie on the Checkuser? The account, welcomed by User:Pumpkin Pie (see talk page), seems very suspicious.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I alerted admins on WP:ANI in case you're interested.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by User IAF

Hi Yamla, please could you have a look at these repeated vandalism of the IPKF page by IAF which he admits editing with POV, and is accusing me of making POV edits (although I haven't contributed to this article) when I pointed out to him that these are well referenced claims of human rights abuse.

He is now accusing me of vandalism. Rueben lys 13:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sugababes image

Still in violation of WP:FUC. You are saying that my image 'Sugababespromo.jpg' fails the first fair use criteria because "the source of the picture still exists and given that this is the current lineup, that is the case." So i cannot upload an image if the subject still exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel patrick (talk • contribs)

You cannot upload a fair-use image if the subject of the image still exists, that's correct. At least, except under extreme circumstances. For example, if a person has gone into hiding, we do not consider it possible to get a replacement even though the subject still exists. --Yamla 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok well i have changed the license tag as i see i cannot use it under fair-use image and have appropiately changed it. I found Image:Gapromo.jpg and my image applies by and shares the same properties, so i have used a similar tag. Lionel patrick 23:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You changed it to another fair-use license. In fact, any license for this image will be a fair-use license as it is clearly a copyrighted image not released under a free license. --Yamla 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok well if it doesn't abide by law, then remove it, i'm not trying to take the mickey, just trying to understand this. Could u just explain to me how i can get a picture of the current line-up by abiding the wikipedia law. Do i use their official websites or can i not? Where do i get freely licensed images? Does this mean no picture can be used for this group? I see pictures of other subjects that still exist, but thought because most were from the US, i had to find a license that applies to the UK. Lionel patrick 07:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As the subject of the image still exists, you have to find a freely-licensed image. That is, an image released to the public domain (not copyrighted), or licensed under the GFDL or most Creative Commons licenses. This essentially means that any copyrighted image will likely be unsuitable, which includes any image from their website. If you yourself took an image, you could release it under one of those licenses. This may not be reasonable, of course; there's little chance that I could get an image of the Sugababes, for example, as I no longer live in the United Kingdom. However, if someone else has taken an image of them, they may be willing to license it under one of these licenses. Often, you can find images on flikr taken by fans that are already licensed appropriately. There are also search engines to find CC-licensed images, though I don't recall where exactly. As a general rule, promotional images are inappropriate on the Wikipedia except where it is a logical impossibility to find a replacement. That means they are acceptable to depict fictional characters. --Yamla 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jen.jpg

- "Used in blatant violation of license and deliberate violation of WP:FUC. --Yamla 22:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" - Very rude comment from User:Yamla. To use the words "blatant violation" without discussing with image owner is very unprofessional. Please get your head out of the sand every now and then. I have uploaded this image for the same reason your working so hard for Wikipedia - try and make information pages as high-quality as possible for readers. I don't do this for business! - I have uploaded this image with confidence that I can use TV screenshot to identify the actress. The image summary is pretty self-explanatory. Any technical violation is inadvertent. Plus, your comments do not fully explain the violations made by my image upload. So I suggest you come up with a better and more professional explanation. This way, you will help us to understand copyright issues better - that is if you want to. Ash sul 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This edit shows you removing the warning not to insert copyrighted images such as the one you inserted and points you to the policy that deals with fair-use images. That you removed this to insert your image in violation of this policy is what merited the warning. You may not use a TV screenshot to identify the actress. Please reread WP:FUC. --Yamla 17:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I am baffled by the sheer lack of details on your work or explanation on my image. You have so far only explained why you have removed this image from "Jennifer Aniston" article (although that is still a matter of debate as I have plenty of examples of screenshots being used as actor/actress identifier - Example). But I cannot understand why you have tagged the image itself for deletion.
I have read WP:FUC. TV screenshot upload (copyright) issue clearly states that an image can be used for identifying/commenting a TV program and/or its contents. So logic would dictate that my screen shot is perfectly valid as it describes a TV advertisement.
So please stop this nonsense and remove your "quick deletion" tag from my image immediately. If you have any rational objections (which you are currently lacking), I suggest we get a second opinion, possibly from an actual administrator. Ash sul 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete the image, another admin did. However, if the image is not used in any articles, we are not permitted to keep it around (assuming it is a fair-use image). As to other fair-use images being used to depict living people, these would also generally be in violation of WP:FUC. This is grounds to mark those images as problem, not an excuse to use fair-use images inappropriately in additional locations. The license clearly states that the image can be used for "identification and critical commentary on the station ID or the program and its contents". You were not doing so, you were using the image solely to illustrate a living person for whom a replaceable freely-licensed image could be created. Note that a tv screenshot may be used to depict that t.v. show. This is entirely different from using a t.v. screenshot to depict an actor from that show, which is not permitted. Now, you are welcome to seek another opinion but note that another administrator (Nv8200p) already reviewed this image and found it to be inappropriate for the Wikipedia as it was being used. However, given that the image was clearly a fair-use image (it was a t.v. screenshot) and given that it was being used to depict a subject which still exists (in this case, a living actor) in violation of the first criteria of WP:FUC, you will not get very far with a third opinion. --Yamla 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No! I didn't know that you're an administrator. Your willingness towards being more arrogant and unprofessional was a far cry from general web administrators (especially on non-profitable sites), who generally tend to be more helpful and professional.
As for the copyright issue, it is now clear to me that, although you know copyright facts in great details, you are just willing to make things difficult rather than take the professional and rational approach. If you knew all along that all this image needed was "specific pointer towards the TV program itself" (i.e. - if the image had been labelled as (for example) "Jennifer Aniston seen here during a Heineken TV commercial - Example", this image could have been saved). You could have done this yourself. Obviously it is your ego that has prevented you from resorting to "fixing other peoples problems".
 But certainly it was a good experience for me.Ash sul 10:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the case as has been pointed out to you both by the pointer to WP:FUC and by explanation. Once again, you may not use a fair-use image to depict an actor from the show. You may not use fair-use images to depict living people. Had the image been marked with a specific pointer towards the TV program itself, it could have been used in an article about that tv commercial but not in an article about Jennifer Aniston, to depict Aniston. Please do not leave me any more comments until you have read WP:FU to which I have repeatedly directed you. Additionally, please read WP:NPA. Your personal attacks are unwarranted and may lead to a block. --Yamla 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:James.jpg warning on my talk page

Not me, guv - if you check the File history I was only reverting another user's replacement of that image. The original uploader for the current version is Rajsingam (talk · contribs), it is they who you should be contacting.

Keep up the good work, new image patrol is a thankless task (I used to do it myself), your efforts are appreciated, by me at least. :) Qwghlm 16:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post the warning to the correct person. And yes, definitely a thankless task.  :) Have a good day. --Yamla 16:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

blocking my current and my old usernames

Please block my current username and my old Lieutenant D. G. username forever. Thanks. Sergeant Gerzi 10:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Lonelyboy

As I said earlier, this user is a sock of User:Twentyboy/User:Hungrygirl. This guy is operating from User:65.31.99.71. He was able to appear because the block on the IP was only one month (as opposed to the indef-blocks of the named accounts). He reappeared as soon as the 1 month IP block ran out, and I decided to give him a chance, but it's my belief he has no wish to participate constructively. He's started trolling around religious pages, insulting other users, and basically reverting to the type of behaviour that got him blocked beforehand. I gave him a warning to calm down, but he replied in a rather unpleasant way. Would you mind re-blocking his IP (I'm asking you because you were slightly involved in the Twentyboy episode)? Thanks. yandman 15:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

When he was trolling me he stated he just had to disconnect to get another IP address and was blocked several times - I don't believe eh actually uses a static IP. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, he made this claim to me beforehand, and it's false. All his edits have been from the computer at 65.31.99.71 (as attests the fact that there was no activity on certain pages he likes during the month his IP was blocked). yandman 15:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked this IP address for 6 months. We can't block IP addresses indefinitely but given that this user has uttered death threats and claims he has every intention of continuing to attack the Wikipedia, the block seems reasonable. --Yamla 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Yamla. Hopefully he'll have grown up by then. yandman 15:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions about admins

Hi Yamla! I have some questions about administrators.

  • How can I become an administrator?
  • Is an administrator able to block other administrators?
  • Are the administrators paid?
  • Oh and I'd like to know, how can I create a Stop-hand image? What shall I enter to the edit page to create a stop-hand image?

Greetings!!! Pooter-the-clown 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:ADMIN for the answer to most of these questions. Administrators can block other administrators. It is most definitely an unpaid position. As to a stop-hand image, if you don't want to use one of the existing ones, you'll have to find or create a freely-licensed image yourself and then upload it. --Yamla 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

page blank

Please do not blank my userpage. I spent nearly an hour to create my own userpage. Pooter-the-clown 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not permitted to use copyrighted material on your user page. --Yamla 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don`t care anymore

Hi. Ok, I´m done here. I was trying to make this encyclopedia better, with better images on my series pages. But now that you are bugging me, I don`t want it anymore. You are a very hard person, and makes noise with things that any other admin does. I`m just sad that there is a admin like you, that look for trouble when there is not one. Seems like if you are stocking me, what is just a sad thing to do. I will not make edits in this wiki anymore. You got what you want: send people away. Congratulations! In some time, you will be the only user on the english wikipedia. I hope you enjoy! Oh yeah... Doesn`t need a reply for me. I will not read it. Thanks! Rockdolly 00:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Blocking

Hi You Blocked my ip for add the word "ex-" to "market town" on the Rawlett High School Page dont you think this is unfair. You do not live in Tamworth I am guessing so how would you know!

STUART email to stupiemountain@msn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupiemountain (talk • contribs)

As far as I can see, your account is not blocked. Please tell me your IP address so I can look into it. --Yamla 02:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam4Adam salted

Hi, I have a question: why was the article Adam4Adam deleted and protected? I am correct that this was an attempt at an article about the networking/sex website? I was recently doing some research on this exact topic and coincidentally saw this on the list of protected deleted pages. What was the cause of this happening? (You are shown as the admin who did the deed.) Thanks --Dmz5 06:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that I have nothing against the website itself (though in all fairness, I've never been to that website). The problem was that the page kept on being recreated, each time failing Wikipedia guidelines. I wasn't responsible for the first two times it was deleted but the third time, it was recreated without an undeletion vote and still had no indication as to why this particular website was notable (see WP:WEB). The page could be recreated if WP:WEB and WP:UNDEL were followed. If you would like to see the content of the page before it was deleted, please let me know. I can assure you there is nothing there that could help in your research, however. --Yamla 17:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of famous tall men

You need to provide a reliable source that cites his height. Please see WP:CITE and WP:RS. Note specifically that gossip magazines and blogs are generally not acceptable under WP:RS. It can actually be rather difficult to find a reliable source to show someone's height, but celebheights.com is sometimes able to do so (though celebheights itself is not a reliable source). --Yamla 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My contributions

You have licensed your contributions under the GFDL and this is a permanent thing. In some cases, your contributions may be changed or deleted (for example, someone rewords one of your contributions, or something like that). It's generally not considered appropriate to remove your comments from another user's talk page, though this is not against policy exactly. The other person may remove your comments, or your comments may get archived. If you want to remove previous comments from another user's talk page, you are best off contacting that person and politely explaining your unusual request. In my experience, every time this has happened, the person has been happy to oblige, even in cases of flame wars. --Yamla 17:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Same way you edit any contribution. Use the edit this page button. --Yamla 17:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't really predict the future. Wikipedia started just under six years ago. I would imagine that the contributions from back then are still around so it is certainly possible that your contributions will survive ten or twenty years. It's entirely possible that they may survive 100 years. You've licensed them permanently, which means forever. --Yamla 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You said that I can change my contributions but how can I do this? I looked into the historypage and then I clicked to my contributions and there was no sign of "edit". How can I change my contributions? Pooter-the-clown 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You can't edit them from the history, only from the current page. --Yamla 21:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The one that was from Uncle Buck? Yes. It was funny but it was also a violation of copyright. --Yamla 17:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

into [7]? Or is that also forbidden? Pooter-the-clown 10:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not permitted to link to pages which violate copyright. This new link also presents copyrighted material for which it does not have permission so no, you cannot link to it. --Yamla 14:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but excuse me...

Yes, I did forget a source for JMoore.jpg. But, you do not need to treat me like a fool by placing three seperate comments on my talk page, that all basically say the same thing: I screwed up. I especially do not appreciate the last message, that took the tone of a warning message like I had kept uploading images without sources. True, i have uploaded many images to wikipedia...but all of the other ones have sources. Yes, I will go back and check...but i'm 99% sure that this was a one time screw up. Thinking back, I did this once before..about a year ago uploading my very first image. I'm sorry, I dont mean to be rude...but your excessive comments are insulting and unnecessary.Ganfon 18:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Every fair-use image I checked was missing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale required by the license. For example, Image:Ed4Ep17.jpg and Image:Ed4Ep2.jpg (neither of which have an accurate source, either). --Yamla 18:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That 1%=

Alright, so i did forget an original site on my last two uploads, but I have since fixed that, and I appologize. However, i did remember on all my other uploads, and still think you were way to...brash with your 3 comments, and accusations.Ganfon 18:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-free photos of bands etc.

There is an interesting debate going on at Image talk:Wheatus 2005.jpg (regarding Image:Wheatus 2005.jpg). It have repercussions for future use of fair use images of bands.

Also, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok. Jimbo's outside view in the second RfC is fairly interesting. Sincerely, --Oden 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Oden. --Yamla 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Alfredosolis

Apparently the sockpuppet reporting page has not been visited by an admin in ages, so I just want to inform you about possible Alfredosolis sockpuppets as can be read here. Gdo01 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Image question

Dear Yamla, I had planned on downloading this image, and editing it to remove red eye, bluriness etc. however, as it's released under the Creative Commons licence, I'm not sure if I could then upload the edited version as I could with a public domain image. Even if I do give the intended attribution. Thanks a lot, SteveLamacq43 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, provided you still give credit to the original authors. See Creative Commons and Creative Commons licenses. The text of the particular license would be useful as well, of course, but the point of the cc attribution license is to "Permit others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and derivative works based upon it only if they give you credit." (emphasis mine). --Yamla 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks for your help! SteveLamacq43 16:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism???

I actually just posted an image which you've decided is copyvio. And if you'd actually read the article and checked the history you would have seen that I made several edits which expanded and enhanced the article and did not delete any data entered by another user.

So please post the appropriate message in future. GWP 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This was the appropriate message. You were warned that only freely-licensed images were permitted there. You chose to ignore this warning message and replace it with a copyrighted image used in blatant violation of its license, thus putting Wikipedia at direct risk for a copyright-infringement lawsuit. We certainly appreciate your constructive contributions but cannot accept images such as this, particularly when you have been explicitly warned against using them before you used them. --Yamla 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok

That's better now but really, haven't you got anything better to do? And I don't care if you're an administrator, the name-dropping on your title-page makes you look rather foolish. GWP 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks as per WP:NPA. --Yamla 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks...

... well please refrain from bothering me then - go and find some more famous people to get emails from. GWP 20:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

archive comments

Please tell me, how can I archive comments? Pooter-the-clown 21:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:ARCHIVE. --Yamla 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Timecop

I have undeleted and unblocked Timecop's stuff. He's been doing this for over a year, and most of it's been by-the-book Afd'ing. Digg is very good at making things seem bigger than they are. --humblefool® 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As you wish, although my deletion was supported by at least one other person. I encourage you to make note of this at WP:AN. I will not engage in a wheel war with you, and I thank you for looking into it. I disagree with your decision but I'll let it stand. --Yamla 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Strike one for internet fascism, Yamla. Let freedom ring! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.207.217.108 (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
Personal attacks will not be tolerated here. See WP:NPA. --Yamla 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask you that in future, for the sake of fairness and due process that you do not decline the unblock requests of users you block yourself unless the request is pure nonsense or abusive. From an ethical, reviews of blocks are meant to be carried out by a 3rd party. Thanks --  Netsnipe   ►  12:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I thought it was pretty clear in this case, given the editor's user page (GNAA, etc., etc., etc.), that the unblock request was pure nonsense. Also, I was under the impression that the unblock request would still be visible and reviewed by other admins. I'll be more careful in the future. --Yamla 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

It's me again. When you say "you need to find a free image" What exactly is that? Going out and take a picture of your favorite singer? Cut out a magazine picture and scan it? or find one from an image search? I'm a little slow at this, so can you break this down for me....again? If i'm getting on your nerves, let me know. Georgia Peachez 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Magazine images are copyrighted so they would be no good. Almost all images you find online will also be copyrighted and no good. You could take a photograph yourself. Alternatively, you need to find someone else's photograph where the image has been released under an open license such as the Creative Commons or GFDL. Unless you have specific reason to believe an image has been released to the public domain or under an open license, you must assume that this is not the case and the image is unusable on the Wikipedia to depict a living person. This will be the case for greater than 99% of the images you find. --Yamla 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla..even though I still don't understand it lol. Georgia Peachez 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Contract J.A.C.K.

What's your problem pall? Why did you revert my edit? I've just had an important question? Next time if you revert my edits, please add a comment on my talk page. Pooter-the-clown 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this edit to Talk:No One Lives Forever? Wikipedia article discussion pages are to be used to improve the article, not for comments like this. That said, have you checked out ebgames? I don't know if they ship to the UK (I think you are in the UK), and I've been out of the country too long to know about good alternatives. Anyway, this is entirely offtopic so I'll finish up here. --Yamla 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks

Well, please, in future, if you revert my edits then please leave a comment on my talk page as an announcement. Oh and I posted you another question about admins on the "Question about admins" page. I want to know, who is the administrator with the most abilities in Wikipedia? Pooter-the-clown 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

K HILARY DUFF

Hey, i dunno if its you but that picture of hilary duff that i beleive you keep putting back up sucks! It doesnt even look like her! The one i keep putting back up is 1000000% nicer! Can i just email you the picture and you can put it on permanently? If you go to the discussions board on the hilary duff page, everyone hates that picture of her with the kid! Thanks Maahem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maahem33 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

No. That image is unusable. Once again, please read WP:FU. Thanks. --Yamla 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Blog-triggered Blocks

Salut Yamla! Per the stuff over at ANI can I ask you to revisit your block against User:Femmina whether by your own hand or through third party review? Eusebeus 11:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that this account is a troll. For example, the user page has the following paragraph: "Help the GNAA fight for freedom. For a world without blogs. For a gay universe." Now, if you wish to unblock the account, I will not contest it. If you are not an admin, I will support you (or Femmina) requesting another admin to review the block. That is, I would not consider such action to be the start of a wheel war and would not revert the unblock. However, it remains my opinion that this user is a troll. --Yamla 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The offensiveness and adolescence of her user page is unfortunate, I agree with you. But the user is not a troll, as a review of contributions should indicate. I am not an admin, but would ask you to have your decision reviewed. Eusebeus 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The user page itself is evidence that the user is a troll. An editor who is not a troll would not have such a user page. Engaging in the blog-war is further evidence the user at the very least has an agenda. As I have mentioned, feel free to have a third party review the block, but please note that Timecop, an associated editor, is most likely about to be banned from the Wikipedia by community consensus. --Yamla 16:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well in that case I withdraw my objection. I understand the reaction, but I think it excessive. Eusebeus 11:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Aniston

Cannabis Culture is a legitimate magazine. She was quoted in that magazine (July, 2002) saying she occasionally uses marijuana[8] I would like to know why you can allow the article about her trying to give up smoking[9], and not the article about her using marijuana. It seems to be a double standard. Both sources could be called in question. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't. --Yamla 18:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for removing it and your work in helping to maintain Wikipedia as a legitimate resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:--63.167.255.231 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)|--63.167.255.231 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:--63.167.255.231 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/--63.167.255.231 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)|contribs]])

User:Danny Lilithborne is using an allegation

I tried to edit a Street Fighter-article but that guy has reverted some important informations and now he is putting an allegation on me as you can see it from here [10]. Please do something aganist that guy. Thanks. Pooter-the-clown 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You can request a checkuser be performed to provide evidence that you are not Lieutenant Dol Grenn. Please let me know if you wish to do this. As to the street fighter article, I'm not sure which one you are talking about. I see you made this edit but in that case, you failed to provide a citation, as you are required to do (see WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS). Apart from that, WP:ANI will investigate the matter. Please feel free to add your comments there but it is entirely inappropriate to blank sections of WP:ANI. --Yamla 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank You.

I just wanted to say thanks for clearing the air on that JonBenet Ramsey photo. I thought I understood the copyright/free use issue, but once I really read Wikipedia's explanation of what images can be used and why, I realized I had had no idea before. Reading your talk page I can see you get lots of snarky comments and unpleasant attitude so I just wanted to say thank you for being knowledgable about Wikipedia and not being afraid to share your knowledge. :) Mellowaim10 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for the compliments. Wikipedia has a rather large number of policies and the image copyright/fair-use policies are particularly obscure. Policing these images is not a good way to make friends but it is a good way to get edit counts up.  :) Have a good day. --Yamla 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Tennis...

Tennislover's IP was tested against known IPs utilized by Cute 1 4 u. They matched. Larger explanation at my talk.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 23:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. There were suspicions; it sounds like you had them too. And a checkuser verified the identity: I wouldn't have blocked without it. (You said "I'd welcome any evidence you have that this is a sock" so I'm thinking maybe you didn't realize that...?) In any case, I'm very convinced. Dmcdevit·t 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks you two. The checkuser page at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cute 1 4 u made no mention of this check and so I was just making sure that a checkuser really had been performed and that this wasn't just a situation where someone jumped the gun. You've certainly convinced me. Now, if only there was some way to stop future sockpuppets which we know are going to be created. --Yamla 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record (in case anyone stumbles across this thread in the future), my permanent ban case was resolved in my favor: I am not a sock puppet for cute 1 4 u or Tennislover. Tennis expert 02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

Would you mind perma-blocking User:Loontheschoon? They're too fond of adding fake credits to people en masse that I then have to go around and revert. Mad Jack 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Done. --Yamla 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Now that's what I call service Mad Jack 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

About WP:FU violation

Okay, so you left on my page how the picture of Torrie Wilson put up goes against WP:FU counter-example #8, as well as #1 on policy. I realize #8 and am okay with that, but #1 is the part I'm confused about. For the record, let me state it here:

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.
Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.

If a free image picture WAS available to us at this time, I could see it. However, until one comes forth, we would only have the option of fair-use, correct? I realize that obviously out there somewhere is a free use picture of Torrie we could use for the top of the page, but I'm talking in general here with ANY picture. Does this make sense? Anakinjmt 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the option of a fair-use image is not available to us if a free image could be created. That we are currently unaware of any free image is not relevant; a free image could be created and would serve the same purpose, therefore we cannot use a fair-use image. Now, there are levels of free. An image licensed under the creative commons is less free than one released to the public domain, so if the choice is between an image under the creative commons and one released to the public domain, we must use the public domain image. --Yamla 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for catching this[11], I did not notice a message had already been left there. I felt it was important to remove the trolling from his talk pages now that he was blocked. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem.  :) --Yamla 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lonelyboy

I went through Lonelyboy's history. He made some good contributions. You should be in trouble for turning around and blocking him the way you did. It seems you had no real basis. The Hyrbid and Yandman both agreed to allow Lonelyboy to come back. Lonelyboy said he had only used that name because when he used his original name he was autoblocked. The two agreed not to tell anyone and were blackmailing him. The first moment at which there was an agreement, they told you and you blocked Lonelyboy. If you were blocking Lonelyboy for using a different name, you might as well block Hybrid and Yandman for covering it up and using it as blackmail to try to control him. It seems you three are working in conspiracy and I plan to report you. After looking over Lonelyboy's edits, they were all in good faith and there was nothing to insitigate a block. His last comment is after you blocked him without going into the situation. I'm sorry but the three of you are working together and need to be reported immediately. 64.149.204.158 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. I have never blocked Lonelyboy (talk · contribs), nor has anyone else from what I can see. Perhaps you are confused about the account and maybe you mean that editor under a different account name. Please note, however, that creating a new account to get around a block is abusive and grounds for an immediate block of the new account and a reset or an extension of the block on the old account. --Yamla 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It intend for there to be justice for everyone at wikipedia. I am glad I saw Hybrid's making an irrelevant remark on the Undertaker talk page. It was just out of nowhere at the bottom of the page. I check into Lonelyboy's history and see he has worked hard on editing all of his pages and then there is this christian debate and Hybrid and Yandman began picking on him and tell you and you immediately block him then say you didn't. He never uttered death threats on December 1 2006 as far as I can see : Scroll up on your page where you write: I have blocked this IP address for 6 months. We can't block IP addresses indefinitely but given that this user has uttered death threats and claims he has every intention of continuing to attack the Wikipedia, the block seems reasonable. --Yamla 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Turns out that Lonelyboy was a blatant sockpuppet for Hungrygirl (talk · contribs), an account indefinitely blocked. As such, all edits by Lonelyboy were by definition abusive and the account has also been blocked. You didn't claim that I had blocked an IP address, you claimed I blocked Lonelyboy (talk · contribs), which I had not until I investigated. As to the death threats, please see this edit, which the user refused to retract. --Yamla 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He mentioned to Hybrid that he kept getting autoblocked when he used his ordinary name and Hybrid and Yandman seemed to understand that. Insteado of giving him proper and advice, they agreed to not telling anyone until they both found a problem with the user. I see the abusive edits were made a month ago and he was finished with his ban. But if you're blocking him for sockpuppeting anyway, you might as well block your friends Yandman and Hybrid since they were in on it. They only told you because they had a disagreement which did not warrant a ban. Lonelyboy and them were arguing about christianity. Lonelyboy was already banned because Hybrid and Yandman and him recognize it in their disputes if you were paying attention 64.149.204.158 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The block on Hungrygirl was indefinite. Any sockpuppets are to be blocked on sight. Only the IP address was blocked for a month but the editor is not welcome to contribute to the Wikipedia any more, even after the one-month block on the IP address expired. We do not welcome people who vandalise the Wikipedia and make death threats. If you can find a specific instance of Yandman or Hybrid violating Wikipedia policy, please feel free to report it (including a link to the specific edit that you believe violates Wikipedia policy). Your accusations so far have been of a general nature; I'll also note that it is not a violation of Wikipedia policy to report someone (or fail to report someone) for violating Wikipedia policy. --Yamla 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lonelyboy, are you here to complain about your ban or just to troll? You complain that you got blocked, and that you never got a "chance", and then complain that I gave you one and didn't get you blocked immediately. I try to give you one last chance (which can hardly be construed as blackmail, especially as I told everyone, admins included, about it), and then you come up with this? yandman 07:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:BossyVideo.png

Thanks for letting me know about Image:BossyVideo.png. I added a fair use rationale to the image and removed the tag from the image's page. I also removed the other screenshot from the Bossy article since I felt this one was discussed more in the article (see Talk:Bossy). More importantly, I'm glad you said something on my talk page since I had been under the impression that the licensing tag was sufficient, so I've added a full fair use rationale to all the other images I've uploaded. So thanks! —ShadowHalo 04:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Report of Vandalism from IP Address

Hello, you may want to check out recent contributions from this IP, talk page at User Talk:169.232.125.176. He has vandalized my talk page in the last ten minutes and has been warned several times for rampant vandalism, including one final warning fairly early on. Likes to blank pages and replace them with nonsense. I got into a brief argument with him, and when he had no good response he vandalized my talk page. Just check his contributions, I think a block is unavoidable. Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 06:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

my account

Please deactivate my user and block it. Pooter-the-clown 17:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bride and Prejudice

Thanks for your feedback - Please check User_talk:Classicfilms for my response -Classicfilms 19:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello!

Ever since you corrected me regarding WP:FUC (here) I have taken it upon myself to remove any fair use images which are being used incorrectly. I have tagged several images as missing a license, a source, a detailed fair use rationale or as replaceable fair use images, and a few even as copyright violations.

I have come upon fair use images on article talk pages, image pages and image talk pages (linking to other versions), WP:BJAODN, user pages, user talk pages and even two templates. I have had my user page vandalized by three separate vandal accounts (although I cannot be sure if it is related, since I also do RC and newpage patrol). Anyway, what I'm trying to say is thanks, because if no one corrects your mistakes you will never learn anything. Keep up the good work!

Sincerely, --Oden 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked

why was i sudd3nly block3d from 3dditing wikip3dia for 24 hours. At th3 tim3 I was not vandalyzing anything and was 3diting th3 c3l3ron proc3ssor articl3?--169.232.125.176 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please fix your keyboard and then try communicating. You were blocked for vandalism such as this edit which fraudulently altered other people's signed comments. This is unacceptable. --Yamla 04:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ciara image

Ok the image is not copyrighted I thought I made this clear more than once but since it's such a big deal to uplaod a TV screenshot (which i've done plenty of times without issues) why don't you find an acceptable image for the article. And I am not in violation of 3RR since the revert I did was to remove the image that WAS indeed copyrighted (it said ciaraworld.com on the bottom for crying out loud). Anom8trw8 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

T.v. shows are copyrighted. So are any derived work from them, such as screenshots. --Yamla 04:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is stated word for word on Wikipedia

"It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

And using a picture of a living person is definitely for identification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anom8trw8 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Please reread WP:FU. We are not permitted to use fair-use images solely to depict living people. --Yamla 05:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis. Such general approval must be seen in the light of whether a free image could replace the copyright image instead.

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).

Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos. Stamps and currency: For identification. Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary. Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school. Publicity photos: For identification and critical commentary. See Wikipedia:Publicity photos.

So I'm guessing that the reason the image can't be used is because there's no where on the article stating Ciara was in a concert because it has to be in discussion with the television program. I could add a paragraph.

or

It does also qualify under Publicity Photos in which states it is fair use to use the photo for identification. Anom8trw8 05:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No. This is not a publicity photo, it's a screenshot of a t.v. show. Additionally, WP:FU prevents you from using any non-freely-licensed image (such as this one) solely to depict the person. This image may be used when attached to a paragraph discussing this particular appearance and if the paragraph provides critical commentary. This seems more than a little unlikely, though, and it most certainly can not be used solely to depict Ciara, and most definitely not at the top of the article. --Yamla 05:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dhoom 2 vandalism

Hi there. I saw your comment on the Dhoom 2 talk page. I've noticed a lot of vandalism on the page the last few days, it looks like the page is no longer protected. People have been blanking out the synopsis and putting up a lot of nonsense. I tried reverting the some of the edits a couple of times, but it's always vandalised again. Could you do something about it? Thank you. :) --NithinBekal 09:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio on History of Microsoft Windows

If you're going to take it upon yourself to do something like this, then at least have the courtesy to come up with a reasoning that's actually true. Your work with identifying copyvio images has been very helpful, but please be more careful. Thanks. -/- Warren 21:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

When I removed the image from that page, there was not a detailed fair-use rationale for the image's use on History of Microsoft Windows. This may be the case now, I have not checked. --Yamla 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"datailed" fair-use rationale?

Image:StarfleetSec.jpg. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This one's rationale is hardly detailed but I'm not going to mark it as a problem image. It is, after all, being used to depict what the article is all about, etc. etc., and I think it's probably fair use. --Yamla 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
That, and why poke the bees? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Colin Walker.png. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This one is a replaceable image. He's a living person and we are not permitted to use fair-use images to depict living people. Marked appropriately. --Yamla 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ayaotdcab.png. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This image is being used solely for decorative purposes. Reverted removal of no-rationale tag. --Yamla 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your always willingness to look into these as an administrator; thanks for your thoughts and input.

The last image listed was tagged with {{no rationale}} on 2006-11-28. It appears that an admin (Shyam Bihari (talk · contribs)) has been arbitrarily?/accidentally? removing the still-pertinent tags ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16]) to clear out the categories for deletion [17]. Since the images linked afore were still lacking their rationales, I re-added the tags and thereby ended up replacing the images into Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 28 November 2006, which has since been deleted by Shyam Bihari. Thoughts? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to poke me when I haven't actually responded for a while.  :) There's some misunderstandings about using fair-use images to depict living people as it was a policy we didn't use to enforce. I'll try to clear things up with Shyam Bihari. --Yamla 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
In the interim, should Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 28 November 2006 be undeleted, or should the images therein be deleted? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
In situations like this (should the speedy tag be reset for today's date), I generally consider whether the uploader of the image was notified, whether it was a first offence or whether the uploader has a history of uploading images missing necessary information, and how long the image was not in that category. In this case, all signs point to leaving Image:Ayaotdcab.png in the category. --Yamla 03:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad fair use rationales?

Hi, I have a problem with a few images. Shaggy9872004 (t c) has uploaded three images of DVD covers from a website (I think they're watermarked, actually) and has added fair use rationales to them. I tagged them with {{no rationale}}, saying the fair use rationales on the images were insufficient as all they do as far as I can see is describe the image instead of saying why Wikipedia can use them. I was wondering if you could have a look at them and perhaps get involved if there is a problem with the images. Shaggy9872004 is probably not going to me now; he did go as far as "reporting" me on WP:AIV after I added back the {{no rationale}} tags. The images are File:789302.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), File:789303.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and File:789896.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'd be grateful for any help you can offer. Thanks. JDtalk 13:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; I've left a comment on the user's talk page and readded the no-rationale tag to the images. --Yamla 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

Ok, first off let me apologize for my rude behavior earlier. I know that after a talk with some others that the Ciara image can't be used since it is replaceable, and that the Mel image was put up for speedy deletion (I also put up the Ciara deletion which was deleted recently). The All American Rejects photo is still being used but with the appropriate tag since it can't really be replaced since any other concert of them would have the same issue.

Apparently, I was accidnetally reading the tags you put on. I thought that the reason the photo couldn't be used is that it is not fair use, while reading it again it is a tag showing that the Ciara image is replaceable with an image with a more-free (or completely free in this case) image. Anom8trw8 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the image you mention and I agree in principle, but you do need to establish on the image page why it is important to depict them in concert. We can not use this image simply to illustrate what they look like, it must add meaningfully to the article. To take an example, Madonna is (or at least was) known for her extremely racey concerts. It would be reasonable to have an image from a concert attached to a paragraph discussing this fact (though I have no idea of this is the case with the article on Wikipedia right now). On the other hand, it would not be appropriate to have a fair-use image of the All American Rejects being used solely for illustrative purposes. If you don't see the difference between these two cases, please let me know. And apology accepted. Everyone violates Wikipedia policy from time to time and I certainly won't hold it against you. --Yamla 19:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WPFU Thing

I'm kind of confused, I thought that because it was an album cover, it was clearly stated that it was okay. What am I missing? Thank you.Hoponpop69 23:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, an album cover may only be used to depict the album. We are not permitted to use fair-use images at all to depict living people, as per WP:FU. So we aren't even permitted to use copyrighted promotional images of that person to depict them (unless the image is released under the CC or GFDL or some such). --Yamla 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What vandalism?

Hello. You recently left a message on my talk page about vandalism to Ciara. I will have you know I did no such thing. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such false accusations. The least thing you cold have done was provide a link of the reversion. 71.2.65.161 00:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned at the bottom of your user discussion page, if you are not using an account to edit the Wikipedia, you may get warnings from other people who have used the same IP address. In this case, the vandalism in question was this edit and this edit, both in apparently deliberate violation of WP:FU, though neither necessarily performed by you. You can find a list of contributions from your IP address at this address, for future reference. --Yamla 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar. I usually don't get very mad. I am just glad that I am unblocked. Thanks!--Tennislover 01:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Just a word of warning... Jack Cox has some, shall we say, issues with the whole image thing. See here, here, and here, for instance. Just a heads-up. —Chowbok ☠ 06:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I understand I have problems with Image uploading but I personally have a problem with the fact the rules are so bloody complicated. I mean I've tried everything to please everyone and still someone continuously is able to find a flaw in it. Please excuse my behaviour I did not mean to get angry, but what happens is sometimes people push my buttons and I don't like it. I didn't mean to say that at anyone but it was out of frustration, I want you to understand I want to solve this problem and come to a fair compromise and possibly I would hope that this policy would be put under review because I think it really ruins the quality of wikipedia. I would request you don't block me, I have been an editor in good standing and I have tried my hardest to try and meet the standards of images and I am sorry If i'm falling short. I might just be a little slow at reading the policy--Jack Cox 07:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eazy_E

I have added a content site about the late artists to the end of the external link list. I have also updated the first link as the anchor text was trying to spoof the real intent of the target site. There was also a link to a private myspace page that I removed as there is no benefit to having that link.

Thanks for you time... Natron —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serverunion (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

You have asked me to stop adding "advertising links" twice. As I responded the first time, please view my site. I do not sell the posters listed there. It is an archive only of posters from previous Tool tours. My site is informative and is used by many fans. Please take the time to view it before shutting it down. www.blackthenwhite.com. Thank you Battaglino

It is inappropriate to link to a site you run. Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Yamla 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a site that is useful to fans of the band. I have received several e-mails from fans saying they were happy to have found the link on Wiki because they couldn't find such info elsewhere. You may not be a poster collector, so you may not realize the value of such a site to fans of the band who collect posters. Please see the popularity of Tool posters on www.expressobeans.com, it's truly overwhelming. I am not linking people to my site for personal pleasure or financial gain. I am linking it because there is no other such site out there and as a collector and fan, I know it is of interest to like-minded fans. It is specific only to Tool, and I do not see how this is inappropriate nor spam. --Battaglino 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, you are not permitted to link to a site you run on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 17:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Twister Twist

Hi Yamla. I have a question about User: Twister Twist. I said that was my sister's account not mine. But Sarah Ewart seemed to have put a sockpuppet tag on that user page and said that it was a sockpuppet of myself. Even if it was my account, there is not policy of keeping mulitiple accounts if they are not used for vandalism. Thank you. --Tennislover 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, there's nothing inherently wrong with having a sockpuppet account even if both accounts are controlled by you. See WP:SOCK. Similarly, however, it is common Wikipedia practice to mark the accounts as such. I would suggest that you provide a link from both user pages to the other and note that you two are related. This prevents even a hint of improprietary. The concern is that you two may "gang up" when voting and the like, which would be unfair. Actually, I should reword that. The concern with sockpuppet accounts is that; there's no indication that you and your sister would do anything like that. Now, if I was the one who placed the sockpuppet notice there, it would entirely satisfy me if you provided links to each other's page on the user pages. You should probably run this past Sarah Ewart, however, as I obviously cannot speak for her. If this is unacceptable for some reason, please let me know and I'll see if I can come up with any other suggestions. --Yamla 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


wait till thursday, i know a record company they said it was 340,00 so far, so prbly 350.000. watch i bet im right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.169.136 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:V and WP:CITE and WP:RS. It is your responsibility to cite this information when adding it to the Wikipedia. --Yamla 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pcdwaitaminute.jpg

I had a fair use rationale on the image, but someone remove it in November. I checked the history of the image. You take a look and give me a response. Charmed36 01:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

T.I.

Can his page be protected or something? I'm really tired of reverting pages from groupies and haters. Georgia Peachez 07:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ciara: The Evolution

Lots of IP users have been changing information on the article. Some make it professional and most make it trash. Is there something you can do stop them? Charmed36 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant

Can his talkpage please be protected? DXRAW 22:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. DXRAW 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to protect User_talk:Pifflinman this also. DXRAW 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added that page to my watchlist. Please let me know if you see the user vandalising that page. --Yamla 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Wilco DXRAW 00:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Chad has another sockpuppet. User:Avenger's Lament. TruthCrusader 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture on R. Madhavan

Hey Yamala!

I can understand why you had blocked me for 24 hours. I would be extremely greateful if you helped me to get a decent image of R. Madhavan to put on his page. Please sort it out. Thanking You. Prince Godfather 17:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Newington College

Is is possible to get a block on three users Eems, Earja & Silveriver as they are from the school are are editing the Industrial Relations dispute to try and make them look better. [18], [19] & [20] DXRAW 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not add vandalism to the black eyed peas site. I simply deleted a section about "it is widely believed that..." who believes taht? you guys write whatever you want but if a non admin writes it it is automatically reset. what is this russia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.74.214 (talk • contribs)

This is a lie. See this. "Jennifer "The cat" Ferguson"? Come off it. --Yamla 03:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Scott Porad

Hi, I was wondering if a speedy deletion notice should be added to this article which was created by this user about himself. He has also placed links to his website on the article. Could you take a look at it, please? Thank you. :) --NithinBekal 09:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nexopia_screenshot.png

I have personally contacted Timo, the owner of Nexopia, and he has granted permission for the image to be used. I also amended the image description. Could you check it out and see if it suffices? Thanks. Charles 04:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the image as it currently sits is that it does not have a detailed fair-use rationale which is required for any use of a copyrighted image on the Wikipedia. Please see WP:FU. --Yamla 19:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Red hair

Today, red hair is most commonly found at both the west and eastern fringes of modern Europe. It is associated with those in the British Isles (more specifically the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Cornish).

Regarding my edit to the above. Terming Irish as part of the British Isles is objectionable as it implies a non-existent political link between the two, Northern Ireland excepted. I would appreciate it if you would alter the sentence accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheese & Onion (talk • contribs)

I find nothing objectionable to the term. I understand that you may, though. Please feel free to reword it yourself (I won't, as it does not offend me) but please ensure if you do so that you do not imply Ireland is NOT part of the British Isles. One easy way to do so may be to simply remove that term from the sentence. --Yamla 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Pooter-the-clown

I have concern about this user. I am having trouble understanding why his user talk page has been blanked, yet the account was to still remain open? This user had a record of notices of editing concerns that should not be hidden, but instead archived if he is allowed to continue editing under this user name. For the moment, I have re-blocked the user, as the "clean slate" of a user talk page with no archive is problematic, in my view. - Kukini 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good question. He was blocked most recently by me because he decided to leave the Wikipedia and asked for his account to be blocked. He has concerns about certain private information that he added about himself to the Wikipedia and asked that his account be unblocked to deal with it. I obliged. Given the Right to Vanish, I believe it was appropriate for me to unblock the account and on this basis, you may want to undo your block. Of course, it is obvious that you acted in good faith, just that some of this information was not placed on the Wikipedia for you to view. Please feel free to contact me if you want more information. --Yamla 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this user had previously been blocked for deleting notices both on his talk page and otherwise. I believe the right to vanish is just that, a right to vanish. Not to delete history and evidence of wrong doing under a user name. Perhaps this user can open a new account under a completely new user name, and thus have vanished. But under THIS user name, this user has a pretty problematic editing history. Kukini 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cute 1 4 u

Yamla, I'm willing to make a complaint to the ISP regarding Cute 1 4 u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), if you want. Is this a good suggestion?? However, I wouldn't be surprised if this user tries to appeal their ban via some other means... --SunStar Nettalk 21:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. First step is waiting for the checkuser report to come back. Then I'm not quite sure how to go about making the abuse report (if the checkuser confirms the sockpuppet). I mean, I've made plenty of reports before, but never through Wikipedia. We may need a bureaucrat to make the report. I'm not sure. --Yamla 21:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nickelback Certification

Okay I do understand the whole riaa certification thing but if you have not noticed there have not been certification updates since September 2006, and actually billboard is a reliable source for certifications because they get there certification info from the riaa, why do you think christina aguilera's back to basics is certified platinum, which is stated on her own website as well as on billboard but not on the riaa, as well as justin timberlake's futuresex/lovesounds, it is 2x platinum but since the riaa has not been updating anything on their own website your saying its not reliable? thats just very ignorant and naive because we both know that billboard is just as relevant as riaa. so therefore i strongly suggest that "all the right reasons" be left at 4x platinum because that is what it is, and if you must insist on continuously changing it back to 3x platinum fine then you should go to carrie underwoods page and change her cd to 3x platinum since the riaa.com doesnt have her as that yet although billboard does, christina and justins pages you might as well go take off their certifications since its not up on riaa.com as well as john mayers new cd "continuim", and rascal flatts new cd is 3x platinum on billboard but oh its only 2x on riaa so you better change that too right as well as beyonce's "bday" shes platinum but since riaa.com doesnt have it billboard must not be reliable enough right? anyways hopefully you see where im coming from because all the u.s certifications i change are correct and you telling me they are not is ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Basinger19 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

If you can provide a reliable source that indicates that RIAA has not been updating their web site, I'll most certainly accept that. Note that I do not live in the U.S. and so Billboard is not as relevant to me. You could, however, be right but I would need this verified. It's worth noting that the people who have been changing the Nickelback certification to 4x have not agreed on the month it was certified which initially caused my doubts. Note that without a citation that shows the RIAA has not been updating their website, WP:RS indicates that we need to continue trusting their web site over that of Billboard who have been known to make mistakes in the past (and anyway, get their information third hand). --Yamla 22:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Is their own official website reliable enough because i sure hope so and here is the link to the 4x platinum album from there site http://www.nickelback.com/nb/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=420&Itemid=3
oh and also on billboard when you go to the charts whether it be singles or albums and under the peak/weeks on #'s if it is certified it will give a circle for gold shipments and a triangluar shape for platinum with an additional # beside it if it is more than 1x platinum and when you put your mouse on the shape it will say "RIAA certification for net shipment for 1 million units(Platinum), with additional 1 million units indicated by a number following the symbol" this was the example for carrie underwood's "some hearts cd" which is at #10 this week on the billboard 200 chart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Basinger19 (talk • Basinger19 22:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)contribs) 22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
No, sorry, their website is not reliable as it is the RIAA that issues the certifications. Similarly, Billboard is not reliable unless you can provide a citation that shows the source of this information, RIAA, is no longer updating their site. We've had examples before of artists exaggerating their certifications and of Billboard providing incorrect information. --Yamla 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

go here: http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/111506.asp and then when you are done reading it why dont you search some of those artists mentioned for all there certifications and you will notice the certifications posted in the article have not been updated under the artists certifications, so it does not say that they are not updating their site but these certifications were from october, it is now december and they havent updated them. also it states alan jackson's precious memories was certified platinum in august and its also not updated under his certifications so no i feel they are not updating their website—Preceding unsigned comment added by Basinger19 (talk • contribs)

Okay, if you can provide a similar citation for Nickelback's albums, that would certainly be acceptable. Remember, the RIAA takes into account more than just albums shipped which is all some other sources use when calculating certifications. But it is the RIAA certification that we care about here. --Yamla 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I cant provide what you want because what you want is something right from the riaa which i have no contact with so this is just getting tiresome, so why dont you provide me with a citation that billboard has been wrong with its album certifications since you quoted "We've had examples before of artists exaggerating their certifications and of Billboard providing incorrect information"

Please see WP:RS and WP:CITE. Also, WP:V. It is your responsibility to provide a suitable citation. I have done so already, RIAA's own site. While I have no doubt you are telling the truth, Wikipedia requires that information be verifiable. I can provide evidence that Nickelback's album is certified triple-platinum straight from the certifying authority. You can provide a less reliable source indicating that it is certified quadruple platinum. However, since RIAA is the certifying authority, we have to use their figures. Once again, it is entirely possible that you are correct. In fact, it is likely that you are correct. But Wikipedia's criteria is verifiability and reliable sources, and so I'm afraid that we need to stick with that source barring anything better. --Yamla 23:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Avenger's Lament

Checkuser results are in; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Chadbryant. Seemed like you'd want to know. Luna Santin 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, I saw that. And this guy had the nerve to demand an apology, in advance, when the results came in. I really need to be just a bit less gullible. --Yamla 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Assuming Good Faith too often tends to lead to being gullible...anyways, another Chadbryant saga over. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u Take 9

(sigh) When will this end??? Anyway, good call on the sockpuppet for User:Cute 1 4 u. I have this strange feeling that Cute 1 4 u may be owning another account. You see, if I were a sockpuppeteer, I would create an account and put on my watchlist all pages related to my main account. This account, however, will never make any edits. That way, I can keep track on all of my pages and laugh as my "watching" account is never discovered. --Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

rationale?

Despite Proto (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s assurances, I still don't find a detailed fair-use rationale on the three images he's referring to. Apparently Shyam Bihari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) does though, as they both have been removing the tags from Image:RodriguezTogo CSIMiami.jpg, Image:ProctorAlexanderCaruso CSIMiami.jpg, and Image:CarusoMilos CSIMiami.jpg. I find no detailed fair-use rationales, and it still appears that Shyam Bihari is simply removing tags for the purposes of being able to then delete the category in which they were placed.

Do you (a.) find the detailed fair-use rationales on those images that Proto and Shyam Bihari see but that I'm apparently missing? (b.) think that Shyam Bihari is just removing the tags as he finds them a roadblock to deleting the category? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 11:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 11:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted the {{no rationale}} removals, but I left the 2006-11-28 date intact. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser Image

Hello. I am doing a project/gathering information for a future documentary on WP, and was wondering if you could somehow send me a Screenshot of CheckUser? I'm not asking for any IP or other thing checked, simply a screenshot of the Interface. Credit would definitely be given appropriately, and if you can do it I'll tell you how to send it (probably e-mail or upload). Thanks, BureauNumberOne 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, I don't have checkuser access. --Yamla 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:John Mehoves has uploaded and image called "Imahe:Dan 1.JPG" and I am unsure if it's uncopyrighted, self created or copyrighted. He had two warning yet he hasn't done anything. I think the image is a copyright violation and since your a "copyvio slayer" I thought it would be right to report this to an administrator. Sorry if this is tattling or anything disturbing you. --Shaericell Talker to! 20:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Far away s.jpg

The picture is an album therefore it is fair use. SOADLuver 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This image does not have a detailed fair-use rationale. Please see WP:FU and similar pages. Saying it "is an album and therefore it is fair use" is insufficient. --Yamla 22:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand.An album cover is Fair Use. SOADLuver 22:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hungrygirl

Thank you for blocking the new sock. You're such a wonderful person, cheers. -- THL 03:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor Edit

How can it be copyvio. If it is copyvio why is in wikipedia?. --SkyWalker 06:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Iam sorry, I did not see the information inside kareena kapoor pic. --SkyWalker 04:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:APA.JPG

Hi there. I remember you reviewed Image:U2photo.jpg and was wondering if you could take a look at Image:APA.JPG since anonymous AOL IP's from Dulles, Virginia have been reverting the free image I added to the Ashley Parker Angel page (which, at least to me, seems like a good alternative). —ShadowHalo 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —ShadowHalo 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Windows_Vista_Desktop.png

Fair use rationale for this image is provided on the image page - here. Can you explain how an image of Microsoft Windows, in it's latest iteration, is not acceptable on an article about Microsoft Windows?-Localzuk(talk) 16:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This also applies to the History of Microsoft Windows page. Why is an image that is descriptive of the subject in the article not acceptable under Fair Use? You have been reverted in both places multiple times now so an explanation would be a good idea.-Localzuk(talk) 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you clarify how we have copyright violation here if copyright holder already give us permission at his website to use screenshots. It's not even fair-use but permitted use. Your possible arguments that product is not commercially release is false - it's available for business and some users. I've validly licensed (not pirated) Windows Vista Ultimate ENG RTM and already clicked on EULA - i.e. entered into agreement with Microsoft. --TAG 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The question is not whether or not we are adhering to Microsoft's screenshot terms but whether we are adhering to Wikipedia's fair use policy at WP:FU. We were not. There was no detailed fair-use rationale for the use of the image in Microsoft Windows (though I see now that this has been added). I have repeatedly pointed out that this image did not have the necessary detailed fair-use rationale. Note additionally that we are not agreeing to follow Microsoft's license (specifically, we make no agreement that we will not disparage Windows) but nevertheless, this image is available to us under fair-use. --Yamla 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Then why did you not simply add fair use rationale? I added a single line and a wiki-link. It was blantantly obvious that it was covered by fair use so removing it seems like you just have something against the image or its usage? Either that or you were just being lazy? (Which I can't see, as removing an image from a page is just as long winded as adding a sentence to the image...)-Localzuk(talk) 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It was not clear to me that the image is fair-use in some of those articles. It appears to be used simply to illustrate the article as opposed to being used to provide critical commentary and meaningful content. If it is being used simply to illustrate the article (my suspicion, though certainly not a foregone conclusion), no fair-use rationale is sufficient and we must not use the image. As such, it was not blatantly obvious that it was covered by Wikipedia's fair-use policy. --Yamla 18:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yamla I feel obliged to notify you that your own image upload (C++ book image) is less then perfect ;-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a particularly good catch. However, note that the image was uploaded before detailed fair-use rationales need to be given. Nevertheless, I should take the time to add a detailed rationale just for the sake of completeness. --Yamla 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You are clearly not adhering to WP:FU as you violate "No free equivalent is available" as Microsoft give permission. Well - with either Fair Use or Microsoft permission - we are allowed to use screenshot and it's matter if our use of image (and only it) is pornographic or not ;-) If you wanna get into law waters - be prepared that those are hard to follow. Moral rights are separate from Fair Use and prevent derogatory, prejudicial and damaging to reputations modifications . Your removal from articles instead of fixing FU rationale (as you seems to be expert in this matter based on number of edits) is not good. Instead of helping - you harm. --TAG 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
As noted, I did not add a detailed fair-use rationale as it is not clear to me that we are using the image according to Wikipedia's fair use policy. Note that we are specifically not using the image according to Microsoft's licensing terms. I am sorry you feel that it is harmful to note which images are in violation of our policies. --Yamla 18:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
In this case, on the Microsoft Windows article - the article discusses Windows in its various guises throughout the last 10 or so years. The image shows a significant release version of this product and as such is not simply decorative, but is instrumental in describing the product itself.
I do agree that we can't agree to MS's license requirements though, as that would put a straight jacket on what could be said about Vista - regardless of sources.-Localzuk(talk) 19:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well. Image was not in violation. But I give up at this point. If you wish to focus on something - focus on Windows beta screenshots. Those are not allowed by Microsoft permissions and maybe (IANAL) do not qualify for Fair Use as are obtained in illegal way (i.e. in violation of NDA or EULA person has agreed - those has affected Windows market as others were able to duplicate design). Also I would like to note that Microsoft permission does not prohibit criticism. If you feel that permission is too restrictive - clarify your issues and I may contact Microsoft Legal & Corporate Affairs team to try change permission if issues will be reasonable. --TAG 19:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in We Fly High. 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. --Yamla 15:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it spam to add ca link to the lyrics to the article? I've seen people add that info before. --Chris Brown's boo 19:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
We are not permitted to link to sites which violate copyright. Lyrics sites almost always violate copyright. Unless you have specific evidence that a particular site has cleared all the copyright (for example, the lyrics are published on the official website of the group), it is inappropriate to link to the site. --Yamla 19:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you. --Chris Brown's boo 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

debra lafarve guy

hey there, i was just seeing if you could really edit pages anywhere... its my first time, i'm going to make an account and all, but don't ban me. My roomates all laughed like a bastard, but I promise not to be a vandal. WP rules. Don't Ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.89.143 (talk • contribs)

Yeap, you can. Happy editing! --Yamla 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Retirement

I've retired from Wikipedia. Thanks for being such a kind editor. Regards,--Tennislover 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope one day you reconsider. If not, though, I wish you all the best. --Yamla 22:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert to my talk page. That was the first time any of my personal pages has been vandalized - I don't know if I should feel disappointed or honored to have finally become worthy of vandalism... Anyways, thanks! --TheOtherBob 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Penelope Cruz

Excuse me, first of all, may I ask why you edited my talk page with not one, but two violations, including a warning? I made one edit, and I did not exactly consider it a violation as it is a screenshot of a film, and is more than likely owned by the production company of that film and was uploaded with the appropriate license. However, please explain why you slapped me with a secondary violation warning of "damaging the work of others". I made one edit, not two, perhaps you should become familiar with WP:UTM. I am whatsoever NOT a blatant vandal. Nikki88 06:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is a blatant violation of WP:FU. The article itself specifically warns you to check out WP:FUC as only freely-licensed images may be used to depict living people. You chose to ignore this policy and this specific warning on the very line you edited and put Wikipedia directly at risk for a copyright-infringement lawsuit. Please do not do this again. Thanks. --Yamla 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

Please explain how adding information about Lindsay Lohan's feud with Paris Hilton is "vandalism." Is the wikipedia only supposed to print "nice" things about celebrities - that is ridiculous, and against the spirit of wikipedia in my opinion.--68.40.181.28 13:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Drunken rants are not notable in an encyclopedia. --Yamla 15:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of 138.38.32.84

Thanks for your judicious blocking of 138.38.32.84, while I understand that we've been the source of some persistent vandalism, this IP is a proxy address for the University of Bath UK (which is noted on the talk page (although with the wrong template (which i've updated))), which currently has over 20,000 users. While I understand we have had multiple blocks (4 x 24 hour blocks in the last year) I am not sure if this necessarily counts as persistent vandalism given the size of the university. Would you consider dropping (or reducing the duration) of the current 1 month block on these grounds? Zootalures 15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (Sysadmin, University of Bath)

No, I will not consider this. However, I will soften the block so people can edit from a signed-in account that they have created elsewhere, as is common practise with school blocks. This will allow anyone with an account to continue editing the Wikipedia. Note that there is a good chance the block was already "soft" and so would not have prevented signed-in users. --Yamla 15:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Danny Invincible

This block seems like an overly strict interpretation of WP:USERNAME to me. Danny Invincibile is not particularly well known, his unusual name is probably the only reason a lot of people have heard of him. Would a simple note atop the userpage such as the one on User:John Reid not suffice? Oldelpaso 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This suits me. Note that I am not the blocking admin, however. --Yamla 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Image source

Yamla, I've noted that Image:C plus plus book.jpg, an image you uploaded (the first one actually), does not provide its source. Can you please add it under the image summary? I've tagged it with speedy deletion for now, I hope you can add it quickly. Thank you. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the image does identify the source and copyright holder. It is a picture of the C++ Programming Language by Stroustrup. I do not specifically list the publisher, mind you. Note that although I routinely patrol images for source and license, I commonly accept book covers and album images provided only this much information is listed. For album covers, I'm happy if the image itself shows the name of the album. As such, I may be missing what specific information you are looking for. If you could let me know what else you need other than the author of the book and the book title (which were there from the beginning), I'd appreciate it. Note also that this image was uploaded before detailed fair-use rationales needed to be given. --Yamla 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what I meant by "missing source", it means that the image does not provide where the image itself came from, rather than its content. Did you scan it? Or did you copy it from some random website? I would like to see more information. Please reply on my talk page. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The particular source is not relevant. I can not recall where I grabbed this image from but regardless, this would not change who owns the copyright. Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Sufficient information is presented so that the copyright status of this particular image can be verified. Regardless of whether I took this photograph (I did not) or someone else scanned the book cover, the copyright status would not be altered. Copyright would remain with the publisher or author. --Yamla 20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. I've proposed a change in the guidelines on Wikipedia talk:Uploading images to avoid further misunderstandings. Please comment about it there. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u (Checkuser)

Just so you know, the checkuser came back Likely. Geo. 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Pahuskahey

This unblock review was rather unhelpful. Assuming that this guy is an innocent newbie, what do you expect him to do with that (lack of) information? --  Netsnipe  ►  05:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. If it helps, I think I found the autoblock that was stopping him. --Yamla 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I was trying to link to the notes on Patterson's page. Thanks for the tip.

IdLoveOne 21:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image..

Is this picture appropriate? http://i16.tinypic.com/405hz15.jpg. If it's not. How can you tell? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.154.16.203 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Unless you have specific reason to believe an image is appropriate, it is not. This looks to be a professional photograph and as such, would certainly be copyrighted and probably not freely-licensed. As such, it may not be used to depict a living person. So in summary, unless you have reason to believe an image is okay to use, please do not. --Yamla 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok what about this one? http://i12.tinypic.com/433k5g0.jpg. He's performing at a club, and he's a rapper. I think this picture will look good on his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.101.42 (talk • contribs)
What evidence to you have that this image is freely-licensed? Without any evidence that this image is freely-licensed, we cannot use it. Over 99% of the images you find are not freely-licensed. --Yamla 04:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I dont know what freely-licensed is..what is that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.220.101.42 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
Public-domain image or one licensed under the GFDL or some versions of the CC. --Yamla 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't know what you're talking about, but umm I found that picture from a blog website. He went to a concert at a club and he took pictures of T.I., I've seen alot of pictures on here similar to that one (Chris Brown for an example). Why does it have to take so much to put a picture on a website? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.146.210.242 (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
If you don't understand about the licenses, the best approach is just to ignore images for now. As to why it takes so much to put up this picture, the problem is that we don't own this image. The person who took the picture owns it. For us to take it without permission is similar to stealing. Unless they are willing to allow us to use it (that is, license it under a free license), it is inappropriate for us to do so without permission. --Yamla 03:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
His page needs a picture. It looks so plain without one. I'll ignore the picture thing, but he looks so good in that picture lol..I wanted it on the page..ugh, thanks for being nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.146.210.242 (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

New Chad Bryant sockpuppet account

[21] TruthCrusader 14:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He continues to revert the entry, in the same manner and with the same reasons Chad did. Also, this is this users only edit controbution. TruthCrusader 12:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

ciara discovery

If u knew anything u would know they gave her, her 3x plaque on 106 & park U are so damn mean i ask everybody to take it easy on me im a newbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge527 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:V. Also, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Thanks. --Yamla 17:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
My own two eyes saw it they gave it two her as a birthday present i dont even care bye dumb ass

what are you talking about?

how dare you accuse me of vandalism! I have done no such thing so dont accuse me of such acts sfry.jpg was an image i uploaded which is all i did. So dont start threatning me or ill report you for vandalism of my user page as well as threatning tones! Dont think you're the owner of this site just because you've heard from a few famous peopleTad102

Your deliberate removal of the no-source and replaceable tags from Image:Sfry.jpg is completely unacceptable and puts Wikipedia at direct risk for a copyright-infringement lawsuit. Please refrain from further such acts. --Yamla 19:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
This is for being such a great editor. Keep up the good work with your editing! Tennislover 18:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:70.48.232.59

Just a note, this was an autoblock placed as a result of a checkuser - see [22]. It was set for "anon. only, account creation blocked" for one week starting yesterday (UTC), and should not be lifted without a discussion with Essjay.

I still don't know what happened to the block message (the "block message" field should have the contents of {{checkuserblock}}, as that was the block summary), but anyways, just a FYI :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lleyton Hewitt

Hi, would you mind reviewing an article that I deleted a small portion of text on? This article before didn't have a NPOV, so I made some deletions of text and added a controversey section. Could you see if I made the right adjustments and could possibly get the tag at the top removed of Lleyton Hewitt? Thanks.--Tennislover 01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is good, it is freely-licensed and of high quality so I wholeheartedly approve of that. I also like that you have set up a controversy section (though I think it shouldn't have that final 'e' in the word); in my opinion, it is best to group controversy into one section in most cases. You also seem to have done a good job of removing irrelevant sections and generally cleaning up the article. Whether or not the NPOV tag should be removed is really up to the other editors on that page. It's not something you need an administrator for and as my knowledge of tennis is sorely lacking, I'm not really in the best position to judge. --Yamla 02:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That was really helpful.:)--Tennislover 02:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrongful Accusation of Vandalizing Article: "Microsoft Flight Simulator X"

Excuse me sir, I was NOT vandalizing the page, I simply added a tab including problems and criticism of the not-so-very appreciated program, Flight Simulator X. Now, if you cannot use your common sense to understand that I did not quote, "vandalize" anything, please feel free to send me a message to username: "Stevenstone93". Wrongful accusations are NOT TO BE TOLERATED. Please rethink your statements and DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BOTHER ME AGAIN. Thanks very much, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenstone93 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:NOT. Also, WP:NOR. Your edit was entirely inappropriate. We do not accept original research here. Thanks. --Yamla 01:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

How do you manage to get it vandalized so much? I don't think I've ever seen such an unassuming userpage that needed to be reverted so frequently. -- Kicking222 03:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of my actions on the Wikipedia are to revert vandalism. I've also started removing images violating WP:FU. These are not necessarily good ways to endear myself. In particular, reverting vandalism is a good way to get your user page vandalised. At least, this is what I tell myself. It's also possible that all the vandalism comes from bitter ex's. But anyway, vandalism is just another way of expressing love.  :) What actually surprises me is how rarely I have to revert my user page. --Yamla 03:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess that a good way to help pick out repeat vandals is to look at who has vandalized your userpage after they vandalized something else that you had to revert. Kind of ups their profile a bit! Continue the great work, and the rest of us will help keep your userpage in shape. Cheers. -- Kicking222 13:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Help

I'm the logged out User:The Hybrid. I f***ed up my skin trying to get a new anti-vandal tool, and now whenever I try to log in or fix it logged out my computer freezes. Could you blank User:The Hybrid/monobook.js please. I'll return the favor however you want. Please tell me on my IP talk page if you do this. Cheers, 71.223.40.167 08:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it has been fixed. Cheers, -- THL 09:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon

please revert the pokemon page it has a very very disturbing picture which is not suitable at all i can not revert it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4evacharmed (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Userpage

how do i make a user page? User:Ae.com17 12:55, 23 December 2006 (CMT)

Question..

What are those number things on our watchlists? Georgia Peachez 07:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind....Georgia Peachez 08:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Holiday Wishes

Tractorkingsfan would like to wish all of his Wikipedian friends, of which you are one, safe and happy holidays. Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 06:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Impersonator

You might want to consider blocking Vamla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose only contribution has been to your talk page (see history). Cheers. yandman 19:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Chad Bryant

Thank you for helping me rid Wikipedia of the fat Mormon menace known as Chad Bryant. Merry Christmas! TruthCrusader 22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ashley Parker Angel

I asked you to review Image:APA.JPG awhile ago because anonymous IPs were removing the replaceable tag, and you decided to delete it for being replaceable. An anonymous IP has since reuploaded the image at Image:AshleyParkerAngel.JPG and I tagged it for speedy deletion as recreation of deleted material (I forgot that's only for XfD, not SD), but I think the tag will just be removed again if I tag the image with anything. What should I do now: tag the image with {{Replaceable fair use}} and keep restoring it (though that just seems to result in an edit war), request semi-protection for the article and the image...? —ShadowHalo 22:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tengo Una Pregunta

La autorización, así que yo pusimos para arriba estos cuadros estúpidos que hicieron que me bloqueas por como dos veces y que no está fresco. Y estoy apesadumbrado que violé esas reglas y así que intentaré no poner para arriba cuadros de mierda mudos o no violar cualesquiera de esas reglas más. Y no pondré ninguna mierda estúpida del asno en mi página del usuario. —xOsweetcandyyOx 11:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Haydenp smaller.jpg

The week I uploaded it I left a weeks long notice of a possible replacement for it. None was ever uploaded. Furthermore it is from her Official MySpace page, available for all users to download/use with no notice of copyright. Udstyle

Please see WP:FU. We may only use freely-licensed images to depict living people. This fair-use image is inappropriate. Thanks. --Yamla 19:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Untrue. In the Fair Use wiki it states that a promotional image/press kit (and this would stand as a press kit image) on Wikipedia only applies if it is not possible to replace such promotional image with a free image. The tag was placed on there the first week it was uploaded and after the 1 week period that the tag itself set a deadline for, the tag was removed because no free replacement could be found. This is the second time the Replaceable fair use tag has been put up, and from what I understand it only needs to be disputed once. If I misunderstood anything pertaining to that then there's no problem. If I am right however, then the question becomes how many times does a citation for the image need to be placed before it is accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Udstyle (talk • contribs)
After the one week period, if no replacement free image is found, the image is to be removed. The one week period is for you to provide evidence that it would be impossible to create a replacement image. That is, the person is dead or in hiding or there is otherwise some specific reason why no replacement image could be created. WP:FU spells out that if the subject is a living person, we may not use a fair-use image to depict them. See policy #1 and counterexample #8. --Yamla 01:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Growing Up Creepie

I see that you deleted that article a few months ago because it was created by an abusive sockpuppet. Acutally, there is a show called Growing Up Creepie that airs on Discovery Kids (see this and this as evidence). Squirepants101 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe you. However, as policy, we remove all content created by banned editors. Please feel free to create this article yourself if you wish. --Yamla 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:75.33.69.126

Any chance you'd care to comment on this unblock request? This isn't the only person who seems to have been caught up in it. Luna Santin 23:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I lifted the block. The ISP has completely ignored my abuse report. This means we almost certainly will now have to fight yet more Cute 1 4 u (talk · contribs) sockpuppets. Additionally, this block shouldn't have affected anyone who already had an account. I'm sorry for the collateral, however. --Yamla 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • nod* That's been a really curious one. Shame the ISP isn't responding. I rarely hear of abuse reports actually going through, but it usually seems worth a try. Let me know if there's something this old fool can do to assist. Luna Santin 22:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicole Richie images copyvio

Hi Yamla, I noticed that a user you've previously warned about tagging images with false licenses has just uploaded two very suspicious images for Nicole Richie. One of them had appeared in the article a few weeks ago before being deleted; I presume it was uploaded by this same user and removed due to copyvio. I'm not sure which channels I need to take this up on (other than dropping you this note), please let me know if I should list this on WP:CP or anything else. -SpuriousQ 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyvios

I get the feeling you have been launching a coordinated attack on users who oppose your interpretation of copyright law, and I have a feeling you've been working in conjunction with Chowbok and conspiring to eliminate everyone who opposes your plan. Again, I consider the Copy Violations to be alerts to fix the copy vio status. The problem is your copyright law is extremely extremely complex and I have read through it several times, for you to ban me from uploading images simply because I miss one or two points is ludicrous, this is the first time I've ever had to do this. But I'm telling you this is really affecting me, I feel like you've done this because you specifically have hate for me and that you never really tried trying to explain the rules to me. I have been a contributing user for a long time and have had my reputation dragged through the mud by people like you and Chowbok and I am getting sick of it. You've turned one of your highest contributing users into someone who feels awful and terrible inside. I would have fixed the copyright problems if you gave me a chance instead you push me into a corner, berate me and threaten me to get me to comply, its sickening.--Jack Cox 00:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Also, I personally think that mass deletion of images is ludicrous there needs to be a cap on how many images you can go after. Look, I have for the most part when Images have been tagged, I have tried to fix them, except when you use RFC which in my opinion is an almost instant delete because I cannot for the life of me try to use any argument to get around with it. I think your being extremely extremely rash and you need to calm down, I can fix problems but don't get antsy and jumpy, I will allow you the permission to delete diddy kiddies because the original source cannot be located and I cannot access it anymore. So go ahead and delete it, I don't care. I admit I am careless at times and I am sorry, you have to understand I have ADHD and sometimes i focus on things to intensly and Im more of a creative person. Just please this is the one thing I devote my life to, to block me from editing photos is like taking away a whole part of my being, I mean this and I am being serious, I really really love contributing to this place and I don't want to be driven away because I've forgotten things. Please for the love of God, don't do this to me.--Jack Cox 00:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, I've never left a comment on Chowbok's page. There's a good possibility that this is not the case, however. The point is that I am not working in concert with Chowbok. Also, it is not my interpretation of copyright law. In fact, copyright law has very little to do with this. Instead, it is Wikipedia's policies, primarily the policy on fair-use. Note that I have, for example, pointed out to you that we cannot use fair-use images (only freely-licensed images) to depict living people. You continue to upload and use fair-use images to depict living people, however. Now, I believe I have extended this offer before but just in case, I will extend it now. If you find an image you want to upload then before uploading it, if you tell me the location of the image, where you plan to use it, how the image is licensed, etc., I can check it out and let you know ahead of time whether it would be appropriate or not. What we cannot allow is for you to continue violating the policies. It was my intention that the ban on you uploading images would allow you to ignore this particularly troublesome (troublesome to everyone) area of Wikipedia and instead concentrate on areas where your contributions are invariably productive. My hope was that you could give up an area of Wikipedia which is causing you and me a great deal of frustration. If you don't want to do this, though, I am happy to work with you before you upload the images and try to point out what's right and what's wrong ahead of time. In case you are not already aware, much less than 1% of the images you find on the Internet are appropriate for use on the Wikipedia. Now, the problem with allowing you to continue uploading images unchanged is that you are putting the Wikipedia directly at risk. It's unlikely, I'll grant, but it is still a distinct possibility that your actions may directly lead to Wikipedia being sued. In summary, if you wish to keep uploading images, please check each individual image with me first. If you can think of another compromise, I'm happy to discuss it. We cannot allow the continued image violations, however. It's not a matter of being mean to you, it's a matter of protecting Wikipedia itself. --Yamla 01:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

See the biggest problem with this is that I would like to upload images that I know for certain I will be able to add for example some Voice Actor Clips could be added via www.bangzoomentertainment.com's Adventure in Voice Acting Video Pictures because that is streamed online video and because It is a screenshot of the voice actor in question. I think that you should at least give me permission to upload screenshots from movies.--Jack Cox 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think these would be appropriate? They certainly could not be used to show the person in the clip. They could be used with detailed fair-use rationales to provide critical commentary but this is unlikely given that they are voice actor clips. Similar problems exist with screenshots from movies; unless you are using them to provide critical commentary rather than just to provide pictures for an article, their use is in violation of WP:FU. --Yamla 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously now..

[23] - is there a reason the time you spend tagging for a fair use rationales could not be spent actually adding one ? Frankly it is disruptive. (PS: I don't want to hear: "I don't know what it is so I wouldn't know how to do it" - you know as well as me FURs are pretty generic language wise.) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You will notice I gave contact details in my message - I am offering to help him - my self - which is something you have - failed - to do; *that* is counter-productive, littering a good user with warnings and what not does not help in the slightest *at all* - he obviously does not understand 100% (which I know you can't say your self..) - I strongly urge you to back off and reconsider your role in Wikipedia - issuing non-existent bans, out of process deletions, etcetera are not good, and are like you say, counter-productive, there was a time when I considered you a "cool" user. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u

I've noticed another possible sockpuppet of hers, So Fine, editing pages she previously did. I hope you can take a look into that. Now I myself don't feel that we have an other choise rather than a range-block, she doesn't seem to stop. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:RefBot block

There are no instructions on {{unblock}} (nor its talk page) involving "denied an unblock by more than one admin", so where is this trap defined? And the actual block has not been reviewed, so the count is actually zero rather than two. (SEWilco 17:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

Hi Yamla, just wanted to point out that while your template says fully protected, this page has only been semi-protected. Which did you intend? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Upon further reading it looks as though you may have used the wrong template. That template should be used when users are making abusive messages, which I do not see, please correct me if I am wrong. I did not know which template to replace it with so I made a custom message. Often I am not sure which template to use, but the temptation to use one that is close, but not quite accurate, is one I try to avoid. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Adrienne Barbeau image

After reading Wikipedia:Fair use I still disagree with your interpretation of copyright law in your deletion the image of Adrienne Barbeau used in her iconic poster and her autobiography, both of which are mentioned in the article. The discussion of her poster comes as close to critical commentary as feasible for a poster. Let's fix this omission. Ghosts&empties 19:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, it has nothing to do with copyright law. The policy in question is entirely Wikipedia's, and is listed in WP:FU. We are only permitted to use freely-licensed images to depict living people. Certainly, we could use the poster in an article about that poster, or to illustrate the movie advertised (assuming it is a movie poster). The problem comes in to play when using a fair-use image in the infobox (that is, as a "lead image"); we are strictly prohibited from doing so. --Yamla 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking HorrorMoviesFanatic

Yamla, why did you block my account?? Did I do something wrong with uploading pics from other celebs or what? And when will I get my account unblocked? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Horror Zone (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

I blocked your account due to the large number of images you were uploading in violation of copyright and in violation of Wikipedia's image copyright and fair-use policies. You were warned numerous times about this. Your actions are directly putting Wikipedia at risk for a copyright-infringement lawsuit. Additionally, as you know from reading WP:FU, we may only use freely-licensed images to depict living people. Your block was for a week. The block timer has been reset today because I see you set up a new account and continued uploading images in violation of WP:SOCK. --Yamla 18:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Help plis

Hello Yamla, I want know that can you put the correct copyrigt in the Nicole's images because all the times that I put one image in the Nicole'wikipedia page, you remove and block me!! Plis, help me, I was lisencie for put the images but you remove! I am waitting a your answer Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ric.mc (talk • contribs)

We may only use freely-licensed images to depict living people. Not copyrighted promotional images or images from movies or movie posters. If you can find an image released to the public domain (that is, not copyrighted) or released under the GFDL or CC, we could certainly use such an image. This will be less than 1% of the images you find online, however. --Yamla 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank You!

Thank you SO much for unblocking me! My friend was messing around on my computer and got me blocked. Again, thank you! Dusty669211 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout now?

Right, so recently you blocked me for not having rationales on my recently uploaded movie posters. So, as I said in the e-mail I assume you got (since you didn't reply), I went back another time, and re-read all the policies for images, and fair use rationale, and believed I knew (and had on some of the images) how to meet these requierments. I realized I had not added the hidden text into the articles they correspond to, so I did that as well. If this is wrong, please just help me figure this out and don't jsut block me. As I mentioned before, I checked other movie posters, including the one for Metropolis which is the poster given on the Wiki article for movie posters. Thank you, again. Ganfon 22:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1 block

I have posted a comment at Skookum1's talk page supporting his request that the block be removed. I understand that you have some involvement with the process and thought I would draw my comment to your attention. KenWalker | Talk 06:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

User:82.148.97.69 block

You may be interested to know that you blocked a whole country for a month over some minor vandalism.--203.109.209.49 11:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested that your block is on BBC haha (of course the article demonstrates that even major media networks like BBC can't get the facts straight). I tried to get some admins to unblock it over IRC, but they were too damn lazy and no one paid any attention to little old me - I'm a troll and a danger to Wikipedia you know.--203.109.209.49 12:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Qatar Block

Hi, Yamla. There is a post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the block of 82.148.97.69 that you made. It is being claimed on various places (the IP talk page, WP:AN and WP:ANI) that this has blocked most or all of those editing from Qatar. I am skeptical, as I would expect the IP address to have a lot more contributions, especially good ones, if all of Qatar was using it and if multiple legitimate editors have already found themselves blocked in the relatively short time the block was made. However, after a quick look, it appears there may have been more legitimate contributions in the past than there have been in the last week or so. I looked for other IPs above and below 82.148.97.69 in an attempt to see if Qatar editors are really limited to only that IP, and I found several with contributions, but none have edited in months. So, I guess there is a chance that most or all of the country is being blocked. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know. Thanks, Kjkolb 13:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem fixed (see User talk:82.148.97.69 and block log). --Oden 17:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Qatar

No problem - I don't think anyone was to know until the IP was actually blocked and we got the flood of unblock requests (backed up by whois and RDNS searches). Thanks, Martinp23 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ric.mc

I want talk with you!About the Nicole's image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ric.mc (talk • contribs)

Certainly. What would you like to say? --Yamla 00:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR YAMLA King Dracula 12:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

who do you think you are?

how dare you accuse me of 'trolling'? what on earth are the specific requirements for a 'trolling offense'? what on earth is the matter with you? who decided that 'trolling' was a 'crime' on wikipedia? What exactly is 'trolling'? what is the burden of proof? what is your evidence? what is your problem?

who do you think you are? you have absolutely zero right whatsoever to talk to me this way, to treat me this way, or to accuse me of these things.

you should be ashamed of yourself, as should wikipedia for implementing these ridiculous policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.250.195 (talk • contribs)

Oh come off it. Some of your edits have included statements such as "an affront to civilization", "self-righteous blowhards", etc. Your trolling has no place on the Wikipedia and if you continue, you will be blocked again. --Yamla 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Uma barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar, and I'm glad we were able to work it out amicably! Larry Dunn 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I or can I not upload images?

Christ I would like to upload some screenshots is that difficult of not, I'm not uploading web photos, I'm uploading screenshots from Shows and from programs. I honestly don't think you should threaten my into doing this. I have the rights as a wikipedia user to upload photos and while I've had some problems this is upsetting me and I ask you to drop this or I will report you.--Jack Cox 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You can so long as you adhere to Wikipedia image copyright and fair-use policy. I've offered to work with you prior to your uploading an image to see if it is appropriate for use on the Wikipedia. The offer still stands. --Yamla 02:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you telling me I have to screen every single thing through you before I upload it, I'm done uploading images from Websites, i would like to upload screenshots from my computer.--Jack Cox 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
What I am telling you is that you must adhere to Wikipedia image copyright and fair-use policies. I am offering to help you out by reviewing images you upload prior to your uploading them to ensure you do not run foul of the policies. You are free to ignore this offer. I will not block you for uploading images which do not violate the policies but Wikipedia must protect itself and we may be forced to block you if you continue violating the policies. This is obviously a last resort but note that you have been blocked by more than one admin in the past for violating these policies. You've already had several second chances (granted, because you clearly mean well). The problem is that your continued violations put Wikipedia directly at risk, let alone the fact that you are continuing to violate policy. So, once again, you are free to upload images provided you adhere to Wikipedia policy. We are willing to help you proactively to ensure you are not violating these policies. But you must adhere to the policies. This is not negotiable. --Yamla 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Yamla! I've noticed something on my watchpage when I check for changes:

(diff) (hist) . . Christina Aguilera‎; 02:21 . . (+31) . . 212.127.216.22 (Talk) (→External links)

After the 02:21 there is this: (+31). What is that for? loulou 04:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the number of characters (or possibly lines) added or removed by that edit. --Yamla 04:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect my page

I am off my block and therefore am able to have my page unprotected, before you claimed i was abusing the unblock request. While we may have opposing views, I still feel i am able to have this done. With all due respect, Sportsguru9999 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

IP User

An IP user 84.69.113.78 keeps changing Ciara's genre on albums, singles, and main article. Is there something you can do? Could you tell JJH1992 not to change Justin Timberlake's genre of music. Someone add blue-eyed soul to his genre. We know he is, but it is not needed in his genre. Charmed36 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki

Help me I am only a newbie to wikipedIA!!!! Lord Lubbuka Das 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

unblock denial on User:nobs02

Re. [24]: Unless there are facts about this case of which I'm unaware, your comment "abusive sockpuppet" doesn't apply. Alternatively, there may be facts about the case of which you're unaware (earlier facts that aren't included in Nobs' summation link; see [25] for those facts). I've pestered another admin about this block, not because I'm a friend of Nobs, but because I believe this block-renewal was deeply unjust. Because of Nobs' political stance, I fully expect to be caught up in some unpleasant edit disagreements with him when he's unblocked. But fair is fair, and I'm darned if I can see anything fair about this current block. KarlBunker 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It appeared that this user created the account, nobs02, while nobs01 was blocked. This seemed clear to me. Is this not the case? If this is the case, the account is an abusive sockpuppet. If not, my denial of the unblock needs further review. --Yamla 20:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, it looks like the user used this account to edit articles on the Wikipedia rather than just to engage in the dispute resolution. As such, the sockpuppet is abusive as it was not adhering to the conditions set down. --Yamla 20:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobs was given permission to use the nobs02 account to present an appeal about the conditions of his arbcom ruling before the nob01 block ran out (I don't understand why the admin who gave him this permission did so, but whatever). Then, he carelessly used his nobs02 account for a couple (literally 2, I believe) of trivial edits outside of the pages where he had permission to use it. Because of this, his one-year nobs01 block was reset so that it will run for another year. There was clearly no malice in those two trivial edits. KarlBunker 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
My involvement is with the sockpuppet account, nobs02. I would not object to shortening the block extension on nobs01 but it is clear to me that the block should be extended somewhat and it is also clear to me that nobs02 knew the limitations placed on that account and deliberately violated them. Clearly malice aforethought. --Yamla 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It must be cool to be a telepath. KarlBunker 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It must be cool to be a telepath. But I must tell you, it is very cool to have common sense as well. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If everyone who had a lapse in common sense while editing was punished with a 1-year block, there would be NO ONE editing Wikipedia. KarlBunker 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the common sense Yamla used to determine the person had knowingly violated the terms of using a new user after being blocked. Yamla's unblock refusal of the second account is not related to the block of the first. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
HighInBC -- Ah, gotcha. However, the "Clearly malice aforethought" analysis indicates not only telepathic abilities, but pan-temporal telepathy--the ability to read minds in the past. Mightily impressive! KarlBunker 12:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No, you can take the known facts and come to that conclusion without paranormal ability. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo

lol Is he an admin or something? Because he keeps adding source tags and whatnot on T.I.'s page, and T.I. mentioned all this stuff already. Why couldnt he do a search on this stuff himself for proof? Georgia Peachez 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

nevermind..Georgia Peachez 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

71.231.130.56 hacks

User:71.231.130.56 hacked into my account (see my talk page history). Could you leave him/her/it a message to not hack? I will change my password, as I think I should. By the way, please sign the name game thingy. Cheerio. --Shaericell Talker to Name Game 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, can I upload images from IMDB if they are copyright safe? Thank you. --Shaericell Talker to Name Game 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Yamla/Awards is on MFD

The above subpage is on MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yamla/Awards. Please share your opinion. MER-C 13:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Project Invite

Hi there! Thought you might be interested in WikiProject Notability. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (5000+ articles), and we need your help! If you have a spare moment, please join and sort an article or tell your friends.

P.S. We could really use an admin to go through this backlog too, thanks! Diez2 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for not putting the appropriate information on the uploaded images. I have sorted out (I hope) the RAF 19 Squadron crest image, and am currently sorting the one for the Sopwith Dolphin. I'm not sure what to do with the Dolphin as I have lost the site where I got it. It is one of only a couple images of the Dolphin I can find on the internet though, so I thought it would be covered by Fair Usage. Please help. Thanks. Admiralross2400 18:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Award

This Wikidefender Barnstar is awarded to Yamla for tireless efforts to defend Wikipedia from all the evil people and maladroits. Well done!! Lord Lubbuka Das 14:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

You said that, "Deleting well-sourced information is vandalism". No matter how well-sourced, if the information is unrelated to the article and counts as propaganda (not accepted globally) then that is cleaning up the article not vandalism. If I include literature sourced from Taliban in the 9/11 article and you delete it, that won't be vandalism. Indian Air Force(IAF)

I did not vandalize Omarions page, I corrected an error. please check yourself before threatening.--198.110.72.130 14:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CITE to learn how you can cite your information. Also, read WP:RS and WP:V. Thanks. --Yamla 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Purple Barnstar

The Purple Barnstar
For putting up with it all, and not letting it get to you. Oden 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking, but how long do i have to wait for the rename? Daisuke-Matsuzaka 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I honestly do not know. I don't have the necessary permissions to rename a user. Sorry I don't have more information for you. --Yamla 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for doing my unblock... Had me worried there for a second. I thought I did something wrong! Thanks again. smileydude66 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me!

Thank you! I will prevent my friend from logging on to Wikipedia. Oh, and the accounts Dorky1, Dorky2, Dorky3, Dorky4, Dorky5, Dorky6, and Dorky7 should be blocked before any edits are made from them. They are all sockpuppet accounts of my friend and will all be used for vandalizing articles if not blocked immidiately. Once again, Thanks. Nacho Dork 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

1 Night in Paris

thanks for removing inappropriate ink from this article. this blocked website http://www.hotelheiress.com/?i=13139 is now tryibg to get around the spam block by using http://yep.it/ for redirection. if it persists, we will have to block this website also. 68.61.233.160 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Trent Reznor

I noticed you removed the image that was on the Trent Reznor article, and I wanted to ask why. It's free, doesn't that mean that it fair use does not apply to it and it can be used freely for any purpose? 75pickup (talk · contribs) 04:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I appear to be mistaken, sorry for the inconvenience, I was thinking of another image. 75pickup (talk · contribs) Alex Defalco 04:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Auto-Block Lift

Thanks for lifting the auto-block. I noticed it while I was at work earlier this evening as I occassionally do some wikipedia contributions when there is a lull at work. The company I work for has a huge campus, so apparently some other employee was not being a good wikipedia contributor and hosed our servers IP range as a result. Thanks for the timely life, as I was worried I would not be able to pass idle time at work (on breaks) helping out. Thanks again. Lestatdelc 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Chadbryant sockpuppet?

The Mob Rules could be Chadbryant. His first userpage [26] consisted of the phrase "When you listen to fools...the mob rules.", something Chadbryant himself used on your talk page in October [27]. Both editors seem to share common interests, namely Black Sabbath articles and wrestling. Furthermore The Mob Rules has nominated rec.sport.pro-wrestling for deletion, an article which Chadbryant has a significant history with. Regards. One Night In Hackney 16:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is WAY too obvious a Chad comeback attempt. TruthCrusader 22:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Wil Wheaton - Hobo

This was an honest question, NOT vandalism - see "Notable Hobos" section of the Hobo article. I didn't put that there. If you know it's wrong, then take it out. --RevWaldo 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. I thought you were making some bizarre claim or something. I've removed the false information from that article. Please feel free to remove my warning from your page, you were clearly not vandalising anything. --Yamla 04:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

List of famous tall men

Hi Yamla. I'm back for a shortly moment. Well, I noticed that Kevin Durand is also registered in celebheights.com [28] and a source of his height is already given. So I added him to the list of famous tall men. Please watch out that he won't be removed. Thanks. Sergeant Gerzi 07:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good call.

⇨REDVEЯS awards this Barnstar to Yamla for good use of judgment that is much appreciated.

Based on this as a catalyst to discovering your other very good works. ⇨REDVEЯS 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

lol good call. Syrthiss 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock help

Thanks for your swift help. 149.106.224.2 is now marked as a shared IP for an educational institution, per your suggestion. Wareh 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've to say I disagree with you. For me it's not Spam and is really relevant once it's about she herself and the government has banned Youtube. Also if the government would ban the Wikipedia I'd say it would be an alert and would make the people here upset to avoid future censorship (yes, in some places on Brazil the Youtube! is banned by now). But here is not the place to tell about this, let's go to the talk page. I wait you there, see you and happy new year! --Henriquevicente 03:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Image.

Can you upload images from a person's Official Website, and leave a link to their page as a source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.220.117.107 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

No, not if you are using the image solely to depict the person (unless the image is freely-licensed, which it almost never will be). If you wish to use it for some other purpose, please let me know what purpose. --Yamla 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Bug With The Wikipediholic Test Score Userbox.

There seems to be a bug with the Wikipediholic Test Score Userbox. It seems to be displaying a score of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. This is an impossible score, and all the other Users with this Userbox are also displaying it. What is going on? Acalamari 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; it seems to have changed back. Sorry if you're confused. I don't even though why it changed in the first place. Acalamari 00:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Stills

Hi Yamla. I was just looking through the film pages for Salaam E Ishq: A Tribute To Love and Baabul and saw that the gallery of stills didn't have any info on source and copyrights. I've removed the images from Baabul but not from Salaam-E-Ishq.. Just giving you the heads up. -- Pa7 18:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Optimism

Though I am an optimistic person in real life...I practice none of it on Wikipedia, see this :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the page survived 22 minutes and 38 seconds without being vandalised. Heh. If this keeps up, I'll probably semi-protect indefinitely. --Yamla 19:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me

Thanks for the unblocking. I assure you I only fouled up by getting confused in trying to make all possible redirects for Magnus Magnusson with diacritics and all, and wound up in a disastrous loop. An examination of my edits confirmed that I guess. Your assumption of good faith will be proved correct.

I guess you are a bit of an optimist, after all. Grandpa Moses 19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you for unblocking my ip address I am sorry for the disturbance that my fellow student BandofGold caused

Trap Muzik

Did Trap Muzik go Platinum as of December 2006?? Georgia Peachez 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the RIAA's website, though it is possible that the site hasn't been updated recently. --Yamla 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok..Thank You Georgia Peachez 20:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image crusade

Hi Yamla!

I have been reported to WP:AN/I for removing fair use images from infoboxes (I have been removing them from the article completely after a serial fair use uploader). Check out WP:ANI#Fair-use_image_crusade.

There is also an editor who questions why fair use images are not permitted in the infobox of a living persons biography and an administrator question whether repeatedly inserting such images constitutes vandalism. (User_talk:Oden#Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria)

Cheers! --Oden 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have piped up on the noticeboard, thanks for bringing my attention to it. I normally only skim ANI and would probably have missed the mention. I'm sure you are aware that enforcing WP:FU is one of the least likely ways on the Wikipedia to make friends. It looks to me like you aren't doing anything wrong, though, and Jimbo Wales has previously spoken up in support of other people (at least one of whom suffered an RfC) doing the same thing. That is, enforcing WP:FU. Thanks! --Yamla 01:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - TOR exit node.

Hi. You recently denied my request to be unblocked. The reason stated was 'TOR exit node'. I have no idea what a TOR exit node is. I would be most obliged if you could help me to understand what this block is for and what I can do about it.Morgan Leigh 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You can read more about tor here. I am not all that familiar with it, your best bet would be to contact the blocking admin. If you are unable to get anywhere, though, please do contact me again and I'll try to explain as best I can, including why we don't allow edits from these addresses. By the way, this may be obvious but the fact that you can leave a message for me means you are no longer blocked. --Yamla 01:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yamla,

You just flagged my sincere contribution as Spam here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:58.104.10.242#Spammer

Apologies for not being logged first, my mistake.

But do you say that a WikHow article on the subject is inappropriate? It is where folks collaboratively can contribute to make relevance the best possible

Or may be you consider it an internal link and so I place it in the wrong place. Please help.

Hope you don't think me as a spammer and block my ISP, I do despise them too.

Where can I head to intro myself, would you mind pointing me there Cheers, Otti

Hope my contribution is ok, so don't block me please

Hi Yamla,

You just flagged my sincere contribution as Spam here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:58.104.10.242#Spammer

Apologies for not being logged first, my mistake.

But do you say that a WikHow article on the subject is inappropriate? It is where folks collaboratively can contribute to make relevance the best possible. For the record, added to the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity

this external link:

http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Celebrity

Or may be you consider it an internal link and so I placed it in the wrong place. Please help.

Hope you don't think me as a spammer and block my ISP, I do despise them too.

Where can I head to intro myself, would you mind pointing me there


Cheers, Otti

You obviously have good intentions but this is not an appropriate link to add. The appropriate policies are WP:RS and WP:EL, possibly WP:SPAM but I think just the first two. The problem is that it is not a reliable source and not particularly encyclopedic. I will of course not block you, warnings are just to try to get you to read up on whatever policy you might not have found yet and blocks are only if you continue blatantly violating the policy which is not the case here.  :) Anyway, there's no real place I am aware of for you to introduce yourself but please accept my welcome.  :) --Yamla 16:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks for the un-autoblock, this happens quite often - my school or a proxy server used by it is autoblocked, so I can't edit from there. I assume by softening the block you meant allowing registered users to edit? Thanks anyway. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed.  :) Sometimes these things don't "take" for some reason, though. --Yamla 18:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rennie2

Hey, there; saw you'd blocked this user as a vandalism-only account, just about a month ago. They sent this to unblock-en-l, today, saying they'd like a second chance. Did you have any comment on that, before I do anything? Luna Santin 22:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to assume good faith and unblock them if this is your desire. They certainly are claiming they are going to contribute productively and we can always reblock if this is not the case. --Yamla 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. :) Luna Santin 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Torrie

OK, first of all I'm rather sorry about that matter. I only removed her link because that looks ugly for me. I recognized that you got very mad and angry about that matter. So I'm sorry for that, as I've said, and I don't want to become serious problems. Morris Munroe 16:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem! --Yamla 17:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: You really don't need to repeat my comments which I've left on several user talk pages on my talk page. Greetings and a happy new year! Morris Munroe 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what your problem is and I can hardly understand your English because my English is not well.
You must include your source when making an edit. Read WP:CITE to learn how to do this. It must also be a reliable source, not a blog or a fan site or something, as per WP:RS. --Yamla 21:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try this again. Give me a sign if my edit is unacceptable. Morris Munroe 21:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You must not edit Torrie Wilson for another 24 hours. This is because of WP:3RR. Additionally, please stop removing <ref>[http://www.wwe.com/superstars/raw/torriewilson/profile/ WWE.com profile]</ref> from that article. This provides proof of her height. --Yamla 21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Pt. whatever number I stopped at

I didn't upload that image lol. I never sign off my wikipedia account, so my little cousin or whoever uploaded it and put it on his page. Georgia Peachez 21:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are responsible for any edits which occur under your username. --Yamla 21:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I know. I'm just too lazy to sign off, i'm a very lazy person. I will sign off from now on. Georgia Peachez 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, thanks.  :) --Yamla 21:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

input request

Would you mind weighing in on this: Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#.7B.7BDVDcover.7D.7D? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User 149.9.0.27

Hi, you just unblocked IP user 149.9.0.27 about a week ago. Already this user has been deleting validly sourced material from List of philosophers born in the twentieth century. I would much appreciate any help in keeping this from escalating. Thanks, Steve 17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just saying "hi"

Just thought I'd mention that a long time ago, I too received an e-mail from Douglas Adams. I had asked him about a Leatherbound edition of the HHGTTG series that had the wrong names on the spine. He replied that he didn't know anything officially, but that if it was him, he'd hang on to it. NipokNek 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank You For Explaining What Happened

I was afraid I had done something wrong, i'm glad it was just a technical problem. A friend of mine helped me out and it appears to be fixed now. Thank you for letting me know what went wrong. Yankee Rajput 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You Might Want to See This...

I recently caught a user vandalizing the Talk:Atlantic Records page as a opposed to the main page for once, and caught this in their contributions as well...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sister Creating Account

My mom said it would be good for my sister to create an account on Wikipedia. Is it okay if she could join? We will be editing from the same IP but I don't want her to be thought of as a sockpuppet. Thank you for your time, sir. --Shaericell Talker to Triplets!!!!!!!!!! Most recent Ultrasound shows three heart beats and three heads! |Email Me 22:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

I'm not so sure. Well, if you or I can't find the tag for this in [29], then delete it in 7 days starting... now! Tcatron565 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And about becoming an administrator

I noticed that I could hardly understand you but my desire is to become an admin. The big problem is that if someone wants me to solve problems then I'm helpless. Morris Munroe 21:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You must have several thousand edits and at least six months of editing in order to be considered for an administrator. Your language skills may be a problem. Is there a Wikipedia in your native language? --Yamla 21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes but I've been joining the en.Wikipedia because it is more interesting.Morris Munroe 22:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
And you know what? Just listen to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOrc37wNUqU. Greetings! Morris Munroe 22:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, why didn't you reply? Morris Munroe 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
About archive my comments. Well, administrator Gurubrahma has given me a link ybout archive comments and I can hardly understand anything. Can you summarise this, please? Morris Munroe 12:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Please answer. Morris Munroe 17:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing images from article pages

I have started a new thread on this subject at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Removing_images_on_sight. Feel free to weigh in. --Oden 07:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

213.219.44.247

Hi, you blocked the shared IP of the company where I work. Which edits would do you think are spam edits? I'm thinking about unblocking this IP, but I just wanted to check with you first. Edward 10:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Normally we do not allow fair use images to be used in a <gallery> in an article, but this seems to be some sort of exception.

Sincerely, Oden 12:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Cheetah Girls

PLEASE HELP!! On The Cheetah Girls (girl group) page, somebody removed LOTS of info and nobody has done anything! This happens quite often and I normally know how to fix it but please can we safety protect that page? Jtervin 16:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What information? --Yamla 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Information such as external links, televison apperences, filmography, the tours section, the members of the group section and it was all done by somebody who did not register here at wikipedia, I cannot even figure out how to put all of the information back onto the page, could you help me with that also? Jtervin 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

MattR658

Thanks for letting me know. I've asked for assurances that he won't violate policies any more. If he agrees, I will unblock him. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

interpretation?

Could I get your input on a few things? Firstly, do you believe this image gallery (Fotovista S.A.) constitutes fair-use? Secondly, am I in the wrong here? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ric.mc, urgent!

I asked for permission for the Kevin Mazur to publish the photo of the Nicole with Paris, if everything to give certain I will pu the photo in the Nicole's wikipedia pages. Thak you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ric.mc (talk • contribs)

Great, good to hear. He must of course license it under the terms of the GFDL or other such license. Simply granting permission for it to be used on the Wikipedia is not enough. --Yamla 16:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

how I make for granting permission I will be it you be used on the Wikipedia with the permission already given for author ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ric.mc (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I really don't know what you are asking here. Are you asking about how to request copyright permission? If so, please check Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Yamla 16:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. They're not inappropriate links, they're standard further information links that are on the majority of professional wrestling biography articles. They contain a wealth of information, such as week by week wins and losses and other results, that can't and shouldn't go into articles, and I will be putting them back.«»bd(talk stalk) 16:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL. These do not appear to be official links, they seem to be fansites and as such would be inappropriate under WP:EL. Please let me know if this is not the case. --Yamla 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep removing these links? They are not fansites, nor does WP:EL say all links must be official. They are, however, neutral and accurate (What should be linked #3) and contain relevant information that does not merit inclusion in the article (#4). It does not meet any of the criteria for "links normally to be avoided". They're unique resources (as said), accurate, and not promoting the website specifically since they go straight to the wrestlers pages. There's nothing for sale, nor is there advertising or registration and they work on all browsers. They're regular HTML pages, and, again, specifically about the wrestler. Please stop taking them out. «»bd(talk stalk) 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought they were fansites. They seem to be fansites. gerweck.net is owned by Steve Gerweck, for example, not by the WWE or other wrestling organisation. Can you please let me know which wrestling organisations own these sites? Thanks. Once you do that, I will withdraw my objection. This all falls under the symmetrical relationship requirement (#13 on links to normally avoid). --Yamla 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine, they're not exactly "symetrical", but they're not fansites either. There's no reason they can't stay since they do provide actual information.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalising Photos by adding Tags

You have repeatedly vandalised photos, by adding tags you know to be wrong. The photos were released for use on Wikipedia by State Senator David Sypot. Please stop vandalising these photos, you are in violation of Wikipolicy. --71Demon 16:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not. The burden of proof is on you, the uploader. You have provided absolutely no evidence that these images were released under the GFDL. Instead, they appear to be fair-use images which cannot be used to depict living people. --Yamla 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You have completely ignored 100% release of these photos. You even have WV State Senator Dave Sypolt, expecting a phone call from you to confirm at (304) 698-5299. You have more information than 99% of the photos on Wikipedia, but you are ignoring it, like all Vandals. --71Demon 16:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
As the uploader, it is your responsibility to provide evidence here. I am not about to make an international call to confirm this. However, I will email them to ensure that they released the image under the GFDL. As an aside, please do not remove content from my user talk page again. --Yamla 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Unfortunately this IP address is used by many people. I hope that the block is removed soon. 195.92.40.49 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

71Demon

Please see the messages I have posted to his user pages at User talk:71Demon and User talk:141.157.157.114. - Mike Rosoft 19:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP user:24.211.77.160 you warned earlier. . .

. . .has vandalized twice today after your warning. It did two edits to Eva Longoria. Ronbo76 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

MattR658

I've unblocked him. Thanks for poking me. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia and quotes

(info removed) sorry this msg was aimed at a vandal not you. MY utmost apologies.

Please note that trivia and quotes do not belong in Wikipedia articles. Trivia doesn't belong because by definition, non-notable information does not belong in an encyclopedia. Quotes don't belong here, they belong in wikiquote. --Yamla 18:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A note...

Hi Yamla, I'm contacting you in regards to this: [30] edit. Please, in the future, don't insult editors... especially while acting as a representative of the administrative authority on wikipedia. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. I should probably just have left that user alone. However, I had just declined unblocks on several other similar usernames that this editor had created; he clearly was trying to waste our time, though this did not justify my response. --Yamla 02:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Declining looked like the right thing to do, so I'm not critiquing that! :) I figure if we treat even the lowest vandal with decency then we will end up with less bad feelings and less vandals. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For backing me up on those two unblock requests. Do you know about this? Spread the word and thanks for your support. --Guinnog 03:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Granted

Hello Yamla, would you mind kindly explaining this to me? I ask because this user and I are parties in a current ArbCom case and I would like to know what caused this block in the first place. Is this a sockpuppetry case and if so, where can I find the 'Suspected Sockpuppetry' case record? Or whatever else were the reasons for the block. I've tried looking around but couldn't find anything. Thank you. Ekantik talk 05:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This was an autoblock. The user was affected by a block on another user, Consumed Crustacean (talk · contribs), as you can see here. If you haven't heard about autoblocks, you can read more about them at WP:AUTOBLOCK. It is possible these two users are in fact the same person but I had no evidence of this. I was not the blocking admin, only the autoblock-lifting admin in this case. --Yamla 15:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Love Hewitt

No problem. I found a user on Flickr who freely licenses her pictures and has a lot of pictures with celebrities, so I'll try and upload more today. ShadowHalo 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heather Graham

Sorry Yamla, thought the image would be fair use since I lifted it off another wiki page (Felicity Shagwell), but apparently it's not... 216.191.239.82 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Email (or, something) from an infamous person.

thumb|88px|leftI just discovered your message regarding the copyright issues with Image:AudreyMunsonInspiration.jpg. Here is the story that goes along with that, and you can feel free to do the right thing. I wrote the article on Audrey Munson some time ago and at the time wanted to get a picture to show something about her movie career. I was mostly interested in her as a model for sculptors and other artists. So I got on the www and found the fellow who owned the rights to the picture and explained wikipedia to him and he said, "Sure, go ahead and use it." His name is included in whatever copyright information I included. I tend to hold on to such email, but I've suffered many computer crashes, system changes, etc since and might not still have the correspondence. Anyway, I'll look for it, and that's my pitch. Carptrash 23:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm guessing this picture is old enough to be public domain now. Any way to identify what year it was created? That's the easiest approach here. Otherwise, if it is new enough to still be covered by copyright, I think we are just going to have to ditch the image. But I think it is probably old enough. --Yamla 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well the movie that it was from was made in 1915 meaning that this is also the year of the photograph. That should do the trick, even if having the fellow who has the copyright saying it's okay to use it is not. Carptrash 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rated-RKO Picture

How was that picture used under fair use? I don't understand. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYANonWIKIPEDIA (talk • contribs)

You said we are using the image under fair-use when you uploaded it. You choose the {{WWE-photo}} tag. As the license specifies, you must provide a detailed fair-use rationale for each use on the Wikipedia. You have not yet done this. --Yamla 02:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Some Vandalism That You Missed

Sorry Yamla, on the Fergie (singer) article there was some vandalism that you missed. I put in my edit summary that I was reverting the vandalism you missed and not your actual revert. At the time of this writing, there is no vandalism on the Fergie (singer) article. Acalamari 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Katie Price Source

Hey, thanks for the message. I will look into the source more closely; however, I believe it is a promotional poster for her workout DVD. Like I said I will look into it more :) Also, I would like to know how Flickr works, if you could tell me. I've looked around and just want to make sure I have this correct. I can basically take a picture off of Flickr and link it, and credit it to the appropriate creator, and it's fair game, correct? Or do we have to get the okay from the creator? Most of the "guides" get kind of confusing and it's tough to look around and and see pictures with all various sources and whatnot, so it's tough to find an example. I want to contribute images, because I notice a lot of pages are lacking them, however I want to do it correct ^^ Again, thanks for your help :) Vivid Requiem 07:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we may only use freely-licensed images to depict living people. That is, if the flikr image is marked as licensed under the GFDL or to the public domain, that would be fine. Most CC licenses are fine as well, provided it allows modification. Basically everything else is off-limits, however. --Yamla 15:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Privacy Policy

Yes, we have one, and yes, there was a possibility it was violated (by me), in revealing information from the "From:" header of an e-mail to me. However, based on discussion with an arbitrator the release was acceptable, due to the user using his last name in a sockpuppet and first in his primary account. In addition there is a precedent on this from the Squidward vandal. Prodego talk 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha. Live and learn. Anyway, this was a pretty clear case of sockpuppetry even without that information. --Yamla 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This user really knows what he is doing from a technical point of view, he has used open proxies (possibly even closing one behind him), seems to have hacked into 2 web sites, and has some how gained access to an e-mail address at a major corporation's web site (where he does not appear to work) (unless he managed to forge headers and trick the Wikipedia servers, which I am not sure how you could do). Unless this user is not a sockpuppet... However that is extremely unlikely. Prodego talk 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on this.--CyberGhostface 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PD sources required?

If an image has only a free-use copyright tag, my instinct is to request a source even though many of those copyright tags don't require one in their verbage. For example {{PD-USGov-State}} only says that the image is PD and nothing required about source, but it seems to have no burden of proof. Specifically, I'm referring to Image:G8 bombings response.jpg (see history), but this is problematic in all venues. Say I were to upload a questionably copyrighted image (say, [31]) but tagged it with {{PD-release}} or {{PD-USGov-State}}. Without a source required, what is the recourse since the licensing doesn't explicitly require it? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Special:Upload unambiguously states that the source of the file (in this case, an image) must be provided or the image will be deleted within one week. Wikipedia:Image use policy says, "fully describe images' sources and copyright details on their description pages". I think it is quite clear, barring any evidence to the contrary, that sources must be provided even for public domain images. It seems to fit both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia's image policies. It is my opinion that {{PD-USGov-State}}, for example, is not immune from this simply because it doesn't spell it out there as well; anyone uploading an image would already have seen that a source is required. --Yamla 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Alessandra Ambrosio

100px www.thehairstyler.com

Image does not appear on this URL. --Yamla 15:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[32]<<<<<< Click on this link smartass you will see this picture on this website. King Lopez 07:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it is important to specify correct sources for images. I have deleted this particular image because it violates WP:FU. That is, it is a fair-use image used solely to depict a living person. --Yamla 11:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added the rationale for the poster -I always add a rationale for a screebshot but I thought the licensing terms of posters are enough to constitue fair use. And "my contributions is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in". Hey I haven't made over 35,000 edits to wikiepdia to not know this! All the best. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

hey, i appriciate the help, but I have only been adding links to the wrestlers entrance videos, I've worked very hard to gather these videos to add to wikipedia and I don't believe they are inappropriate at all. They're not for advertising or promotion purposes as you implied, they are for reference purposes. thanks anyway tho —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wf.the.assassin.wf (talk • contribs) 12:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

WP:COPY, WP:EL, WP:SPAM. Go for it, baby! — Nearly Headless Nick 12:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You are not permitted to link to sites which violate copyright, as these videos all do. --Yamla 12:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

these videos are not available commecially anywhere. I have removed the music from a few videos that are still under WWE copyright and replaced it with generic music (PD). I'm just trying to contribute to wikipedia but you're making me feel awful man. I don't feel like even bothering to help anymore.. wikipedia is never gonna improve much if you're this picky... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wf.the.assassin.wf (talk • contribs)

These videos are taken from television captures. It does so without permission of the copyright holder. As such, we are not permitted to link to them. If you own the YouTube account, I strongly suggest deleting these right away; you are exposing yourself to legal action from a company known to aggressively pursue copyright infringers. Please note: I am not threatening you with legal action here, I am suggesting that the copyright holder may come after you on YouTube for these violations. --Yamla 12:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

block

Thanks a ton for removing the block! Much appreciated. AaronSw 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Toajaller3146 wants you to read his request

Toajaller3146 wants you to read his unblock request (even though you declined it). Here is what he said on his talk page: I was reverting them abck because they were reverting it for no reason, even when i provided a pciture for the promo. I dont need sources for the romance part, it's flippin obvious. Squirepants101 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

T.I.

Can we get his page semi-protected ASAP? His new album coming out soon and his page will be distroyed by the haters. Georgia Peachez 07:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My edits

You can remove the URL but the sentences fit in the article. Barraki 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New Chad Bryant sockpuppet: User:The Real Alexander Cain

Greetings! I noticed that you have dealt with the menace that is Chad "User:Chadbryant" Bryant in the past, as well as his steady supply of sockpuppets. He is once again disrupting the editing process, while also attempting to steal my identity, which he has done at on at least two other occasions. Please do deal with this again, if you don't mind. Thank you. Alexander Cain 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear as to why you are toying with an obvious Chad Bryant sock, but I think you're only succeeding in letting him cause more problems. Alexander Cain 03:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Pages needing protection ASAP: Toa, other Bionicle pages- Leaked, illegal images floating around. Playstation Portable- Vandalism. Neopets-To eb safe from vandalism

Toajaller3146 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

oh, and also, maybe Kingdom hearts series to eb safe from vandalism about KH3/KH2 FM+ speculation. Toajaller3146 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to request page protection. Thanks. --Yamla 17:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vanessa Anne Hudgens

Since you always seem to be monitoring this page and rollbacking vandals, is it possible if you could semi-protect the page from the large spree of anon vandalism? bibliomaniac15 01:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, trust me

I am not lying. A full year of not being a part of the community will not help me...I am honestly saying this. I will not do anything of that nature. The only reason I had done so was to stop a real puppeteer. I am not a liar. Please give me one more chance. If anything, if I were to make an error after this, I'd deserve to be indefinitely blocked. But I really promise not to do anything like that. I am saying this because nothing matters more to me than maintaining my own user page. Please allow me to have my user account. That is all I ask. Please. I await your response. - Zarbon

That you continue to avoid your block shows that you have no intention of adhering to Wikipedia policies at this time. I have blocked your IP address for continued abuse. --Yamla 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing pages I shant

Aye, yes, I'm well aware of that. I was suckered in I say! By my weakness! The page will be deleted anyway. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vox-screenshot.png

How does this image have "no explanation as to why it is permitted under Wikipedia's rules for fair use." When the copyright tag explains why it is fair use. Cavenba 06:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It has a license but not a detailed fair-use rationale. Please see Help:Image page for information on fair-use rationales. Thanks. --Yamla 16:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

" It is believed that the use of a limited number of such screenshots

  • for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question
  • on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Cavenba 22:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, and in order to use them on the Wikipedia, you must adhere to WP:FU which requires a detailed fair-use rationale as described on Help:Image page. We require additional steps over and above what the law requires. --Yamla 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

deactivate

Please deactivate my user. Thanks. Morris Munroe 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Complaint from User:Sumit Desai

I added a photo to Aishwarya Rai which i thought didnt carry a copyright because an experienced wikipedian told me you were allowed to use photos from Flickr!! However after a talk with Rüdiger Wölk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sumit_Desai#Flickr_pictures><http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:R%C3%BCdiger_W%C3%B6lk#My_Images> he - unlike you - sensibly and intelligently told me we can only take photos from flickr with Creative Commons-license. I understood this.

I'm not pleased with the manner in which you just laid down some kind of template on my talk page without even taking the time to doscover what's been going on... i DID NOT vandalise ANYBODY'S WORK, i ADDED a picture. even though the history has 2 edits, it was just anaddition of an image caption, so i made ONE - as you wrongly/incosiderately call it- "UNCONSTRUCTIVE" EDIT !!

you may have made all these contributions and had recognition etc., or not, but you have a lot to learn from User: Rüdiger Wölk !

Please don't ad this rubbish on my page again because ironically it sounds like vandalism to me. Just unconstructive jibberish

Sumit Desai 22:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, you specifically removed a warning not to add an image which violated WP:FU and to be sure you had read and understood this policy. By removing it and adding the image, you indicated that you had read WP:FU and you did understand the policy. And then you blatantly violated it! If you had a question about the policy, you should have asked before you uploaded the image. When you upload an image, you are warned that you must include the source and accurate license, yet you did not. I don't know what additional steps we could have taken to ensure that you didn't do this. If you have any constructive suggestions, please let me know. --Yamla 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't know they were spam links. I didn't mean to any harm. Can you explain to me what spam links are and why those links were spam links? I have asperger syndrome and I get confused esaily. Neptunekh 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Best bet is to read WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Essentially, fansites are not appropriate. And in general, we are much better off with fewer rather than more external links. --Yamla 23:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


This wasn't my fault

Are you blaming me? If you are please tell me. It wasn't my fault. I didn't know they were spam links. Neptunekh 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that I have ever warned you about inappropriate links. Even if I have, it's just a warning that you are violating policy. Only if you keep on doing it does it become a problem. No worries. --Yamla 23:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't cause trouble. I'm don't want argue. By the way do mind me asking is wikipedia an American website, europeon or international one? That's one questions I can't figure out. Neptunekh

You can read about the Wikipedia at Wikipedia. Its primary servers are in Florida, U.S.A. --Yamla 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Shaericell/Name for mom's triplets

Hello, Yamla. Could you explain to me why you want to delete it? Ravedave had one as well; no one wanted to delete it. I do not see what you want in mine. If you wish to delete I'd like to have a restored history, all I ask. I don't want to argue with you so I will ask you. Could you explain? Thank you, --Shaericell (Userpage|Talk|E-mail|Triplets) 01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is to be used for an encyclopedia anyway. It's not the right place for socialising or naming your mother's triplets (congratulations, by the way). --Yamla 02:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I am sorry. Once you delete could I have its history at least? --Shaericell (Userpage|Talk|E-mail|Triplets) 02:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you interested in the current version? A specific older version? All older versions? Let me know, I'm sure we can work something out. No problem. --Yamla 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Yamla, received your message. What is wrong with the image, sourced it, proper copyright, but I see nothing wrong. I would like all the previous versions and the current. Thank you. --Shaericell (Userpage|Talk|E-mail|Triplets) 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that this is a promotional image or some such and we are only permitted to use free images to depict living people. Free here does not mean "distributed for free" but rather, licensed such that people may freely reuse the images. Basically, what this means is that well over 99% of the images you find on the Internet are unsuitable to use to depict a living person. Only images released to the public domain or licensed under the GFDL or CC licenses are appropriate, and almost never will you find such an image. WP:FU has more. --Yamla 03:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets.

I believe I have found three possible sockpuppets: Subcard123456, Subedar123456, and Subintern123456. I believe they are sockpuppets of Subuser123456, which itself is a sockpuppet of Himalayanashoka. The three sockpuppets have similar names, and similar edits to their User and Talk Pages, which is my proof. Plus, Subintern123456 has "remove British POV" on the User Page, so I definitely think these are sockpuppets. Acalamari 18:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use?

Why is it all of a sudden that there needs to be additional fair-use rational (other than what it states in the license)?

Cavenba 19:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no sudden need. This has been Wikipedia policy for quite some time. In fact, the license text has long spelled out this requirement explicitly. Additionally, please note that fair-use images may not be used to depict living people, so for example the image for Peter MacKay cannot be used here. --Yamla 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are you using tags that say "This image is tagged as being allowed under "fair use" with a generic fair use template such as {{Non-free fair use in}} or {{fairuse}}, and was uploaded after May 4, 2006." When I have NOT used either template for ANY image Cavenba 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Because these are not the only fair-use templates. They are two of the possible fair-use templates. logo and Canada-policitian-photo are two others. Also, just in case you didn't catch it, an item released under crown copyright is by the very definition not in the public domain. --Yamla 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hey. Could you offer your opinion at Image:3x07.jpg#Licensing please? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.221.99.183

So he's now unblocked and vandaled 9 times but I can't warn? And I can' turn them in for reblocking since there is no final warning showing. What can I do? Please let me know. Thanks.--Xiahou 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Frightened of you? Not me. :)

No, I had to go. Maybe it would help if I created a status bar thingy. Okay. I'll see if I can do what was requested. Good day! --Shaericell (Userpage|Talk|E-mail|Triplets) 03:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of User:32.97.110.142

Hi,

I noted that your recently refused to unblock User:32.97.110.142, stating that there was vandalism, and that users should get an account. Please note several things: 1) There is no evidence of vandalism that I could find coming from this IP address. 2) When this router is blocked, all users are blocked, not just anons. Even if one is logged in, one still can't edit. 3) This router is part of a pool of routers for IBM North America, serving 110K employees and contractors. Blocks will be ineffective, because there are other routers in the pool. 4) Vandalism and bad conduct are against the IBM Business Conduct Guidelines. Misbehaviour of employees (provided their identities can be found out) can and should be reported. linas 15:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for unblocking!--Eukesh 17:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Image help

Hi Yamla, you participated in a discussion about the fair use of Canadian politician images some time ago. You agreed with my suggestion that non-free images of living politicians from the past when their appearence was different were acceptable. No one disputed this. However, a user, Abu badali, disagrees. I wonder if you could offer your input, one way or another, at Image talk:Bobrae-premier.jpg. Another administrator, Zanimum actually closed the discussion and said the image should be kept, but Abu badali has reverted the closure and indicated on my talk page that "Zanimum is the admin that had committed most image abuses ... avoid his guidance", though I had sought no guidance from him. - Jord 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:TNTfan101

It's a direct block on his IP for 6 months: [33]. I don't know the circumstances, and I know when you asked to unblock you thought it was an autoblock. I'll let you decide how to proceed. —bbatsell ¿? 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my blocking

Hi, I'm writing about the 24-hour block on me yesterday. I just want to apologize for any legal jeopardy I may have caused to Wikipedia. I really thought that the images I uploaded were OK. I realize that lately Wikipedia has been getting more strict when it comes to uploading images, so I'll never upload any copyrighted image ever again. My only goal is to help enrich Wikipedia and make it as informative and useful as possible, with absolutely no bad intentions whatsoever. I guess I'll just stick to text. Thank you for your kind attention. Chris1219 13:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Why do all my pictures have those stupid deletion tags on them because of fair use? I told you guys why I believe it is under fair use, so what's the problem? I've seen other pictures with that exact fair use reasoning and those pictures haven't been deleted, so why are mine? - RYANonWIKIPEDIA

All fair-use images must have detailed fair-use rationales. Additionally, we are not permitted to use such images to depict living people. There are many images which violate Wikipedia policy. If you find any, please tag them appropriately. Thanks. --Yamla 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Help - Someone has left a threat on my User page

Hello Yamla, someone has left a threat on my page to tell me not to edit the Ajith article.

I know who it is and they are editing without a name. The user I presume is User:Anwar_saadat. The unknown user's contributions are [34], which are similar of Anwar Saadat. The talk page [35] shows that he has recieved several warnings for vandalism. It also shows that others such as User:Bhadani also think he is actually User:Anwar_saadat.

By the way he left me a comment ' Please stop vandalising Thala article. Illena un thangatchiye soothadippen.'

This means ' Please stop vandalising Thala article. Or I will rape your sister.'

The thing I am not pleased about is the fact that I have never vandalised any articles in my time on Wikipedia!

I believe this behaviour should not be tolerated on Wikipedia.

Thank You for your time, I hope justice is done

Pokkiri 18:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my unblocking

Thanks for taking the time. I will follow your advice. Best regards, --Abu Badali 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali before unblocking him. Badali has a bad history of the sort of edits he was blocked for. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
"The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors."[36] It seemed to me that he was blocked for leaving templated warnings about legitimate errors. This may not have been the most civil approach and I do know this has been an issue before, but he was not blocked for that, he was blocked for WP:STALK and WP:POINT. --Yamla 20:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:24.236.237.88

May I, with all due respect, ask you to wkeep this page protected, remove the unblock template but keep the warnings in place? Computerjoe's talk 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking of Dino

Are you aware that you helped unblock a user (Dino) who claimed that he called the author of a particularly contentious article, and then claimed that this author said that he never wrote said article here (when he did write the article - and it's even archived on his website!) - and based on this info a Wiki Foundation employee (who is not an especially active editor) User:Carolyn-WMF edited a contested article and removed critical material based on these false claims by Dino? proof here I look forward to a complete investigation of this matter, and find the utter unresponsiveness of this WMF employee and another Foundation member, Danny Wool, when questioned about this matter by two Admins and two editors more than a little troubling. Fairness & Accuracy For All

The discussions involved in this unblock are available in the unblock-en-l archives. This user was not blocked because of those edits, he was blocked for being a sockpuppet and the consensus of unblock-en-l came to the consensus that the user was not a sockpuppet and deserved to be unblocked. Anything more is outside of my expertise in this matter. I'm not saying that there are no other issues, only that they were not involved with this particular block or unblock as far as I am aware. --Yamla 21:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - Do you not look at other, still-unsettled issues, including the VERY serious, highly likely charges that he tricked a Wiki Foundation Employee into editing on his behalf, based on lies - issues that would mandate permanent blockage before unblocking such a user? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
No. The block was for being a sockpuppet and this is what we looked at during the unblock. Note that this was not a unilateral decision to unblock this user. There's nothing preventing the user from being reblocked, however, if these issues can be substantiated. Please see WP:DISPUTE and the various noticeboards at WP:AN if you wish to file a complaint about this user. Please note that I am recusing myself from any such investigation due to my involvement on unblock-en-l. --Yamla 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

I'm glad to see that you chose to unblock me. I hope we can settle image disputes civilly if they arrise in the future. Just please, for everybody's sake, if you're going to block somebody in the future, at least give them warning. VitaleBaby 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believed I had given you a warning. That was the intention of the message I left for you, which I blanked. I can see why you would believe this was not a warning, however, so I will try to be more careful in the future. --Yamla 01:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it was not a warning. It was notice. I believe this was just a misunderstanding and that it was unclear to you that I had contacted the governor's office a second time. But let's put this behind us. Anyway, I'm just saying that you need to give one of the big bold 'you will be blocked if you do this again!' type of warnings if this occurs with someone else. A less experienced user might not take it so well. VitaleBaby 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:IMTHEWORLDSGREATEST

In response to your unblock denial on User talk:IMTHEWORLDSGREATEST, I think he just wants an unblock so he can create a new account. He claims he cannot, and I don't understand why, though. I can vouch for him until I see him doing that nonsense again. Regards, Tuxide 03:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo impersonator username block

I saw your block review at User talk:James Donal "Jimbo" Wales. It looks to me from his contributions, including his edit on the "real" Jimbo's page, that he's just blatantly trolling. Given that he has no contributions other than the silliness about his name, the bureaucrats wouldn't grant a name-change request from him even if he picked a valid name; they would just tell him to create a new account. I suggest just saying enough is enough and removing the request for unblock, but I didn't want to do anything without consulting you. Newyorkbrad 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me. In fact, that's why I refused to lift the autoblock (if one is hitting him) until he listed the specific username he was planning on using. In almost every other case, I've immediately lifted a username block but here, I couldn't assume good faith. Please feel free to go ahead and let the user know.  :) --Yamla 20:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Snowboarder

No problem, I like that image my self (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Rose 2.jpg

I just found the picture while searching on Google. So how do I put a source for it?--Dil 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, a little help here would be nice!--Dil 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Charmed: Reset Reality

This is a real virtual series, not vanity. I wish you put this back and let me finish the page as you would of seen and probably noticed but ignored I was working on the page, I was in fact just this minute putting up the copyright, including the fact that none of the actress were really part of the series, just someone we wish to play the characters.

I feel what you did was unfair and uncalled for. I will re put up the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dantay06 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm adding to this, you are continued to insult and belittle me. This is a serious claim, this is a open site and it is what the site is for, I'm just adding something like others, if you let me finish it will prove to be a worthy page.

No. Please see WP:NOT. This is not what the site is for. You are violating WP:COI and WP:NOTABILITY. Please stop. --Yamla 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Would wiki-site be the place?

I'm sorry, I am not familiar with wiki-site. --Yamla 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page - Isn't this a wikipedia sister site?

I'm sorry, I really don't know. I'm not at all familiar with them. --Yamla 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance of retrieving the information I did happen to write, it took my three hours and I would like to re-use it if possible. If not I'll just be pissed off, but that ain't the end of the world. Thanks if you can, sorry about the whole above business.

Template:Replaceable fair use

Hello there! It appears that there is a bit of conflict brewing on the template I mentioned. Since the template is protected (ergo all the warring parties are admins), page protection doesn't seem to be an action for ending the fighting. In any case, please discuss things on the talk page because it's much better than wheel warring. (I'm giving people involved in the RV-athon this message. If you know someone else who needs to read it, send it to them, too.) ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

AP:AN

Please read & reply to this DXRAW 05:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am interested

Vote early, vote often

in getting people to vote about this picture which was just removed from the sacrifice article, so am contacting everyone recent on my talk page. Please consider taking a few minutes, looking it over, and voicing an opinion. Thanks. Carptrash 03:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

request?

Could I get your assistance/input here? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

... and here? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Is matthewFenton (talk · contribs) an administrator? [37] & [38] — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Dooood, read the tag at the top of this page :-) - and no I'm not, but I thought that was pretty obvious, and no where does it say "only administrators may close blatant keeps" - ps: How did I know you would message Yamla ;-)? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Matthew Fenton is correct; adminship is not a requirement to close blatantly obvious requests, in either direction. I am an administrator, and the only reason I didn't close it myself was because I uploaded the image (and the first time was before current criteria were firmed up). If nothing else, with your assistance, Image:WotW_pub.jpg now has one of the strongest rationales of any fair-use image within the project ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ciara discography

Could you please lock Ciara's discography page. I'm tried of the vandalism such as, unregistered users changing the worldwide certification of Goodies. I find a source, but I don't think it's reliable. They change RIAA certifications. Charmed36 00:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:151.203.238.70

FWIW, you can find some of the background about this person at User talk:151.203.15.96. He can't vandalize his preferred target, Prussian Blue (duo), so he takes out his frustration elsewhere. He's started to amuse himself recently by posting nonsense comments to my talk page; see Special:Contributions/141.154.209.201 and Special:Contributions/151.203.238.70. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

All very well

How are you Yamla!

If you are giving me this warning it is only fair to hand it out to others such as User:Anwar_saadat, User:Prince_Godfather and User:Hariharan91.

As they do not seem to take into notice what I have done.

Fair enough about the picures, I will gradually learn how to link them properly, thank you for pointing this out I am hugely greatful for this. As I respect you as my teacher.

Have you looked at my previous complaint about a threatening on my user discuaaion page, I don't think I have had a reply on that as yet.

Thank You Yamla. I was only trying to help not vandalise I am sorry about this, I will take other people's work into account, but however others must also take my work into account.

Thank You

Happy Editing, Have a great end of the month

Pokkiri 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:8a457c0b.jpg22

again, I need HELP

cusulli 20:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. What do you need help with? --Yamla 20:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yamla,

How do you do? I just want to add the fan site link for Trisha. (trisha-forever.com) It's not a commercial one. It's approved by Trisha and her mom, Uma. And it's an official fan site for her, since trishakrishna.com hasn't been updated by the Galatta webmaster. So please don't remove it. Thank you.

Regards, Reena —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reenafame (talk • contribs) 08:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Byou

I made the improvements that was asked for Byou.← Check it out. QuasyBoy 24:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a Request for Comment regarding you, located at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Yamla. If you believe you have anything to add, please consider doing so. Thank you. Justen 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed Yamla's response to the RfC and, with a clarification, endorsed it. Justen, please review the response and the endorsement comments and consider withdrawing the RfC and/or updating your presentation. Yamla, by the way, please let me know how to subscribe to the unblock-en mailing list, so that we can share some of the load of these requests. Newyorkbrad 17:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and clarifications on the RfC. You can sign up for the unblock list at this location. The complete list is available at Wikipedia:Mailing lists. --Yamla 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cusulli

Hi, I am getting problems with Image:8a457c0b.jpg, and I wondered if you could tell me what I need to do since you flagged it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cusulli (talk • contribs)

Certainly. We require that the image source identify the copyright holder, not just the "republisher". You have not identified the copyright holder for that image. Additionally, this appears to be a fair-use image used to depict a subject which still exists. This part is hard to understand but we must only use FREELY-LICENSED (public domain, GFDL, some CC licenses) images to depict subjects which exist. See WP:FU for more information on this. Even if this is not the case, we require a detailed fair-use rationale for each use of that image. See Wikipedia:Image description page for more information on detailed fair-use rationales. --Yamla 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok

Thank you for not holding any grudges, as I do not hold any against you. I just feel that you're hasty when it comes to blocking people. I think negotiation is a much more valuable tool when dealing with constructive editors. But good luck to ya. Mr. Vitale 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tiffany pollard's name on IMDB is TIFFANY PATTERSON

im sorry about my supposed "Vandalism" on the Tiffany pollard page but the name needs to be changed to tiffany patterson as stated on he IMDB (Internet Movie Data Base) so if im not allowed to fix the problem please do so and check YOUR facts, thank youаа —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thelos (talk • contribs) 20:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

imdb is not a reliable source. Please see WP:RS. We already have a reliable source for her name, cited in the article itself, here. Her name is Tiffany Pollard, not Tiffany Patterson. --Yamla 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yamla, thanks for the response

Hi Yamla, Thanks for the kind response. I try to post it to the right place, just correct me if I am wrong again. I hope to contribute to social commentaries and average users experiences / knowledge about LED lights. In particular really smart, home, fun and therapy applications that are hopefully applicable to most of us who read wikis. Here is my Wikihow page http://www.wikihow.com/User:Otti-N and my site blog on LED lights http://www.fun-led-light.com/led-light-blog.html that always have my updated "brain" on those subjects. So thanks again for making me feel welcome and for the pointers especially. Otti N 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Shaericell's recent block

Hello Yamla, I have a quick question for you. I would like to know why you blocked Shaericell. Not that I oppose your decision if you had a reason, but I'd like to know why. Did she do something? RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 12:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I looked at her talk page, and she had images that you wanted replaced. I still hold my query though. Why was she infinantly blocked? RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
She was indefinitely, not infinitely, blocked because I believe her and her "sister's" profile are fraudulent, because she has been uploading images with apparently deliberately false licenses, using Wikipedia for social networking, etc. I have contacted her by email and given her several options, all of which would involve unblocking, and would be happy to do so if she is willing to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Once again, this is not meant to be an infinite block, it is meant to be a temporary block until she can resolve the licenses on the images her and her sockpuppet have been uploading or until they agree not to upload fake images, and until she has read WP:NOT. --Yamla 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ra-Hoor-Khu

Hi, can you block this user before he edits any more please? Blatant vandal account and I'm just following him around reverting. Thanks, SteveLamacq43 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:RJII

I saw your note on Pschemp's page. Please note that User:RJII was banned for one year, effective July 1, 2006, by an Arbitration Committee decision. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0#RJII_banned. I assume you weren't aware of this, which is understandable as it was never reflected in the account's block log, although the case is linked on the user's talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you unblocked "All Male Action." What does your edit summary "Parent account was blocked for being shared" mean? Is "All Male Action" now capable of editing? 172 | Talk 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that the block of RJII for "shared account" was before the ArbCom ban, so I believe the latter would supersede the former. Newyorkbrad 17:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the ArbCom decision. When I took a look, it appeared that the account was blocked solely because it was a shared account. Based on this, I unblocked All Male Action. It appears that this was the initial block but that the ArbCom decision later modified this. My apologies, thanks to everyone who spoke up. --Yamla 18:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. (I made more than a fair share of misapplied blocks and unblocks myself.) Thanks for the note. 172 | Talk 18:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see question left for you at...

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DeanHinnen Thank you so much! --BenBurch 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Nazi insertion man

You seem to have granted the user's request to unblock to ask for a username change; however, the account is still blocked. (Personally, I wouldn't have unblocked the user, as he seems to be only here to cause trouble; but if your opinion is different, it's your call.) - Mike Rosoft 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on both points. I think possibly unblocking the user is stretching WP:AGF but hey, I'm a hopeless optimist. --Yamla 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kara Borden

Please note the cite for the information which has been on this page since 2005. http://en.allexperts.com/e/k/ka/kara_borden.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommypowell (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia cannot be used to cite itself. Please reread WP:RS. --Yamla 16:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
All right-here is a newspaper article from the Lancaster New Era newspaper dated November 22, 2005. You must sign up for the archive to read the complete article.

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/18762

Or you can go here and read the first result: http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=lancaster+new+era%22+kara+borden%22+ludwig+2+06+91&btnG=Search Tommypowell 19:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. Read WP:CITE to learn how to add this as a citation and feel free to add the information back. Thanks! --Yamla 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet

I looked at User:zach1114's contributions and the only time zach111493 comes up is by the part where the page is called user:zach111493/easier format. 24.190.158.229 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

These two accounts are clearly owned by the same person. They edit from the same IP address. --Yamla 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He probably are relatives or one doesn't have i.e. 24.190.158.229 18:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

With the same name and the same birthdate? This is close enough to qualify as a sockpuppet as per WP:SOCK. --Yamla 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason the account is Zach1114 is that it was the quickest name I could think of for my friend and he agreed. By the way he doesn't have internet so he only uses it when he comes to my house. From Zach111493 my talkmy contributions 02:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Coopyright violation

Will you please do something about Lilb1293? This person is still uploading images without adding the source info. I had recently nominated an image claiming to be the cover to Keyshia Cole's sophmore album, Tears From a Soldier's Heart, for deletion. Well, that image has recently been deleled, but the user uploaded another image (different from the first) claiming to be the official cover also. Either he/she should provide the necessary source information, or stop uploading images altogether. Admc2006 20:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely. --Yamla 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A little help?

You really know how to organize a page, Yamla. I was wondering how to get a backround or maybe even one of those editing counters on my User Page. I'm relativley new to this whole experience and need a few pointers. By the way, You're my favorite wikipedian. Just thought you might want to know.

-Nick B. Student and Wikipedia Editor

--I am your father. 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Zac Efron

I didn't add any links to Zac's article. I removed one...but I most certainly didn't add any...did you maybe post on the wrong person's talk page? -Sukecchi 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This could very well be. I suspect I had too many browser windows open and added the comment to the wrong one. Please accept my apologies and feel free to remove the warning from your talk page. Have a good weekend! --20:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, mistakes happen. I hope you have a nice weekend as well. -Sukecchi 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Help

Yamla, I seriously need help. You see, there is currently an edit war going on at the Billa (2007 film). User:Anwar saadat, User:Prince Godfather and User:Pokkiri have been constantly adding unconfirmed info into the article and whenever I try to remove them, they keep reverting back. The problem is, the plot section they keep adding is directly taken from Don (2007 film), of which Billa is a remake of. Don was shot in Malaysia you see and I dont think Billa will be. And the trivia section I've trying to rid the article of is FILLED WITH FANGUSH. Help me. Btw, here's are those edits ====> [39][40][41][42][43][44][45] -- Hariharan91 04:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have left messages for those concerned. You are also expected to discuss your problems with the plot on that article's discussion page. --Yamla 04:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

67.163.235.67

All I did was an a link to a couple fansites I found, I don't see the problem. It says on that page you linked that fansites are okay, so I think you are really over reacting. It's certainly not innapropritate, and I don't have anything to do with them so take a chill pill. Don't be a link nazi just because you don't like them, it's perfectly valid to link sites that offer additional information on the subject. - 67.163.235.67

"Don't be a link nazi just because you don't like them." Hey, its Wikipedia, thats how they (unfortunately) work. Now..., if those fansites paid Rick Jeliffe to add those links, like his work on Microsoft, they may have stayed up. Its the essence of wikilobbying! After all, reality has become a commodity! Thanks Wikipedia, give it to us naughty! - ZombiesNTea 00:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Shilpa Shetty

Hi there, just to let you know that I have responded on the image talk-page. I'd like to ask you to be patient with me as I am obviously new to the strict rules governing image uploads, so please be assured that if I "technically" commit a violation then it is most assuredly unintentional. In all fairness I expected a helpful explanation from you the last time around and did not receive one. I have explained all of this on the concerned talk-page and would be grateful for a response.

Also, please advise on the correct procedure about gaining copyright permission from organisations. I have contacted PETA (India) and they have granted me permission to upload a certain image to Wikipedia with the sole provision that "PETA (India)" is credited. Please advise on how to go about doing this so that I do not commit any inadvertent violations. Thanks, Ekantik talk 01:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You can read about how to request permission at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Note specifically that it is not sufficient to get permission just for the Wikipedia. As to the other image (I'm sorry, I forget which image it is), please note that we may only use freely-licensed images to depict living people. That is, an image released from copyright or one licensed under the GFDL or some such license. We may not use promotional images or images from films or posters or such, not if the subject is still alive. If you have any more specific questions, please ask. --Yamla 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that helpful explanation. I meant to say that I have already made the enquiries and permission has already been granted, so now I'll need to forward those emails to the WM Committee as per the link you gave, thanks again. The image in question is Image:ShilpaShettyPETA.jpg, and per ShadowHalo's advice I am just about to follow the procedure of informing the WM Committee that permission has been granted. Ekantik talk 02:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just spotted this photo from Flickr and it looks reasonable enough to have been taken by the uploader and has an acceptable license, is this suitable for uploading to Wikipedia? Also, as the image seems to have too much background, it's ok if I crop this picture into some kind of close-up, right? As the license allows derivatives, this should be no problem isn't it? Ekantik talk 04:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The license permits it. However, I have serious concerns about the source. The account has uploaded only this image. As such, we really would need additional confirmation that the uploader took this image with his own camera. That is, some evidence that this person is not simply taking credit for someone else's work. I'm not trying to be difficult here, it's just that this image was only uploaded yesterday by a person who has only this image as a contribution. It's more than a little dubious. How did you find it, by the way?--Yamla 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I just searched Flickr for "Shilpa Shetty" and it came up in the results. I suppose it is the only picture because the user account may be new, or the uploader's other contributions are set to "private" and thus not publicly viewable. I'll send the uploader a note for confimation but of course I suspect he/she will say "yes", and it may be a rather extreme application of WP:AGF to accept it. :) I'll let you know of the progress nevertheless, and my other efforts to find free images are also ongoing. Ekantik talk 06:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker's talk page

I'm not entirely clear why you protected his talk page; he's making expressions of frustration with a block he clearly does not agree with, but cutting off communication doesn't seem likely to help him understand or change his behavior. I didn't see his behavior as warranting cutting off his last method of communication on-wiki. Would you consider removing protection and settle for removing any explicit attacks? -- nae'blis 17:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for rampant personal attacks. He continued making these personal attacks on his talk page once he was blocked. In my opinion, it is entirely inappropriate to allow him to continue making the personal attacks. If you can get his personal assurance that these will cease, I would be happy to lift the protection from his page, however. If not, the protection expires around the end of his 48 hour block, give or take a few minutes. --Yamla 18:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

Hello. I think you should check on LoveHate Question. He/She may be a sockpuppet of Lilb1293. This person uploaded an image claiming to be a cover of Keyshia Cole's sophmore album, Just Like You which is very similar to this image, with just a title change. And, instead of moving the previous title, Tears From a Soldier's Heart, to the new page, LoveHate Question simply created the new title and blanked the old one. Will you look into it? Admc2006 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a clear case. The account has been shut down and all the edits I could find have been reverted. --Yamla 20:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

Thank you for verifying the details and unblocking me. Previous requests before the checkuser were simply removed without reply!!! Frater Xyzzy 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, seems like my IP got blocked as well, User:204.122.16.13. While I have no intention of editing with it myself, I noticed that a couple of edits in the history were not mine, so it may be a shared IP? It's a new service for me so I'm not sure, but I wouldn't want to be the cause of the other editor who used it previously being blocked if it is. Since I'm unblocked, there seems to be no reason for it to be blocked... Frater Xyzzy 23:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Kate McAuliff

I have no idea, I've only seen it today when I blocked some nonsense username creations earlier. Seems to ip User:216.220.101.115. --pgk 22:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not just today, I reverted a few back around Christmas time. Very strange. Normally I have some vague idea of who I supposedly have a crush on. But there you go, live and learn. --Yamla 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be Special:Undelete/Kate_McAuliffe --pgk 22:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A User.

Yamla, I'm not completely sure, but I believe that Pandora04 has broken the three-revert rule. The user has continually removed text from Fergie (singer) that has been put back at least three times. Would you mind confirming that this user has broken it or not? I'm not giving out an accusation, it's just that I've had to revert this user's edit on Fergie (singer) at least three times. Acalamari 03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. I issued a WP:3RR warning to the user, though. --Yamla 03:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't completely sure. I was worried in case the user had. Acalamari 04:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Delenn image

Actually, by reading the particulars on WP:FU, I believe I was correct in the edits I made - the page specifically states: Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own fair use guidelines. A little lower, it reads: Publicity photos: For identification and critical commentary. See Wikipedia:Publicity photos. The image in question is undoubtedly from the fourth season press kit for Babylon 5 (I scanned the original slide myself), and was expressly sent out for promotional purposes. As there is not yet a free image available for Mira Furlan, this image should, by my reading, be acceptable until replaced. TheRealFennShysa 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No. "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia." (WP:FU). Additionally, policy criteria #1 specifically prohibits it, as does counterexample #8. This is an image being used to show what Mira Furlan looks like. --Yamla 16:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Oh, I'm sorry if I made it look like a personal attack...I just meant it for everyone to know that the Celebrity account that was given is a fake. §†SupaSoldier†§ 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check the protection status of With Love... Hilary Duff

It appears that you unprotected rather than protected the article With Love... Hilary Duff after placing {{deletedpage}} on it. Please go back to that article and lock it properly if that's what you intended to do. 128.2.152.133 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Weird. --Yamla 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Some concerns

Hello, Yamla! First and foremost I just wanted to apologize because I did not know that there was such thing as the sandbox for testing comments. I do wish to apologize for that because I did not know and I did not know that my comment was considered graffiti. I just wanted to clear all of the stereotypes about abercrombie wearers. My next concern is that I did not make the Roseville Envy Wikipedia page and certainly not for vanity. I do not recall ever creating the page. I just wanted to let you know that. Someone must have figured out my password and did it because I never did! Also I do not really even recall the Roseville Envy. So please accept my apology and I will try to figure out who hacked into my account. Thank you so much!Hollister QT 02:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Hollister QT

The RfC

I hope the rearranging helps make it a bit easier to read, from a formatting perspective. I just responded to your response to 71Demon. Does the response help bring any clarity? Take care. Justen 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Frater Xyzzy unblock

I dispute the unblocking, for the following reason:

I don't care that Frater Xyzzy is not Jefferson Anderson. Xyzzy stated clearly he moved - of course it's not going to match. He had to have been blocked for a very good reason by the admin who did so. My reason for the RFCU was that while Xyzzy was blocked, he continued to edit as an IP, thus evading the block, and later admitted he was said Xyzzy openly. He masqueraded as an anon IP editor on an article he wrote as Xyzzy (Obligations in Freemasonry when it was prodded; he removed the prod (which he in hindsight should not have done, as he was evading a block) and forced an AfD as a result. He then claimed COI on said article on AN, when being the original author, he was in fact the one with the COI, and has generally been acting disruptively on that article. He has now gone back and changed all his IP comments to "Frater Xyzzy". I don't care what the technicality was, he did not follow proper procedure, he knowingly evaded a block, and has violated a number of policies by doing so. As a disruptive bad-faith editor, his block should not have been lifted. MSJapan 16:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This user was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Jefferson Anderson. When the checkuser came back conclusively negative, it was no longer appropriate to leave this user blocked. If there have been other violations meriting a block, please report the user. He was unblocked solely because the reason claimed for the block turned out to be false. --Yamla 17:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could you comment on Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jefferson_Anderson which has been created since Frater Xyzzy was unblocked by you for being a sock puppet? Seems that since he claims to have moved to Seattle and the IP he's been known to have used since then matches to Seattle that this could potentially be cleared up speedily without any more ill-will being created. --Jackhorkheimer 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Download Images

Hi Yamla! Am I allowed to download images from google.com and then add them to several characters on Wikipedia? Morris Munroe 15:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Not unless these images adhere to the requirements outlined in WP:FU. --Yamla 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I still don't know the difference between lb and lbs because many statistics are listening the weights as lbs. Can you explain it please? Morris Munroe 18:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The simple answer is that "lbs" is not correct. The only correct shortened version of "pound" or "pounds" is "lb". Any time you see "lbs", it is incorrect. --Yamla 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Aha, thanks. Morris Munroe 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy Crap

I have an account, blocking my IP dosn't help. You people on wikipedia suck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.185.196 (talk • contribs)

We can keep blocking you. --Yamla 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha! What a funny guy over there! Morris Munroe 18:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat

Excuse me, Mr Yamla, but I wish to talk about the neglective behaviour of some User:Anwar_saadat and what he has been claiming. Here is a small list of things to you about Saadat.
  • My Responses
  • Filmfare Awards South is an article I created as requested by the WikiIndian Cinema Project. I typed up all the information from a magazine called, Kumudham, who officially sponsor the event. Links can also be found in places like [46], so is there anything wrong with my information I posted! He however keeps putting deletions up without sources denying the fact or even discussion!
  • Anwar saadat, as we know, he is a hater of Vijay and a lover of Ajith Kumar. As shown here hating Vijay [47](This example is breaking all sorts of Wiki law's- very rudely written!) [48] [49] [50]. And here loving Ajith [51] [52]
  • He claimed I was a runner of sockpuppets, if I was, which I am not, how can I possibly have edit wars with myself or edit at the same time on different articles! Think Mr Saadat before you speak, you've been in enough trouble for sockpuppetry. It says that Hariharan91 lives I Malaysia and was born in 1991. I am far far older than that and I live in London. Redirectly wrongly, this rule was followed by articles such as Madonna (entertainer) which link to that not Madonna Richie. Surya is unknown as Saravanan! Like Rajanikanth is unknown as Shivaji Rao Gaekwad! Common Sense please! Please look at User:Gamekeeper's talk for the spuppets he claimed I was :(
  • We all know Anwar's extremist views. These are some of his messages on pages with translatons Don't exaggerate, padam nalla kaathu vaangudhu - Don't Exaggerate, the film is getting beaten up at the box-office, Dei lavadaikkabaal Sootha moodittu utkaaru - This is an offensive line with swearing, avan padam ellame gujili padam thaan - his films are cow shit, and only god knows how much more rude things he has said, found at [53]. Not to mention, the huge block of things he has deleted from his user talk to get a good name, [54]. How embarassing!

I once again apoligise. Mr Yamla for the actions of Anwar and my urgency to post a message here. Please take urgent action.

Phew! Prince Godfather 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is really out of my league. I wish I could help. You may want to see WP:DISPUTE. I'm pretty sure you already know about the requirement to cite using reliable sources, etc. etc., but those links may be useful for you. --Yamla 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock

Are the anonymous users who were doing the vandalizing still blocked if the autoblock is lifted? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm sort of an average editor here, but I'd like to say thanks for being one of the best users on this site, no doubt. I couldn't be any better myself. And that babel thing is pretty cool. I copied the script from your page and pasted/edited it to fit my standards, if that's okay. I have lots of questions, and there will probably be more. Your user page has been an inspiration for mine; you might want to check it out.

--I am your father. 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops...

I forgot to add a timestamp to my last message... fogive me. Anyway, besides your inspiration, I was just wondering how to partially secure my page, just in case. I would also, on behalf of my school Percy Julian Jr High, Wish to apologise for any articles that have been vandalized because of their boredom or sheer lack of imagination and downright law defiance. Please, forgive us. Thanks man, you've done a lot for me and the rest of wikipedia

--I am your father. 17:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

About Pandora04.

After that block you gave, I hope Pandora04 stops removing that section from Fergie (singer). After all, I said in both my edit summaries and on Pandora04's talk page about the discussion on the talk page to keep that section in. Acalamari 19:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Help

I created this new userbox

PThis user is an avid player of the action sport of Paintball.

and I want to put it into a list or somehow put it on the right with the rest of the boxes (babel) just for the sake of uniformity. If you go into my userpage edit thingy you'll see my predicament. Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthrabbit127 (talk • contribs)

I'll try to help out. --Yamla 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not able to figure it out. I think you need that box added to the babel thing generally and I'm not sure how to do that. Sorry. --Yamla 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Engaging 71Demon

I recognize your concern regarding the two edits (one, two) 71Demon made, which seem to be the most immediate reasons for your warning. I believe that, in effect, the warning only served to potentially provoke the user and further escalate the situation. Please consider not biting and not feeding. Given the user's animosity relating to your conduct specifically, please also consider refraining from further engaing the user directly, and, instead, please consider asking other administrators to intervene should you believe further administrative action regarding the user is necessary. Justen 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do, with the exception of commenting on it on my RfC if he does the same thing again, and blanking attacks from my user talk page. If you believe this to be half-hearted or otherwise insufficient, please let me know and we'll discuss further. --Yamla 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That seems to me to be a very reasonable exception. I hope it will help prevent any further escalation. You're a dedicated, experienced, and respected administrator. The user in question seems to normally be a committed, earnest editor. In this case, his enthusiasm clashed with your diligence, and the situation just seemed to escalate from there. If 71Demon understands the good faith warning you left and the request that he, as well, not further escalate the situation, then I hope we can all move beyond this. Justen 00:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:204.95.134.25

This user has been sabotaging your "decline" message on his talk page in an attempt to make you look bad. I reverted the changes so far and added a warning, but it might be worth blocking this user from editing his own talk page.

--JFreeman (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Golden Boy (film)

I'm not sure if you assumed it's vandal or you've been tricked, but there is such an article like the one above this message. Consider this in the future. Thanks, and BTW, I'm not that so-called IP user you're chasing after in Golden Boy. —Gh87 04:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

wow

Ok since when is citing a well established publication such as "Entertainment weekly" considered to be poor source? The date/issue was provided so that anyone could look up the issue and its accompaning article to verify the information being sourced. Not everything can be found on the internet. What if you were citing a book? Can't put a link to that can ya? So you cite the author, publisher etc...If you continue to remove SOURCED information simply because YOU dont like it that is VANDALISM! The terms of her addtion as well as many others in question have been disscused and an agreement has been made accordingly. Please read the disscussion page, and better yet annouce your intentions so they can be disscused before such a rash decision such as deletion is made. Thank you AquaMaree 04:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)AquaMaree

I was complaining about this edit. As you can see, you don't cite Entertainment Weekly or any other source. Please read WP:CITE to learn how to cite a book. You also claim that this information was discussed on the article's discussion page but in fact, the only discussion was someone expressing that this information was inaccurate. Please read WP:V; it is your responsibility to cite the information you add. You may also want to familiarise yourself with WP:RS. --Yamla 14:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Hi Yamla; thank you.

I am very appreciative of your efforts here, and I am grateful for the unblock. I will certainly do my very best to rest assure you, and other editors, that your "good faith" is not committed in vain.

I took off the message about my e-mails with you and "Talk" put it back up. I am sorry if I mis-understood my edit capapbilities here, on my talk page. As a new editor, I suspect that I will read rules and guidelines more than anything else. I assumed my talk page can be archived or deleted; please let me know how to go about doing same. I do not know how to archive, but I believe that is what I will do with talk pages.

Thank you; truly yours, Lee Nysted 14:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a userbox for you!

User wikipedia/Administrator someday

Cool, huh? Use it! You will be someday.

Yamla already is :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

This "rapper" does not exist and was never nominated for a Grammy. Georgia Peachez 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ullal Picture

Can you explain in further detail about this. I am fairly new here. Thank You, Tut74749 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not given your reasons why it would be impossible to get a free image of Sneha Ullal. For example, is she dead? Is she in hiding? If not, we cannot use this image. --Yamla 23:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible Magic Kirin sock

Please check this new account contributions[55]. I think this might be another Magic Kirin/Reapor sockpuppet. Thanks. JRSP 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Bri732 and his/her uploading of a unfree image at Trish Stratus

Here's a heads up. We've a free use image on the Trish Stratus article but Bri732 has seen fit to replace with an unfree one from a SI.com article. I've reverted once but (s)he has put the image back in and I'm in no mood for a revert war/3RR. Especially since (s)he's been blocked for fair-use violations. CRiyl 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

please see my page

i have responed with new information regarding your quam with jojos addtion to the WRS page. I dont mean to aggravate you in any way, but I feel you have missed the citation which is woven inside the article. please see I have extracted it for you. AquaMaree 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)AquaMaree

USER: Pontius Ethics

Please review my user page, again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pontius_Ethics 208.233.32.41 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Abusive use of an IP address to avoid a block is not permitted. --Yamla 15:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking!

Thanks!Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too( thanks) Haphar 19:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request of 129.31.65.133

Hi Yamla, in the interest of not-BITEing, I'm inclined to unblock 129.31.65.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) whose request you declined. From his edits before the issue with the cite template, I'm quite certain there was no intent to vandalise but a good-faith effort at improving the article. This was just a newbie failure to understand the cite template and a failure to get the message when warned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for you to do so. --Yamla 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

I think I've already talked about that issue, and there's a conversation about it in the article, it is not globalized. -Pedro 21:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request of Soccerkidjp (talk · contribs)

Hi. I was patrolling Category:Requests for unblock and noticed this user's request for unblock. He offered an explanation that I believe to be reasonable - "sick nasty" isn't necessary unkind, particularly to someone in the younger generation. For example, if a football player makes a terrific play, you might say, "that's just sick", meaning it's unusual that he has that much talent. Given that the block was over a year ago, that there was only a single act of vandalism, and that there is a reasonable explanation, I would like to unblock the user. Before doing so, I will point him in the direction of our guidelines on notability and inform him that any transgressions will result in a reinstitution of the block. Please feel free to modify the message I give him or reverse the action completely. --BigDT 00:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

More images with possibly false licenses

Have you seen the rest of Devilitself's images? (See here.) Most of them are released into the public domain with PD-self, but none of them appear to be self-made photographs. --Iamunknown 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for the unauto-block. It was getting rather annoying... Kugelmass 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Verdict

This user is still continuing to avade blocks by creating new users,... he is currently using the name Chingchongwang --- Paulley

LOl, to avoid your 3 revert warning he changed user (see the next edit by another sockpuppet) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulley (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
Yes, this is a clear case. I'm blocking the accounts now and reverting any edits from these abusive accounts. --Yamla 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I reset Martin's one month block due to abusive sockpuppets. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 17:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, me again, could you protect the Brock Lesnar page as the user is coming back again (now under the name User:Arthur80, and under the ip 81.202.95.28) and making the same edit. which is dirupting others edting the page --- Paulley 11:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hi Yamla. I think there are some blocked users are making anonymous edits. Since I am not very well versed in the ways of wikipedia, please tell me what is the correct procedure, or where should I report this to. The user is User:155.69.104.27 --æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FutureSex/LoveShow

Sorry about reverting your edits on the FutureSex/LoveShow page. I was confused because on many tour articles (Dream Within a Dream Tour)(Oops!... I Did It Again World Tour) , the dates are listed.can you clear that up for me?thanks. --Gregxscene

Any response? --Gregxscene 07:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

With Love... Hilary Duff

I've left a proposal for re-creating the With Love... Hilary Duff article at Talk:With Love... Hilary Duff. Extraordinary Machine 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 16:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Try not flooding my page with mountains of spam, for simple logo images... unless you'd like to be reported. Football club logos on Wikipedia never have rationales provided, see top clubs for example; Manchester United, Barcelona, Chelsea, AC Milan, Inter Milan, Bayern Munich, Brazil, Italy etc.... (I'll give you a clue, its all such logos)

A valiant effort on your part to stop the progress of users work on football articles though. But unless you are going to try and change the entire concensus of football club logos on Wikipedia (which covers hundreds of thousands of articles the same) then its back to the drawing board for you here. - Deathrocker 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPAM. Standard template warnings are not spam. As to the football club logos, I direct you to the license text itself, "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Help:Image page#Fair use rationale, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Also, please reread WP:FU. Fair-use rationales are not optional for fair-use images. --Yamla 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've shown, that is how all of the football logos are on Wikipedia. If you wish to go on a crusade against all sports logos been like this (as all currently are)... then go ahead, just let me get the popcorn first.

The concensus of thousands of editors who edit these thousands of sports articles.. overides one person who has a grudge against me. - Deathrocker 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because other images violate Wikipedia policy does not mean that we ignore the policy. The license text clearly indicates that a fair-use rationale is required and Wikipedia policy clearly indicates this as well. --Yamla 16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

MOSLOW

Is it important to use the {{MOSLOW}} tag on filmographies that are not written in chronological order for example a tag that was added on Aishwariya Rai page and by reading the WP:LOW its hard to tell..Cometstyles 16:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello--Cometstyles 17:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, I have never used that tag. --Yamla 18:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

image sourcing question

I know MySpace is not a WP:RS, but can it be used as the sourcing for an image when to corroborate the source you must have an account? [56] — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is hard to answer. I actually signed up for a MySpace account just so I could verify things like this. What it comes down to is whether there is sufficient reason to believe this really is an official MySpace account and whether the image is licensed appropriately. In this case, it appears to be a fair-use image used to depict a living person so it is not relevant whether or not the source corroborates anything. In general, I'm unhappy with sources that require an account. However, it seems that Wikipedia generally allows it for the "big sites" such as MySpace. --Yamla 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
But the problem is the same with Flickr -- in that MySpace has no mechanism for verifying the copyright voracity of images and other media uploaded. I could create a MySpace account (god forbid), claim that I'm this actress (or any other public personality) and post pictures that I claim are mine. I could even go so far in my charade to say that I've released the copyrights to these works. How do we combat that claim except to say that MySpace (and its ilk) is not a WP:RS for articles or media. Possibly making exceptions when verifiable by a reliable third source (i.e. Weird Al's official website offers a link to his MySpace page, endorsing it as the official Weird Al MySpace account). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You've hit the problem and the only reasonable solution on the nose. "Sufficient reason to believe this really is an official MySpace account", etc. etc., but you said it much better. --Yamla 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

administrative acceptance?

I and others have repeatedly attempted to appropriately tag this image. However, Udstyle (talk · contribs) consistently reverts these tags[57], recently claiming that "the image was already accepted by the admins." and "It was already contested and the admins found it acceptable under the rationale provided." I'm not sure what acceptance he's talking about, but as far as I can tell, {{fairusereduce}}, {{fair use disputed}}, and possibly {{rfu}} are all valid tags employed here. Would you be willing to poke in here and provide an "countering" administrative opinion? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: COI

This is the second time you have cited me for loose circumstances. All of the individuals you have mentioned I DO NOT Work for but have WORKED WITH on a private contractor basis which is not a conflict of interest since affiliation was never direct boss to worker basis. As an admin you should cite only those issues that present a direct threat to wikipedia. Not loose issue's open to easy interpretation.

Also you have cited numerous images that at the time of their uploading did not require any rationale. It is only in the past few months that such things have been required for Logos. I will provide one for each in the coming day So please do not delete them before I have a chance to do so, which you have been known to do in the past.Udstyle 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct on most of the images I tagged. I will go through and remove the tags on these images. Please provide a fair-use rationale if it is convenient for you but please accept my apology for those. As to the conflict of interest, I believe this still qualifies as a conflict of interest but you are right, it is much less clear. What is important is that you are aware of this policy and understand it. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Yamla 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well, And I appreciate the fair action. I will provide a rationale for the ones that are still under cite for deletion asap. I will also do rationales for the old logo's as well if that is what is needed to keep from further cites for deletion. UDStyle 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Replaceable images

Okay, but what is the problem with music videos? The artist not only represent the song/single when appearing but himself in the first place. Lajbi Holla @ me 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we cannot use fair-use images to depict subjects which still exist. The music videos are fair-use images used to depict the artists or bands. We can't use the image to do that. And as to deleting the image, we are to delete them 48 hours after notifying the uploader. --Yamla 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

image:pacsnoopsuge

For image: Pacsnoopsuge.jpg

I'm not totally sure how wikipedia would define critical commentary but in terms of Snoop Suge, and Death Row it puts into perspective the impression of the time which is documented in each article pertaining to each individual at the time. It does more then just depict the individuals in the picture but compliments the article in relation the unity and lack thereof at Death Row Records and gives off a vivid feeling of the times. Furthermore it seems the photo and others from the photoshoot were released for public use on various publications and on such fan sites as hitemup.com, tupac-online.com and the new defunct thugmansion.net. From what I understand Vibe holds no copyrights to the picture, and of course, Tupac is dead. I feel it's a crucial picture to put the times and the relations between the individuals into perspective for the reader, but if it must be deleted because it would be seen as a direct threat to wikipedia I have no objection. All evidence points to it no longer being copyrighted by Vibe or any media outlet. Where would be a sufficient source to obtain copyright info? UDStyle 02:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for double checking

hey AquaMaree here, just thanking you for double checking my page. I have a habit of weaving my citations deeply within their corasponding articles. Sorry if this drives you or anyone else crazy. Dont worry I'm on your side about citations. I have spents countless hours finding reliable sources for the whistle singers cat, and have bugged many a wikipedian myself about poor citations or their lack of when it comes to adding new people. thanks again for helping to settle this matter in a proffesional fashion. AquaMaree 02:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)AquaMaree

User talk:RefBot unprotect

Please unprotect User talk:RefBot. Wikipedia:Protection policy says temporary protection should be used for unblock abuse. I was not abusing it, I was trying to get a review of an erroneous block. There is was no documentation for Template:Unblock and I was just trying to have someone with some sense look at the block which is based on an admin's faulty imagination. Stomping in with an undocumented penalty after two requests doesn't seem reasonable. And when RefBot is running, all users should be able to access its talk page. (SEWilco 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

I'm honestly not sure what happened there. I have unprotected the page. I may have been bombarded that day with people requesting unblock after unblock after unblock and we often use the unblockabuse template after two unblock requests have been declined. My use does not appear to have been legitimate here, though. --Yamla 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you got distracted about then by the fallout of unintentionally blocking a country. That could be a tad distracting. (SEWilco 02:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

Don't know if you are interested

Over at WP:CN there is a WP:BAN discussion pertaining to User:Starwars1955 and an anon presumed to be that editor is calling your revert of his unblock message "illegal". Not sure if you feel it is worth commenting on.--Isotope23 19:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add my comment. --Yamla 20:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

TPol2003

Sorry for the late reply, watching a world Stargate SG-1 exclusive (-: -- no problem, I my self have quite warmed up to the whole RfU thing, i.e. fair use images solely to depict the person shouldn't be used, I do believe however that if fair use is used correctly it is a good thing, have a good nigt, Life on Mars is on after SG-1 :-). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Torrie

Hi Yamla! Please take a look to this edit. I tried to add Torrie's real height and I think I found a cite. Please, can you help me a little bit? Morris Munroe 10:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And how can I create a Werdnebot? Morris Munroe 10:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you should ask Werdna about his bot. Real96 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Merill Lynch Talk Page

Hi, Yamla! Have you seen this edit made by the IP? Do you think it stay or go? Real96 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jj0909jj

Hey Yamla, you blocked this user back on February 5 for continued vandalism. Their block has expired and they've continued precisely the same sort of vandalistic behaviour that they were blocked for. ([58], [59], [60], [61], [62], etc.) A longer block is probably in order... I'm tired of cleaning up their mess. Thanks. -/- Warren 17:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Image uploads

3/5 of the pictures I have are FU of current living people - all on Spooks related talk pages. They can all be deleted, and I'll tag the rest with the same tags you used now. Thanks for reminding me. RHB Talk - Edits 02:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. You can use {{db-author|Fair-use of living person}} to get them speedied. --Yamla 02:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

why wont he listen

User:Coolioj --- he is back and he is really annoying me --- Paulley

I really did try this time to get him to see why his edits were un helpfull but it is like he just doesnt see what he's doing wrong... --- Paulley 15:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Not much we can do, I think. He refuses to agree to abide by WP:SOCK. He has sworn to continue his abuse. He was initially just blocked for three months for his numerous abuses, then for a year, and now indefinitely. I'm going to start reporting him to his ISP if he doesn't stop. --Yamla 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Yamla, Can I ask why my page on Westminster Savings Credit Union was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseyCC (talk • contribs)

The page was a conflict of interest. Please see WP:COI. --Yamla 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Yamla,

What elements on that page can I change to make it acceptable to Wikipedia? I see Wikipedia articles on numerous local credit unions, all of which are allowed to exist. Example: Vancity
—Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseyCC (talk • contribs)

What evidence do you have that Vancity was created by an employee of that company? I cannot find any evidence on this. As to Westminster Savings Credit Union, I understand that you are an employee of that company. As such, it is a conflict of interest for you to create this page or to cause someone else to create the page. The problem isn't with the contents of the page, it is with the conflict of interest. --Yamla 17:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Yamla, As per above, I made no inferrence about the article on Vancity being written by an employee of that company, I simply used them as an example as they are a similar business to ours.
One last question about the conflict of interest: would it be a conflict of interest to write or contribute to an article about the city/province/country in which you live because you are a resident of said city/province/country? Or does this rule only exist as it pertains to a company? I don't ask this to be argumentative, I just want to understand the rules for future use of Wikipedia.
Thanks. --CaseyCC 18:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vancity is allowed to exist because there's no evidence there was a conflict of interest there. There's no reason I can see that we couldn't have an article on Westminster Savings Credit Union but you cannot create it or cause it to be created. As to your other questions, please read WP:COI, they are all answered there. --Yamla 18:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that all up for me Yamla. Have a good one. --CaseyCC 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks Yamla. It's odd, but there seems to be a problem with my IP. I seem to be on three slightly different ones. I can't work it out. Anyway, I can edit, so thanks. Acalamari 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably your ISP using a proxy server. ISPs are annoying that way. --Yamla 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying Again From Home

Hello, I saw your message on my talk page. I'm wondering why I can't edit up at Panera Bread. I've done nothing wrong. Just H 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the problem is fixed now, but i'm wondering how to prevent it from happening again in the future. Just H 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi, Yamla - I have now been unblocked, but the account I'd prefer to use remains blocked. Please unblock User:Vox Humana 8', if that's OK with you. --RichardHarrold 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be done by the time you get this message. Welcome back. --Yamla 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thanks for being so helpful recently. However, I must ask for you help once more! Having uploaded numerous images to the Commons, I would now like to make use of them on Wikipedia. Can you tell me if there is any way of direct-linking them into Wikipedia articles, or do I have to upload them separately to Wikipedia?--Vox Humana 8' 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, just to prove I'm here to do good, take a look at the Truro Cathedral page before I started work on it this afternoon [63] and the finished result [64].

User:Huvitpop

You declined the open proxy block on this user and judging by the edits, as well as the open proxy, it appears this is another sock of Verdict (talk · contribs) that needs blocking. Could you give a second opinion? –– Lid(Talk) 10:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi me again yes its him once again... i even attampted to slowly edit the article so he could understand the changes but alas he is just reverting blindly now (see here) and of course he was blocked once again. --- Paulley
Yes, it looks like Verdict/Martin181 is branching out in his abuse of Wikipedia. He promised he would continue to violate our policies and it seems like he is carrying through on that threat. --Yamla 16:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Kari2MuchFan

You over did the block. your gonna have to stop that. now. and let him go now! 68.57.47.90 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Joseph

Yeah, right. Clearly an abusive sockpuppet. --Yamla 16:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Lee Rose

Ah, my stupid for assuming that the lonelygirl15 pic could move over. I just added a sentence to the page specifying no lg15 image, to avoid people making the same assumption in the future. WLU 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkerboard background on transparent images.

Hi there. I don't mean to bother you like this, but I realize that the checkerboard background on the transparent images seems to be missing. Is this an an update in the MediaWiki software or a malfunction? Thanks!--(SUDUSER)85 04:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

lynch

you sent me a message to my ip regarding jessica lynch saying that i added content to it without reliable souce. i submit that i am a reliable source considering that i am one of the soldiers who helped rescue her. again i have edited the page and added a link to a source confirming the 8 bodies found. actually it was 9 but only 8 where american. i have fixed that too. i know it was 9 because i helped dig them out with my bare hands. the section that i removed was absolute propoganda saying that the mission was a hoax. some people do belive that and the current edition of the page reflects that. the section i removed supported it with apparant syllogisms and was beyond pov it was deceiptful. you will note on the discussion page that another user stated the same opinion that a large portion of the article was biased. i am not afraid of criticism of the incident i just belive it should be based in fact. and facts do not come from tabloids and conspiracy theory web sites which the previous edit had cited. i stand by my edit and if you beleive that you are more knowlegeable on the jessica lynch mission i would like to know where you are getting your information. i got mine from the from a hospital in nassariyah when i helped resscue her and recovered the bodies of 8 other service men and women. Lukebruhns 04:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't accept first-hand accounts, however honourable the source. Please read WP:RS. --Yamla 04:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this license compatible?

Is this license compatible with Wikipedia?--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 13:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The non-commercial bit renders it inappropriate for the Wikipedia. The attribution and share-alike parts aren't a problem, though. --Yamla 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

MOSLOW (Filmography)

I think it would be a good Idea not to use WP:LOW form for Bollywood actors and basically for all actors because People prefer it to be vice-versa compared to the format it is following now and I did read the section regarding Filmography in WP:LOW and it doesnt say anything about that method applying for Films. When new Films are added new users and anons find it hard to add it to the list because they dont know how to and I have just finished Fixing the Filmography section for Shah Rukh Khan. Somebody should fix this problem as soon a possible becoz it is slowly by slowly becoming a problem..Cheers..--Cometstyles 16:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Sein ep619.jpg

Any chance of looking over the new fair use rationale on this image and deciding whether it is in line with wikipedia's interpretation of legal fair use? I wasn't sure whether I am meant to just delete the old "no license" template, apologies if I have acted incorrectly. — ThomasHarte 19:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Never Mind. Just figured out how to unblock myself

And away I edit! (hopefully)I Like Broads 01:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mea Culpa

Where does the WP:FU stipulate that a fair use image can be used in a regular article but not in a biographical article? Wikipediarules2221 02:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. But a fair-use image may not be used solely to depict a living person. --Yamla 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Help

Could you help my upload this image into Wikipedia and get it on the Emmy Rossum page? I am not sure how to upload images properly and you seem to be very knowledgeable. Thanks a lot. The image can be found here Wikipediarules2221 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That image does not appear to be freely-licensed. What license are you planning on using for it? --Yamla 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Grcampbell

Perhaps you could explain to User:Grcampbell what is, and isn't replaceable please? He seems to have a habit of tagging irreplaceable fictional works as replaceable. Cheers. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hey, thanks for blocking me (yesyoudid) without letting me explain myself! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.227.144 (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

You were given repeated warnings that the images you had been uploading were missing mandatory information. Additionally, please see WP:SOCK. You are not permitted to edit from another account or IP address to bypass a block. --Yamla 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I vandelize wikipedia1234567890

Please unblock this user, because he did nothing wrong, and he has all the right in the world to make the user name he wants as long as he is not threatening anyone. If refuseal, this could become a lawsuit due to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. --Yamla 23:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mischa Barton

I don't actually think she has an eating disorder, and the media certainly suggests it. On a Living tv documentary called Extreme Skinny Celebrities 2 Mischa was named the lowest bmi featured by a nutritionist, and it showed her statistics. Also in a respectable celebrity magazine (i think it was Now! teen) it showed the same weight along with a photo in an article on celebrity weights. I've also seen many pictures of Mischa with her ribs showing and with a very prominent colar bone, but I don't know how to add links. She looks thinner than she used to do. She's probably fine, but media speculation suggests otherwise. That's all I'm saying.She eats lunch with Nicole Richie, which would be a warning sign. 212.139.222.62 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Speculation is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you can find a reliable citation, please feel free to add the information. See WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS for the appropriate policies. --19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Aivazovsky

Regarding [65], this user is actually blocked directly, but there appears to be a bug with the block log today. See [66]. Dmcdevit·t 00:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

BS

Hope you didn't think it meant something else... Anyway, perusing through your history, I don't think you have enough awards. So here's one of the original, because you've sure been here long enough!

The Original Barnstar
Yamla is a dedicated user who spends more time on Wikipedia than many could imagine, and he's been here that long as well. For that, and much, much more, I award him this barnstar. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 05:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Now this is silly

User:Big_Kid89 --- Paulley 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I started a checkuser so we can catch and ban all the other accounts. Also, hopefully the IP address. --Yamla 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, i will just revert him til then (he's now also lying in edit summary's about what he's changing) -- Paulley

Lol, Big_Kid88 looks familiar. Now before we go do are usual cycle of delete account/revert everything/he remakes acount/readds everything, can you just keep an eye on him and the Brock Lesnar page i think he has a day left before he's not a "new user" but as long as he keeps from reverting the Lesnar page he should be alright.. what do you think? --- Paulley 11:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
He appears to be doin ok edits but he has appeared to be preparing replacement Brock Lesnar pages ([67]) --- Paulley
He's still violating our fair-use policy along with WP:SOCK. I'm going to go ahead and block this one as well. --Yamla 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling pictures

Hey, I try to put what the licensing tells me to put!!! Give me some tips!!!! Batmanrules677

Okay, give me an example image that you have uploaded and I'll tell you what information is missing or why the image cannot be used. --Yamla 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Orton-rko.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmanrules667 (talk • contribs)

Okay, that image cannot be used at all. It is a copyrighted promotional image which could theoretically be replaced by someone taking a picture. That is, by a freely-licensed image. See WP:FU. Specifically, the bit that says we may only use freely-licensed images to depict subjects which still exist. This is not freely-licensed. A freely-licensed image would be one released to the public domain (i.e. no copyright), or licensed with the GFDL or some CC licenses. The image itself cannot be used by the Wikipedia. No extra information that you add will be sufficient for this image. --Yamla 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Is that the same with Image:Shane-dance.jpg? Batmanrules677

Exactly the same thing. It's a copyrighted promotional image which could be replaced by a free image. --Yamla 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Last question! What about Image:Hbk-scm4.jpg Batmanrules677

Exactly the same thing. See how it is depicting a living person doing something the person continues to do. See how it would be possible for someone to take a photograph. See how this is not freely-licensed. --Yamla 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. So, are you gonna delete it? Batmanrules677

You can mark it for deletion by adding {{db-author|Not freely-licensed}} to the images. --Yamla 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, so if I go to a live wrestling event, and take pictures, would I be able to put these photos on wikipedia? --Batmanrules66

Yes, so long as you license the image under the terms of the GFDL or other such license. --Yamla 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tamla, from Lee Nysted

I recently came across a whole list of "puppets" of me, which are "verified" using "Checkuser." The only one that might make sense is my girlfriend, CH (Huntress 829.) I request that she be unblocked and unprotected for reasons listed on her talk page.

The balance of the list are unfortunates or IP addresses/users that must have been linked to me, and / or CH, during our travels.

I have boldly edited and written to each user and asked for clarification on their position, here. I have looked at their history, and there is no similar edits or data that would link me to them, albeit, one user seems to be a friend of Huntress829, living in Colorado. We have residences in several geographic areas around the world. It appears that there is collateral damage from my article. I pray I am not overstepping my reach? Please advise? Because you were the Admin. person that unblocked me, I trust your wisdom.

Thank you, Lee Nysted 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You might note as well that Huntress829, on her talk page, at one point claims to be unrelated to Nysted, while in other places Nysted says she's his girlfriend - but further down on her page, he says she's a dear friend. Nysted is also going around and removing the sockpuppet tags from the CU-confirmed accounts, and says on his user page he's "investigating" Checkuser (or Checkloser, as he's referred to it in a couple of places). A quiet word might be in order. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Comment by the accused, Lee Nysted:

First, please remember that I have been unblocked and "good faith" is one of the issues at the heart of this whole Nysted mess, for me, and my loved ones.

I suggest this whole issue will end up in arbitration. It might be wise to go there sooner, rather than later. Either way, I suspect I will be under the microscope for some long time to come. That is fine with me and my family. I intend to stay here and learn, and I am acting in good faith. I have placed comments at each site in question, and I surely will see to it that any family related, or significant other accounts, are fully transparent, for all the world to see. I have chosen to use my own name; that could eventually be an issue, but it is not now. I see we have a policy re: related accounts and even have reason to use "puppet" accounts from time to time, provided we vote with only one account at a time. I pray my contribution here will be a good thing and that I can add value.

All of the "puppet" accounts above, have nothing to do with me, save for the Nyslee account and Huntress829. Huntress829 is my girlfriend, living separate and apart. Nyslee was a family related account that I agreed to not use when I admitted to the rules violations. The poor people that got sucked into this, including the IP address, are not going to be an issue with me.

I will strive to make the "Checkuser" system either a "different animal" than it is today, or at the very least, I will try to assist in making "collateral damage" a meaningful issue at our arbitration. I have watched in awe at the numbers of articles and accounts being deleted here, with virtually no thought as to the "human element" of this encyclopedia. That is very sad, indeed; it is wrong. My own daughters and some of their friends have been victims of some of the above absurd and wreckless behavior. A Steak house in Colorado blocked? Who is kidding who? People staying at the Hyatt, where we were staying in Beaver Creek?

Thank you for your time, and thank you JzG and Peter, for compilation of all the data in one place. I could not have done that so soon. Lee Nysted 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lee, when you were initially unblocked, it was with the strict understanding that you would not violate WP:SOCK. This includes having your friends edit content which would be a violation of WP:COI for you to edit directly, or to participate in "vote stacking" of any sort. It appears to me that in at least some of the cases given above, you are violating this. That is, you are having your friends edit for you. In some cases, checkuser confirms that these accounts are editing from the same IP address as you. Now, I don't have all the information available to me. For example, I do not have access to the checkuser information. And I could be mistaken; it may be that none of your friends have been attempting to add information about you or your band to the Wikipedia. As this dispute is spread among a number of articles, I find it difficult to track down the edits. But just in case, I remind you that you specifically promised not to violate WP:SOCK and WP:COI, and having your friends edit for you would be a blatant violation of this. Assuming this is not happening, I am afraid that I cannot override the blocks that have been handed out as I do not have checkuser access. I refer you to WP:DISPUTE if you have reason to believe that none of these accounts are friends of yours and that none of them have edited from the same address that you have, etc. --Yamla 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


P.S.

JzG is intent on not allowing The Rambling Man edit of Matt Walker to stand, due to what he calls "Nysted SPAM." Please correct same. I will not do it, do to obvious conflict, but I suspect that someone will, eventually. It is not seemly for JzG to play edit wars, when the AMG site is left there with the album giving credit to Matt Walker's work. Matt did, in fact, play on the SHOOT FROM THE HIP album of Lee Nysted. Matt is notable. Thanking you in advance, for your help, Lee Nysted 14:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Thank you,Yamla

I appreciate your help. I have not violated anything since my unblock. Please know this and use good faith. I do not have any friends that are editing for me. As a matter of fact, none of the above accounts have even re-appeared on the encyclopedia. Go figure. I must assure you that IP address detection is not a good means of determining anything, however, if I am in a hotel or using a public access sytem. This, I believe happened, before the unblock, in Colorado. In any event, the issue is not unusual at Wikipedia and I am convinced it will be resolved. Thank you so much for your input. Cheers!Lee Nysted 15:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)



  • Please do not overturn checkuser blocks without consulting with the checkuser that conducted the investigation beforehand. These blocks are made due to information the administration in general is not privy to and as such should not be overturned without discussion. In fact, I'm rather of the opinion that no block should be overturned without discussion with the blocking admin, but that's tangential. I would kindly ask that you please reinstate the block pending discussion with jpgordon. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image uploads

Seeing as you seem to be experienced with images, could you take a look at the image contributions of Littledaniel 93 (talk · contribs) who appears to have taken ss's of the episodes and uploaded them under {{pd-self}}. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

?

Is it bad to have sock puppets, not for evasion or etc.?Trampton 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Wes Freed

I've sent you two e-mails regarding him giving me persmission to use information from his website. In addition, he has e-mailed Wikipedia and given me permission to post the information in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. Please advise.

Mister Jinxy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.4.21 (talk • contribs)

I moved it from userpage to talk page--Cometstyles 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lee's Comment to JzG:

The issue is now cleared up and JzG reverted the sock tags. Yamla explained what I must do and I am fine with that. I have done nothing wrong since my unblocking.

There is no question, to me, that Checkuser can be destructive toward (collateral damage) users with common IP addresses. It has changed the way I will work here. I have places to go, all over the world and that means I will be at different IP addresses. I have 4 places in Illinois, alone. I use Comcast wireless, quite frequently. I use Starbucks WiFi. I am also looking at the policy in SOCK about editors using multiple accounts.

Thank you for your concern; cheers!Lee Nysted 19:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Lee Nysted's unblock at AN/I

Yamla, your unblock of Lee Nysted was reversed by Shadow1. Please join the discussion over the matter in this AN/I thread. Thanks, A Train take the 20:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not an open proxy

Hi, Yamla. The IP from my home is *not* an open proxy - it's an apartment building. If you run it through Whois, you would see that it's from a Florida apartment complex. You would think that every apartment building would have a different IP address, but all 18 buildings have the same - which means that everyone who lives here can't edit Wikipedia unless they hop on AOL, which I hate. Nor can anyone edit at my university, because someone mass blocked that as well. So I hope you reconsider one day. StopSQLiquor 14:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

nag nag nag

Herostratus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been removing {{no source}} and {{no rationale}} tags from images (some I tagged, but not exclusively) with edit summaries like "it's a logo, that is sufficient fair use rationale"[68], "This is a movie poster, conforms to the movie poster rules, and therefore is allowable under fair use, if any movie posters still are. Source is immaterial."[69], and "this is obviously a logo, the source is obviously the owner of the logo (the university), so source info may be inferred"[70]; there are many such examples found under his contributions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these actions of his are at the least mistakes and easily construed as detrimental. Your thoughts? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails

About the "vandalism" on the Nine Inch Nails page, please tell me how my contribution was vandalism. Nine Inch Nails is often abbreviated with an inverted N (I got three of their albums right under my nose). Tell me it's not "appropriate" if it's already been ruled that the inverted N is only a logo and not official in any way or any other reason but don't treat that as "vandalism" please. We're all humans entitled to make mistakes and if everyone trying to help a little bit mistakes himself and is accused to vandalize, then I guess we ain't going nowhere... Thanks for your attention =) Reznor Arnaud 17:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the letter you added is not an inverted N, it's a specific character from the cyrillic (?) alphabet which is not the same thing. Note that the very paragraph you made this change in specifically warns you not to do so. --Yamla 17:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Effectively, I didn't saw the comment the first time :s Thanks for your indications =) Reznor Arnaud 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This does not seem right to me

Then why have the {{tl:logo}} template? The {{tl:logo}} template contains all the fair use rationale required. Why require the editor to, basically, retype the text from the {{tl:logo}} template into the image page.

If logos are to be disallowed, then the {{tl:logo}} template should be deleted. If logos are to be allowed, placing the {{tl:logo}} logo template on them (assuming its accurate, and provided that the image is used properly in its article(s) and not for some other purpose) is sufficient rationale. Herostratus 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the logo does not mention why it is important to use a particular fair-use image in a particular article. That is, it provides no SPECIFIC fair-use rationale. I'm not trying to say that logos are unacceptable (though rumour has it that the Wikimedia Foundation may soon do so), only that we need to add the detailed rationale required both by the logo license text itself and by WP:FU. All fair-use images require a detailed rationale to be added, the license text is never sufficient. --Yamla 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems madness. What is there to say about each particular logo? There is nothing. Logos are used in the articles of the entities they represent to say "hey, here it the logo of this entity". What more is there to add? Requiring one the editors to type in "Logo, used per normal logo usage" or whatever seems like pettifogging obstructionism to me.
If {{tl:logo}} is to be done away with, fine. But unless and until this occurs, the template should be respected. I do not make my edits based on rumors. Herostratus 17:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. We currently must provide a detailed fair-use rationale as specifically mentioned in the license text for {{tl:logo}} and as spelled out in WP:FU. That the fair-use criteria may be tightened up in the near future is interesting but not particularly relevant. As to why the rationale is required, this is to prevent, say, someone putting up a gallery of NHL team logos which does not serve to illustrate the organisation but rather solely to provide a gallery of the logos. Such a use would violate our fair-use. I'm sure you can think of plenty of other examples where a logo would be used in a manner not adhering to our fair-use policy. For this reason, we require a rationale for each use. Yes, generally, the logo is used only to illustrate the team (or company or whatever), but it's still policy. --Yamla 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Yes, you are right, logos have been (improperly) placed into galleries in the past. Hmmmm. But the {{logo}} template specifically forbids this, assuming that "to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question" can be clearly interpreted this way, which I think it can (a gallery does not illustrate the item in question). However, it is true that the template in question does request a detailed fair use rationale description, which appears to be redundant, but whatever.
OK, well. Sigh. OK I will add this information in the future when I rescue logos and similar images. However, I would say then, it's not really kosher for editors to tag an image for deletion for lacking this information; this could (and probably does) lead to the deletion of perfectly valid images. Instead, the editor finding the situation should add the fair use info himself. It doesn't really take any (or very much) longer than adding the deletion tag.
Thank you for your time and attention. Herostratus 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't....

What is wrong? Length is all I can see. Hunted by A.K.G. 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. --Yamla 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That shoeless user with no edits. Hunted by A.K.G. 22:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes. Well, the name is really too long. You'd have to ask the blocking admin to be sure, though. --Yamla 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Question on fair use

Does a photo (taken around 1926) scanned from a book (published in 2000) count as fair use? Could I use it or not? Thanks. Xanthi22 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not indef

My block to User:Yesyoudid was not indef, but for 4 days. If you have some information I don't then you are welcome to adjust the block length. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. --Yamla 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

King

Can you watch this person who keeps removing content from King (T.I. album)?? Their IP number changes everytime they edit. Georgia Peachez 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Game screenshots

If you are saying that me tagging my Eagle Talon image is a copyvio, then I noticed that there are many screenshots in the Need For Speed: Most Wanted article that are tagged in a similar fashion, and I think they may need your attention. Karrmann 22:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

unblock request from freakdomination

I'm just curious why you won't unblock Freakdomination he has been blocked for over a month now and I could really use his help. Besides he has promised not to reinsert that same link according to his talk page and a indefinite block seems real harsh for the offense. Thanks BigTimeGamer 00:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block that editor. Given his promise, it would be appropriate for you to mention this situation to the blocking admin, though. --Yamla 02:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:JoelMadden.jpg

Sorry about using the image in the article, I was trying to help it out...I will make sure to be more careful next time. §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kristanna Loken

Hey Yamla, let's discuss something here. I am new to Wikipedia so thus I apologize for our dispute. You have added a warning since the main site has a flash design. I find that strange for two reasons. 1) The site has a "splash page" in HTML. 2) with it's own "flash warning". Since the first page you open following the link is in HTML, I should think that a warning would be wrong and unnecessary? I want to work with all of you getting Kristanna's info right. I understand that I can not edit anything my self, as of "conflict of interst", others would just take it off again.

What's the most important thing? Getting her info right or using "conflict of interst" as an argument for keeping it wrong? Please contact me so we can get her info right. I can prove my claims for you. If her myspace was to be fake, this link would not be working, forwarding you to her myspace blog: www.kristannaloken.net/reply.html -A working link would prove my point. Try it. --Seabris 02:47, 02 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the official site is that the site itself requires flash. I don't have flash installed on my system and so I cannot view the contents of the website. As a general rule, Wikipedia does not permit linking to websites which require proprietary plugins such as flash. So normally we would not link to that site. Only because it is the official site do we make an exception. The warning is valid; it is essentially saying that this link does not meet our requirements but we are making a special exception here. As to her myspace, that forwarding link does indeed prove that the myspace link is official. Please feel free to add the link and in the edit summary, include the link from the official site. Or to really avoid WP:COI, make a note in the article's discussion page. Indeed, this is exactly the sort of thing we look for when considering myspace links; it's important to verify they really are official. Thanks for your comments! --Yamla 02:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view about the flash site, but the site has it's own "splash page" in HTML with a warning: ":: FLASH Required", so I can't see the need of an extra warning. How about adding the warning like this: (Warning: requires flash), then it will look better.

I know about all the fake Kristanna profiles on myspace, so I can understand your concern. All the fake profiles will soon be gone, take my word for it! Thanks,--Seabris 05:43, 2 March 2007

Please hep me make an archive

Hi Yamla. Pls could you help me to make an archive. I did try by using the archive format but nothing happened. Thx.written by208.58.196.156 13:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC) I tried but it still is all messed up. If you do figure it out, pls tell me for future reference/knowledge. Thx. written by 208.58.196.156 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

F2Mar7: Please help fixBrad Pitt Page Reference Section

I tried but it still is all messed up. If you do figure it out, pls tell me for future reference/knowledge. Thx. written by 208.58.196.156 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

User:Alfredosolis

I think Alfredo is back. Look at the contributions for User:R.bobby[71]. This user seems to have the same issues with images and same type of edits to Celebrity Death Match and addition of pictures to celebrity articles. I'm sure that you can see more similarities. Gdo01 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla/Archive_8&oldid=1190099134"