Jump to content

User talk:Yamla: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Precious Roy (talk | contribs)
IP you just unblocked
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
|-
|-
|}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Yamla/Archive_12--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
|}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Yamla/Archive_12--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->

==unblock==
reason for edit, this person is trying to hide his inflamatory comments to other, did I follow proper protocal? (user: Precious Roy)


==Archive==
==Archive==

Revision as of 21:09, 2 October 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Yamla/Archive 12. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

unblock

reason for edit, this person is trying to hide his inflamatory comments to other, did I follow proper protocal? (user: Precious Roy)

Archive


Vanessa

Well, there is some idiot pretending to be her on Staroll! If she was a member it would say it along with her MySpace page and what not! -Bronzeshurtugal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bronzeshurtugal (talkcontribs) 00:15, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Images

Hi Yamla, could you tell me please if the images (FU images) in Kareena Kapoor's page are permitted for usage? Thanks, --ShahidTalk2me 15:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Yamla 15:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --ShahidTalk2me 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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, --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Yamla 18:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Yamla. Listen, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, deleted my e-mail verification for the the use of of the image here in Wikipedia. My question is, can you restore it or do I have to re-add it? The e-mail verification. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.  ? --Yamla 18:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Pa7 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL for Image:Melissa Auf der Maur.jpg

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! Drewcifer 15:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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! --Yamla 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Drewcifer 16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.  :) --Yamla 16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! Drewcifer 19:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you?

Like to sign my signature book? Zenlax Talk Contributions Signatures 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

hasty Uma Thurman revert

Please visit User talk:JohnAlbertRigali#Please cite regularly so that we can discuss your comment to a logical end. Thanks. -John Rigali 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. --Yamla 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Check out the very first edit the user made as soon as you unblocked the IP (diff). Precious Roy 21:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]