User talk:Yamla/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Actually...

My last edit, in which I included Jessica Alba in "People with eating disorders" category, is in fact supported by the article and a citation. I would suggest doing your research rather reverting someone as a knee-jerk reaction. Treybien 15:52 24 September 2006 (UTC)

...

You are not citing your sources either mr Yamla. By the way are 6 ft 1.83 m, NOT 1.82 as you list. Brad Pitt is back at 5-11

Wha?

What vandalism are you talking about? I dont believe I've ever added anything to wiki ever. I read it often - edit - never! cheers. (i'm not even sure if this is where I moan about the odd message! *grumble*)

Sitting Room page

What do you think? I added a picture to Sitting_room. There wasnt one before, so I thought I would add one. D'you think it gets the point across ok?

Jessica Alba Page

Sorry I did not realise what I was doing was wrong. I'm new to this malarkey. Thanks for telling me.

Nickelback etc.

Hi Yamla,

Just want some clarification -- the only reason those were added was that the Forbes lists are frequently cited. It seems only reasonable to add some Canadian references when the subject matter is distinctly Canadian. (Well, alright, Celine lives in Vegas these days, but...) And here I was thinking I was adding some value to the article, especially for Canadian readers who want may more information from another credible source. CB material is archived by libraries, FP datamart, Thomson, etc. after all.

Cheers,

CBO Editor

Monique Currie page

Can you upload the page and get some pictures of her and more info? thanks

tsk

Sorry, I was just trying to see what it would do, and I just picked a username at random.

external links

sorry didn't know adding related links are considered as spam. whether they are my site or someone elses site they are related to content of the page i edited i guess. i'll stop it as you say. but i'm sure spam is really very different than what i do :). at least what i do is something related with the content of entry. Onurz

Deathrocker

Deathrocker is known for doing this. If you check Heavy Metal related articles, he reverts any changes to what he calls 'his' articles Vandalism and Sockpuppetry. Deathrocker is also on probation by the Abbirition Commitee, stating that all his blocks for incidents of this nature should be logged there. I suggest doing so, and reading up on exactly what is supposed to happen from his parolem, as he was found guilty of accusing several adminstrators of admin abuse before when he has been blocked, and created several sockpuppets to evade those blocks.

Oh, and one other thing i call to point. I ask you keep an eye on this post, as Deathrocker also has the habit of removing posts on discussion pages by anomynous users and registered members alike that do not agree with him.

External Links

• 9/3/06 Sorry Yamla, didn't know I wasn't allowed to add links and stuff. Won't do it again. Well I just want to let you know that the link I tried to add to Aly & AJ's pages were official MySpace pages of theirs for fans so you can edit that page yourself instead. Sorry if I cause too much trouble =)

- Crystal B

Really sorry that my adding links was against Wikipedia's policy. Thanks for doing your job right. - Joe21

re:Thanks

No problem, just doing my job :) — Moe Epsilon 22:22 September 12 '06

From Temp77: Relaying A Message From 7g7em7ini

Dear Yamla: I am just relaying a message from 7g7em7ini due to the 24 hours block you imposed, thereby preventing a direct response from 7g7em7ini. The message is: "I see that you have deliberately targeted me again. This is the last straw. Rest assured that I will not be making any further contributions to Wikipedia and I shall be removing all of my contributions to it over the last month as is my right. Do not revert my removals under any circumstances as you did last time. I will remove my contributions exactly 24 hours after you blocked me. I would also add that whilst I was a user, I had right to put whatever I liked on my own talk page and all that has been removed is out of date entries"

seriously.

		The Worker's Barnstar
		"The more laborious and repetitive" of tasks; constantly reviewing image submissions and ensuring their copyright safety and suitability for Wikipedia. Further diffusing the ire of those users who have not familiarized themselves with the WP copyright conventions. Being constantly vigilant for vandalism on the higher-profile pages, as well as those which tend to attract varying types of vandals. Congratulations, and thank you for undertaking these (usually) thankless tasks. — pd_THOR (talk · contribs)

Block to 64.14.194.26

I think this user, whom you blocked, has a sockpuppet, Joesatisgod. I reported it here.

Re: Tool Edits

Hi Yamla. Recently you reversed an edit I made adding my Tool Concert Poster Archive to the Tool (Band) page. You suggested that is a commercial site. Just wanted to make sure you knew the site does not sell posters, nor advertising, etc - it's simply an image archive/reference site for Tool poster collectors. I believe it is useful to fans and collectors and should not in any way be considered commercial. Thanks! Battaglino

Help!

Can you help me upload pictures the right way so i dont get deleted anymore. Thanks.

                                                   Bogger D

Image:VanessaAnn Grani 9193069 400-1-.jpg

If Image:VanessaAnn Grani 9193069 400-1-.jpg is not working out... how can I fix it? I added the source, now what?

RE: Please cite

I got that info from Aishwarya Rai's official website (aishwaryaworld) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdeditor (talk • contribs)

what do you mean pun?

Fair use rationale for Image:Melissamilano2.jpg

Done.

Your revert

Just wanted to let you know why I didn't revert that edit: true, the designation probably is too generous but, if her name is next to a song (even if one of several names), "songwriter is technically accurate. Feel free to chime in. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Given how the music industry works, having her name next to a song no more makes her a songwriter than it makes me a songwriter. That said, I'd let it stand if it was cited. Stupid recording industry. --Yamla 18:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

I didn't say that you called it vandalism, it was an other user.

Fergie pic

Sorry, Yamla. I thought that the copyright issue of the image was already solved, so I removed the tag. Thank you for awaring me about. DagosNavy 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Angelina Jolie

well i will get the website i got the information. sorry i be more careful next time. thanks

My templates......

Hi Yamla, on my talk page, I try to remove the Jamaica off my template but it doesn't work so could you please help me remove that link?DX the bomb

Evangeline Lilly

I share this computer with others, one of whom is a Lost fan, so I will adress them on the vandalism of the Evangeline Lilly edit. Thank you for notifying me of this, I'll make sure it doesn't happen again.

Copyright Image?

The image is copyed from CWTV.com (All of Us) & MTV.com (The Real World: Devener) now I may just have the wrong title for the licensing, and truly don't know where those images fit under the title of the licenses so I placed them under as "Logo". ;-(

MaryKate and Ashley

srry i messed up that page! i couldnt believe they were fraternal twins... i thought the page was wrong becuase my siblings are fraternal and they look realllly different... and marykate and ashley are soooo alike!! i checked later and relized i was wrong, i just didnt get a chance to fix it... sorry again! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laclowne (talk • contribs) November 4, 2006.

85.14.76.164

I am sorry for that. I just wanted to update it and I didn't remember a proper tag, so I edited it once and then again. As for other things I sometimes can't understand why are you angry on me... As for Queen Serenity and Switch I just wanted to create separate pages...

85.14.76.164

Regarding the CARM article

Hi, Yamla,

First and foremost, I profoundly apologize that you've been the "monkey in the middle" for this particular furball. I'm hoping my proposed merge draft will quiet the fires for a while.

I would, however, like to get your views on the draft, solely to see if it seems NPOV to you. I'm not planning on using your opinion one way or another in the debates--frankly, I'm considering bucking for Admin one day, but still feel nervous enough that I'd prefer to have an experienced admin looking over my shoulder. If you don't have time (or if you're so sick of the subject you're ready to strangle somebody), that's cool, but if you have a moment for some feedback, that would be great.

Thanks. Justin Eiler 05:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to look at it tonight, it's well past time for me to head to bed. But that you would deliberately attempt something like this shows you are a braver man than me.  :) I'll take a look at it tomorrow, hopefully, and offer what feedback I can. I think you are right when you say no possible draft can please both sides, but hey. As an aside, you may want to consider running your draft past Matt Slick. I'm sure he's reachable via email. CARM is banned from contributing to the Wikipedia until their legal action is resolved but this doesn't mean you can't at least get some feedback from them. You are under no obligation to do so, however, I'm just suggesting it as a possibility. --Yamla 05:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue with wikipedia from CARM is not legal but they are asking only for deletion of the article and doing so only in writing to wiki admins for help not by any legal action. If you are waiting for legal actions to be resolved, they are already resolved and no more concern. So you may unban the CARM editors if resolution was necessary to end it. The words were stated and meant more to hyperbole personally as a member of AARM, not to just his wikipedia activity. The situation with AARM's libel and Wiki has nothing to do with each other but only the formal written requests to wikipedia to delete the articles. If you can help to begin the process necessary for deletion of the articles which is CARM's only request, the constant edit wars and constant reverts by AARM editors will have to stop. An admin Irmgard edited similar to what Justin has written and tried to settle the disputes by deleting most of the nonsense links. All went well a short time,but after a few weeks the same two, hyperbole and urbie reverted her edits and put their edits back. They are not going to stop with Justin's rewrite as hyperbole already objecting. The situation and headache will finally end for everyone, after more then a year and a half of edit wars and utter nonsense if the admins would please get the two articles deleted. CARM wants it to end and so do the CARM supporters as the Ency. article for a website ministry is not needed in this type of Encylopedia.

I need confirmation from Diane S, and a request from her that she be unblocked. I will then discuss with other administrators whether the block on the abusive sockpuppets should also be lifted. Please feel free to pass this along to Diane S (sorry, I forget her real last name, but that's her user name). However, I need to be absolutely clear that she has to indicate that she and CARM generally have no pending or outstanding legal actions against Wikipedia itself or against any editor on the Wikipedia. Obviously with tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors, it's possible she may have legal action outstanding and not know the person is a Wikipedia editor. The point is one of good faith. If she is not aware of any outstanding or pending legal action, that's good enough for me. --Yamla 15:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, the persons hyperbole and urbie are active AARM members and that is where the legal issue or "threat" comment was directed because he too threatens every editor that edits in favor of CARM as being a "sockpuppet" or reports them for one thing or another after his constantly editing. He reverts all of their edits and is already disagreeing to Justin's efforts. The only persons that will want the CARM articles to remain are the group of anti-CARM editors here to edit this article for one purpose, their agenda and advertising their websites. Pro CARM supporters will not object to the deletion. There is no one, not Matt Slick or the Board of Directors that want a CARM article or Matt Slick article on wikipedia because of the anti-carm groups using it for their own purpose. CARM and Matt Slick have been seeking the way to get the articles removed. I do hope you will help in this matter to get this resolved.Tom S 48 08:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I'm sick to death of the whole matter. Why I agreed to be dragged in to this mess is beyond me. --Yamla 15:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea--but in the mean time, you get some rest. :) (And I'm not sure if "brave" is the best word ... I was thinking "certifiably insane" might be more appropriate.) Justin Eiler 05:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job

• Thank you for joining Wikipedia. I'll be going then. Bye! Sergeant Gerzi 07:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Uploading

I wanted to know if i could upload an image. But I am not very good at uploading images. Could I upload the image and if it improperly cited you could just delete it and not have to block me. –-Darkneonflame 06:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, just note on the image page that you are not sure whether or not it is appropriate. And leave me a message for me to check it out. Alternatively, you can leave a mesage here indicating where the image is located on the web and which article you plan to use it in. Note that we aren't permitted to use copyrighted non-freely-licensed images to depict living people. --Yamla 14:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Trouble

Hey. I tagged this image; Image:Sweetchin.jpg for deletion, as replaceable. This user DXRAW removed the tag from the image, and removed the tag from his talk page. I then issued this statement:

"Do not remove tags from your talk page, or the image which was tagged. It will result in you getting blocked from editing. Thanks."

This user called that statement harassment. I was just issuing a warning. So, could you go and talk to this user for me? Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  17:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The revert of the talk page is now considered harassment per WP:AN I was not referring to the post.DXRAW 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Again

I gave DXRAW a final warning after he deleted the tag and warnings from me and you again. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've been following the various discussions at WP:AN, but consensus seems to have decided that it's best not to interfere with other user's talk pages. The warning templates previously given for removing warnings from one's talk page have been delisted, and it is now considered harrasment to revert a user's talk page. DXRAW 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I participated in that discussion and my belief is that no consensus was reached. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that without consensus, we must now allow people to blank current warnings from their talk page. This will obviously be evidence of bad faith if the user continues violating the same policies they have previously been warned about, and I am not happy about this, but a person (even an administrator) does not need to be happy. Mike, thank you for acting in good faith and for warning DXRAW for problem images. DXRAW, thank you for bringing to my attention the discussions once again. --Yamla 20:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Yamla. I was just coming here to bring this up with you, and I see that you may be more up-to-date on this issue than I. I am of the impression that the whole warnings-for-removing-warnings thing has been deprecated as more trouble than it's worth, although I can't find the discussions that I took that impression from right immediately--it can be hard to keep track of the current state of these ever-shifting consenses at times. Anyway, I told Mike that, although he has been warned for this in the past, this case should be allowed to slide. I dropped a note about this on ANI, by the way, just in case someone who keeps a close eye on these issues cares to drop in and bestow their wisdom. Cheers, --Robth^Talk 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Robth. As noted, I have some serious issues with this, and I'll note that a previous discussion on AN/P (I believe, though I'm not sure it was at that location) over the summer came to the conclusion that blanking warnings more than a week old may be reasonable but blanking current ones was not. Anyway, the correct way for me to influence policy is to write an essay and garner consensus and support, rather than fighting it out on the talk pages of third parties who may have violated a guideline that probably does not have consensus. --Yamla 20:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You also blocked me for "page blanking". I appreciate you letting me off, it was a nice deed, but this place needs some serious straightening up to be a good place to contribute. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look through your block log and found the following entries (any blocks issued by other people are not included:

1. 2006-11-11T18:17:41 Yamla (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Mikedk9109 (contribs) (User promises to refrain from removing image tags and that he will not be given another chance if he violates policy again)
2. 2006-11-11T17:52:37 Yamla (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Mikedk9109 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Continuing to remove tags from images)
3. 2006-11-06T14:15:04 Yamla (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Mikedk9109 (contribs) (User request)
4. 2006-10-31T18:51:47 Yamla (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Mikedk9109 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Removing tags, continued personal attacks)
5. 2006-10-31T18:51:33 Yamla (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Mikedk9109 (contribs) (Extending block)
6. 2006-10-31T18:42:24 Yamla (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Mikedk9109 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Extending the block for a personal attack)
7. 2006-10-31T18:42:12 Yamla (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Mikedk9109 (contribs) (Extending the block)
8. 2006-10-31T18:37:52 Yamla (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Mikedk9109 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Continuing to remove tags from images after numerous warnings)

None of these seem to be issued because you removed current warnings from your talk page, though I'll certainly concede that this may have been the case. Can you please provide some evidence? --Yamla 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Hmmm, When i click on history it shows only 3 edits for the 12 November 2006. Could it be your seeing different cause of time zones? DXRAW 20:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's within a 24 hour period, not in the space of one calendar day. In any case, what's more relevant is that you and the other user take a 24 hour break; neither of you have yet been blocked for a 3RR violation. Rest assured that I would be certain one or both of you had violated 3RR before blocking (my warning was issued with just a cursory examination), but I seriously doubt this will be necessary. Neither of you have given me any indication that you aren't happy to abide by Wikipedia policies and my warning was simply to note that you were both in danger of violating one. --Yamla 20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks DXRAW 20:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Threats?

Your making threats now because you cannot get your own way? and making out of process deletions? - The only reason I can see why you have deleted it is to cover up the dispute to keep it which I provided with detail. You may also like to read WP:CIVIL. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me reiterate. WP:FUC says, "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." In the case of Kristen Bell, the subject of the photograph still exists as she is a living person. Your claim that obtaining one would require stalking her is bogus and you are well aware that this is not Wikipedia's interpretation of the policy. If you refuse to adhere to WP:FUC, you will be blocked. You may have your own unique interpretation of WP:FUC or you may disagree with WP:FUC but I am here to tell you that non-freely-licensed images of living people are not permitted except in extreme circumstances (such as the person being in hiding). Your interpretation of the policy is not relevant. I have explained this to you over and over again. You have tried to have the policy changed but failed. It is my job to hold you to the policy. If you are unwilling to live by Wikipedia's policies, you will be blocked. --Yamla 23:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Could - In otherwords possibly.. a might be able to.. a try your best.. could != must. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You are misreading this. What it is asking you to do is to check to see if the subject of the photograph still exists. If the subject still exists then a freely-licensed photograph could be taken. That is, the assumption is that it is possible to take a freely-licensed photograph. The sentence is stating that the assumption is for living people, it is possible to take a freely-licensed photograph. It is not trying to state that you should do your best to take a freely-licensed image but otherwise a fair-use image is acceptable. You may disagree with this, but that is what you will be held to regarding WP:FUC. --Yamla 23:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of the FUC. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and as an administrator, it is my responsibility to block you if you violate this policy. You are well aware that my interpretation is not unique. WP:FUC is written so as to prohibit non-freely-licensed images from being used to depict living people. You know this because you specifically tried to change it. That's all I have to say on this topic. If you continue to violate WP:FUC, I will block you. --Yamla 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You know mine isn't unique either.. you also know I haven't violated the FUC. Either way I know I am right' and so i'm done debating wit you 1to1 - Talk at DRV if you wish to discuss. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

reporting vandalism

Hi, I noticed you had blocked 210.18.40.216 earlier for vandalism. This person is back again, repeatedly vandalizing Jhumpa Lahiri, and other pages. I guess another block is in order. Thanks! -- Longhairandabeard 00:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Interested Party on CARM article

My evidence that Interested Party is Diane S.'s sister comes from this diff: [1]. Interested Party was blocked for sockpuppetry in August of 2005 [2] and apparently logged on with an IP to explain that User:Peggy Sue (who is almost certainly Diane Seller - Diane has used that nickname in the past, and Peggy Sue describes herself as "a CARM admin" ([3]) is her sister and User:Tom_S_48 is Diane's husband. So - that's what I have. --Hyperbole 06:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User

Perhaps it would be best to post a notice about Diane S. on the AN/I. If you can write up a summary I'll be glad to endorse it. The matter appears quite clear. A notice will gain other endorsements and perhaps also get more admins involved. You're doing a fine job. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nikkor lenses.jpg

I've closed the DRV for this image, undeleted the image, and opened a replaceability discussion on the Image talk page. --Robth^Talk 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Aly and AJ

Um, Why did you remove the trivia section? I saw nothing in WP:Trivia that justified removing it. It wasn't a very long article, and held some pretty good information. I hope you didn't remove it because of the evolution thing, because that would be immature. Perhaps you can explain why you removed it to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.212.250 (talk • contribs)

You are right, I misread WP:TRIVIA and I apologise. I mustn't have had my morning coffee when I read that. Please feel free to revert my removal of the section. As to "the evolution thing", I really don't know what you are talking about. --Yamla 00:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry for that. I can assure you that was not the way of it. I didn't know I had to add a discussion to justify the tag. And for the Dhoom 4 page, I just replaced the tag with a speedy deletion tag. I really didn't know that was against the rules. -- Visual planet 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)