User talk:Yamla

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).

Wrong

My edit to Tool's page was not Vandalism. Volto! is a live act in Los Angeles. Danny Carrey is their drummer. Please don't try to edit things that you obviously know nothing about.

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)

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]

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Congratulations on hitting 60,000 edits! Here's to many more! cf38^talk 18:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kevin.Kinchen at WP:ANI

Don't know anything about this guy, there's a nice rant from him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kevin.Kinchen from an IP address. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Krishnan

Hi Yamla. The last couple of years, we've both pulled lots of unfree and bogus-free images from Trisha Krishnan. The current GFDL-self one seems fishy to me too, but you seem to have given it the benefit of the doubt. It's unusual for someone to do this just a few days before contributing their own photo. Also, the photo and ones that're clearly from the same shoot are sprinkled across the web [1] [2] [3] [4], though none of them have any metadata that contradicts the uploader. Since the uploader doesn't seem to be around anymore, I wanted to check with you to see if you saw anything I'm not. ×Meegs 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fishy to me, as well. I suggest you nominate it for deletion. I've searched repeatedly for this particular image and have been unable to find it on the web. --Yamla (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. 60000 edits, wow. ×Meegs 18:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life from the Inside Deletion (Continued)

Sorry, I've been busy and have not been able to follow up with the discussion. You said "Almost all of the content was taken from the website without any evidence that the website content was released under the GFDL." This is entirely untrue. Once a single paragraph was changed, nothing on the page was copied from the website, which means there is no need for a GFDL release. "The article was tagged for approximately two weeks and deleted as per CSD G12." It was not tagged for two weeks. I agree that notability is not trivial, and I would rather that have been the reason for tagging the article for deletion. But making up copyright violations that do not exist is improper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lekowicz (talk • contribs) 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged with a violation notice on 2007-11-27T13:40:32 (times are probably in my time zone). It was deleted on 2007-12-10T23:28:45. That's less than fifteen hours short of two weeks. You say that it is entirely untrue that the content was taken from the website without any evidence that the website content was released under the GFDL. Can you please point me to where the website indicates that the content is licensed under the GFDL? Note also that the article contained the following, just as the first example I looked at: "Mason's plan to avoid work and share a sleeping bag with Jennifer goes awry when Kate finds religion, Ashleigh sports a bathrobe, Jennifer waits for poop and Guy embarks on a terrifying journey to have more kissable skin." The website contained the following: "Mason's plan to avoid work and share a sleeping bag with Jennifer goes awry when Kate finds religion, Ashleigh sports a bathrobe, Jennifer waits for poop and Guy embarks on a terrifying journey to have more kissable skin." I'm not sure what basis you have for stating the content is not copied directly. --Yamla (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks - :) Dav nel 03 20:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]