User talk:Yamla

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Yamla/Archive6. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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)

Archive

• Archive 1 (from Dec 16, 2004 - April 17, 2006)
• Archive 2 (from April 17, 2006 to May 31, 2006)
• Archive 3 (from June 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006)
• Archive 4 (from July 1, 2006 to August 14, 2006)
• Archive 5 (from August 14, 2006 to September 2, 2006)
• Archive 6 (from September 3, 2006 to some future date

...

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

Abi Titmuss

Yamla, I'm Anna, one of Abi's assistants - totallytitmuss.com IS her official website. Why do you keep removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.177.232 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, my understanding was that this web site was a well-established fake. However, taking a look at the site, it seems reasonable to believe that it is the real official site. In that case, you have my apologies. I was acting in good faith to ensure that the page was only linking to official sites. While I have you on the line, is there any way we could get a freely-licensed (different from no-cost) image to use to depict Titmuss? I think this would improve the article. I can explain the requirements if you think you may be able to help out. --Yamla 15:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. I still have more images to upload, as I've got a whole folder full of free use images. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant

Mate, He is at it again. [1] Is it possible to for some sort of block with his history [2] DXRAW 02:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

After being rebuffed for his false claims of "vandilism" (sic), this user is not only claiming that I am "blanking" articles by removing non-notable content, he is also proposing Rollen Stewart for deletion (only after I edited it, of course), despite his own admission that the subject of the article has nearly 200k Google hits. This is a clear example of Wikistalking, and I have grown tired of this user's harassment. - Chadbryant 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to take any direct action on this one. I think what's happening here is that DXDRAW is no longer assuming good faith. This is happening because Chadbryant has had a number of run-ins before, being blocked multiple times, and is blanking warnings from DXDRAW. Accusations of wikistalking don't help matters; leaving template warnings is not considered wikistalking. What I'd like to see is for both of you to ignore each other completely for 24 hours. Then for the next twenty four hours, the following: No template warnings from DXDRAW to Chadbryant but instead, if DXDRAW wants to leave a warning, leave a hand-written warning explaining what was done incorrectly and what you'd do differently in order not to get a warning. And Chadbryant to leave the message in tact, not blanked, and to assume that DXDRAW is correct and try to understand what he is saying. After that 24 hours are up, you are free to go about your business. What I hope this accomplishes is to sort of hit the reset button here. I'm not investigating further at this point because really, the best way to resolve conflicts like this is not to determine who is right, it's to step back a bit. I know in my experience, I've sometimes had to step back for a bit even though I knew I was in the right, and I've found it really does help matters. If you two would be willing to try something like this, please respond on my talk page indicating your agreement. This isn't something I'm going to enforce so please feel free to tell me to bug off. But I think it is worth a shot. --Yamla 03:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

DXRAW needs to be informed that non-notable (and obscure) pro wrestling references are not encyclopedic, and that he can not intentionally mislead others by labeling their removal as "vandalism" or "blanking". - Chadbryant 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, I don't care about that. Only whether you are willing to follow the suggestion I outlined above. --Yamla 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider this harassment? [3] DXRAW 07:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Pete.k

Hi - Curious why in Revision as of 15:10, 23 October 2006 of the Saturday Night Live page, you deleted the external link to SNL Database. It's a valid link to a useful page about the cast and writers of the show. Pete.k 07:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Lalalulu

The above user was previously banned by you for one week. Though they have taken some months off, they are back and vandalizing again. It's just one article and one image thus far. I just thought I'd call your attention to them since they may need to be banned again. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a new username.

ok, 44.5 hours are already over. Get ready, Yamla I have changed my username and please delete my old one [4], thanks. Sergeant Gerzi 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue?

The issue is resolved thank you very much :) MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find where you showed that it would be impossible to create a free image of this living person. Can you please point this out to me? --Yamla 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything is impossible until done. talk page of KB. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not a sufficient grounds to claim an image is not replaceable and is not grounds for removing the replaceable tag. Please reread WP:FUC. --Yamla 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken."

• "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious."

Read and heed. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence that a free equivalent could be created. Given that this is a living person, a free equivalent could easily be created. An image of a living person only meets the first criteria if the person is in hiding or has changed markedly from an earlier picture and it is important to show the person as they appeared in the earlier picture. Such is not the case here. --Yamla 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've provided plenty of evidence to you before.. the only way you could "easily" get a picture is if you where to "stalk" the person.. that is not easy and is also agaisnt the law. Again.. read and heed to what i ahve bolded. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh come off it. This person is regularly in the public eye. Wikipedia is not permitted to use copyrighted non-free images solely to depict living people unless there are special circumstances. This was decided by Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia Foundation. Claiming that you have to stalk a living person who is in the public eye to get a freely licensed photograph is simply false and will not fly here. Please refrain from removing this tag from any further images unless you provide reason to believe the person is dead or in hiding, or that otherwise it is not possible to create a free image of that person. --Yamla 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide eveidence otherwise? I've provided plenty showing its not so easy. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference if it is easy or not. The criteria is whether or not it is possible. Given that a freely-licensed image of Kristen Bell "could be created that would adequately give the same information", it fails WP:FUC. --Yamla 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the first criteria specifically states, "if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." Given that Kristen Bell is still alive, any images not freely licensed explicitly and clearly fail WP:FUC. --Yamla 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Madhavan article.

Greetings Yamla. The reason I am writing to you is to notify you regarding film articles User:Thamizhan has created regarding the actor Madhavan. I've searched and searched the whole net but I've yet to find a single article which mentions these films. Also, I am an avid followers of websites regarding Hindi language films and Tamil language films and I have not seen an article on these websites which gives mention to these films. Examples of these articles are : Yaaravan Nalam, Hello Zindagi, Aaval and Ivan Yaaro. Also note that all these articles provide the same trivia, that is that these so called "films" are being shot at a budget of Rs. 30 million and these articles have been created on the same day. These articles have also been created in a mere gap of 13 minutes, which is bound to raise suspicion.

Also, the entire article regarding the actor in question, Madhavan, has not been written in a neutral point of view. All the images on this article shouldn't even be there as they infringe on copyrights. I implore you to look into this matter. Thank you. -- Visual planet 17:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

I assumed that since it was used at http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Seven_of_Nine, it was legitimate fair use. Mnpeter 20:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. Wikipedia is much stricter on fair-use images than most other sites. See WP:FUC for some more information. --Yamla 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tag

Hey, sorry I removed it. I honestly don't remember tagging it fair use and don't know why I did... I thought there weren't problems with uploading album covers...? Camcallister 00:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We've recently seen that many album covers are used in violation of the license solely to depict the artist. The license itself requires a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale anyway, so the simplest thing is just to enforce that. --Yamla 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I did it right, could you let me know if I did or didn't? Also, if this is ok, would it then be alright to use it in his music artist template? Camcallister 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. As to the template, the problem is that each article that uses the image needs to have a fair-use rationale. You couldn't just justify it for the template, for example. It's unlikely that it would be fair-use for much more; you are permitted to use it solely to illustrate the audio recording, but not for any other uses. --Yamla 01:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Ghilli Image

I uploaded the Ghilli image because it was a promotional image by the movie makers, and no other suitable image was availble in the public domain. If you see the images files of many other movies, only this rationality is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balajiviswanathan (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure which image you are talking about, but this rationale is unsuitable for an image of a living person. It fails WP:FUC. --Yamla 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about the image on Ghilli, it is tagged with a no-rationale tag because you have not yet provided a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale justifying its use on that page. --Yamla 01:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Before uploading, I researched a few other images in Wikipedia and came to a conclusion that it constitutes fair use due to the three rules stated in a much older Wikipedia page in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:007Moore.jpg

Rationale for "fair use" :

No free or public domain images have been located for this film.

Image is a promotional photograph, intended for wide distribution as publicity for the film.

Image is of considerably lower resolution than the original, and is used for informational purposes only. Its use does not detract from either the original photograph, or from the film itself.

Those aren't the rules. The rules are at WP:FU. However, you have now added the missing fair-use rationale and so I have removed my objection. Thanks. --Yamla 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the Ghilli image is a valid one, why not this be used in Trisha's page? If we get a better image or a licenced once, then we can remove this image. The rationale: Pages relating to media persons, should not be left without image as it might reduce the popularity of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balajiviswanathan (talk • contribs)

Please reread WP:FUC. We are only permitted to use a freely-licensed image to depict a person. In the article on Ghilli, you are using it to depict a movie. On Trisha's page, you are using it to depict a living person. Two different uses, one of which violates WP:FUC. It has been decided that the choice is between freely-licensed images (essentially, non-copyrighted images, though this is not quite true) or nothing when it comes to depicting a living person, not between a freely-licensed image or a fair-use image. --Yamla 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I read and re-read the FUC, but couldnt find a clause that would prevent a promotional material from being used for a living person's article. By your reasoning, there wont be any actor page with a photo and this is not what Wikipedian users want. I browsed through dozens of actor images in Wikipedia and they are all promotional images (for eg: Nagesh pic from Server Sundaram). I dont see how these promotional images constitute a violation of Wikipedia's principles, as the picture's original purpose is for extensive spread among the public. By your actions, the only thing that was done was to make the pages totally dull and unattractive. -- Balaji

"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information[...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." If the person is still alive, a freely licensed image could be created. That is, a photograph could be taken of them and released under a free license. Please note that many articles on living people incorrectly use replaceable images. Please tag these images with {{subst:rfu}}. We are working hard to fix these violations but it's going to take time. For example, I monitor about 6000 pages but this is not even one percent of the Wikipedia. --Yamla 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganguly family (films): Copyvio Gallery

Boss, these pix were already uploaded on WP. What made them copyvio? Please, advise. - Aditya Kabir 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - please, answer to my talk page.

Please, answer. I am afraid of what you might do to me if I revert your last edit to the article. But, since the images on the gallery have a wide variety of licensing, I think you could remove some of the images, and let alone the gallery itself. Instead you used a blanket edit. Besides, I wonder - if there's something like a "copyvio gallery"? I have heard only of copyvio images. Please, answer. Your not answering has already been reaseon for much heartache for me (check foryour silence and my inquiry and your silence and my heartache if you want). Please. Or, do I revert your edit in good faith? - Aditya Kabir 18:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - please, answer to my talk page.

Every image I checked (and I'll freely admit that I did not check every single one) was licensed as a film screenshot. That means that the image may be used "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents", not solely to identify and depict a person. The gallery was not even identifying the films, let alone using the images to provide critical commentary on them. It was solely a gallery of people, thus was violating the image licenses. If you haven't been able to follow what I've just said, please let me know. --Yamla 18:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged. But, I think there are many screenshots on the articles in Category:Indian actors used beyond the scope of "identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". That led me to believe that those can be used to "identify and depict a person". Sorry for the misunderstanding. But, a more stringent standard may be required to keep keep copyright violation (as well as misunderstanding) at bay. - Aditya Kabir 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - please, answer to my talk page, but please do not quote me whole.

Absolutely. It seems to be a bigger problem amongst the articles on Indian actors compared to Hollywood actors and I'm not sure why, though it's a big problem throughout the Wikipedia. Thank you for your calm inquiry on my discussion page. --Yamla 18:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, dear. I think people like you and the other defenders of WP makes it even more worthwhile to be a part of the community. - Aditya Kabir 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive-nav template

The Archive 2 link is not working on User talk:Aditya Kabir/Archive 1, but the Archive 1 link is working fine on User talk:Aditya Kabir/Archive 2. Very srange. - Aditya Kabir 18:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - please, answer to my talk page

Okay, I've fixed it (I think). Yell and scream if you think it still isn't working properly. --Yamla 19:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanx again. Just one more request, would you check the Jazmin entry once more? Check validity of images uploaded (this is a request I made earlier), and besides, please, tell me what I can do to get a better copywriter to edit the article? - Aditya Kabir 19:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC) -- please, answer to my talk page, and thanx for bearing with my typos galore.

I've got serious problems!

Please give me your e-mail address, I've got serious problems. I need to contact you privatly. XXMad99ManXx 19:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You can contact me by going to my user page or user talk page and hitting "E-mail this user" on the toolbox on the left side of your browser. --Yamla 19:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield image

I just got on to help you with these images, so that at least pictures I uploaded would not become bothers. But, it seems you have again quickly deleted one more of the pictures I uploaded without even nofitying me. What went wrong? - Aditya Kabir 20:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - -- please, answer to my talk page

I thought I did notify you about that one! Sorry. The problem is, fair-use images must be used in an article. If they aren't used in any article, they are to be deleted. That one wasn't. Please feel free to reupload it, though, if it is going to be used in an article. --Yamla 20:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hey, since your good on talk pages I have a question. If a user has comments on his/her talk page and they decide to delete them because their conversations are "finished", does that give them the right to delete all the comments? Or if a user who left comments previously, has now been blocked, can they delete those comments? I thought you could only archive comments not delete them, because just deleting them is page blanking. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy is open to interpretation. What I believe is reasonable is to archive or delete old comments that have been dealt with. I think it is perfectly reasonable to archive or remove comments that are more than a month old. And I don't complain if people archive or delete comments that are only a week old, if they've been dealt with. Really, what it comes down to is this... your discussion page is a record of your interactions with other people. If you are constantly calling people names, for example, and are being warned about this, it is unreasonable to blank those warnings. If you continue your behaviour, others may think you have not yet had any warnings. If you leave the warnings in place, people will see what's going on. On the other hand, if you had a bad day and were warned about this but then refrained from any more of that behaviour, there's no good reason for the warnings to remain on your page after, say, a month. Personally, I never delete anything apart from personal attacks (and often, not even those), but it is up to each person. Personal attacks (see WP:NPA... standard template warnings are not personal attacks) are blankable immediately if you wish. This response is meant to give you a "spirit of the issue" rather than the "letter of the law". If you still aren't sure what's reasonable and what is not, please ask for a clarification. --Yamla 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm cool now. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My Talk Page

The edit summary for my removal of a comment left by "CraigMonroe" mentioned absolutely nothing about "vandalism" (see [5]). This user account is relatively new, yet is well-versed in Wikipedia, which combined with the account's claims and stance on editing issues is a clear sign that it is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet being employed by the camp of wrestling marks who have been Wikistalking me for much of the last two months. Please take the time to read what I have actually written before you pass judgement. - Chadbryant 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about this edit with the edit summary, "r/v". --Yamla 02:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always understood "r/v" to signify a "revert" - if I revert for vandalism, I put "r/v - vandalism" as my edit summary. - Chadbryant 02:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then I apologise for my comments. "rv" normally signifies "revert", while "r/v" tends to signify "revert/vandalism". Similarly, "rvv" is revert-vandalism. If you could switch to using "rv" instead of "r/v", or just typing in "revert", it would help prevent confusion. --Yamla 02:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image: Kate Austen Lost.jpg

I have the Promotional image tags in there, is that what you meant? I don't understand what other tags I'm supposed to add on it. Thanks. (Bishusui 04:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

WP:FUC states that you cannot use a non-free image (such as this) to depict a living person, as you were doing. Additionally, we need the copyright holder identified and a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale for each use of the image on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 04:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't contact you privately

I cannot contact you privately because there is a problem, you see. Here, I gave you a link [6] and please give me advices. There has to be another way to contact you privately. XXMad99ManXx 10:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. You can email me through the link you gave above. Does this not work for you? --Yamla 15:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

I saw you reverted an edit to my talk page. Why can't I remove it? I didn't think it was a warning. Is there a rule against removing anything from a talk page? Thanks. CraigMonroe 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That counted as a warning for 3RR.  :) I think you are outside of the scope of a 3RR violation now, so please feel free to remove it. The best way to indicate that you are doing so in good faith is to remove it and in your edit summary, say something like, "Removing 3RR warning, thanks". I'm not trying to imply that you aren't editing in good faith, though. --Yamla 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. CraigMonroe 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think I've found a solution

Well, thanks for your comprehension. If there are any further problems, I'll log myself in again. XXMad99ManXx 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Uploading images

Do you think you can tell me how to upload images such as album covers, photos, etc.? I read the instructions and they are confusing. Thanks. Admc2006 19:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to know how to upload an image or do you want to know what information must be included with any uploaded image? Have you read WP:FUC? --Yamla 19:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Entry Deletion

Why did you delete the Just Another Rich Kid page? I'm a New York artist who should be included on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwcourtney (talk • contribs)

The entry was blatant advertising. Please see WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and WP:NOTABLE. There was no evidence this company was notable as per WP:COMPANY and given that it had previously been speedily deleted and that it was blatant advertising, I deleted the article again. --Yamla 01:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

I was wondering, as you seem to be experienced at Wiking. How is someone blocked. There is a specific page that is close to me that is being constanly vandalised, and I feel certain people should not be able to access th page. Can you help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longbranch (talk • contribs)

Only administrators can block people from editing. Please see WP:VAND which contains links to places you can report ongoing vandalism. Thanks! --Yamla 01:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to edit at my hom because it says my ip adress is blocked, please reply back soon. DustinWayne

You need to request an unblock. On your talk page, add {{unblock-auto|Reason for unblock here}}. --Yamla 04:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks DustinWayne

Please explain

How is this page not advertising? I dont see the distinction here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Words — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwcourtney (talk • contribs)

Please don't compare one page to another. There are many pages on the Wikipedia that violate policy. In this page, though, you don't see any comments such as, "Ju$t Another Rich Kid, is more than a clothing concept it is a hot bed of ideas that take design led products full circle into the worlk of art and back again." Nor, "bringing Ju$t Another Rich Kid's culture statement to the masses." Additionally, you need to justify the page under WP:COMPANY. If you can do so, we would be more than happy to undelete it. --Yamla 04:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I can verify personally that Matt Slick and the organization wants the article completely deleted if links to the libelous AARM website forums must remain, as the edit wars with that group will continue as long as AARM editors, atheists/liberals hyperbole, urbie and others involved with wikipedia CARM articles. Their anti-CARM discussion boards are libelous and a "hate" propaganda site, with the group banning together to using wikipedia as their weapon to attack CARM by advertising here. Just one link of many in evidence is enclosed of proof to their agenda and encouraging edits here of their members. I am fully aware of the present position of the CARM board of director members and in contact with Matt Slick personally, am aware of their efforts to have AARM links removed from the article or the articles deleted completely ss their only request with absolutely no threats to wikipedia of legal action to wikipedia whatsoever. Requests in email to wikipedia as approved by Matt Slick and his Vice Presidents to request the deletions since they did not know who or where to ask to have the articles removed and requested help to get their name and organization off of this website. Here is again the evidence to the Urbie, hyperbole and AARM group using the wiki article as "sockpuppets" even more then a year and half ago, continuing still to their editing and requesting edits by other users as others have stated in discussion, the proof in the link to their editing as a group here. It is posted openly on their forums to their agenda here and purpose to seeking others to writing on the CARM article. Just read it please. http://aarm.mywowbb.com/forum6/1981.html And for the record, CARM is not pursuing legal action against wikipedia at all. You misunderstood the words written in the post in the discussion, the legal comments were more directed to hyperbole. If you read the person's post again, she was responding using the same play on words hyperbole had just used to her to his saying it is not a "threat but a fact". She used his own words back to him personally and the legal issues are with more with AARM and hyperbole's editor group that libel the CARM administrators. Actually it is the AARM users that have threatened CARM with legal actions several times and the same have edited the CARM article in the past. It is the AARM website users that are libelous requiring eventual legal action because of their constant libel and slander and as the link will show you the slander involved and efforts to ban together here to edit.

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.

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)

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)

I have a serious request

I wasn't kidding by changing my username because my old username is the name of an existing character and my current username "Sergeant Gerzi" is a created username. As you remember, I edited pages with my old username and now my old username is saved in the history-image on every page I edited. Please, I want you to clear or edit my old username from all histories, I edited. Please. I don't want to see my old name anymore and I don't want to abuse my old username. I know it is a difficult way to change my old username in the histories but I want you to do so, PLEASE. Or it would be better to delete my old username in the history-image, but please I don't want to see my old username anymore. Please make an excrement and remove or edit my old usernames in the history-iamages. There has to be another way to edit or remove my old Lieutenant D.G. username. Please cancel my nightmare. Thanks. Sergeant Gerzi 10:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot do this. However, Wikipedia:Changing username seems to indicate that this is possible to do, at least to some extent. I don't know if this will also update all of the signatures; I think it does not and that this is not possible except by having you do it by hand, but the page will have all the details you need. Again, you need people with more abilities than a standard administrator so I'm not going to be able to help you out on this; I don't have the necessary access. --Yamla 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)