User talk:Yamla: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:42, 10 February 2008

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Yamla/Archive 15. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Spore

Why did you change the release back to TBA i just finished listening to the EA conference call and they said that it would be out in 2008 Before the holidays Stu212 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS. You have to cite such information. --Yamla (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peaches Music & Video (Record Store)

I know it's been a while, but I feel that this article should not have been deleted. It was a well-known chain of record stores in the southeastern US--not just a single store.

16:52, 11 January 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Peaches Music & Video (Record Store)" ‎ (content was: 'Why are we considering deleting an article about a major chain of music stores.' (and the only contributor was 'Cylonhunter'))

--Mister Tog (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article failed CSD#A7. If you believe it can be recreated in such a way as to assert notability (multiple independent sources, etc.), please feel free to create an article in your userspace and then ask someone to move it over once they have verified your claims (in article) of notability and checked your sources are reliable. --Yamla (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jade Raymond

An editor has nominated Jade Raymond, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jade Raymond and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Friends

Hello Yamla

Excuse me, but pt:Fellowship of Friends has been eliminated in pt.wiki.

Thank you for help Adailton (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, removed. --Yamla (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Can admins view pages that have been deleted? I think I heard they can but I'm not sure. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 04:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless they have been oversighted. --Yamla (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at [1]. It says for the deletion reason that I requested it, when I couldn't have requested it since I was in a car on my way to New Jersey when it was deleted. The page should've been 2 LOE that i had been working on at the time. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's back

See her contribs. Precious Roy (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --Yamla (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be her edit also. WHOIS=Toronto. Ward3001 (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, we know she uses other addresses in that /16 range. Unfortunately, it's a huge range considering how frequently she vandalises. --Yamla (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we approaching critical mass yet? Precious Roy (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waw!

I've never known of any user with that much contributions!!!--Damifb (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

[2] I checked this image when it was added. The licensing template as written says that *any* image on the .net domain is licensed. Only those images on one of the .com domains are restricted to 2001 or earlier. I have reverted the edit on commons, but I thought I would draw this to your attention. If the commons template is misphrased and does not represent the OTRS ticket, that's a different issue. Gimmetrow 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry for my mistake. --Yamla (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bingham McCutchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there, I saw you speedy deleted Bingham McCutchen yesterday because of the edits somebody from the company kept making, but I'd like to ask if you could take another look at this article and the history. I seem to remember (although not with certainty) that there was already a perfectly okay start-class article further back in the history, fairly neutral and that, long before the employee(s) came along last week and started meddling with it to get it how they wanted; perhaps it would be better to just revert to the old version. Otherwise, the way I see it, the edits that person kept making have led directly to the complete erasure of an article. If any new editor could come along and edit an article straight into the garbage bin Wikipedia would be in all sorts of trouble! I can't remember exactly what was there but could you take another look, and possibly undelete it at a stable point in the history? • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, done. --Yamla (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the article isn't as good as I'd thought it was. Thanks though! :) • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Englandbridge

Perhaps I misinterpret, but it appears that User:Englandbridge is a sock of User:Tweety21, and IP sock of whose you just blocked. --Pleasantville (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes. This is a banned vandal who has caused substantial problems for the Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Englandrules! Ta, Precious Roy (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Alzano Virescit F.C.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alzano Virescit F.C.. 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. CapPixel (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweety21

Hi Yamla, hope you enjoyed your snowboarding/skiing. The closest one I get is in Runcorn!

It must be damn annoying dealing with Tweety21 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), and I'm willing to make a Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Tweety21 page to deal with this vandal. Hope this helps. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's back on her sock 142.205.212.203 (talk · contribs) here. Ward3001 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, blocked. --Yamla (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly another one as Burke and Hare (talk · contribs) here. Ward3001 (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lookin' out but I think that's some unrelated vandalism. Precious Roy (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's not enough there to establish a link. It's very possible but without checkuser access, nothing I can do. --Yamla (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been considering filing a WP:LTA report. Do you think it would be worthwhile? If so, do you think it should go on the main page or as its own page (if you have any experience with LTA—I don't)? Precious Roy (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I thought there already was one. I'm not sure why I thought this as several people have suggested that creating such a page might be a good idea. In my opinion, I'd go with a report on its own page in this case but my experience with LTA pretty much only extends to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Daddy Kindsoul and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Verdict. In any case, much of the content of your sockwatch page could end up being copied into the LTA page. --Yamla (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading the guidelines for creating a sub-page, I'm not sure that this qualifies so I put it on the main page. It can always be moved to a sub-page if someone else thinks it warrants one. Thanks again for all your help. Precious Roy (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is the long-term soft-block on User talk:142.205.212.203 still working? If so, I hope that existing accounts under that, such as mine, are not affected. GoldDragon (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did

you revert my "vandalism" is this seriously what you do on vacation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.174.152 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleaseee

Reverting to my edits for Miley Cyrus on the account Piazzajordan2. My sister found out my account password. And used this. Can i please have another chance. Please unblock me. I will assure you, this will never happen again. thank you. message back. -PiazzaJordan2Replacement —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiazzaJordan2Replacement (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly the first time you've been caught vandalising. And then to set up a sockpuppet account with the expressed intention of avoiding blocks. Your block timer has been reset for one week. Any further vandalism may result in an indefinite block. --Yamla (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin bullying

Please explain how "Foz, not sure why you decided to stick your nose in here - but I'd rather an explanation why you ignored Waggers sneering attack on me than some whining rationale for blocking me." is construed as a personal attack meriting sealing my page. Thanks Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have waited a reasonable amount of time for a reply. Do you not feel there is any obligation on an Admin to explain the reasons why they issue unusually punitive blocks? Even the "offended" Admin has distanced himself from your decision. Refer to my question above; how does that constitute "incivility" that would merit a talkpage block? Sarah777 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see this message until just now. Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I simply do not believe that characterising someone's comments as a "sneering attack" and someone else's actions as "whining rationale" is at all appropriate. I am sorry you feel otherwise. --Yamla (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I only spotted this now. But the Waggers comment unarguably was a sneering attack. So that means you imposed a punitive block for me calling a fellow Admin's excuses a "whining rationale"? Is that the sort of proportionate behaviour we should expect from those entrusted with Admin powers? (Btw, I think this is somewhat more clear-cut than what I feel) Sarah777 (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused. I have never blocked you. However, I do expect and require that you abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If you believe you are not going to be able to be civil in the future, please let me know. --Yamla (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I feel any incivility coming on I'll rush right over here. If you never blocked me why do I think you did? (I see you have linked a list of some of my all-time favourite Admins!)Sarah777 (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexicbudgie being fully blocked

I can see that User:Dyslexicbudgie has not learnt his lesson. Can you actually block them for like forever and take there user off or sometihng as it is becomeing an issue. Please reply Pattav2 (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I show no contributions from that user for a month. Could you please let me know what actions you are talking about? Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywoodblog

Hey, can you please weigh in on that page? I think it is high time we got rid of those images. Atleast I dont see any new evidence that they're not cpvios. Have you seen any? Please let me know. Thanks. Sarvagnya 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Luke2509

This user whom you blocked for disruptive sockpuppetry for three months on October 26, 2007 is back active again. Not saying he's done anything disruptive as of yet, but you may wish to review. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User immediately resumed violating WP:IUP and has been blocked for one year. --Yamla (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware; it's highly likely that User:86.140.29.24 is him as well. No violations as yet, but just so you know. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

I noticed you had the same format errors as I had on my userpage. I've fixed it for you. Acalamari 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Much appreciated! --Yamla (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Acalamari 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banana United

Is that a nonsense article? Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks that way, someone deleted it already. --Yamla (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion

As someone who had commented on the issue before, would you please weigh in on this discussion. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalize?

You sent me a message saying I was vandalizing the Scarlet Johansson page. All I did was correct the release date of her new album. Someone put it was being released on the 6th- she has publically said it's being released the 20'th. I make this correction and I get a message that I've been vandalizing. - January 31 2008, Samantha555

Please see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. --Yamla (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the exact reference link used to quote that statement I changed, "Update: Her label has pushed her album back until May 20." You can actually refer to it and see for yourself. So I plead, I was not doing anything wrong, just making the correction that the source itself has recently stated. -February 2 2008, Samantha555 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.207.252 (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweety

Cancergirl (talk · contribs) may be her latest sock. Ward3001 (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked, I see. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grawp

Why don't admins just block the IP address? I thought they did, but they're are still socks of him popping up. Why? --Alisyn^talk 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's an IP-hopping vandal with access to a huge range. I've blocked three /16 blocks already and it isn't slowing him down. --Yamla (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post new accounts at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp; Alison is making that CU priority one and is blocking any IPs used for a few months apiece. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm on my way to bed now, but I will keep that in mind. I had never seen this troll before, kind of annoying. --Yamla (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dealing with him for the past fortnight or so. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve some sort of medal. --Yamla (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intend to hard block these ranges? That's going to have some huge collateral damage. See unblock request from User talk:Apokryltaros. --B (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to vouch for User:Apokryltaros. This is an extremely valuable contributor whose artwork has been used to illustrate three of the featured articles on which I've worked. I understand there's a problematic vandal on the loose and that these are difficult situations, but I believe that unblocking Apokryltaros needs to become an urgent priority, lest we alienate a truly irreplaceable editor who is most certainly unrelated to whatever vandalism is at hand. --JayHenry (t) 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question that Apokryltaros is a good user ... the issue is whether there is a checkuser reason for hardblocking these ranges that we don't know about. --B (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that. I just want to make sure this isn't something that gets left until tomorrow and then forgotten for too long (it happens because we're humans, I'm not assigning any blame at all). Apokryltaros is one of only two or three editors on all of Wikipedia who is really proficient with Mammalian Paleontology, it wouldn't be acceptable collateral damage to lose him. And Yamla has already said he's going to bed for the night. --JayHenry (t) 06:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Null persp, chummers, I fixed the block to anon only. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. :( --Yamla (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: Thank you for fixing it.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway edit

Fine, if you want incorrect sources..then it's your call... Nytemyre (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:NOR. We have a source, you have been changing cited information so that it no longer matches the citation. This is not permitted. --Yamla (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question?

Regarding a bit of the lingo regarding sock puppets. When you say that a log is stale, what does that mean? Figured I would ask that way if I am reading through a thing about a user being a sockpuppet or something, I know whats being talked about. Thanks :) Whammies Were Here 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speculating here as I do not have checkuser access. Wikipedia does not keep access logs around forever. Once they are purged, a checkuser performed on an old account and a new account will not be able to show a conclusive match between the two. The logs are stale and have been purged. That is, they have been deleted so we no longer know what IP address the old account was operating from. --Yamla (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if thats close, then thanks :) Whammies Were Here 11:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hello Yamla, User:Popatali is uploading so many images that don't follow Wikipedia guidelines. Look at his/her contributions history. I keep reverting his/her edits but he/she doesn't seem to listen. Furthemore, can you please delete these images: Image:PriyankaChopra.jpg and Image:Kareena Kapoor.jpg since both these images were uploaded from the BollywoodBlog licence. Although they are considered as Wikimedia Commons images, other images from the Bollywood Blog site were Wikimedia Commons images too but they were eventually deleted. --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 02:59, 5 February 2008

I cannot delete those two images as they are on wikimedia commons instead of wikipedia-en. You'll have to track someone down on commons. :( --Yamla (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet

Hello. A user by the name of Ianjones1900 had been indef blocked from Wikipedia for repeatedly adding false info and copyright violations. It looks like he's back, this time with the usernames Ianjones600 and Ianjones457. Will you look into it? I also have suspicions about Ianjones, although he/she has only 5 edits and has been inactive for 18 months. Admc2006 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. --Yamla (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of sock puppets...I put a "bug" in Daniel Case's ear about Grant and what I believe is another sock of Grant Chuggle's. If you aren't too busy and get a sec, could you check it out too. I swear, that boy is just too easy to spot but I could be wrong. Thanks. IrishLass (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly was, thanks. Blocked. --Yamla (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. IrishLass (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

omar epps

I don't understand why you're accusing me of vandalism. All I did was add an image of omar epps to a page on omar epps. I assumed it was an ok image to use since it was already being used on another wikipedia page, I didn't upload it. If I was wrong in doing so, fine, but it was an honest mistake and I don't appreciate you accusing me of intentional wrongdoing. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the warning that you removed? The image was in blatant violation of WP:IUP and the warning specifically told you that such an image was inappropriate. --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblockabuse template

Hi Yamla - thanks for stepping on on that anon-IP page with the unblockabuse template. I didn't know about that and am very happy to find it! I can't believe it's a very-much-used template though -- surely there aren't that many editors that are quite that desperately bored? --Lquilter (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, new around here? ;-) Good faith editors sometimes don't bother to read the policies they have been violating, and so continue to post unblock requests. Griefers just want to waste our time and can't think of anything more entertaining to do. --Yamla (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a newly-minted admin. First vandal-blocks today and it was really interesting to see that editor spinning their wheels with dozens of edits to their own userpage! Thanks! --Lquilter (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! It's a fun place most of the time but you'll get the occasional death threat. Heck, I got one earlier today targeted at me personally and I see the unblock-en-l mailing list just got a generalised "go kill yourselves" message a few minutes ago. Woo. --Yamla (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not right?

I was about to decline the request for unblock for User:Whoisthisagain. However, this user has only used the unblock template once, which is hardly abuse of the template. Is your use of the page protection of the user talk page acceptable? If so, let me know for my own administrative education. Archtransit (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats such as the one by Whoisthisagain are sufficient grounds to protect a page. Generally, a user gets up to two unblock reviews per block but given that a blocked user has already shown himself or herself unwilling to behave, unblock abuse may result in an immediate protection of the page. They are still free to contect unblock-en-l .at. lists.wikimedia.org or a member of WP:ARBCOM for further unblock consideration. --Yamla (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me.Archtransit (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Not Something and Not Someone is a sock of Tgannon? I don't dispute the finding but you don't explain why on the user's talk page. Archtransit (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious from the contribution log. See for example the identical edits [3] and [4]. --Yamla (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on Ari Publican before you denied the unblock request. Please leave at least a one sentence explanation on why you believe the person is a sockpuppet. This would be very helpful. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even when I am not the blocking admin? --Yamla (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did determine that the person was an "obvious sockpuppet.". Unblock requests are done as an independent review, as cited by ArbCom. Therefore, it seems permissible for you to decide without consulting the blocking administrator. Since you have presumably done an independent review, if you explain your reasoning, others could use that information to catch future socks. Archtransit (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

omar epps

yes I read it, but as I said, it was an image that was already being used in another wikipedia article. If the image is a violation, shouldn't it have been removed from the other article? Maybe I misinterpreted the message, I'm not saying you were wrong for changing it back, but making a mistake about an image certainly isn't malicious. It just seems like giving me a "final warning" for vandalism over a mistake is kind of severe, considering I've never been warned about it before. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read WP:IUP. Fair-use images may not be used to depict living people. The warning message, which you removed, made this plain. --Yamla (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we're just not going to see eye to eye here, I didn't understand the warning message or the picture policy I guess. I really wasn't trying to do anything wrong, but I'll just have to be more careful in the future. I do not now, nor have I ever tried to vandalize a wikipedia page, but it seems your mind is already made up about what my intentions were. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the warning message from your talk page. --Yamla (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it and will be more careful about edits in the future.On Thermonuclear War (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that you will continue to be a productive editor. :) --Yamla (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lovely and talented Paulinho28

This guy just doesn't give up. He's still blanking talk pages both here and on his IP. Just left word at the intervention page, but I thought you ought to know as well. Thanks for blocking this guy. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking anonymous users

Why bother? A simple IP address change, and we can go on, saying whatever we want. 76.182.32.227 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also have range-blocks and can report you to your ISP if you continue attacking the Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, User:91.108.254.97 reports that he/she is collateral damage. Who is the user whose actions caused the range block on 91.108.192.0/18 and what articles did they edit? Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the block log for that range; the information there seems quite specific, Archtransit. Kuru ^talk 01:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you presented showed this block http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:91.108.230.171&oldid=189526699 of User:91.108.230.171. 91.108.230.171 is different from 91.108.254.97. Please explain. It doesn't make sense to me. Archtransit (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Many internet service providers assign IP addresses dynamically; that is, every time you reboot your modem, you will have a new IP. The IP addresses stay within a given range that are 'owned' by that service provider. This means that a very persistent vandal with a dynamic IP is unblockable, since he can simply grab another IP. A 'last resort' effort is to block the entire range, which is represented by the 91.108.192.0/18 number above (see here for how that nomenclature works). The addresses above are both in that range, and looking at the history of blocks in that range, the problem is severe and associated with checkuser problems; an unblock would be a very poor idea. Since range blocks are almost always 'soft' (i.e. they can still edit when they use an account), the user can contact the unblock mailing list to request an account be created for them. If you have any other questions about how this all works, please let me know! Kuru ^talk 01:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kuru. Couldn't have said it better myself. It's worth noting that this particular address range has had 14 blocks, including mine and not considering the unblocks since August of last year. It's clearly a big problem, one made worse by a promise to continue vandalising, otherwise I would not have blocked for six months. --Yamla (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:2fruition

This [5] might confuse the user even more as he had nothing to do with the I.P. and the original blocking admin reverted the block saying it was an accident. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the standard unblock-auto template. It's what generally gets used in these situations. You are free to follow up with the user and explain in more detail, or to suggest changes to the unblock-auto template itself. Thanks for your work already with this user. :) --Yamla (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Monica Belucci

Calm down, dude. I just added her year of birth which can be checked in the italian (and other) version of the article. There's no need to make such big a deal out of it you knowMitch1981 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please see WP:RS. --Yamla (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand italian, just check this documentary out [6]. It was made by italian channel TG5 and you can see a guy who was her teacher in kindergarten ... in 1968 (so she was definitely not born in 1968), besides the doc clearly states that she was born on the 30th of september 1964.Mitch1981 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not speak Italian, unfortunately. However, if the documentary does indeed state she was born in 1964 and if you believe this meets WP:RS, as seems likely, please feel free to readd the information, citing it as per WP:CITE. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine covers on Vogue (magazine) article

What do you have against the magazine covers on the Vogue's article? I can't uderstand your behavior! There's a lot of time that these pictures with Kate Moss and Gisele Bündchen were there! Now are you wanting to take off? What's your objective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikipedista (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IUP and the image's license. We cannot use them to depict the people generally or the magazine generally. --Yamla (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone far enough...

I'm fed up with your death threats to me. I am reporting them to the FBI and you are going to get it!

@@ Line 286: / Line 286: @@
 What's your objective?  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mywikipedista|Mywikipedista]] ([[User talk:Mywikipedista|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mywikipedista|contribs]]) 02:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :See [[WP:IUP]] and the image's license.  We cannot use them to depict the people generally or the magazine generally.  --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla#top|talk]]) 15:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
+== This has gone far enough... ==
+I'm fed up with your death threats to me. I am reporting them to the FBI and you are going to get it!