This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yamla. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Could you remove the sentence "He has pin fallen the undertaker(a legend in world wrestling entertainment)" under Champioships and Accomplishments, cheers. Darrenhusted11:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
In addition to which it seems someone moved the article from Dalip Singh without discussion even though he has appeared in films, and will in fact appear in Get Smart, under the name Dalip Singh. Great Khali is just his current ring name and considering his other ventures does not fall under WP:COMMONNAME as where the article should be located. –– Lid(Talk)12:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll make the first change immediately. If you can get consensus for moving the article back on the article's discussion page, let me know and I'm happy to move it. At the moment, I'm reluctant because it seems to have been under that name for a number of months now... --Yamla14:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Paris hilton videos
Hi Yamla. I'm afraid I don't understand your message.
The site parisexposed.com had already been mentioned earlier in the article. I was not adding any new links.
--Legalnote15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I was not duplicating anything, I was simply not adding any new links. The information I added was new. It just happened to involve a website that already had been mentioned in the article. And it's very hard to clearly communicate this information without at least mentioning the site, since it's so central to the matter.--Legalnote17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hurrah
Thanks for helping me Yamla, no idea what happened there, wasn't my IP, and was blocked last october.
Anyway, Thanks a Million
Jac16888 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Someone should probably change the template, then. :) In any case, the one image of that sort that I've reverted today clearly is fair use (given that the tagger is blocked, I think it was only nominated as part of an editing dispute). If one cannot get the original uploader to provide the rationale, I will. Best wishes, Xoloz16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm1111111
I got one of this guy's HP7 emails and saw you blocked him with email, apparently soon after he sent me an email. I'm an admin too, but was wondering how do you block the email sending? Rlevse18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The block options recently had a third checkbox added. This is the first time I've had cause to block with email disabled, but I think it is appropriate in this case. Let me know if you can't find it. :) --Yamla18:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I'd noticed the box there (default unchecked) but never bothered to read the caption. I should pay more attention-;). This guy is a valid email block as he had no reason to send it to me--never touched that subject or spoilers on wiki--and my first reaction was "I'm getting wikispam?". Thanks.Rlevse18:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Good afternoon, if you could please be so kind as to tell me why the article Fat Bitch is nonsense. The movie is a movie from fictional 30 Rock lead Tracy Jordan. I feel that the movie, which has a poster and has been referenced several times on 30 Rock (in fact it was the basis for a subplot on one of the episodes), is completely real and worthy of an article. Thank you, Jameseyx18:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yamla, please free GourmetAnarchy. His explanation of what happened was 100% truthful. You have my word he will not cause any problems. Keepscases18:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Yamla, I have noticed that Cpzphantom is back, now under the name Edgeweb. He has been trying to edit other pages and now he is trying to force the same edits in the Copa Airlines and Copa Holdings, S.A. pages. I thought that he (Edgeweb) was another user, but the edits are too similar for it to be a coincidence.--Schonbrunn20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks likely. I have blocked indefinitely and will see what I can do about blocking the ISP. --Yamla21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I did check using torstatus and did a port scan (though not on all ports). Do you have reason to believe I was wrong? It's entirely possible. --Yamla17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, as it turns out I was doing a checkuser on someone else (who was using nothing but open proxies) and it showed up, with some of the usual consistent open proxy users on it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆17:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
How is the information on the Vanessa Anne Hudgens page non-notable still? It was properly referenced and I have discussed it on the discussion page for quite some time. User:Steph1121
Not all of it is not notable, just the part about who this teenage girl is currently dating. There's no discussion on the article's discussion page at all on whether this is particularly notable. If you believe this information is likely to still be of interest in, say, ten years' time, please bring it up for discussion. --Yamla22:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Well if it is not notable, then much of the information on that page should also be removed! User:steph1121
sliat_1981 here.Would you stop this? You have been making my life a living hell here. Just because you don't agree with me and that your view on Nicole Kidman didn't work out, you have watched me all this time to do your umost to make my life hell on here. You pointed out how the link proved that the Mattrua picture was not mine, but didn't nothing to save the photo before it was deleted originally. If you had saw the link in the first place, you could have stopped it being deleted because I hadf permission to use this.
Whatever KI have done to you, I apologise, but I don't want us to go on forever like this fighting each other. You obviously don't like me and that's ok. I should point out that when the Nicole Kidman was changed to Australian I had nothing to do with it. If you want it changed, you're talking to the wrong person here. When you view won, I had to accept it and I never touched it again. Give me a break. I have worked so hard to create those other images and help with wikipedirugby league and you have just destroyed them because of your predjudice against me. That project is suffering now and it needs help. I did use the other person's photo but it was deleted DESPITE me showing the link where he gave me proof (proof, is this address, ask if you like: nc_global@yahoo.co.uk.
. Where was the justice there? But those other images are mine. They have a riught to be on pages that are being ignored. I'm man enough to say I'm sorry and I won't do it again, but please don't keep this punishment up anymore. Believe me, I'm not going to do it again.
You were blocked for fraudulently claiming ownership of images. You uploaded the image and claimed that this was your image, not someone else's. This was a lie and you knew it. Now, I see you are violating our policies on sockpuppets by continuing to edit while blocked. This IP address has now been blocked. --Yamla15:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Note also that I am not the blocking admin in this case. You were blocked for your continued abuse by another administrator. --Yamla15:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Speditor
Please see the talk page for Speditor. He has posted numerous false statements about me on the site and, after consulting with a lawyer, a libel suit is something that I would consider is these defamatory comments are not deleted from Wikipedia's history. Please email me at TeenMoney@gmail.com to discuss. Thanks.
I think every celebraty has ancesty listed on Wikipedia and so should Denise.
It's trivial and not that important in most cases but fans find it interesting.
Look at Prison Break's Wentworth Miller for example - can you find me proof of all those ancestors???
Why has the ancesty of Denise been deleted strikes me as odd!
Considering it was there before without anyone complaining.
I think you should allow it to stand for now until proven otherwise.
I don't want to get into a edid war so i will trust you and Jack will be fair in this matter.
You might want to check out user:Robertlbeukema. He is apparently a photographer interested largely in professional wrestling in Florida. He adds photos to Wikipedia, which isn't a problem, but he seems to enjoy adding pictures of pro wrestlers posing with him or adding to the article that the picture was taken by "Robert Beukema." I asked him to stop, but he ignored me and has continued to add his name to articles. Chicken Wing18:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Be a little more careful
Yamla, I do appreciate all the work you do helping us all make Wikipedia a more efficient and actuate source. However I would suggest that you be a little more careful when you decide to block peoples IP addresses. I was using IP Address: 69.209.222.172.
I have never added any content what so ever to Wikipedia. All I have done, and you should check the contributions, is clean up links that were either ugly or simply did not work. I never clamed to have knowledge regarding any subject matter and consequently never added any content. This has really made me feel pretty unwelcome in this community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.222.172 (talk • contribs)
The contribution log for that address is here and clearly shows multiple contributions. If you do not wish to be lumped in with vandals, I suggest registering an account as your talk page already indicates. --Yamla21:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a question about your removing the info on who she is dating. Is there a specific policy that states not listing who people are dating? I myself don't think every person someone dates deserves to be mentioned, but others seem to disagree. --Malevious Userpage•Talk Page•Contributions17:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This would fall under WP:NOT (not an indiscriminate collection of information). Certainly if there's a consensus on the talk page that this information is notable then it should be added. Also, if a reliable citation (WP:RS, WP:CITE) can be found indicating that this is notable, it should be added. However, it is hard to believe that anyone will care in ten years' time. --Yamla17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You recently messaged me and threatened to block me if I "vandalized" Wikipedia like I supposedly did to the article on Katie Holmes. I have done no such thing. There was incorrect information and deplorable grammar on her page, which I simply cleared up. I have numerous articles in which her full name is cited as Katherine Noelle Homes, so I corrected it. While it is my understanding that you act as a sort of Wikipedia police man, please pay closer attention to what actually occurred before lobbing accusations of vandalisms. I thought Wikipedia valued integrity and accuracy, which my editing was accomplishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawprincess (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry, I can see no such contribution from you to that article. Note, however, that WP:V requires that you provide a reliable citation when you change information of this nature. We currently have a reliable citation indicating that her name is "Kate", not "Katherine". --Yamla21:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Recent revert
Hi. You recently reverted an edit of mine at the Linux article. I don't feel strongly about this particular edit, but next time when you revert someone's edit please provide an edit summary with an explanation or bring it up on the talk page. 80.233.255.700:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought that was vandalism. Linux isn't generally considered a family of operating systems. --Yamla00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Simtropolis
Recently, I have listed Simtropolis at AfD. Can you semi-protect the AfD page to keep it from being spammed by IPs and single purpose accounts with WP:ILIKEIT votes. The site is already asking its members to come and save the article. ([1]). The last 2 AfDs were closed as keep and no consensus because of the large amount of ILIKEIT votes coming from members of the site. It would be nice if this AfD was actually based on our policies and guidelines instead of off site canvassing. --Malevious Userpage•Talk Page•Contributions15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to run this past WP:ANI first because I'm not sure if the page should be semi-protected or if we should just stick a warning on it. --Yamla16:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure what the best alternative is. Our official policy (not just for the English Wikipedia) is to block proxies. The best solution is that the Chinese government tears down their firewall and stops filtering the Internet but that seems unlikely in the short term. It's a huge problem. --Yamla15:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
On WP:PROXY talk page there seems to be a consensus that softblocking Tor and similar proxies should be an option (if not general policy); in addition, there is an opinion from Jimbo Wales in support of Tor proxies being softblocked.
There's one possible concern: a vandal (or another disruptive user) may - after his address is blocked from editing and registration of accounts - ask a friend to register an account for him and send him the password, and then use it to edit through a proxy (which otherwise can't be used to edit or register an account, either). Perhaps some mechanism to prevent that could be created? (For example: the third kind of blocked IP addresses which can't be used by unregistered and new users - corresponding to semiprotected pages. Also, "new user" should be defined by something else than just time elapsed from registration; currently, semiprotection can be easily bypassed by vandals.) - Mike Rosoft14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Verdict
Hi Yamla, I have noticed recently that Verdict still seems intent on vandalising professional wrestling pages. Seeing as this has been going on for a while (six months at least), would it be necessary to create a long term abuse page on him? Davnel0316:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, almost certainly. Are you volunteering? ;-) I think my next free weekend is the middle of September. Not that I'm really complaining. --Yamla16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to add our link to the local towns in our area that we service. However, I posted a request to add these links and only one person has gotten back to me. How long does it normally take to be responded to? And if this is something that you can do...these are the towns that I want to add an external link to provided we are the local newspaper (main newspaper) for these towns and have setup town specific pages on our site.
The towns are:
1) Acushnet, MA
2) Dartmouth, MA
3) Fairhaven, MA
4) Freetown, MA
5) Lakeville, MA
6) Rochester, MA
7) Somerset, MA
8) Swansea, MA
9) Wareham, MA
10) Westport, MA
I did get a response on one (Fall River, MA) and he asked me if it was appropriate to have our link on there. I would say yes. I have gone on many other town pages and their local newspaper is posted under their external link because it is their local news and inforamtion site. Can you please help with this or is there someone that maintains that town pages?
Also, I have posted a request to add article information on a few other sites. Can you please see if these are appropriate as well. For these, I also believe that our information/link is very relevant and appropriate. If you could please review that would be great! Here are the pages:
1) Blessed Sacrament Page
2) New Bedford, MA Page
3) Passionada Page
4) Buzzards Bay Page
5) John Manjiro Page - a user undid the spam on my article because they thought it was appropriate (which I believe too). However, should I somewhere in that Wikipedia page add some of the article information to make the reference link valid?
I did a little research, and it turns out that it takes more than confirmation from one senator to make these PD. We would need something from the Legislature sent to us. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Just a quick question for you. Is this guy just spamming talk pages, or doing something legal? User: AlexFR. Have a look at his recent edits. Thanks. --Escape Orbit21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
If the article has been improved since then, I think you just follow the same procedure as the original nomination. I haven't done much in that area, though... --Yamla20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think your actions were unhelpful and disruptive. You abused your admin. powers even though you knew I am not the problem. Take your abusive protection off of my talk page fortwith, without delay. Mumun 無文19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No reply is requested. Please do not contact me for any reason whatsoever. You may have 40,000 edits, but I think you should strongly consider a wikibreak and leave honest editors ALONE!!! Please reflect upon your actions Mumun 無文19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This editor had his page protected due to continued unblock abuse. See contribution log for details. --Yamla20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Good looks on that unblock. east.718at 21:51, August 16, 2007—please reply on my talk page!
Would it be possible to whitelist 68.193.199.114 and 69.116.150.174 from that rangeblock? I have been the only person assigned to both those IPs for years now. east.718at 02:53, August 17, 2007—please reply on my talk page!
Instead of just blanking the whole discography why not just re-do it or something instead of trashing all that hard work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryan556 (talk • contribs) 04:18, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
Hello- I saw that you blocked this user, but on his user page, he has 2 other usernames which he claims he is known by, both of which are not blocked, and have many of the same problems his blocked account has. I would request that you take a look at this, and block the other usernames as well. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk)15:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I recently saw an user revert an edit made by this IP address: 220.239.56.240. I have read its discussion page and it seems that this IP address is part of a group wanting to vandalise Wikipedia. Could you please look into this? Much appreciated. Feel free to tell me that I'm just overly concerned and I don't need to worry about it. I hope that is the case. Omghgomg12:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Change my username
Excuse me. Do you know how to change usernames? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AR Argon (talk • contribs) 02:11, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Hmm.. I think the problem is that Deacon seems to think they did nothing wrong. I was going to unblock but the blocking admin made their thoughts clear. In fairness to Yamla they wouldn't have been aware of the double block because it wasn't noted on the 3RR report and they would simply have been considering RFU. I don't think it would take Deacon very long to get unblocked if they put up an unblock request but they just declined to do so. SpartazHumbug!15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I was indeed not aware of the other block. If Deacon believes the block was unjust, he or she should put up an unblock request which I would examine. --Yamla16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks the problem on the United Kingdom article relates to This where User:Biofoundationsoflanguage created this template today after failing to have the existing template moved, and which because of his edit warring on had to be protected last week, so he then created a new one and is trying to add links in the United Kingdom article to the his new template.--padraig17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Images taken from ebay.com and claimed as own work
User:JJH1992 recently uploaded an image that is obviously from an ebay.com bid and is claiming it to be his own work. See Image:B8e6 1.jpg. (Note the camera graphic on the bottom right corner. Incase you don't know, all images uploaded to ebay have that camera graphic in that location.) I am unfamiliar with what to do in this situation. Could you help clear this up? -- bulletproof3:1619:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Generally the best thing to do is to mark the image as having no source and include a comment indicating that this image came from eBay rather than from the uploader. --Yamla19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This user is most of the time reverting or changing peoples edits made on the page (see Massaro's history), and about 10 minutes ago reverted a good edit I made on the page (see here). If he reverts it back, surely that isn't getting rid of perfectly good information. I would go along and revert it straight back, but given my current status with other users and the fact I would be violating WP:3RR, I thought I'd tell an administrator incase he decided to revert it again. I've left a message on his talkpage for the moment. Davnel0320:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If there is a free alternative, by all means please use it. I fail to see the difference between a pay-for-view news site (New York Times archives come to mind) or any other reliable source that we would ordinarily pay to view in the offline world (i.e. books, newspapers, magazines). Can't sleep, clown will eat me03:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason I'm asking, is a user added information on the criticism of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, and used an online radio broadcast to source it, and to listen to the broadcast you need to pay for it. The site that the broadcast is listed, doesn't mention the show on it, but the user says it's mentioned in the broadcast itself. --Malevious Userpage•Talk Page•Contributions03:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Yamla, can you make a substancial edit to Lesnar's article for us as it is fully protected. I have put edit protected before the edit, but no administrators have responded. The edit is here. I would be greatful if you could do this for me. Many thanks. Davnel0321:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Nelly Furtado
Who vandalized the page were you. You erased an information with no reasons. You did not even discussed it in the article's talk page, as it should be done.
Nelly Furtado holds both Canadian and Portuguese cientizenship. In many interviews, she said she feels much more Portuguese than Canadian. Her Portuguese ancestry is notable even in her songs, with many Portuguese words and instruments.
If you know nothing about Nelly Furtado, you should not post anything there. And, please, do not bother me in my talk page anymore. Opinoso00:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOSBIO. We do not list ancestry in the opening paragraph. Now, if you have a reliable source where she states that she feels more Portuguese than Canadian, this absolutely would be appropriate for the article. I am sorry you feel that my informing you about MOSBIO was inappropriate given that it was done on your talk page but it is standard practice to point out policies and guidelines on user discussion pages, as I did. --Yamla04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not a question of ancestry. Furtado is a Portuguese citizen, and the policy you quote specifically notes that intros should state the citizenship of the person concerned. I am not sure why you are so keen to exclude mention of Furtado's Portuguese nationality, but you should note that it is not vandalism to revert to a preferred version, however stubbornly the editor in question does it. Please do not litter other editors' talkpages with templates designed to coerce or upset them, and particularly do not drop vandalism warnings onto the pages of editors who are working in good faith, however misguided you feel they are. Mentioning a policy is not appropriate, but doing that definitely is. I direct you in turn to this policy. Eden Tate05:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong, it is a question of ancestry. WP:MOSBIO states that ancestry should not be listed in the introductory paragraph. As such, stating "of Portuguese descent" is clearly in violation of WP:MOSBIO. Opinoso refused to discuss why he was insisting on violating this guideline. Jester7777's current version of the page is fundamentally different and does not violate WP:MOSBIO. How you can say that "mentioning a policy is not appropriate" is beyond me, particularly when you then mentioned WP:CIVIL to me. --Yamla14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You have blocked Eden Tate as a sock. Can you please explain your evidence for this? It doesn't look like you've posted it anywhere. Everyking19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you been following the discussion on unblock-en-l? If you have not, it will take you some time; some of the emails are almost 5000 words long. Eden Tate is not mentioned there specifically but the whole Zordrac/Internodeuser/Blissyu2 issue has been raised. This is a banned vandal who is known to use sockpuppets and to be "less than truthful" about the use of said sockpuppets. The timelines fit as do the styles of the edit summaries and the edits themselves. Zordrac has also taken an interest in this particular article, mentioning it in email to me and in messages to unblock-en-l. And note for the record that the Nelly Furtado article now includes in the introduction paragraph information about Portuguese citizenship, though now in such a way as it does not violate WP:MOSBIO, so I am most definitely not blocking this user because he disagreed with me. --Yamla20:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
C++ Page?
Why was what I did taken as ill contempt? All I did on the C++ page was change the "Hello World!" example to comply to the current standard. As of C++98 you only needed the iostream header file to use std::endl, std::cout, and std::cin. Signed 141.155.135.126
Hello Yamla, I need your help and second opinion with something. I have reason to believe that a banned user, Runcorn, is using IP sockpuppets on a page called List of Czech and Slovak Jews. The IPs I think are Runcorn's that are editing that article have made very, very similar edits to that page as 20.138.246.89 (a Runcorn sockpuppet you declined an unblock request from) has. How long should a banned user's IPs be blocked for? I would like your help with this please. I can provide diffs to support this too. Acalamari16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Runcorn does indeed appear to be banned and you clearly know the difference between a ban and a block, but for anyone else reading, you'll want to check WP:BAN. Blocks and bans are two very different things. Now, if you know for sure that a banned user is continuing to edit, you can block the new account or IP address on sight and if you have the time, revert all contributions (as per WP:DENY). A sockpuppet account should be blocked indefinitely. An IP address, it depends on whether it is static, semi-static (that is, all contributions for a period of time appear to come from only the banned user), or dynamic. In the first two cases, I'll block long enough to exhaust the patience of the banned user. In the latter case, there's not much you can do, especially if productive contributions are being made. Short term blocks with account creation prevented, and generally anon-only, is the way to go unless the banned vandal is being extremely disruptive. If that is the case, range blocks sometimes get handed out. Open proxies are often used by banned users and these should be blocked indefinitely. The block can be undone when the open proxy is closed down.
So, in this case, 20.138.246.89 is definitely used by the banned user, Runcorn. A checkuser was performed and showed this. If you have reason to believe Runcorn is back using 195.26.60.87, you perform the checks to see if it is blacklisted (no), a tor node (no), and where it is located (Southhampton, England, minutes away from where I used to live thirty years ago). The address does not appear to be used by anyone else. So, perhaps a three month block would be appropriate here, along with reverting the edits (which does not count toward WP:3RR, by the way).
The only question remaining is how sure you are that this is Runcorn. I don't have much knowledge of that particular case and have not investigated this. In some cases, you can ask that a checkuser be performed (WP:CHECK) but the duck test also applies and is probably sufficient here. And given that Runcorn is a long-term problem, it's probably worth bringing this up on WP:ANI, though this is certainly not always necessary. --Yamla16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and as an aside and not directly relevent here, a banned user (as opposed to a blocked user) is not generally eligible for unblock reviews via the unblock template or through unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Such users need to appeal to a member of WP:ARBCOM. --Yamla16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
195.26.60.87 appears to only be used by Runcorn. It appears to be a semi-static IP address. As such, three months is fine there. 86.153.140.112 is British Telecom. Speaking from experience, these are extremely dynamic IPs. I think you can power-cycle your modem and get a new IP. BT as a whole ends up getting range-blocked as a result of a disproportionate amount of vandalism from their service. Anyway, the point is that if you give a block significantly long enough, Runcorn will just grab a new IP. If it is too short, he'll just wait out the block. BT's a huge problem for the Wikipedia. Now, finally, 204.155.226.2. In this case, it is unclear to me that it has only been used by Runcorn recently. If in your opinion it has been used by other, productive, users, a shorter block is appropriate. If you believe it's only Runcorn, I'd go with a three month block. If you think other people are using it, I'd perhaps go with a shorter block but definitely mark it anon-only so people with accounts can continue to edit. In at least one of these cases, an open proxy may well be involved. I'll do port scans and report back. --Yamla17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Also note that if an open proxy is not involved, a meatpuppet may be. As per WP:SOCK, meatpuppets and sockpuppets are treated the same way. I'm sure you know this already, I'm just mentioning this for anyone else reading. --Yamla17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Don't worry, I am aware of meatpuppets; I came across a bunch within my first three/four months here. I will, however, wait to do any blocks on these IPs though, to allow you to do your port scan. Acalamari17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
204.155.226.2 appears to be functioning as an ssh tunnel. So it is a proxy but not an open proxy. Nevertheless, it is being used abusively so I'm going to go and block that one. The other two do not appear to be open proxies. --Yamla17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have block tabs over the other two. How does a three month block, AO/ACB on 195.26.60.87 and a one month block AO on 86.153.140.112 sound? Acalamari17:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds perfect. If Runcorn jumps IPs and an innocent user gets them, we can always lift the block. --Yamla17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
WikiThanks Thank you so much for your help, Yamla, with this; I hope it wasn't too much trouble. Would it be worth me noting this incident at AN/I or not? Acalamari17:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Given Runcorn's history, it may be worth mentioning it. Normally I wouldn't bother but Runcorn has a long history here... --Yamla18:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you recently banned a user for being a sockpuppet. I noticed that before he got blocked, he created and added a whole bunch of articles to it with seemingly little or no explanation. I'm sure it's good to be deleted, but I don't know how to do an AFD. BOZ21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know that's what he was blocked for, though. I reported him to AIV for vandalism, though, so sorry about any misunderstanding. Will(talk)22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Lee Nysted is banned. He and his sockpuppets and meatpuppets are not welcome here and will be blocked and reverted on sight. --Yamla12:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, again
With regards to the "Hello world" never-ending debate, it seems that Bjarne himself provides a good compromise on that errata link you posted:
#include < iostream>
int main()
{
std::cout << "Hello world\n";
}
If, indeed, ostream is not an issue and it's only endl, then this compromise version might put this debate to bed once and for all. What do you think?
ATren12:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that's such a good idea? I understand the reasoning, but what if ip's or new users want to contact you? Protecting a talk page in my opinion to prevent vandalism by others, especially when the user is still active isn't such a good idea, in my opinion. I'm not disputing your decision, I just want to hear your reasoning, is all. Gscshoyru22:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous users are currently trolling this page regarding the banned user, Lee Nysted. Blocking the individual IPs is not a reasonable option. It's a temporary block. --Yamla22:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to say thanks for taking a hand in the recent events with respect to this article. I'm still learning about how to handle situations like this in order to keep Wikipedia legal so, if there's something I should have done differently, if you had the time to offer some guidance I'd be grateful. I've already learned something from another contributor but you seem to be taking the major role in this, and I'd value your opinion. Thanks in advance for anything you'd care to offer, either here or on my own talk page. Accounting4Taste19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So you're going to block me just because I put down on the Paris Hilton page that she was Roman Catholic! Dawh - she is Roman Catholic. Didn't you see her interview with Larry King days after she was released from jail. Oh and then you have the nerve to say that what I did was "vadalism". So you think someone being called Roman Catholic is vandalism. It's not as if I put down that she was a Jew hating Nazi or something. Get over yourself, seriously! You are sad. Don't you have anything better to do than spend all day in front of a computer monitoring wikipedia. Get a job! You're probably going to block me now for saying all this well go ahead i don't care. I can just log in with another name. How about we block you for being an annoying piece of shit. Let me guess your fat and single with no friends. Oh wait sorry, wikipedia is your "friend". Uhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh im so angry!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sl84 (talk • contribs) 19:38, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
You have been told multiple times that it is your responsibility to provide reliable citations. Once again, please see WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. And please refrain from further personal attacks as per WP:NPA. --Yamla19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
i see you've had somewhat of a run-in with IndulgentReader (talk·contribs) and his flag fetish. he managed to foul dozens and dozens and dozens of articles before being stopped. is there any way to back out his changes without doing them one-at-a-time? --emerson7 | Talk22:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not absolutely sure that I'm right here. I've been reading flagcruft and it seems that his use is inappropriate... flags aren't occurring right by the location, etc. etc. Admins have a roll-back button but it can only be done one article at a time. :( Let me know what you think. --Yamla22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Asus splits into 3 companies
Hi Yamla, can you please tell me why my comments go deleted? Its a fact that Asus is splitting into 3 companies. Please let me know so I can learn from my mistake, thanks --Nvasi14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yamla, I've noticed that the block imposed on user Edgeweb because he was a sockpuppet of Cpzphantom was lifted. I don't know if the block was lifted because there was no evidence that Edgeweb was a sockpuppet of Cpzphantom.
However, after his block was removed, the made edits such as this one which are disruptive and inappropiate. But if you look closely at the edits, you'll notice that he mentions that the President of Panama is "Chazz Princetone". This was one of the blocked sockpuppet accounts of Cpzphantom, which clearly shows that Edgeweb IS Cpzphantom and should therefore be blocked.
Gah. I'll look into it. Assuming the Chazz Princetone thing is correct, that would definitely identify this as an abusive sockpuppet. Sorry. I unblocked after extensive discussion with this person through email. --Yamla18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I recognised the name. I just accepted his word that he was not Cpzphanom. Though it looks like the image upload history (now removed as per WP:DENY) had some identical uploads. Grrr. --Yamla19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
HELP?!?
Someone keeps deleting my articles and discussions reffering to Ashley Massaro and Michelle McCool and etc. I know we haven't got along in the past and I'm sorry for that but I really need your help can you find that person and please give them a strict warning.
Who are you? What articles? Are they leaving messages explaining why the deletions are occurring? --Yamla23:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This editor is an IP of blocked puppetmaster BIGCANDICEFAN. They want to include week by week information and not notable accomplishments that are purely original research. The edits are reverted for those reasons but they continue to stalk the articles and threaten the editors that are trying to keep the pages junk-free. - Deep Shadow 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, this site is an invaluable resource, and has provided me with translations and citations. Now excuse me, I have a GAC to work at. Alientraveller22:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yamla, this guy was conducting a legit survey. There's no way that an indefblock on him can be justified: why did you revert my appeal against his block?--VoxHumana8'18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If you believe his block was unjustified, bring it up on an appropriate forum. The unblock template is to be used by the blocked users themselves to request unblocking. Thanks. --Yamla19:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The assistance isn't for me but for this user: 81.159.185.16/SymiLover/a bunch of other IP Addresses. He/she keeps harassing and insulting me on the basis that the information he/she adds is correct and the action I am taking in reverting back to what it was, is wrong. The user keeps adding a spam link (which is nothing more than a tourist guide) to the external links section, and keeps demanding it be placed there, and population data which does not reflect the country census. You can look at my talk page in the Symi section and even the Symi article itself. I've notified the user that the link is a spam link multiple times. The user also keeps claiming that my reverts of her edits are claiming ownership over the article. That I am not, I'm simply trying to keep the article in some sort of respected and reasonable state. I've tried to ignore the user as Wikipedia policy states, but the user just keeps on coming back. El Greco (talk·contribs)00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
If its not much to ask can you explain to this user why we don't we don't use names that aren't official in wrestling pages? he has been adding these fan names to Carly Colón recently and has been edit warring over them with any user that reverts his edits regardless if an explanation is provided,[6] I am even starting to suspect that this self proclaimed new user might be a puppet. - Caribbean~H.Q.06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
What is Falcon4.0?
And why the reason for the message you sent me? I´ve never went to that page, and I have no knowledge of videogames at all.
Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.48.61.175 (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In all honesty, I'm having a hard time WP:AGF that this image: Image:PHIL HUGHES.jpg was taken by the user and is actually in the public domain, it looks way to professional for me. I can't seem to find the photo anywhere else though. Bmg916Speak18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That Nysted thing again
Hey there. Just so you know, an "interested person" (assuming good faith) has popped up on Jimbo's talk page complaining about the recreation of Nysted's user and user talk page. You might want to drop by and explain why they were recreated. I can pull up a bunch of posts by sock/meatpuppets from the last couple of months later, if they would help. Tony Fox(arf!)23:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The most recent version of the image was uploaded by a user we caught "falsifying" information about images. He uploaded a version after you did. It was not at all a slight against you. --Yamla20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User:TainanHao User:Heltzen Blocked
The two users User:TainanHao and User:Heltzen are blocked due to using an anonymising proxy (# 202.67.154.148 RDNS grizzly.ns666.com, privacy.li's Hong Kong server). They are respectable members of the martial arts project. Would it be possible to soft block them, that they could continue with their current configuration? They are computer novices. Thanks you for your time and good work! jmcw15:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it's an anonymising proxy. They need to disable the use of that proxy in order to edit. It's a real pain in the ass especially for Chinese users but we simply get too many vandals using these open proxies. --Yamla15:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I turn to you for a little guidance. There are some images I've found in flickr.com. Some free licensed images under the attribution 2.0 of Shahrukh Khan are actually magazine covers. Are they permitted for usage on his page? And I have another image of Preity Zinta, but she is not alone - [7]. Is this one permitted?
Images which are magazine covers are almost certainly falsely licensed. In this case, the person who uploaded them to flickr actually does not have legal standing to release them under a free license such as attribution 2.0. We cannot use them here. As to the image you listed above, we certainly could use that image. Sometimes the second person is edited out (allowed by the "remix" part of the license), other times not. --Yamla18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think he's been editing in good faith but for some reason has utterly resisted learning the ropes of WP guidelines on... everything, even talk page usage. Then he blithely breezed by the block. Thanks for helping out :/ Gwen Gale16:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There' s no copyright infringement but in your head
This is just a link that already exists on the web [8]. It's not I who created it. You can chose to open it or to ignore it. The photo is not visible unless you decide to make it so. Let individuals, wiki readers etc. make up their mind. Do not act on their behalf. Now hurry, hurry, delete my posting. Ready, steady..Staaaaart..Quick Quick Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.78.206 (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be a copyright violation and we are not permitted to link to copyright violations. Additionally, article talk pages are to be used to discuss the article. Your post was not doing that. In any case, there's no need to link to nude photographs in order to discuss the issue. --Yamla16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Note specifically that the copyright for that image likely rests with Ms. Hudgens herself. Certainly there's no evidence that the site you were linking to owns the copyright and given the wide distribution of the image, this is more than unlikely. --Yamla16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha..I thought that offering the wiki readers the chance to see Ms. Hudgens clad in Eve's costume (minus the fig leaf) can only add to the better understanding of her complex personality, something that a wiki article should only aim to. 195.75.78.20619:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yamla, sorry about butting in as I saw an edit of a talk page and didn't think that was normal. I didn't realize what the situation was. Another editor filled me in and I now understand what was going on. FWIW Bzuk16:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC).
Hi Yamla! About this user, there seem to be a lot of unsourced/incorrect info added to several articles and reverting all of that takes a full time editor! The user seem to be a junior with multiple accounts (see 1, 2, and 3), so what should be the level of patience? You may want to do a check user on these accounts as well: 4, 5, 6. Thanks! 124.170.132.3817:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain :- I have added this image Image:Universe at war Earth Assault.jpg on july 16 2007. It has been in the article for 1 month until that users came and added a non-free license and added other image and proclaims that his image is better that the image which i have added. Well the point is that i have spoken to petroglyph regarding that image whether it can be added or not. I have send a email to Ted Morris who is working for petroglyph said i can add this image. He had not given me full information about license. I cant decide what sort of license should be added to this image so i have added non-free game over. It is just a temporary license until Ted is free to help me what sort of license that i can give.
MrStalker is actually correct here. This image would be protected by copyright. We could use it as a fair-use image but only with a detailed fair-use rationale as provided for, say, Image:Uawea-cover.jpg. I'm not saying that image is better, only that it has the information required for the use of the image on Wikipedia. Please see WP:FU which explains our fair-use requirements. --Yamla16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
How is he correct?. I got the permission to post the image to wikipedia.
Here is the conversion i spoke to petroglyph.
Me :-
Hey Mike.
How are you doing. I like to ask you this. Can i add the picture the boxart at wikipedia?. Also which license should i add. Wikipedia is strict with this things. Can you help. Here is the article :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_at_War:_Earth_Assault.
Mike :-
Hi there!
Ted is e-mailing you about the license for Wikipedia.
Have a great weekend,
-Mike
Ted:-
Hey!
Go right ahead and put the box up on there. I’m not 99% sure it is the final version, but that’s okay. We really appreciate you helping out!
Chris will be in contact with you when he gets back from an overseas trip sometime next week.
Thanks!
-T
Iam really fed of this. I would be extremely unhappy if the image is deleted. Look like after lot of wait and contact to get this license and i get this sort thing. --SkyWalker16:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Iam having a headache of reading all those. So what should i do and what should i ask petroglyph about adding a proper license. --SkyWalker17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
To be acceptable for use on the Wikipedia, the image must be freely licensed. That means it must be licensed with terms that allow commercial reuse (not just reuse on Wikipedia) and which allow modification. The fact of the matter is that there is no chance that box art for an upcoming game would ever be licensed under these terms. That leaves us with treating it as a fair-use image. In that case, we need a detailed fair-use rationale for the image as per WP:FURG. --Yamla17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Also worth noting, the image you have uploaded is too large for a fair-use image but appears otherwise to be identical to Image:Uawea-cover.jpg, unless I'm missing something. What are your objections to that image, which has an acceptable fair-use rationale? --Yamla17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The image i uploaded is as is when the boxart was announced. You can see it here. That image was added on September 6th. I have added it on july 16th. It was there with no problem until this user come and remove the license after one month. Sure i can also add fair use rationale in that image with no problems. The reason why i have not done that because i thought it was right thing to ask petroglyph before adding this image which i find that wikipedia does not accept and after this the user says to me :- don't start to annoy me. stop breaking policy. Where iam breaking the policy?. This provoked me. It also shows that iam guilty of this and iam doing a crime. What iam proving is that iam not guilty also i want this image to be there in the article.
Iam also tired each time when i upload a image it gets deleted. So i have stopped adding anymore of the image which i want to share.
Also i have spoke to the community manager just now and he said what ever image fits in wikipedia add it. I have spoke to him on messenger.
That is all i have to say thank you for all your help. --SkyWalker18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You certainly could add a fair-use rationale to that image. You were violating WP:FU by not adding this rationale as soon as you uploaded the image, however. It's hardly a crime but it is a violation of our fair-use policies. Additionally, as previously mentioned, I believe the image you uploaded was too large, though I'm less familiar with that aspect of our fair-use policy. Not a significant deal, though, it would have been easy enough for someone to shrink it (as essentially eventually happened). Fair-use images are admittedly a huge pain in the behind here on Wikipedia. In fact, I think the only fair-use image I ever uploaded was eventually deleted. --Yamla18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Iam depressed and given up all this. Can you delete the image now?. I have no hope. Iam not even sure how many more of this laws iam violating to be frank Yamla. Iam sure in next few years a new copyright will follow saying that adding a link without a proper copyright will be deleted. Has for you Yamla you are my good friend today. :) --SkyWalker18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Since I'm the cause of all this I feel that perhaps I should present myself. First let me say that I'm really sorry if I've upset anybody. I know that I have a rather nasty habbit of biting newcomers, and in that case I am sorry. Let me give you my point of view: I was looking at this image (Image:Universe at war Earth Assault.jpg) and noticed it was missing a fair-use rationale. I also noticed it was unnecessarily large for the the purpose it was used (which is no more then 256px wide). So I decided to upload a new image (Image:Uawea-cover.jpg) downsampled to 256px from the original one, and provided it with the proper fair-use rationale. At the same time I tagged the old image uploaded by SkyWalker as missing a fair-use rationale and being a replaced orphan, since I've had replaced it with Image:Uawea-cover.jpg, all according to policy. Notice that I did not remove any licensing information from the image page, I just added the two tags. When SkyWalker reverted my change a little devil inside my head screamed "VANDAL!!!" so I kind of bit him. For that I am sorry. --MrStalkertalk11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Old SALT vs New SALT
This is mostly an FYI to you as an admin who still uses the old, templated method for salting pages. That method of salting pages is depricated, and the template is now up for deletion. While things can still change, the current discussion definitely looks headed towards deletion. Assuming that this happens, you will no longer be able to salt pages with the old method, and will need to begin using the newer salting method that involves cascading protection on the title, and allows recreation to be blocked while still having no article at the name, leaving it as a red link. This new method of salting is centered at WP:PT, and the instructions for how to make it work are there as well. - TexasAndroid13:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete image of trisha krishnan linked from wikimedia?
Please see WP:FU. We are not permitted to use fair-use images to depict living people. As an aside, that image is not from wikimedia. --Yamla16:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ashley Judd
The quote about Ashley Judd on Milka Duno is all over the sports pages. I'll go find a link for you, you big nerd! ;)
I just wanted to say thank you for all you do to combat vandalism! Your hard work does not go unnoticed. Also, a special thanks to you for keeping your watchful eye on the Cheerleading page! MsDivagin18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
They don't agree with Your opinion. In I don't damage, on the contrary I report some incorrectness to work of Asus Italy S.r.L.Truth must be said!12 September 2007 - Bye user 79.9.155.33
I get blocked. Don't know why, so I ask the only way I know how — asking about the unblock with the unblock template. Then I get blocked (again) for unblock abuse. Isn't this a bit punitive for a simple question? Or is it there another problem here? 24.243.187.15206:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry you believe that calling Wikipedia "Kafkapedia" is an appropriate thing to do. But I assure you that it is not. --Yamla13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Yamla, I noticed you were the one to decline the unblock request for User talk:Djgps, and as it was I who originally notified FisherQueen about the user's seemingly similar editing history to User:Sandlercomm, I thought I'd ask you if you think it is alright that I posted the information I did on the user's talk page. I thought that, regardless of if they were unblocked or not, it would be helpful for them to have some relevant policies and guidelines to refer to, to avoid any possible future issues (hopefully). I don't think your declining the unblock request was wrong, I just thought it may be helpful for the users of that account to understand the rules, and that was why I posted my rather verbose comment. I did some fairly lengthy searching to see if that company was notable prior to requesting FisherQueen look into the issue, and while I did not find anything that would warrant an article about the company, I still thought it might be helpful to explain all of that to the users. However, if that's not appropriate to do for a blocked user, feel free to remove my comments. Ariel♥Gold14:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Totally appropriate, and thanks for doing so. You provided detailed information on why their actions were inappropriate. This is almost always better than templated warnings if only one can spare the time. :) --Yamla14:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's great. I've not had any reason before to do so on a blocked user's page, as almost all of my reports are for obvious vandalism, and the official policies have all been explained in warnings, so I was just a bit hesitant about the proper course for this, but I felt it would be helpful. And hey, since I retired, I have all the time in the world, lol. I'm here all day! Thanks for the quick reply, I just love those! Hee hee. Ariel♥Gold14:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Look saddo, I don't know who you are, but you know... get a life. To be honest, does it matter that much that I don't know a website where what was said was said, and let me assure you, The Times newspaper is a fairly reliable source in my book.
Do you have a job? Because the kind of person who checks every page for edits, and their reliability is a pretty sad little man (or woman, I don't know what yamla is)
Before you say anything, or 'cite me for blocking' or some crap, this profile was only made because the school ip was blocked, and I edited a page about the Crusades. Happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumbo mumbo (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Yamla. I need your advice. Im working on the Bollywood pages mostly and I accidently removed someone's work from the Preity Zinta page. I apologized to the User:Shshshsh[9] but then he wrote me a message which I found particularly rude and offensive [10]. He also criticized my edits and then made offensive comments towards me [11], [12]. I know he'll probably won't get blocked but I really do not deserve to be spoken in that way especially if I apologized to him in the first place. I've read WP:CIVIL and have ignored his latest message but can you make anything of his comments. I was going to ignore it but I was personally attacked before and that time I did not do anything about it so can you please help me? Thank you -- Pa719:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
My first message wasn't as rude as User:Pa7 claims it to be. She threatened me to go to an admin and I found it rude and that was really rude. I have spent hours in correcting and formatting references, and she has just ruined my work. She put them back in order to fulfill her obligation, but it was a complete mess. I had to tell her what I told her because I didn't want something like this to happen again. --Shahid • Talk2me19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I apologized to the user and did my best to rectify my mistake, but still that was no excuse to talk to me the way he did. -- Pa720:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is my first message to her word for word:
"Listen, you messed up with references! Now I have to format it from outset. And you added them with total mess, names are not in their correct places. God, if you don't know so don't remove things. It took hours to format them."
What did I say? Have I done something wrong here? I could rather revert her edits but I didn't, so I don't deserve a sudden threat like this: "The next time you say something as unpleasant as you did to me I'll ask for admin help and get you blocked." --Shahid • Talk2me19:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Im talking about the message, not your edits. And if someone says this to you God, if you don't know so don't remove things, then you'd probably react the same way which is why I vouched for admin help. For the record, I was polite and apologized to you on your talk page and the edit history so why couldn't you respond in a calm manner with me. I was personally offended by what you said. -- Pa720:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you are both obviously trying to improve the article. With that in mind, I will direct you to WP:CIVIL. Getting the references correct can be tricky at times. There's a good chance if I tried reformatting all references on a page, I'd mess it up. Still, we do keep all the old versions of a page so normally it's not a huge deal just to copy-and-paste an old version back. It takes only a minute rather than an hour. Perhaps you, Shahid, could have explained what the person was doing incorrectly (if this was clear, and it might not have been) and pointed out the preview feature. And Pa7, perhaps you could have pointed Shahid to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (though in this case, it was not a personal attack, just uncivil behaviour). In both cases, you could have assumed the other person was acting in good faith (WP:AGF) and just overreacted a little. I have had experience with both of you in the past and you are both clearly working hard to improve the Wikipedia, I think things just blew up a little here. If you'd like me to take a closer look at what is going on, I will do so. But just for a moment, assume just for a moment (whether you are Pa7 or Shahid) that the other person is also attempting to improve the Wikipedia and see if the matter cannot simply be forgotten about. I'm not asking either of you to apologise, just to take a deep breath and to assume you are both working hard on this volunteer process. Heaven knows, I've made plenty of mistakes of my own around here and occasionally have received harsh words as a result. --Yamla19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Just one more thing, I'll point out WP:OWN. I don't think either of you have violated that policy but just in case, it is important to understand that nobody here owns an article. --Yamla19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I came here for advice, I knew that he would not be blocked but I was completely offended by his messages. Nevertheless, Yamla, I trust your judgement and yes I agree that the user should have been directed by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Like you said it was un-civil behaviour from his part. We were both working on the article at the time which is how I accidently removed his reference work. When I went to save it, it said there was an edit conflict so I waited a few minutes then saved my work. I did not realise that I had reverted all his edits which is why I apologized after and yet it was assumed that I removed it just like that according to this [13]. Yamla, I know you're really busy but may I ask that you keep an eye on the Preity Zinta page and what is said in the future between me and the user (if we do say anything). That way, you'll be able to see if anything is said between us that violates WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Finally, thank you for your advice as it has been very helpful. Also thank you for acknowledging the work I do on Wikipedia, that really means a lot to me. -- Pa714:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi I have looked at over 100 images for Miss Zinta. Nearly all I have looked at including Flickr and Google have clear copywright ownership and are labelled strongly as this. This image is the first out of zillions that appear to be created from an unprotected source. The creative commons this is uncertain so I've switched with the possibly copywrighted tag as copywright is not 100% clear. I've attributed the creator and its purpose but unless somebody can find information that is is copywrighted offically then the possibly tag is necessary I think. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?21:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Images don't need to be specifically marked with a copyright tag to be protected under copyright law. In order for us to consider them free images, the copyright holder must be identified and the image must be explicitly released under a free license. That doesn't seem to be the case here. --Yamla 21:9, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well the possible copywright holder has been identified but it is difficult to completely prove either way about a free license I agree. Agreeing that the source clearly isn't protected by copywright I think we need to find a way to contact Aryan on that site and request permission and usage officially as a free image. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?21:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the source is clearly protected by copyright. Copyright applies by default. There's no copyright tag but that does not mean the image (and the text) aren't covered by copyright. Unless they explicitly release the content to the public domain or under a free license, the default position is that the content is protected and may not be reused except under terms of fair-use (so, inappropriate for an image depicting a living person). WP:COPYRIGHT gives more information. --Yamla22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually its not. I've contacted the site to request use of the image and they have not only allowed use of this image but images of all actors and directors that appear on the site!!! I am told that their images are exclusive to the site and taken by their own photographers in Mumbai and would be delighted to contribute to wikipedia with their images as long as they are given credit for them. Here is my email I received. It would be great if you know a top image admin who devendra from the site can contact formally or email to show that it is genuine to create a license from the site. Now would you like them to email you personally or shall I send the email on to you so that you believe me?:
Hi James
Thank you for writing to Bollywoodblog.com
Our photographers are on the ground in Mumbai and all pictures to Bollywoodblog are exclusive to Bollywoodblog.
We would be delighted to assist you with any pictures of Indian TV actors or film stars you require for Wikipedia.
If you let me know what you require specifically we can give you a release.
In return we would appreciate a link back either in the picture attribution or in external links to the actor profile pages on Bollywoodblog which are useful for wikipedia readers
Now tell me what I should do for you to know I'm 110% genuine and for wikipedia to acknowledge the status of images on the site. I suggest you contact the site yourself if you don't believe and inform me who I should get the site to contact on wikipedia to authenticate this. Do you have an email address so I can pass the email I recieved from the site to you? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is her email address please contact her and say you are working with James on wikipedia:
Right Devendra has agreed to license the images to wikipedia under the Creative Commons 2.0. However she doesn't want the images used outside of wikipedia which means they wouldn't be allowed to be uploaded into the commons, but wikipedia only for use in enyclopedic articles. She would like to make an official licensing agreement with wikipedia. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?10:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Right Devendra has agreed to license the images to wikipedia only, under the Creative Commons 2.0. However she doesn't want the images used outside of wikipedia which means they wouldn't be allowed to be uploaded into the commons, but wikipedia only for use in enyclopedic articles. She would like the site to make an official licensing agreement with wikipedia. She said she wouldn't be back in the office until Monday but I'm now gonna find an image admin who can contact her and reach an exclusive agreement. The only thing is several of their images have a light bollwoodblog site marking on them. This doesn't really affect the photos but some may not be completely perfect. It is a breakthrough though ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?10:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The only thing that is a gonna by a problem I think is that all images on wikipedia whether they are exclusive to the site or not have to be under a license where the conditions are completely free to distribute and modify the work with the article in accordance with wikipedia's GFDL policy which allows all its articles to be used commercially. Now the Bollywood site only wants them to be used on wikipedia. This I fear may conflict with wikipedia's licensing agreements. We'll' have to wait but I have a bad feeling this may be the only obstacle. I have my fingers crossed ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?11:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on it with User:Videmus Omnia who works extensively on images who I have forwarded the e-mail to and he is working out the license with her to come to an official agreement. At present the share alike part of it needs an agreement we should hear seomthing Monday from the site. If you give me your e-mail address I'll forward it to you. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I did think about one for Mallika but out of respect its probably much better to wait until we clear the permssion and licensing. This is why I didn't add it to the article. I've speedied this but we should keep the one for Preity for now whilst we are clearing it. OK? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?14:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
On this image (which has now been transferred to Commons), it looks like you made the comment "Note that I have confirmed that the permission was granted". Is there an OTRS ticket about this permission? I searched but couldn't find one. I want to put the tag on it for its OTRS ticket it. Please let me know. thanks --pfctdayelise (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not create an OTRS ticket, I simply verified via email with Mr. Shermer himself. I can possibly dig up a copy of the email if you like, assuming I did not delete it. Note that I was only confirming the permission, I did not place the license on the image initially. --Yamla13:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Preity Zinta
Hi, Yamla - check out my talk page, I'm working with Ernst to try to get a good noncommercial free license from the site. Hopefully it works out. Videmus OmniaTalk14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Yamla! I found this image on Shahrukh Khan's page that was uploaded by Ujustbugme. I was wondering if it follows Wikipedia guidelines. I wanted to upload some pictures of Bollywood actors but I am not sure what criterias the image must meet in order to avoid deletion. Could you please let me know if the image of SRK is appropriate? Regards --BollywoodDreamz Talk17:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank You!! I also wanted to ask you something regarding Wikimedia Commons. Who uploads images onto Wikimedia Commons?? It seems like all the images that are under that category are allowed to be used on Wikipedia articles. What criterias do images have to be met in order to be uploaded in Wikimedia Commons? Regards --BollywoodDreamz Talk18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
All of those are marked "All rights reserved". That means none of them are freely licensed. So no, sorry. --Yamla19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Yamla - I'll see what I can do get some images released under free license. If you run into this in the future, feel free to refer people to User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content (if you feel this would be helpful) - my success rate is good enough that I'm running a backlog on uploading images, and could use some help doing this kind of work. Videmus OmniaTalk22:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
A question to ask.
Apperntly you left a message on my ip adress saying i wrote something on the articles on jibbs. I dont recall even seeing that article and if i were to make an edit i would be in my account.65.10.141.5516:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Article for Mr. Yamla
Mr Yamla I say only the Truth!' You cannot hide the truth on these firms, I will keep on publishing the incorrectness of ASUS Italy SRL. To hide the truth goes against the principles of Wikipedia. Shame! Mafiosi!
Bye Bye User talk:80.116.207.79
== Customer Care ==
Stings weak of this Firm that rather appears disinterested in to assist his/her own clients, in case of malfunction on an any product Asus, this happens in particolar way in Italy to work of the ASUS Italy S.r.L. of Milan, as they attest the conspicuous complaints published in internet. In such sense the notebook ones seem where the products they are found the greatest number of malfunctions.It is indeed finally incomprehensible as a Firm of such course, can invest huge resources in the quality of his/her own products, and at the same time I handed in spiteful way toward her own clients. In Italy the Asus represents one of the so many firms it is ashamed for the technical support.
This is incoherent. Furthermore, it blatantly violates WP:V and WP:RS. And you have been repeatedly violating WP:3RR. You are welcome to add a section on criticism if it can be understood and if it is properly cited. At the moment, though, your addition is none of these things. --Yamla16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Mr Yamla This will be also "incoherent" but You show to have been paid from ASUS Italy not to make to appear the pure truth. This is a criminal thing! Shame MAFIOSO!
User talk:80.116.207.79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.4.73 (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is free, whether not to be able to also write this kind of things on a firm that seriously offends his clients??
I attend her news mr Yamla...
You potentially shows "mafioso". However where this fan is club? Link? :-)
Asus Italy is a shame! I will keep on also writing it without her support!
Bye
Hi Yamla... Have you become rabid with me for yesterday?
My objective is not to spoil this beautiful encyclopedia...
If you are connected you answer please...Bye
I am sorry, I have no idea what you are asking here. Are you asking if I am connected to ASUS? I have already answered this. I have no connection to ASUS. --Yamla23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Does heleave alone Asus now... I Wanted to tell you that I am sorry for what I have done you yesterday... You Accept my excuses?
Well, whilst I am personally able to confirm it, I relise public information is needed ot confirm. Does this ([19] Daily Mail link) suffice? Fuzzybuddy20:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but does that speculation, which is obviously founded on something, not deserve at least a mention, as a stated speculation? Fuzzybuddy18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really, no. If you disagree, please bring the matter up on the article's discussion page. But first, you'll want to see WP:BLP. --Yamla18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
More Bollywood
Great news - Bollywoodblog has agreed to share images under 3.0 which allows for commerical distribution and adaption providing it is used under the specific terms and they are attributed . You may want to confirm this to refrain from retagging it for deletion, but I believe Devendra is pleased with the licensing template I created as it covers all the terms under the agreement. It shoul dbe now clear to upload any images from the site. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?09:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please study the terms of what the license 3.0 entails. This license providing the attributor is given means that wikipedia can use the images from the site for other purposes meaning all people can use them as long as they are sourced from the original site and wikipedia. Whilst the images are permitted exclusively for wikipedia we are granted the right to use the images for all purposes to copy to distribute or modify them under the terms of the agreement. The Creative Commons 3.0. I've looked into this heavily the last few days. Please don't do your best to ruin this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Under this we are free to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit and to adapt the work for othe purposes. As Tim the image guy said 3.0 is a licensing for more specific agreements such as these ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm really really not trying to ruin this. I am concerned that the website believes they are offering an exclusive license to Wikipedia only and are unaware that this means it applies to all sites automatically. You state, "the images are permitted exclusively for wikipedia" but this is not what the license itself states and not what we require. WP:COPYREQ states, "it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone". What I'm trying to say here is that I am profoundly uncomfortable with any mention of the word, "exclusive". If you like, we could raise this on WP:ANI. --Yamla15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please trust me on this. The people who I have spoken to at that site are actually heavy users of wikipedia and have been for some time and I received a full email saying that they are fully aware that wikipedia has an obligation for commercial use which is why they amended the agreement. I was told that sourced from wikipedia the image is available freely for commercial use. All the people on that site are fully aware the images will be made readily available commercially by allowing wikipedia usage. They know that wikipedia is used by milions of people and that pages may be printed off and reused. This was stated clearly. What is the problem? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?15:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Basically under the agreement if images are obtained from wikipedia via that site they are actually being made available for people on other sites through distribution. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?15:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then please modify the Bollywoodblog template so that instead of stating, "for use on wikipedia, permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify these images for encyclopedic use on wikipedia only", it states something along the lines of, "for use on Wikipedia and downstream users for any purpose, under the terms of the Creative Commons 3.0 attribution/commercial license" or some such. That is, remove any indication that this is for Wikipedia only and that it is for encyclopedic use only. Basically, make it clear that the only license that applies is the CC "Attribution 3.0 Unported" license and that no other restrictions (apart from attribution, obviously) are applied. --Yamla15:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I adapted the template earlier and recieved approval with Bollywood blog -they were 100% happy with it. I removed the section that it implied for wikipedia only as the bollywood site are fully aware how major wikipedia is as a source for media on other sites and elesewhere. The thing is if many of the images have light marking on them I seriously doubt somebody would try to profit from it anyway but it is clearly available to distribute under the licensing terms of 3.0 as long as it is attributed to Bollywoodblog and sourced from wikipedia. Its a tricky business this free encyclopedia thing but I am trying really hard here ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?15:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Your modifications to the template have clarified all of the issues I have. I thank you very much for all the effort you put in to this and I thank you for remaining calm when I was worried that the license was inappropriate. --Yamla15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
OK thankyou!!!! Sorry I barked at you I know you wanted it clarified and fully respect you for this. I certainly don't think all the images are suitable for wikipedia anyway, I think we need to be selective . But as I said the site are as much acquainted with wikipedia as you or I and are fully aware of the implications in permitting wikipedia the use. One of the basic agreements of 3.0 is being made avaiable commericially via wikipedia, of which they 100% were willing to accept. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No worries at all. I already awarded you a barnstar. :) Copyright and fair-use and freely-licensed images are one of the most difficult things to get right here on the Wikipedia. Looks like you managed, though. --Yamla16:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed very difficult particularly over images which are intimately associated with corporate gain and profit such as the entertainment industry. I fully agree that with millions of our pages entitled "form wikipedia, the free encycloepdia" we have an obligation to ensure it is a free encycloepdia otherwise we look like hypocrites right? All the best -it was only the Zinta image you tagged anyway -I deleted the Mallika one until the licensnign cleared ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sugababes
Please look at the Sugababes homepage and album page for Change and u will realise there are two separate images for the album cover. If you believe i am vandalising-can u please confirm which is correct? Lionel patrick00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
While I completely agree that 81.151.85.109's edits were horrid, I gave a short block specifically to avoid collateral damage with someone else that may inherit the IP. 48 hours is a very, very long time for an editor who has shown a pattern of editing from multiple IP addresses. I won't reverse it, but I urge you to reconsider it. EVula// talk // ☯ //18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll undo it. Thanks for contacting me. I wasn't aware that this editor had been IP hopping, I was just monitoring the unblock category. --Yamla18:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Saw IV
Hey Yamla, I was wondering if you can protect Saw IV. There have been requests for the article to be protected but have been denied; there's a lot of vandalism in the article. And since you're an administrator can you do something about it? Zenlax12:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly a target of vandalism but it doesn't seem to be particularly bad at the moment. If it gets worse, let me know or request it on WP:RFPP (which normally results in a faster response than I can achieve). --Yamla19:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings Yamla. A particular user by the name of Charmed36 keeps adding and undoing unexplainable changes to one place I edited, and another I created. She keeps adding songs by Ciara and....Ciara isn't a Dance-pop star, nor are her songs dance-pop in the purist sense of the world. I see where this person been blocked before, as they have come in and made this change without so much as logging in (which left and IP address). I have tried talking with this person, but they won't respond. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwmalone (talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Best thing is to bring it up on the article's discussion page. State that you have been unable to find any reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:CITE) and ask that one be provided. That assumes the information does not already have a reliable source citing that information, of course. You may personally disagree with the genre but if, say, Rolling Stone calls her dance-pop then that's what we call her. Let me know if this isn't clear. --Yamla21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Alientraveller19:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
3RR does not apply to simple vandalism. It is vandalism to remove a disputed-fair-use tag without resolving the dispute (in this case, providing an explanation as to how the image is being used to provide critical commentary). The license requires that the image is used for critical commentary and such does not appear to be the case. --Yamla19:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh God, I know no matter you're not going to change your mind because you're another fair use hound? What, then, would you prefer? Why don't you go read the article and see the image's use, rather than arguing for the sake of it? Alientraveller19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to use a fair-use image, you must do so according to WP:FU and according to the image's license. A film screenshot must be used for critical commentary, not solely for illustration. Please see WP:FURG. --Yamla19:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please remain civil. I have never called you stupid. I simply pointed out that the image had no explanation to indicate how it was being used to provide critical commentary, nor did it appear to be doing so. --Yamla19:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it kill you then to actually be less dismissive? Whenever I discuss anything with you, you are so stony. I mean Melty girl just gave a good reason why. Can you not throw policies around and actually please be relevant to each issue? Otherwise, policies are soulless. Alientraveller19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I did. Here, I pointed out that the use of the image requires critical commentary. Rather than addressing the issue, you simply blanked this statement. You have also continued your personal attacks, I see, here ("insufferable fair use curs"). --Yamla19:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yaha, you are annoying me, and if you continue your blanket statements, then you will continue to just be a nuisance. But guess what: you win. Again. The people who don't allow copyrighted materials on TFAs can rejoice. Honestly, are you bothering to address the issue beyond a blanket statement like that? It doesn't help at all, you're just cutting material than improving it. Have some of that food for thought, and happy editing. Alientraveller19:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
And now you flee to administrators because you can't stand being told that you have some real communication issues? Because you are upset someone tells you you're full of blanket statements and an inability to understand that you fail to even engage in conversation over something as simple as an image with a fair use rationale? Awful, just awful. How dare you not even apologise for your brushing of the issue. The issue isn't the image anymore, it's now how rude, how silent, how ignorant you were. If you actually had a problem with the image, why didn't you contact me, properly and civilly to adjust your concerns? I could have explained to you, or perhaps found a better image on your suggestion. Now you escalated this and it is beyond annoying, especially considering no one has reviewed the article for so damn long.
Sorry for the confusion about images I've uploaded to Wikipedia. I try to keep to all Wiki rules, and have been removing valdalism from articles, however I'm finding it difficult to understand the rules etc about uploading images on Wikipedia. If possible, could you give me a quick run through what to do etc, in Leyman's terms?
I believe this block is incorrect. I warned a user, and someone replied on my talk page with a warning, under the heading 'Hey, fuck you'. This user was Yayo Dealer, and he signed his comment with The-G-Unit-Boss. [20] How is this sufficient proof The-G-Unit-Boss is using sockpuppets? It's just someone using someone else's user name. Please look into this, as I am sure the block is incorrect. — jacĸrм (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Already lifted the block before the user requested unblock. I missed the autoblock, though, which has now been lifted. --Yamla17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't remove the block from your log but there's an immediate unblock with "Probably falsely accused" which means you have a clean slate. If you like, I can issue a one-second block (which may unfortunately lead to an autoblock, though this could be cleared) providing a more detailed explanation. Provided you have nothing to do with "Yayo dealer" (as appears almost guaranteed and which I'm quite happy to stipulate to), you have done nothing wrong. Why this user picked you to emulate, I'm not at all sure. --Yamla17:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, That would be great if you could add a more detailed notice (Also saying that the one-second block is for the detailed notice). Thanks for all the help. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤17:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you delete this image please? It's orphaned, it serves no purpose except to the user who uploaded it, and not only that, he claims it's fair use when it's clearly created by himself, and it has a WWE logo in the corner, and this image is clearly has nothing to do with WWE which makes it fraudulent and misrepresenting in some aspects (correct me if I'm wrong). Thanks! Hope all is well. Bmg916Speak17:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Apparently it was also deleted less than an hour ago see here, I'll keep it on my watchlist just in case it pops up again, if so, I'll alert you or another admin to salt it. Bmg916Speak17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
please block me
Can you please block my IP range indefinitely? This is still Safwwefe which appears later as busy bee, Brave warrior, Basketball fan24111 and the rest. See the evidence page for my own confession and basketball fan's talk page. I want to stop causing disruption to Wikipedia and stop editing it. 67.68.53.17419:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Yamla! User Limewire7 has uploaded an image of Kareena Kapoor that doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines. The user keeps reverting my edit when I remove the image. Could you please warn the user and put the image for deletion. Regards -- BollywoodDreamz Talk21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It is, indeed, a fair-use image used to depict a living person, but that's not all it is. It depicts an event & illustrates a relationship between two people in a way relevant to the article it illustrates. Use of such an image is allowed where the image is not replaceable. That event won't happen again. One of the people pictured is imprisoned and will likely remain so for essentially the rest of his life. The other's testimony helped put him there. It's hard to think of a less relaceable image. NFCC #1 is clear about the allowability of such images. Is there something you're seeing that I'm missing? Consensus & policy both seem clear. --Ssbohio14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I tell other Wikipedians all the time: if you have an issue with what someone else did, don't immediately reach for the "policy hammer," go talk to that person. It may not always work, but it's always worthwhile. I haven't had much experience with IfD's, so I'll ask the dumb question: does the discussion there get "closed" as with an AfD, or is it open-ended? Thanks again for your help & consideration. --Ssbohio19:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Yamla. The IP address keeps removing topics from my talk page, see [21][22][23]. Can you indef block the IP as its clear he is only here to vandalise other peoples talkpages? Thanks, Davnel0321:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User seems to have stopped now. Let me know if it resumes. There's been at least some productive contributions from that address. --Yamla21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just noticing something in common while tracing the IP address, which has forced me to file a request for checkuser. The request is located here. Thanks, Davnel0318:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked, and I have extended the block on Grant Chuggle to indefinite. Let me know if the editing resumes, I'll block the entire ISP for a while. --Yamla14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I see you took the action I was about to take. Thank you ... I was worried it was going to look like I had some personal vendetta against him.
I wouldn't be surprised if he were to continue. I see you suggested a range block. Sure we shouldn't try to contact Telkom SA first and see if they could do something?
All the same, I wouldn't be surprised if he keeps trying since he has a dynamic IP, and if there are a few more incidents I may formally request a community ban. Daniel Case16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is certainly worth reporting it to the ISP first. At least he can no longer claim he didn't know he was blocked, though he's also claimed he has every intention of avoiding the block if technically possible to do so. --Yamla16:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The big thing I'm wondering about is: why did you delete the discussion and the record of the IfD process? I haven't been involved in that many IfDs, but I've never seen this done before -- on the contrary, when a discussion is long it's normally preserved with emphatic note that it should not be modified, as happened with the discussion of this related IfD from the previous day.
Deletions that generate controversy have their discussion preserved unaltered, and deletions that are uncontested are also kept with a brief tag from the closing admin stating the result and the reason for it, so that there is a clear record of what was done.
I've never before seen the result of IfD given only in an edit summary, and I've never before seen a nomination wiped clean off the IfD page as if it had never been, with no record left that it happened at all except for the diff in the page history.
Do you see a significant difference between the two images that was the reason for your decision? What is it? Or did you base your decision to keep on a simple straw poll of those commenting? If so, could a clear statement of why this image is allowable under the fair-use policy be found?
I'll add that I realize this image is related to a topic that has been a touchy one for Wikipedia, and I regret the extent to which I made the IfDs a part of that drama. It's really the question of fair-use criteria that I feel is central, and that seems to have been further muddied by the opposite decision on these two images.
As long as the Keep result stands, I have no issue with maintaining the deletion discussion. However, I can also see the desire to redact the discussion in the interest of fighting a meatball:ForestFire, in the interest of civility, and in the interest of reducing the exposure of a living person to the article that is intended to cover him. Now, if only Nv8200p| had concluded the [:Image:Justinpicture1.jpg]] deletion the same way as Yamla has. However, both decisions have been defended under fair-use policy and [[WP:NFCC#1|]] and were made in good faith. --Ssbohio02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it was not my desire to hide anything. On the image talk page, I provide a direct link to the discussion. I was absolutely not trying to redact anything. I believe this particular image was fair-use because of the points raised in the discussion and because the person depicted is in jail and so really cannot have a freely-licensed image taken. If you follow my edit history, you will find that I almost always delete fair-use images used to depict living people and generally fall on entirely the other side of the debate most of the time. In this case, however, I believe our fair-use policy allows for the use of this image. Let me know if you need more information or further action from me on this. --Yamla14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you restored a block notice that she removed from her Talk page. She continues to remove it. I'm not sure about the rules. Maybe she has a right to continue removing it. Ward300122:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a little debateable generally. However, here a user who is indefinitely blocked for legal threats is continuing to blank a message indicating why the user was blocked. Tweety21 isn't even permitted to edit Wikipedia at all while the legal threat is outstanding. I've reverted and protected the page for a while. --Yamla22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Any chance of either removing her talk page accusations against me or replacing my response? Either way would be preferable to how it stands now. Thanks. Precious Roy00:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that block expired this morning shortly before he requested an unblock-auto. There was actually an autoblock operating against the account. Let me know if you would like more details. --Yamla20:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No, definitely not. First, they are missing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationales. Second, they are not being used to provide critical commentary on the films in question but instead, are being used solely for illustration. I'll go and remove them. --Yamla15:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me, I saw that and concluded that it is actually permitted to add images which illustrate a milestone in an actor's career. Hadn't I asked you that, I would probably have uploaded some images for other actors under the same explanation. But I wasn't sure, that's why I came to ask you, so it's great ultimately isn't it. As I see on WP:FU and according to what you said, images are permitted solely to illustrate a critical commentary on the FILMS, not the actors. I've learnt one more thing - Thanks. --Shahid • Talk2me16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Yamla!! I am sort of confused with something and I wanted to ask you about it. Why can't the images from (Refugee, K3G, Chameli & Omkara) that I had placed on Kareena Kapoor allowed to be used on her article. I was looking at Jolie's page for inspirations and I saw what some users had done to her page. Some users used images from her selected films to highlight her milestones. They placed images that were from the film's page onto her page by adding a fair use rationale saying "The image contributes significantly to the article Angelina Jolie by illustrating Jolie's appearance in Hackers (film), which is specifically discussed in the article as her breakthrough first Hollywood picture." That's basically what I did. Why can those pictures be used whereas the ones on Kapoor's page cannot. Do I have to change something with the fair use so that it can be allowed to be used on her page. Thanks, --BollywoodDreamz Talk16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Film screenshots can only be used to provide critical commentary on the film, not solely for illustration. That's as per the license. Additionally, a specific detailed fair-use rationale for that particular article needs to be added, see WP:FURG. Finally, we need to make minimal use of fair-use images. The image has to add significantly to the article and the article has to be significantly worse off without. Let me know if you'd like more information. As a general rule, it's a bad idea to compare image use in another article. Fair-use images are misused throughout Wikipedia and it is a huge problem. People all the time are saying that their use of an image exactly matches that of another image in another article and this makes perfect sense (and clearly the people are acting in good faith), but given the sorry state of fair-use images in Wikipedia, it just doesn't work. --Yamla18:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I can't find this. There's direct links to a yahoomail account on the discussion page but that's insufficient because (obviously) we can't access that. ? --Yamla18:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Hello Yamla. How you been? I here to make a request. Me and the user I complained about earlier, are at an disagreement again over the Preity Zinta page. We've had some discussions on the talk page but to no use. May I ask that you just keep a watch over what is said on that page and between both of us, just in case we say anything inappropriate. Im not making a complaint about him, but can you just check on what is said? Kind regards. -- Pa721:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
unblock
reason for edit, this person is trying to hide his inflamatory comments to other, did I follow proper protocal? (user: Precious Roy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk • contribs)
Hi, I just noticed that your crossed out the GFDL tag on image:Melissa Auf der Maur.jpg. As I'm sure you intended, a bot has already flagged the image for deletion. I have been in contact with the author, and I have documented the GFDL permission with the OTRS system just a few minutes ago. The OTRS sytstem is run by volunteers, so it usually takes a week or two for the permission to be documented on the page. I have uploaded alot of images under GFDL licenses (please see the image section of my User page) in exactly the same way as this particular image, and I see no reason why this one should be any different. Unless you have any opinion otherwise, I'd like to uncross the tag so that the image won't be deleted and the OTRS volunteers can properly tag the image and document the permission. Thanks! Drewcifer15:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Generally, we request that the original source page is updated to list the correct license but if you have documented this in OTRS, please feel free to go and remove the no-source tag and the bot-added deletion warning and include a brief note stating that although the flickr page does not indicate the image is available under the GFDL, you have received permission which has been archived in OTRS and will soon be listed on the page directly. Sorry for the trouble! --Yamla15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thank you for understanding. I've gone and fixed the image page. Just to clarify, can flickr actually display GFDL tags? I've never seen an image licensed under GFDL on flickr, only Creative Commons or completely copyrighted. Drewcifer16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure, actually. I know some images are 'tagged' GFDL but I'm not sure if I've ever seen one licensed that way. I don't take pictures myself, I only view other people's pics. :) --Yamla16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess that was kind of a loaded question. My point was that, to my knowledge at least, flickr images can't be tagged with GFDL, so you might want to be careful flagging images from flickr in the future since any GFDL permissions for those images are going to come from correspondance documented at OTRS, not the actual image page. Just a heads up. Keep up the good work! Drewcifer19:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
sorry I may not have followed proper protocal, but as someone who edited in good faith, I was irritated that this user blocked everyone from this ip, I have only edited one article before. Why was I punished for this persons' feud?
I've blocked Wiccawikka. Another transparent sockpuppet of the blocked vandal. If this continues, we probably wish to make a report to their network admin. --Yamla21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes I know. But your attitude is xenophobic I know the difference between citizenship and nationality. By the way, I discussed the nationality issue with you on the talk page. I thought you understood what means nationality. If things are getting this way I will ask for a Request for comment. You should have discussed in the talk page before reverting. Topodegama17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Xenophobic? I'll ask you to please refrain from personal attacks. You appear to be the only person advocating your particular version of the introduction paragraph and your change is being reverted by multiple editors. --Yamla17:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Article with too many external links
Yamla, will you talk to User:Oceaneyes? This user isn't a true vandal, but this user does keep adding more and more external links to the Jeffrey Carlson article, with no end in sight. I haven't talked to this user yet about this, and I felt/feel that you can explain to this user the matter of what this user is doing wrong in this case better than I can (at least at this time). Flyer2203:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate to block at the moment, the user has had no warnings. I left a {{subst:uw-spam1}} warning on this user's page. If he keeps at it, please leave spam2 - spam4 warnings. --Yamla13:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up to tell you that I unblocked him, since he promised he understood. To be honest I am not 100% convinced, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Don't hesitate to reblock if anythings happens. -- lucasbfrtalk07:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Priyanka Chopra Image
Hi Yamla! User:Bluepalm has uploaded an image of actress, Priyanka Chopra (Image:PriyankaChopra.jpg) saying that it's new version of this image.[24] - This image was the one that I uploaded. I doubt it is from that site because:
A) He didn't provide the link for the pic; link is same as the old one that I uploaded.
b) By looking at his talk page you can see that he has uploaded many pictures of her (8 images) without proper licence.
I suspect that he has uploaded a copyrighted image and claimed that it came from the Bollywood Blog site. I also saw that you blocked him before but he has continued uploading pics of her. What do you think? If you think that is the case, please let the user and me know as well, so I can upload back the original picture. Regards --BollywoodDreamz Talk18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Tweety21 is a blocked vandal. All edits should be reverted on sight. If Tweety21 wants to contest the block, he or she can do so by emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or by appealing to WP:ARBCOM. I will continue to block new abusive sockpuppets. Feel free to continue notifying me. The "work" IP address range is now hard-blocked with a note to have their network administrator contact me. Of course, we know that this vandal has access to other IP addresses. --Yamla17:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. I sorta got my hand slapped for being less than congenial with the first one (Gayunicorn) so since then I've been "assuming good faith" (quotes included), even when it's obvious (and it always is). Once more, thanks for all your help. Precious Roy17:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason to do so. Appealing to ARBCOM requires only that you email them. It does not require that the block be lifted. --Yamla15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Check out my talk page; there's a conversation on it from the roommate of a user who is being harassed and stalked by Wikipedians that might amuse you. Or, then again, it might not, depending on how easily amused you are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)21:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeap, clearly another sockpuppet. It may be time to move toward a formal ban of Tweety21, the abuse is long term and shows no sign of abating. --Yamla22:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
For all your work dealing with User:Tweety21 and (suspected) sockpuppets, and for being a great administrator, dealing with fair-use image issues, unblock requests and the like! If I become an admin, hopefully I can become as good as you!! --Solumeirastalk22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Gonna review her block since I almost uninvolved, but that takes some time. (just in case you're wondering whether or not you should review it) :) -- lucasbfrtalk22:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I am watching User talk:99.225.124.65 after I placed a warning message there myself and noticed that you also added a warning. I had some problem determining what article you were warning that edit about. If you could, please place the name of the article you noticed the user problem as the first parameter of the template. It would help me keep track of what is going on and help the editor know where they made their mistake. Thanks. --NrDg21:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I really hope she takes the advice I left on that page to heart. All she has to do is avoid editing a small handful of pages to slide by undetected. Oh, and there's this, too. Precious Roy15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Rampant vandal
If I had known that this vandal was still running around vandalizing articles, I would have come to you about this the previous time I visited your talk page, Yamla. The vandal I am talking about is 76.201.23.223 — the IP changes, but the vandalism is not to be mistaken. This vandal has vandalized numerous, if not all of, the One Tree Hill-related articles, to where one editor reverted all of this vandal's edits to those articles. You can see four examples of the type of vandalism that this vandal did to most, if not all, of the One Tree Hill articles, with these four links...[25][26][27][28]. I am certain that all of this user's "contributions" need to be reverted and that this user needs to be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia (well, as permanently as we can block this ever-changing vandal IP). Flyer2203:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it looks like the first vandal I mentioned has just been taken care of not too long after I came to you with this matter. But the other one is still a problem. Both are a problem, of course, but at least the first one has been taken care at this time. Flyer2208:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
As always, thank you, Yamla. I'm still worried about that first vandal I mentioned in this section though, seeing as I don't feel that that vandal will stop vandalizing articles, but with more than one editor, editors who are administrators included, looking out for that one, that situation is probably well taken care of, or hopefully will be, if that vandal persists. Flyer2218:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
User 60.241.54.145
Yamla, User 60.241.54.145 is always adding "Shashank", which I think is his name to articles on Wikipedia. For example w/o any references, he adds Shashank to people's filmography indicating its a film and sometimes saying that it'a characters name in the film. By looking at his contributions, the user has been doing this to many articles. Many people have tried talking to him but he just doesn't stop. Also as per references, the film, Ek - The Power of One doesn't have Shahrukh Khan in the film. The user keeps reverting everyone's edits. Could you please do something about it? Thank You -- BollywoodDreamz Talk17:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Film screenshots may only be used for critical commentary. It seems like you plan to use this solely to illustrate her appearance. As such, it could not be used. Let me know if you'd like some questions I generally ask myself in situations like this. --Yamla18:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying no matter what I change in the fair use, the image won't be allowed to be used on her article. Also Yamla, can I revert my edits on the image and let the fair use just be the way it was before I changed it [29]. -- BollywoodDreamz Talk18:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If a film screenshot is only being used for illustration then yes, no detailed fair-use rationale would be sufficient as it is violating the license. A fair-use image must have a source identifying the copyright holder, must have an accurate license, must be used strictly according to that license, and must have a detailed fair-use rationale for each use on the Wikipedia. That image had all those covered except it was not being used for critical commentary on the film. Also, that particular image could also not be used in the other article. Feel free to remove your rationale for Kareena Kapoor. --Yamla18:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
What happens if the the old fair use is replaced with this fair use:
This is an image from the film in question.
It shows the main character in her role itself.
It's use here in no way limits the ability of the filmmakers to sell or market this product.
It's use here is purely encyclopedic. -- 74.123.155.22 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless the film screenshot is used to provide critical commentary, no fair-use rationale will work. It's not a problem with the rationale, it's a problem with the license. --Yamla19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Howdy Yamla!
Just thought I'd pop in and say hi, I was thinking about you the other day, I was doing Recent Changes patrol, and guess what IP I came across? It had this huge, giant, bright yellow big box across the top with big bold letters... Hee hee. Hope you're doing well! Ariel♥Gold18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ji Bai & Lan Jiao
Hello! The pages Ji Bai and Lan Jiao is defintely appropriate for wikipedia. Firstly, they are commonly used phrases in Singapore and in Taiwan and many Chinese majority areas. Secondly, if ji bai and lan jiao were not allowed, words like "fuck" and "asshole" should also not be in this encyclopedia. Ji Bai and Lan Jiao defintely got more work to be done on them but they do have potential of becoming decent pages, just like "fuck" and "asshole", which may be offensive but of interest to many. I urge you to place Ji Bai and Lan Jiao back to wikipedia. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiewzhenyi (talk • contribs)
Hi, a little help with a new editor if you please. I noticed you reverted on the page, and assume that it's on your watchlist. Cf38 has been asking for my help in his dispute with dudesleeper. Now I've tried to make him aware of the relevant issues, [31][32], but he's quite new, and fairly young, but essentially well meaning. I guess I'm asking for you to maybe take a carrot, rather than a stick approach to the matter. I think protecting the page may help get him to use the talk page. cheers. – ornis⚙12:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Yamla. I was wondering how an unregistered user managed to vandalize the Nelly Furtado page (which you reverted) when it is apparently protected from editing? --Jester777723:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
While I'm here Yamla, I'll answer this for you: looking at the log for Nelly Furtado, the protection ended on 00:14 UTC 11 October, so it hasn't been protected for almost a day. The protection tag on the page hadn't been removed yet by the bot, giving a false impression that it was protected, so I have now removed that tag. (Hope this was okay Yamla. :) ) Acalamari23:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess there was a mistake or an abuse of power
Hello Yamla,
This is Baby Dove. I am sure you remember me from the FOF article.
After some days where people has been accusing each other of sockpuppetry, which I disliked and said in the talk page, I was suddenly affected because Love-in-Ark was blocked and my IP address was blocked as well.
At my work computer, I share a T1 connection with about 70 people; I do not know which of them is Love-in-ark. In the building I work some people belong to the Fellowship of Friends. I have been editing for about 8 months now, having no vandalic behavior, and I am close to 1,000 edits, I guess. This a lot before Love-in-Ark started editing in the FOF page (I will be surprised if he has 100 edits). In the FOF article, I never accused anybody of sockpuppetry, even when I had my own suspicion.
Today I found that my IP at work was blocked, but that I was not blocked as a user. Therefore, I filled-in a form I found, pasted it in my (Baby Dove's) talk page and, amazingly, Yamla has blocked BD indefinitely (which avoided me to address to you as such even from home).
I think an error has been committed, and that someone used his or her power to end up with the current problem.
I will be am copying other administrators of this message, but I start with you because you are the ones acting in the page.
Please see the discussion on WP:ANI. Note, though, that setting up additional accounts to get around a block is a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. I'll note for the record here that your edits appear to be in violation of WP:COI. Your IP address apparently belongs to the Fellowship of Friends which makes it inappropriate under WP:COI for you to be editing that article. --Yamla04:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello!!!
I was going to ask you if this image is allowed but I see you reverted so no problems.
Take a look on the Joe Anyon talk page, you will find something interesting to read. Oh, and I would appreciate it if you could forward this to the other admins, so they can see your sockpupetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf38 (talk • contribs)
Hey Yamla. Listen, on Justin Timberlake's article, User:Milk-maid has added this: When he was a pre-adolescent boy, he slept with Michael Jackson, as admitted by Jackson in the documentary Living With Michael Jackson - Jackson denied sexual contact however. Can you please have a talk or to with Milk-maid; because now he's warning me about "vandalism" (meaning to me undoing his edits). -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)19:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't have a copy of Living With Michael Jackson. Could you please find someone who can view this and confirm or deny that the statement is true? --Yamla19:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. WP:BLP means that we remove contentious information unless it is verified. One user here claims that the information is verifiable in "Living With Michael Jackson". However, this claim appears to be disputed by a number of other editors. As such, it should be removed immediately under BLP. I didn't realise that this information was disputed until just a moment ago. --Yamla19:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The user saying it was in the "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary was pointing to the the article as his proof/source. I alerted the user that wikipedia articles are not to be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles, as Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. And that this information has been removed per WP:BLP. I guess we will see what happens the next time this user logs in. Bmg916Speak19:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Yamla, can you please block Milk-maid (talk·contribs) so they have time to read over WP:BLP in addition to WP:V, as they clearly stated on their talk page they don't feel the articles being discussed here are in violation of anything. They've re-inserted the content and cited IMDB, which I removed because it (imdb) says nothing about the content in question. They don't seem to understand that them saying it was in the documentary is not verifiable. Thank you. Bmg916Speak19:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Opinoso
Hi Yamla. Since we have both made a number of contributions to the Nelly Furtado page, and we both know of Opinoso, I thought I would ask for your input on problems I have been having with him. With respect to the current Nelly Furtado dispute, Opinoso has on at least four occasions accused me of vandalizing the Furtado page, when clearly my edits have been in good faith and there is nothing in Wikipedia:Vandalism that even remotely suggests that I have committed vandalism. I'm not sure that Opinoso understands that reasonable people can disagree on matters. I'm also not sure that Opinoso understands that by making these nonconstructive accusations, he is discrediting himself. He even inserted a new section in the Furtado talk page entitled "Jester7777 and his vandalism" (which I have since renamed). I take personal offense to these accusations, particularly in light of the number of constructive contributions I have made to the Furtado article over the the last few months, as well as my efforts to revert real vandalism whenever I encounter it.
In short, is there anything that can be done in response to Opinoso's behavior? After perusing his user talk page, it is clear that he has a history of personal attacks and incivility. While blatantly false accusations of vandalism may not constitute a formal Wikipedia personal attack, they are clearly nonconstructive, unnecessary, and offensive to me. Can he be blocked or at least warned for such behavior? Thanks. --Jester777719:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I've left an offer of a third opinion on the talk page for that article. At the moment, I'd like to leave it at that. It is worth your while reading up on WP:DISPUTE, though, and possibly noting WP:AIV. In this case, it looks to be a difference of opinion rather than outright vandalism, though. --Yamla20:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I have accepted your offer for a third opinion on the article. My above comments, however, are independent of the actual dispute. They are strictly in regards to Opinoso's conduct towards me; namely, falsely accusing me of vandalism. I can nevertheless understand why you want to leave things as is at the present time. Perhaps Opinoso's conduct can be addressed following your arbitration of the dispute. --Jester777720:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
this user has just given me a threat that is uncalled for see here. this is completly uncalled for and threats like this are no joking matter at all.SpeedyC100:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It was marked with prod for five days. Are you sure her singles have charted? If so, I'll go and undelete it right away (well, tomorrow when I sign in again). --Yamla03:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if you have a perfectly good reason for doing so, but why did you delete messages on my talk page. F9T19:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
They were left by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Under the principle of WP:DENY, I was reverting all contributions. Please feel free to reinstate if you wish. --Yamla19:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I read the page completely, and it says nothing about being able to use the images on user pages. Plus, a lot of users have pictures of wrestlers, etc. on their pages. The image I had on my page is a commercial image (logo), so the line: "Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight." does not apply to the situation. Also, the image is not non-free content, so the bottom paragraph does not apply either. With all due respect, I reverted the page back (which I find a complete lack of respect for you to edit my user page without my concent), until you answer back. Cheers, Lex94TalkContributionsSignatures23:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Another admin was considering honouring her right to vanish (which we do not normally extend to banned users). Looks like that probably won't happen now. --Yamla01:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No, thank you. I thought an admin was trying to arrange a semi-graceful exit for her that included blanked (not deleted) pages. Guess that wasn't happening quick enough for her liking. I know that after tonight's hijinks, I won't be blanking my sockproblems page any time soon. (And I have a backup copy off-wiki, anyway.) You would not believe the size of the barnstar I'm building for you for once this is over (it will be over at some point, won't it?). Precious Roy02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping it will be over soon. Really, if she would just prove that she has every intention of leaving, that'd be enough for us to blank some of her pages. At the moment, though, she has shown fairly consistently that she has no intention of leaving and indeed every intention of continuing to edit Wikipedia articles, as you are well aware. And that's not even touching on her other claims. --Yamla02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Chiranjeevi Page
Could you block the Chiranjeevi page from editing , because some guys are trying to modify the contents with some bad words.
Please keep a hold on the editing of this page for some days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlnarayana (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I blocked following a strong suspicion that the account has been compromised, this account was actually created before EverybodyHatesChris and edited in December 2006 for the last time before its current comeback, now the reasoning for my suspicion is the following, as can be seen on Judge Judy's history [33] for the last weeks EHC has been using the exact same editing pattern via several sock accounts, on October 15 I blocked Maleman19 a self confessed sock account, this account's last action was to threaten to "come back under another name in a few hours ". Then after just fours hours of the block on Maleman19, FlubClub decided to come out of its year-long retirement and continue the exact same pattern previously present in EHC's sockpuppet accounts, not that I won't consider unblocking if evidence against it is presented but the chances of a account coming out of a retirement this long to continue a edit pattern presented by sockpuppet accounts of another user just appear to be very slim. - Caribbean~H.Q.22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Today I asked you a question on the Talk page of the FOF: "Yamla, yesterday you said "There's been a discussion on my talk page but please feel free to move the discussion here instead" and today you said "All further discussion should take place on WP:COIN, please". Could you explain where are we supposed to discuss this issue?" Could you take a look? Thanks! Mfantoni00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Yamla, as you noticed there are frequent vandal attacks on Chiranjeevi's page. Would it be possible to block the edits on this page on a temporary basis? Just wondering... Regards, Mspraveen08:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so very much. I did also bring up the fact that it seems the automatic block was set up by Guanaco and in his User Talk section it states quite clearly that "This user may have left Wikipedia. Guanaco has not edited Wikipedia using this account since November 19, 2006. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking the assistance of this user on this page, you may need to approach someone else." Not sure if the administrators want to do something about it. JCSR15:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)JCSR
Not really much we can do. Still, the unblock and unblock-auto requests are monitored by a number of admins so it shouldn't be a huge problem. --Yamla15:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Block of 68.94.96.54 and report of threat to Plano PD
Thank you for catching this one and taking the serious action you did. You should know that IP address connects to Mmbabies, and that we've been dealing with him since at least February of this year. He's a long term vandal and has a long term abuse page stating his aggresive editing patterns, including his own world for Houston TV and many other death threats against singers and actors, especially Christian singers. We also coordiate on WikiProject Television Stations since most of his vandalism is directed towards TV topics. Thank you again. Nate21:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Falsely accused of vandalism (the term 'wardrobe malfunction')
I'd appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of 'vandalizing' when I remove bias-like content, and rewrite a few lines from an article. --p404:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)P4poetic
Block evasion?
I'm not involved enough to care if this is pursued, but I thought you might be interested if you're not already aware of it, as the blocking admin and a contributor to the relevant RfA.
One of the pages on my watchlist is the disambiguation page Libero. Shortly before his last block, User:Daddy Kindsoul made several edits, which were reverted by another user as they conflicted with WP:MOSDAB guidelines regarding pipelinks. The edits in question are here and here.
There may be further evidence, or even other usernames, but as I said, I'm not really bothered enough to chase it down myself. --DeLarge18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, calling me a vandal in two edit summaries (here and here) got me bothered enough. Further evidence to consider would be (a) the way both users are so interested in attaching the {{Infobox Football biography}} to article talk pages: Soprani vs Daddy Kindsoul, and (b) their shared interest in A.S. Bari (revision history).
I guess I could start monitoring their respective linguistic patterns next, looking for common spellings, words, phrases, etc... --DeLarge19:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the Daddy Kindsoul issue, and I know you ou are eligible to revert all of his edits according to our current policies due to his indefblock, but in any case some of such contributions were actually valuable, so I would have first had a look at them before rollbacking it all. --Angelo15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Under WP:DENY, I'm rolling back everything with a rollback button. If you find any of these rollbacks were valuable contributions, please feel free to reinstate them under your own authority. I placed a note on WP:ANI about my blocking. --Yamla15:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
In any case, you might at least wait and check before deleting all the pictures he uploaded, as almost all of them are actually valid and valuable images. Let me also note WP:DENY is an essay. --Angelo16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
They are but I had already removed them by the time you commented. Yes, WP:DENY is only an essay but this editor is particularly abusive and needs to know that setting up additional sockpuppet accounts, as he has done several times today already, will not help him out at all. --Yamla16:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, blocked. I'll try to keep up but I may not note additional blocks here as the sockpuppets are coming too quickly. --Yamla16:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem; thanks for your work. I've got to leave now, but I believe there's at least one other editor on the case... Cheers --Pak2116:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You have removed "Image:ArgentinaFootball.png". I do not question the motives (which I do not fully know) but be advised that it was used in Template:User WikiProject Argentine football so it has now broken many pages that use the template. I have posted a note in the Template's Talk page for interested people to come up with a replacement. We do need something for the Wikiproject, unless you reconsider the deletion. Have a good day. Alexf(Talk/Contribs)17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This image was uploaded by an abusive sockpuppet of a blocked vandal. I'll take a look at just removing the image from the template. A replacement image would obviously be a better fix, though. --Yamla17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Yamla, just wanted to notify you that 86.151.116.92 has vandalized again (Electronic Oscillator; I already undid it).
Maybe one has to block that person (I don't know how to do that, just wanted to let you know).
Someone to block.
Hi Yamla, just wanted to notify you that 86.151.116.92 has vandalized again (Electronic Oscillator; I already undid it).
Maybe one has to block that person (I don't know how to do that, just wanted to let you know). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.147 (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thanks for comment
The user might be very obviously guilty but I haven't studied the matter. He has the right to request unblock. You haven't acted on the request which is the ethical thing to do since you blocked him. (Good for you!) How did you determine sockpuppetry? Uetz18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There was a fair amount of evidence of sockpuppetry, not least that this user set up the account hours after the prior account was blocked and immediately resumed editing the same articles. More damning, this user has edited a number of images uploaded by the other account. There's a fair amount of overlap between the two accounts generally, actually, and the editing style is identical. And then there's the explosion of sockpuppetry and abuse from other confirmed sockpuppet accounts once I blocked this one. The sockpuppetry wasn't previously a callsign of Daddy Kindsoul/Deathrocker but the abuse most certainly was (and was why those accounts were blocked numerous times over the past two years and why the RfA eventually happened). --Yamla19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You recently unblocked me because I have the same dial up address as a blocked user - Can't sleep clown will eat me. Then the box with the unblock was changed to say my request was declined, followed by a message from Clown to email him. Had the same problem with user Ryulong and got a box saying I was not autoblocked and my request was declined, with another message asking me to email Clown. Am I being spammed? I certainly don't want to give this clown my email address. I managed to unblock myself by disconnecting and reconnecting to the internet. This is what I usually do when I get a blocked message concerning another user. Is there anything I can do about the repeated false blocks and also getting this clown off my back? Thanks Moon Rising23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: I posted here two days ago. The title (Image talk:Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg) has an additional, spurious "Image:" prefix after the "Image talk:" namespace. The correct title of the non-existant talk page of Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg is Image talk:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg. You left a message, however, on a wrong page here (please double-check the header above). As an IP user, I cannot move the page. Please do that for me. 75.36.251.16305:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Dial up blocks and I think I'm getting spam
You recently unblocked me because I have the same dial up address as a blocked user - Can't sleep clown will eat me. Then the box with the unblock was changed to say my request was declined, followed by a message from Clown to email him. Had the same problem with user Ryulong and got a box saying I was not autoblocked and my request was declined, with another message asking me to email Clown. Am I being spammed? I certainly don't want to give this clown my email address. I managed to unblock myself by disconnecting and reconnecting to the internet. This is what I usually do when I get a blocked message concerning another user. Is there anything I can do about the repeated false blocks and also getting this clown off my back? Thanks Moon Rising00:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "Clown" is an admin. The blocked user will be someone else. I can assure you that it is perfectly safe to email him. However, if you are able to leave a message here on my talk page, it means you are not currently blocked. --Yamla00:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Clown's name kept coming up when I saw a block - I thought he was the one blocked, I guess he was doing the blocking. He's got such a great name!--Moon Rising00:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that what we have here are just the same as dynamic IPs; all Opera Mini browsers, go through a small number of IPs. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, we don't have a good policy on open proxies. If you wish to unblock, please feel free. I was under the impression that all Opera Mini browsers went through a single IP address but it appears to be a /23 range. --Yamla22:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
To Yamla about warning
There was a warning for my IP about vandalism on Nicklebacks All the right things. In my country most users have dynamic IP. I never visited that page before and all a sudden when i clicked the picture for Flight Dynamics i got a message, reading it it was from you. So Nope, It wasn't me. =) 25th oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.151.234 (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I sit in the unblock IRC channel all day, where a bot tells us when there's someone new in the category, and yet we still get beaten by you. Mate, what's your secret? :) Keep up the good work! ~ Riana ⁂16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I was already monitoring it. Tweety21 has repeatedly set up sockpuppet accounts and claimed to be someone else. That seems to be the case here as well. In the unlikely situation that you believe I am at all racially motivated here, let me know. Otherwise, though, I'm not even going to bother responding to that. --Yamla20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Context?
I was lookin' at unblock requests, and came upon this one. I was confused, because the only recent OR edit I saw was this one, and I didn't see any recent warnings. But I trust your judgement, so I assume there's some context to this block that I don't know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)21:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It was indeed in relation to that song. There's been a number of similar edits and a number of warnings made about original research but the person keeps on coming back via different IP addresses and continuing the edits. Not sufficient to semi-protect the article at this time but annoying nonetheless. If the person requesting the unblock is not the same as the person who made that edit, feel free to unblock. Looks like it belongs to the UofW (or UofM?), so this is quite possible. --Yamla21:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I was informed today that this user's has been prevented from editing her talk page following the block on her account thus not allowing her to present a fair case for unblock, now considering this person's reaction and seeing the difference between the reaction of this user and EHC's socks I am considering unblock, the reason for the block seems like a very unussual misidentification based on being on the wrong place on the exact wrong moment, the odds of something like this happening must be low but I'm inclined to believe this is what happened. Now taking the explained reason for the block and the information she provided to you before, what is your recomendation? - Caribbean~H.Q.23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
When did she contact me? Through the unblock mailing list? I vaguely remember this user but I can't see any record that I ever had any contact with them...? --Yamla00:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Trough unblock-en-l you e-mailed me and mentioned having the user's IP address, e-mail name and ect. (not sure what that means). - Caribbean~H.Q.00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
On User_talk:75.4.0.69 strikes me as summary and uncareful. Did you review the merits of the request and the original block? You do not decide whether to accept/decline an unblock request based on whether the requestor has an account or not -- but on the merits of the original block itself. We are not talking about the fact that I have an account. We are talking about the fact that my IP was blocked for no stated reason, and now I want it unblocked and unless you can give me a reason not to unblock it (besides that I have an account, which is totally irrelevant), then I will elevate this matter. HarpooneerX16:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You are free to elevate the matter. The block history shows that this IP address range has been used by abusive vandals and sockpuppeteers on a number of occasions. You have given no reason to believe this is no longer the case and as the block is not affecting you, I saw no reason to overturn the block. Yes, you no longer have the ability to edit anonymously from your IP address but that's not a right. --Yamla16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you at least provide a link to the block history you refer to showing vandalism? I saw nothing but empty block logs... HarpooneerX16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I will cool off my rhetoric now. Perhaps you could help me understand better. How large is the range being blocked here? Can it be narrowed to exclude my IP? --HarpooneerX17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The range is /16 so it affects 65536 IP addresses. Not all of these are likely to be used, though. Narrowing the range is unlikely given that it is being used abusively by a sockpuppeteer. Note that this is not at all targeted at you. I'm not sure why you really care, though, as you are still free to edit while signed in. We have a large number of similar blocks; a number of range blocks and a large number of individual IP address blocks. This is commonplace as Wikipedia articles are frequently vandalised and we have a number of long-term vandals as well. This is most certainly nothing personal. --Yamla17:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
--I understand that it's not targeted at me, but it still affects me. If I haven't engaged in offending behavior, I should not be penalized for someone else's (and it is a penalty to ban me from IP editing, should I decide I'd like to in some instance). Blocking 65,000 addresses to stop one vandal seems like an *extremely* inefficient way to address the problem. Is the vandal in question using addresses from across the entire range? Or can we narrow it to a subset that does not include me? It seems hard to determine given that the violations don't seem very well documented... --HarpooneerX17:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There's obviously not much information I can give you here as I had nothing to do with the block. In this sort of case, though, the only reason a block with such a large range is handed out is because the user has been using addresses across the whole range. If they are limited to a distinct subset, that would be the range that is blocked. There's no reason to believe that the vandal has used the same address you are using, of course. If there's been, say, 100 edits, I'd expect he probably hasn't even been on the same /24 block as you. --Yamla18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bearing with me here, but there's something missing in the logic of this discussion. In the absence of data describing the different IPs used to vandalize, the number of incidents that occurred (as far as we know from the logs, there are only 4...), or the severity of the incidents, you are simply assuming that this block is justified. But don't we try to operate more empirically on Wikipedia? The narrowest possible range should be blocked - not the widest. My suggestion would be to lift the block for now, making a note of this discussion, and if vandalism continues, re-institute the block with a more detailed account of the IPs involved. That would help justify another big block. But as it is, we're flying blind--I can't argue for a lift, but you can't argue for a decline either. There's no evidence. So it seems like we should at least unblock until we can build a more solid case. Thanks. --HarpooneerX18:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yamla, I reopened the FOF IP range block case since no decision has been made. Meanwhile, 70 people are unable to edit any Wikipedia page using the Fellowship connection. That doesn't sound fair to me. Mfantoni05:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yamla - So, "70" FOF members are unable to edit the FOF page! sounds like an effective use of IP-range block to me. thanks Wantthetruth?22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Want, do you think that the fact that 70 people (yes, FOF members are people too) are blocked and can't edit any Wikipedia article is fair? What about blocking you vor COI because you are an ex-FOF member with an agenda? Love-in-ark03:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Love in Ark - I did have one or two sleepless nights about the 70 people desperately trying to edit Wikipdia and then I remembered the time I worked at the Collin Office (where most of the 70 work) and the directive that nobody should use the FOF connection for personal use and I sorta relaxed a little, and then I read your recent comment on the FOF talk page and I quote "...well, it’s kind of hilarious to me. I can assure you that most FoF members haven't seen the FOF article in Wikipedia and most FOF officers don't even know what Wikipedia means. Bottom line, this article exists for a group of “FOF-related” editors to have fun." Your idea of fun in my experience is you bullying, humiliating, and generally taking the rise out of anyone who disagrees with you. Would you care to comment on what strikes me as the glaring inconsistency between the two comments? - sorry Yamla I hope you get the picture.Wantthetruth?10:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yamla, I apologize for having to witness this exchange on your Talk page but I believe that if you are able to remove the emotional content you will, as Wantthetruth very well put it, get the picture. The "Collin Office" that Wantthetruth is referring to is the FOF-leased building where the blocked IP range is. The fact is that things changed since Wantthetruth left the FOF; the FOF-owned wine business that used to be in the building moved to another location and nowadays the FOF rents several offices in the building to businesses that are not related to the FOF. For example, I rent an office with a T1 internet connection included (by the way, nobody told me not to use the FOF connection for personal use since what I do in my office is my problem) and I never knew that I was using "a FOF-owned connection" (I guess I never thought about it). I discovered that when you mentioned it in relation to the COI issue. Besides my business, there are other 7 non-FOF businesses operating in the building that I am aware of (there may be more, I can check if you wish) and at the moment nobody is able to edit any Wikipedia page. We need to restore people's right to edit Wikipedia. We shouldn't throw the baby with the water, so let's block editors that don't follow Wikipedia's guidelines, not IP ranges. Thank you for reading this. Mfantoni15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yamla - this entire thread was just pasted by mfantoni to the FOF talk page. I left this comment for him there;
mfantoni- Comments for Yamla on his talk page are obviously intended primarily for Yamla, they are open for anyone to read by visiting Yamla's page. By moving an entire conversation here you obviously show disregard for the intentions of other editors. This behavior of yours was previously discouraged by Ed Johnson on th WP:COIN page. Once again we see the same tedious pattern of your trying to control, set the agenda and move the conversation where it suits you, particularly in any instance where things don't go as you wish, it is a transparent ploy and merely confirms a total absence of good faith. By the way, referring to other people's comments as pollution speaks mightily about you and not the commentsWantthetruth?21:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Jessy Moss
The content is directly from Jessy Moss as is the image but I (her web-ant) am not sure how I show the compliance on the page. Can you help please Yamla Jessymossmusic19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
To clarify things a little, Jessymossmusic posted a press-release-type article at WP:AFC. Seeing actual notability despite the puffery, I wrote a new article based mostly on her AMG bio and some other references I found. Jessymossmusic added a few things here and there, but didn't skew the article at all. I haven't been watching the article, but a quick check of the history shows me that it hasn't been changed much since I wrote it. COI doesn't seem to me to apply here (as long as the mostly hands-off approach continues). Precious Roy19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What is a web-ant? If you have taken content directly from her site, please have her update the site so that the page includes a clear notice indicating that the content is licensed according to the GFDL. Let me know if you need more information. --Yamla19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I just called myself a web-ant because I run around the web checking Jessy's content/articles/reviews for her and reporting it back to her. She reviews everything I do and has updated the site. Content is good. I'm still not sure what we should do now. Precious Roy has been helping me. Thank you both.Jessymossmusic00:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
How do we do this - we are novices at this
please have her update the site so that the page includes a clear notice indicating that the content is licensed according to the GFDL. Let me know if you need more information. --Yamla 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Jessymossmusic17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Have her add the following text to her website article or image you are trying to copy to Wikipedia: "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." --Yamla17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind but I removed the COI tag; the article as it stands is about 98% my own words (Jessymossmusic added some compilations to the discography and is still trying to work out the whole image situation, but that's about it). I've re-added the article to my watch list and will make sure nothing COI creeps into it (not that I expect it will). Precious Roy01:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Although its not here, for some reason the same file exists on commons under a different name. [34] If you know what the problem is let me know.--CyberGhostface21:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Command of English.
While you claim to be a native speaker of English, it is my assertion that you do not truly understand the language. In addition, you have a terrible time understanding obvious intent. My first request for unblocking was based upon failure of another administrator to act upon a direct appeal to that administrator. If you could not obtain that email, that is not my problem. No other means was made available to me. My second request was far more explicit. What about the line in my second request (I here correct a typo in that second request): "I[f] you asked him, you would have found the statement of withdrawal." What about the words *statement of withdrawal* do you not understand? I think the quote is pretty clear. Further, you went so far as to claim "User is not requesting to be unblocked." Why would I post an unblock request if my intention were not to obtain an unblocking of my account? You have serious problems with understanding straight-forward English expression, and on this basis you should completely recuse yourself from administrative duties. William R. Buckley23:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You stated that you had no intention to continue contributing to the Wikipedia. As such, there was no reason to unblock you. And why you think the reviewing admin should have to jump through hoops (obtain the email from an administrator I have probably never before talked to) when it would have been trivially easy for you to make it clear in your unblock request that you had withdrawn your threat is beyond me. Still, you are free to do what you want. --Yamla19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
My intentions notwithstanding, the standard is clearly that an unblock request is to be used to obtain unblocking. There is no justification for failure to provide a benefit, even if my position is to never again provide benefit to Wikipedia articles. Your actions were to 1) ignore my request, and 2) apply a standard not recognised within Wikipedia. There is no restriction of user accounts to those who edit articles; no such rule exists within Wikipedia, and you are not a dictator - you have no right within Wikipedia to impose such a standard unilaterally. Again, you should completely recuse yourself from Wikipedia administrative duties. William R. Buckley17:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree! All admins who ever make an error, or who another editor believes to have made error, should immediately desysop themselves for the good of the encyclopedia. Then we can put the high-schoolers in charge of clearing out CSD. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm sorry you are unsatisfied. I see no benefit from continuing to respond. If you believe my refusal to lift a block placed by another administrator was abusive, you are free to request a review of my actions. --Yamla17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I don't think you made a mistake- a user who clearly states that he intends to never edit again, really doesn't need an unblock. That user is able to carry out his goal, never editing again, without being unblocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a big difference between removal of offending language, and addition of new material to Wikipedia. One cannot remove material from a Talk page without being able to edit. That has nothing to do with addition of new material. Wikipedia administrators wanted the language in question removed but, they provided me no means to effect that want. Thus, the need to unblock. Do you find such logic difficult to follow? William R. Buckley20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're blocked, how did you edit this talk page? Conversely, if you aren't blocked, why are you trying to persuade Yamla to unblock you? This seems a bit moot. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not a current block. The issue is a past block. If you look at the appropriate records, you will see that my user account was blocked just prior to my first message on Yamla's talk page. Further, Yamla was asked several times (one time was simply not enough) to unlock my account. Hence, the discussion is about the performance in addressing my request. That the request was previously serviced has no bearing on the discussion. This is especially so given that it was not Yamla who unlocked the account. Finally, just because I choose not to add to articles does not mean that I have no purpose on Wikipedia. In this case, it is to champion propriety and wisdom on the part of administrators. I suggest this is a fine opportunity for you to acquire some wisdom, too. William R. Buckley00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not true. You were blocked on 2007-10-22 and 2007-10-24. You did not post to my talk page until 2007-10-27, three days later. Administrators are not obligated to overturn the actions of another administrator. Note that I had nothing to do with blocking you. I have already told you, if you believe my refusal to overturn another block was abusive, you are free to request a review of my actions. I'll thank you to either file a request (WP:DISPUTE) or leave me alone. --Yamla01:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
How do you describe *just prior*, by days, minutes, or nanoseconds. Also, I did not say you blocked me. I said you refused to unblock me. As for the dispute, I'll be happy to file. William R. Buckley22:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
GourmetAnarchy
Can you *please* unblock this user? He was never a sock puppet. His side of the story is understandable and wholly correct. Keepscases16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not place that block. Apparently the user is satisfied with the block anyway as he has not requested any other review of the block. --Yamla16:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You claimed on Holly Marie Combs that she was married to Finley Arthur Donoho and to Riley Edward Donoho. This is, of course, false. Please be careful when adding information to articles. Thanks! --Yamla 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC
I did not try to vandalise the article! I was just trying to help and put some easye info to read. Of course i know that isn't married with her sons. But i couldn't get the children thing in the infobox. could you help me --Danieller 21317:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That information isn't really suitable for placing in the infobox. You can add the information to the article if it isn't already there, along with a reliablecitation. Thanks! --Yamla17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Autoblocks
I see you unblocked RedneckIQ55 by undoing the autoblock of the IP. I was looking at this at the same time you were and apparently I don't fully understand how to undo autoblocks. While you were doing this I unblocked Tony 300 and reset it without the autoblock enabled. Please explain here the what/why/how/etc of undoing autoblocks. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
If you are just wanting to undo the autoblock, you can click on the IP address unblock link in the unblock-auto request. It even fills in the fields appropriately. That's the easiest approach. Template:Autoblock has some information on autoblocks generally. Most of the time, I don't bother reblocking the original account with autoblocks disabled because it only rarely causes a problem. Let me know if you have any other questions. Autoblocks can be a bit annoying but at least they generally stop someone from immediately creating a new account and continuing to edit. --Yamla18:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It says on the photo what site I got it from. The man who took the photo doesn't mind if it is used for either armeniapedia.org or wikipedia.org I am not sure how to change the copyright info, if you can do it or if you can guide me through it, that would be great.--Moosh8819:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You need to provide a specific source. That is, exactly which page did you take this image from? Help:Images and other uploaded files has a great deal of information on this. Let me know if you have any specific questions that are not covered there! --Yamla19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Yamla, this vandal won't stop vandalizing. I would have gone to another administrator about this, since I've come to you a few times already about matters, but you've blocked this user before, and I felt it best to come to you about this. It's a vandal I already alerted you to. Flyer2207:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are. Also, Yamla, I just came across a user that I'm a little unsure about. One of his or her edits, the one to Young adult (psychology), seemed way off.[35] And I left a message about that on his or her talk page. I checked out another one of this user's edits, where he or she was reverted.[36] But I haven't checked out all of his or her edits, and even if I do, I'm not familiar with all of the topics that this user has edited, and I want to know what you think of this matter. This user goes around saying that they are updating things.[37] But do you feel that this user is updating mostly false things? I know that edit to Young adult (psychology) screamed false to me. Flyer2219:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you please block this user and their sock puppets indefinitely? 68.237.109.208 (talk·contribs) and user RozAbrams.WABC.Ch 7 (talk·contribs), as well as 151.204.130.183 (talk·contribs). They have uploaded nothing but copyright infringing images. Instead of trying to learn policies here and understand the explanations and warnings, they have done nothing but add silly, disruptive reasons to dispute the speedy deletion nominations for their images, which them and there socks have also repeatedly removed from the images. This user in my opinion is refusing to understand and instead editing in bad faith and being disruptive. Thank you for your help Yamla. Bmg916Speak18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Notability was not asserted. The article has repeatedly failed PROD and has been repeatedly deleted. Please feel free to follow WP:UNDEL. --Yamla20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You made this block but I wonder why it was only one day, considering the user made a personal attack (towards you) and I gave him a warning for it and he made another personal attack towards me. - Rjd006023:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I generally issue first blocks for 24 hours or 31 hours. If he doesn't immediately shape up, it's easy enough to issue a longer or indefinite block next time. --Yamla23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there's not much of an alternative, and it's only being used to picture the DVD in question, for advertising purposes if nothing else. There shouldnt be a problem with the use of the picture, like if it were the IMDB page, right? -Mike Payne (T • C) 04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable.♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
In relation to the Alyson Michalka picture I uploaded.
I scanned the picture in from a newspaper, then added the effects like I stated. How do I mark that?
I believe you're familiar with the activities of this IP.[38] They're currently going around making odd changes to biography and character articles, usually to the name. --Bogwoppit23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking me. Can you help me find out more about what happened? Why would my IP be blocked, and why would that block me even though I'm a registered editor? Is there someplace where I can read more about it? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Veronica Mars.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Veronica Mars.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot15:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I never uploaded that, I reverted to that version. I'm not sure why it is showing I uploaded it, though this is definitely what it is showing. Not sure what happened to the earlier logs? --Yamla15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Another Daddy's sock?
Hi Yamla, I have some suspect that User:The Worlds Most Creative Username might be actually the latest brand-new account of our good friend Daddy Kindsoul. This because of the very recent account registration jointly to him showing an interest on Italian (and Neapolitan) football articles. My final suspect was caused by him reverting Image:US Grosseto FC logo.png to a previous version uploaded by Soprani/Daddy. What's your opinion on it? Would be a checkuser worthwhile? --Angelo01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm sorry about the video I added to Patricia O'Callaghan's page. I thought it was just nice to be able to see an actual video of this Canadian singer. If it's alright maybe it can be added to the article somewhere?
I included a detailed fair use rationale, although this is the first time I've ever done that. I rarely upload images and just edit articles. Is there any problem with the rationale I added or is anything else necessary? -Mike Payne (T • C) 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, life has been rather busy. The image is currently being used in two places; rationales must be specific to a single article. That's probably not your fault, though. WP:FURG goes into much more detail than I can. Note that although the image is being used here in the context of a non-profit organization, Wikipedia expressly permits its content to be reused. As such, you are stating that this is not being used commercially but can't actually guarantee that. Someone may take this article as part of, say, a commercial run of $10 DVD snapshots of Wikipedia. Anyway, that's a relatively minor issue. You've gone into a great deal of detail here, more than is generally required. It's good. :) --Yamla22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, due to the block of Haleymay (talk·contribs), Bkbeast13 (talk·contribs) is still unable to edit (he has agreed to come to me with edits for his article). It must've put some sort of IP range block on there. Will this expire at any point? Could you look into it? Thanks a bunch! Bmg916Speak17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about this? He's an obvious sock who I've blocked, but I was wondering why you choose to "scorch the earth" about something as trivial as NFC rationales... if a vandal wants to waste his time improving Wikipedia in some trivial manner, why not let him... then block him? It just seems to me that common sense should trump WP:BAN. Cheers, east.718at 16:26, 11/7/2007
Actually the uploader (Ospinad) marked it with that license. Not me. I originally added the templates regarding copyright violation, then removed them per the creator's reply to my inquiry. I have placed a 2nd inquiry to ensure the understand what they are (or are not) giving permission for. ++Arx Fortis18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. However, the creator can release a crop of the photo without releasing the entire original. (This is much in the same way an author can release rights to a chapter or portion of a book, while maintaining a copyright on the rest of the work.) Thus, they she would not need to change the copyright status of the original. ++Arx Fortis19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That's certainly true, though we would need the permission to be explicit. An email from the person saying that that crop is released under cc-by-2.0 would be sufficient. We generally ask that the source page be modified because it's just easier that way. --Yamla19:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Editing direct quotes; Aly & AJ
Sorry about that. I edited that not thinking it was a direct quote. Heh, I should have known better, my bad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebomb 87 (talk • contribs)
This page was salted by you 21:51, 7 June 2007. There is now an article, Noah Cyrus, for the same person where notability has been (somewhat) established with her current credited name. I would like to create a redirect on the salted page to point to Noah Cyrus. Thanks, --NrDg17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see here. I made the request but as you can see, it was completely ignored. Do you think you can look into this for me? Thanks Yamla. Bmg916Speak17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll try to resolve it. These things can be a bit of a pain to deal with. Or at least, I don't have much experience undoing copy-paste moves. --Yamla17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. I'm going to be quite busy today so you'll want to report further vandalism to WP:AIV. Main page FAs tend to get a huge amount of vandalism and I'm simply not going to be able to do much about it today. :( --Yamla18:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Multiple reinsertions of that complete list of outlets where you can purchase Headstrong. Has he crossed the line into vandalism, or is this still considered to be some kind of content dispute?
I really don't know how I wandered into protecting Disney record articles from the mouseketeers, but it really makes me irritable.Kww18:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The links are inappropriate (WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:NOT). I've warned the user. And I know what you mean. I don't think I've ever seen any of these tweeny movies or seen any of the people involved sing or act. --Yamla18:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yamla,
I agree that it is a concern as well that some crumbs do bad. But we are talking more than 140,000 unique users on the network (as of my last look at the AD tree) for UHC proxy 192.203.175.175. And that does not even count other transitory users such as alliances. I have never thought that IP autoblock made sense to block out other named users. My opinion is that the autoblock should block the specific named user and anonymous users from the same source. In the case of sock puppets, it should block the known puppets and any newly created users. Anyway, thanks for your help. Group2918:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to respond to topics on your own talk page Yamla, but when I saw this appear in my watchlist, and that you weren't online, I decided to deal with it for you. Everything's been fixed now. Thanks. Acalamari03:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Done Nevermind Thank You! SLSB talk • contrib 16:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hee hee. Ariel♥Gold 14:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Ariel♥Gold 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Alientraveller 19:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
![[29]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kareena_in_Refugee.jpg&oldid=160558905){kind=link}
![[34]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nelly_Furtado_-_Manchester_Arena_2007.png){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:Veronica Mars.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
