User talk:Yamla: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:04, 17 December 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Yamla/Archive 13. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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 (talk • contribs) 00:15, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Hi

Hey wats up. Redhead911

re: working man's barnstar

Thanks very much;

here, have some wiki-beer on me! :D

A star for you

You deserve it. :) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 20:51 5 December, 2007 (UTC) — You deserve it. :) — **$PЯING**εrαgђ 20:51 5 December, 2007 (UTC)

Back?

Yeah, I'm still around; wrapping up loose ends before sodding off for good (my OCD can't let go just yet). I could be leaping to conclusions here, but it seems a bit too obvious to me:

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tweety21

Precious Roy (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me informed. --Yamla (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She keeps going... Precious Roy (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll block. --Yamla (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and going... Precious Roy (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and going... Precious Roy (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She'll eventually give up, may take months though. --Yamla (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

Hello, Yamla. It has been over a year since I was blocked on wikipedia. My user name is Zarbon You said you would give me another chance after another year passed. Now I am growing irritated because of this. I do not want to create another account because that's technically a sockpuppet. Please look at my user talk page for the original request for an unblock about 6 months ago. Is it possible, after this extensive period of time, to unblock me finally so that I can continue to contribute with my user name? Please respond because I have waited a long time as you had initially instructed me to do. I am sorry for whatever mistake I made originally but I want to be able to continue working with my original name, Zarbon. I am bringing this up because I mean it and I want to continue contributing but I'd feel more comfortable doing it with my original user name. Please help. - 72.229.48.178 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no account by that name. Please sign on with your original account and make an unblock request there. State for the record if you have edited any Wikipedia articles in the past six months. --Yamla (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't sign on because I will be automatically blocked. You know that if I sign on, it will block my ip address automatically. I want to log in but I can't for this reason. And what do you mean...my user page is Zarbon. I will login right when you unblock me. I will thank you personally right afterwards right here under my user name. - 72.229.48.178 (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I'm just awaiting your response. It's been such a long time since I was allowed to log in again with my user name Zarbon. I just want to be able to be unbanned after this extensively long period as you promised to reconsider prior. Please respond. I am awaiting your response. - 72.229.48.178 (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the person who blocked you. I will note, though, that rather than abiding by your block, you have continued to edit in violation of WP:BLOCK. I am not willing to consider unblocking you at this time but you may wish to contact unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you told me not to mention anything about being unblocked until a full year passed and I listened to you. I don't know how to do that, so can you add me to the unblock-en list. I want to be unblocked but I don't think any of them would consider it. Since you were the one who responded to my request to be unblocked half a year ago, I came back to you instead of anywhere else. - 72.229.48.178 (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the whole point was that you refrain from editing while blocked. Still, I do suggest that you email unblock-en-l. You should admit that you have continued editing while blocked but note that you refrained for however many months you refrained for, and that your edits have been good since then. Honesty and demonstrated good intentions go a long way and I would follow up on your message with that statement, for other admins to consider (if I catch the message, I don't read all unblock-en-l messages at the moment). --Yamla (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life from the Inside Deletion

Hi there. I understand you have pulled the entry for Life from the Inside for copyright violations, and I wanted to step in, as someone else involved with the show, and see how we can fix this error. The page has no copyright violations, and, as far as I have been able to tell, is no different from any number of other sitcom entries on Wikipedia. I'd like to know how we can get our entry back up without it being pulled down immediately. What are you looking for that I am unable to see? Maybe I can help with making sure our page stays up. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lekowicz (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this program meet the notability criteria? There's nothing in the deleted article that indicates notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, though that was not the reason given for the article being pulled. Lekowicz (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found out that we can no longer even access our deleted items. Yamla has pulled them all, so I'd like to make sure we can resolve this whole affair. Lekowicz (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by 'we' and 'our.' If this article was created by one of the creators of the show, then that's a conflict of interest- we don't create articles about ourselves or our work. If this program really is notable, then you don't need to worry about it, because one of its many viewers will inevitably create an article about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, as was indicated to one of "your" editors (though I'm not sure which), if the content on your website is available under the terms of the GFDL, please update the website to reflect that. If not, we have to continue treating it as a copyright violation. But as FisherQueen indicated, you shouldn't be creating articles about this if you are involved with the show. --Yamla (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me butt in... you know I can't stop typing sometimes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all helpful info, so thanks for clarifying. I think I now see what happened. Yes, I am involved with the show. I agree that no one involved with our show should have posted anything in the first place. One of our fans or subscribers can do that at some point. However, when that happens, I'm now afraid you'll pull the article regardless of its pedigree. I hope that will not be the case. It appears to me that the issue was an improper use of speedy deletion. Our entry did not fall under the speedy deletion criteria at all and was deleted without debate of these matters in the first place--the content was not at all "blatant copyright infringement," and even "notability" is under non-criteria for speedy deletion. The proper action would have been to call out the article for deletion review, where this debate could have happened. The matter was handled poorly is all, which is why we have gotten confused over the entire article being deleted without warning. I want to clear this all up so that when an entry for our show goes up legitimately, from a viewer or subscriber, it will be allowed to stand and not deleted improperly. Lekowicz (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the content was taken from the website without any evidence that the website content was released under the GFDL. The article was tagged for approximately two weeks and deleted as per CSD G12. The best way for someone to recreate the article would be to do so in user space and then to follow WP:UNDEL, but this is certainly not the only way. I would not tag a recreation of the article if it was completely free of copied text and if it asserted notability under WP:NOTE (which is not necessarily trivial, by the way). --Yamla (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use images

Not an April Fool; merely my mistaken reading of this. I really should not edit late at night! Apologies. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 13:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tweety21

Hello.

I've noticed that you have restored a page I deleted via an OTRS ticket. What motivated the restoration? Thanks, Mercury 19:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser confirmed that the user had returned to editing in violation of the ban. The right to vanish does not apply if the user has demonstrated over and over again that he or she is unwilling to actually vanish. As an aside, note that I have contacted the Wikimedia Foundation office about this, several hours ago. --Yamla (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the checkuser results please? Mercury 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tweety21. She's subsequently used 216.191.208.99 (talk · contribs), Halloween12 (talk · contribs), and 99.249.172.137 (talk · contribs). These were obvious and passed WP:DUCK. She has resumed her old behaviour including but not at all limited to legal threats [1]. --Yamla (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have your ticket assigned to the right person that will be able to help. Also, let the agent know when you undo their OTRS action. They might have more information. Thanks, Mercury 20:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or... you might have more information. 12 tickets? :) Regards, Mercury 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contacting the Wikimedia Office and some people from unblock-en-l about this. Obviously, there's a significant limit on what they can tell me due to privacy concerns, but the number of tickets is not secret. :) --Yamla (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amrita Rao

Hello again,

User:60.243.98.209 has crossed the line on the above mentioned page. He keeps on adding real fangush, the infobox is destroyed etc. See, this is the diff. He has reverted the article several times, has been warned several times, and above all, even had a sock puppet, which I tagged on his page. In his last revert he wrote, "Requests the users Bollywood_Dreamz and ssshhhhhh, not to Tamper with The Changes we are making...Pls contact us at fanmail@amrita-rao.com for furthur Enquiry. Regards, Rahul Gupta ( P.R. Manager) Amrita Rao 91-9897357966"

If it bothers you that I awlays turn to you with these problems, please tell me that. I also feel a little uncomfortable turning to you all the time. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do something. He (and his sock puppets) doesn't stop vandalizing the page. It is the 8th time he reverts the article to his version. Page protection won't help. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll take a look now. I'm generally happy to look into these things but you can often get faster response at WP:AIV. --Yamla (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Friends emphasises "other schools and religions"

Hi Yamla, could you please check this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends#FoF_emphasises_other_schools_and_religions Thanks Wine-in-ark (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tasveer

Hi Yamla, I was wondering if you could move the page Eight By Ten to the film's original title Tasveer. The film's title on the page was officially the latter but a user changed it to the former according to IMDb, which is an unreliable website. The film's official poster has come out with the title Tasveer.[2] I tried moving it but it won't let me. Could you please move it for me? Thanks. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 02:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind Yamla, I fixed it. Thanks anyways. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan

I've don't want to waste on my reverts on this guy. Pirated image (see IFD page) and he won't stop reverting it back in. Claim that it's a private camera shot is patently ridiculous ... can't we just lifetime block these people and be done with it?Kww (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Congratulations! Acalamari 17:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) --Yamla (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gyorgy Orth. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my comments there. --Yamla (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wow! What a great card. Best wishes for holidays and the years to come. --Moon Rising (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Yamla, please see User talk:Kafka Liz's talk page. I have unblocked as the case has been explained sufficiently. Please feel free to ask any questions. -JodyB_talk 01:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We were discussing this on unblock-en-l and the consensus seemed to be to unblock as well. --Yamla (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaty again (maybe)

User:99.249.172.137 is either a tech savvy unrelated user asking for unblock (quite likely), or it is Tweaty. Please review unblock request. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan's 3rd Album Prod

I had already put the thing at AFD yesterday ... Vicmm42‎ had deleted the AFD notice. It's well on its way to deletion. If you feel like snowball closing it, it's here.Kww (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juanacho again

Same links you blocked him for the last time.Kww (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Vicmm42 (talk · contribs)

Since he is likely to be a sockpuppet of Afi0956 (talk · contribs), who AFAIK is banned, the block should be indef. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afi0956 is blocked indefinitely, not banned. However, if you have evidence that this is the same person as Vicmm42 then that account, too, should be blocked indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Your protection of Grant Chuggle's user page is appreciated more than you will ever know. Thank you! IrishLass (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An award just for you my little yum yumla

		Wikipedia Motivation Award
		This is to give you that little bit of motivation which you obviously have been lacking lately. You lazy cow. Pull your socks up lassie. Get off your high horse missey.

@@ Line 195: / Line 195: @@
 == Thank you ==
 Your protection of Grant Chuggle's user page is appreciated more than you will ever know.  Thank you! [[User:IrishLass0128|IrishLass]] ([[User talk:IrishLass0128|talk]]) 15:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
+== An award just for you my little yum yumla ==
+{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
+|rowspan="2" valign="top" | [[Image:Barnstar-Megaphone.png|100px|Wikipedia Motivation Award]]
+|rowspan="2" |
+|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''Wikipedia Motivation Award'''
+|-
+|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This is to give you that little bit of motivation which you obviously have been lacking lately. You lazy cow. Pull your socks up lassie. Get off your high horse missey.
+|}