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 8. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Help mold a newbie

I appreciate your recent advice. I am new to Wiki and am trying to learn all I can because I want to contribute in the future. I added the citation to the Jennifer Connely page because I felt that the statement that the Hulk was a box-office disappointment needed sourcing. I am trying to learn more and more about Wiki policies, so can you please direct me to a Wiki policy page with more information about the types of statements that need sourcing and to a policy that would exclude the source I cited. I can assure you that I have no connection to the site I linked to, I just thought it explained the opinion the statement expressed. I would also be interested in knowing why you would assume I have a connection to that site because if I choose to contribute something in the future, I don't want to be labeled a spammer. Thanks again for your help. BHFeller 16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll add the 'welcome' template to the top of your talk page if it isn't there already. As to the specific questions you have raised here, I urge you to check out WP:V, WP:CITE, and in particular, WP:RS. WP:SPAM and WP:EL are worth reading as well but don't specifically apply here if I remember correctly. If you have any questions after reading these, please let me know. And once again, welcome to the Wikipedia! --Yamla 18:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. That really helps. I read all the stuff you told me too and it clears up a lot of my q's. Hopefully I'll make it around the learning curve soon. Maybe as a rule of thumb for myself, should I only add potential sources to the discussion pages of topics? Or can I feel confident adding stuff right to pages knowing that I may get reverted or reprimanded? I'm just trying to get a sense of where the boundary of getting blocked lies. I am so pumped right now to have found out about Wikipedia and found out how fun it is to edit stuff and contribute and I would be very saddened if I was cut off from it by my own ignorance. I'm basically home bound with health issues (except for the occasional Nascar trip with my dad -check out a few of my picture contributions) and was getting so sick of surfing useless, spammy crap online. That all changed a few days ago when I read an article about Wikipedia. I feel now that I can contribute something meaningful to the world.

Well, you can never go wrong adding the sources to the discussion page first. :) But you should be safe adding them to the main article, particularly if you say in the edit summary to please remove source if not reliable. In general, people get a number of warnings before being blocked and we try not to block people who are legitimately trying hard to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Even if you are blocked, the first block is almost always for 24 hours, after which you are once again welcome to contribute. Heck, some of our best contributors violated a number of policies and were blocked several times and then turned things around. But in reality, we try only to block editors who are wilfully disregarding Wikipedia policies. --Yamla 15:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind and if you have the time, I would really appreciate if you could explain something to me just to help me in the future. After reading through the policies I want to make sure I understand why I have been reprimanded by you for my contribution to the Jennifer Connelly page. I think I read in one of the policy pages that you told me to read that online pages which are peer reviewed can be considered reliable when other experts are the editors (or something to that effect -I could be misquoting the policy). I can't remember the source I cited off the top of my head, but I think it was a movie industry site that had a lot of experts listed as contributors. What was it about that citation that caused you to label it as spam and unreliable in under 30 seconds. I am not trying to be critical of you at all, I'm just trying to learn. After reading the Jennifer Connelly article and being suprised that The Hulk was considered a box-office disappointment (I liked The Hulk), I searched for a good source for an hour to back that statement up. I'm just trying to figure out how I could have been so wrong with the source I cited that I almost got kicked off Wikipedia. Is there some type of an automated newcomer skepticism that I should be prepared for, or was my source just so bad that it set off some type of alarm at your house or something. I was stunned with how quick I was smacked. That's great that it happens so fast, but I just want to avoid it in the future cause it stung. Maybe I just need to develop thicker skin cause reprimands, accusations and threats of being kicked out happen all the time here at Wiki. I just don't want to spend a ton more time researching how to be a good editor if I am already on thin ice of getting thrown out. Can you speak to this issue for me if I'm making any sense? I'm just trying to get a sense of the culture here to see if I even want to contribute any more stuff. Thanks in advance for any help.BHFeller 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly weren't almost blocked, you got only the first-level warning. Even if you had totally ignored that, you'd still get another warning or three before being blocked. As to the specific citation that you added (this one, I believe), I rejected it because it is clearly a blog. The article makes unverifiable claims. Now, if this was the New York Times, we'd know that even though the sources weren't spelled out, the reporter relied on two independent sources or whatever. But it's a blog. It's also inherently point-of-view. Now, WP:RS gives information on how to determine what is a good source and what is not. But in general, blogs are not. An exception would be made, though, if, say, Bill Gates had a blog and made a claim. In that case, the blog may serve to cite that Gates's claim, though not necessarily on the accuracy of the claim itself. Please let me know if you have any more questions or if I missed one of your questions. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. --Yamla 15:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! The GFDL stuff will take a little digesting so maybe I will hold off on submitting new pics I took until I understand it better. Thanks again. BHFeller 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U and ur fair use rationale on pictures i contribute

Not to be offesive or threathening but honestly look at all the images in Professional wrestling aerial techniques or even Professional wrestling attacks none of them whatsover have any raionale they have one Fair use copyright tag and thats it .So why in hells name are you coming after me only? It just makes writing up rationales useless and i just feel frustrated and just want to leave wiki forever because of this injustice so in the end your warnings on my user page are like a threath and a violation of something you are trying to inforce WP:NPA --Wally787 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not coming after you only. Please check out my contribution log. Warning users about violations of policy is not considered to be a personal attack. All copyrighted images must have the source (including copyright holder), an accurate license, and a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale. Your images are missing this information --Yamla 17:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use

After you didn't respond to my last message, I've continued to upload in a manner which I feel precendent clearly shows is legitimate. I see again, despite the lack of response to the previous message, you've continue to monitor and attack my uploads. You're vilanizing me on Wikipedia and I would appreciate justification. Sean Hayford O'Leary 02:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly been active since I posted this message, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to have expected a response by now. Now I feel made a legitimate argument defending my uploads, and I'm only asking that you back up your behavior. Thank you. Sean Hayford O'Leary 03:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After you abruptly ended our last discussion on the legitimacy of my logo uploads, I see you've now gone after more recent uploads on the accusation that I'm still violating fair use policies.

You'll find the precedent is clear. On many popular articles, you'll find logos with the same or less source information provided:

And many, many more. Here's my issue:

Our last conversation never received an affirmative response from you. This lead me to the reasonable belief that you had not opposed my final arguments.
Logos, unlike other fair use images, are more comfortably nestled in fair use as they are blatently representative of the organization or product.
There is a clear precedent (listed above) of logos -- even in popular articles -- being used with limited source information. This is legitimate because, again, the logo is clearly representative of the content of the article and used by the organization or product to promote itself. Unlike other fair use images, it has no risk of damaging the organization.

Sean Hayford O'Leary 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the long time since you wrote these comments. the first image you mentioned above was deleted due to violating WP:FUC. Of the remainder, Image:DaimlerChrysler.png and Image:Time Warner.svg were uploaded before the fair-use rationales were required. The rest have now been marked as missing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationales and if these are not provided, will be deleted in seven days. ALL fair-use images require a detailed fair-use rationale justifying their use in the particular Wikipedia articles. This is specifically mentioned in the license text. Additionally, this is part of WP:FUC, our fair-use criteria, and is explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. Obviously, this is not required for freely-licensed images. And generally, most logos can get away with much less detailed a rationale then, say, a promotional photograph could. But still, they are required under Wikipedia policies. In general, using other articles or images on the Wikipedia is a natural but not a particularly effective means of arguing. I'm not accusing you of anything by that statement; my point is simply that a lot of Wikipedia articles violate policy. This is grounds for correcting the infractions, not for doing the same on other articles. Of course, this is countered by the fact that Wikipedia has a lot of policies and so it is entirely natural to do on one article what others do on another. --Yamla 03:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Could you tell me if this image is correctly sourced, Image:The Runners.jpg --Darkneonflame 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also this image, Image:Famous logo.jpg. Just delete them if they arent correctly sourced. --Darkneonflame 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are sourced but are not provided with any rationale justifying their use on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 17:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image

you can just delete this image Image:Famous logo.jpg, unless you could tell me what it needs. Sry for the inconvinence.

Image

Your welcome! :) Jtervin 21:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image:Furtado02.jpg

Hey there, I was told to have a fair use rational for this image, but i didn't actually upload this image into Wikipedia. I clicked on this picture a long time ago when i didn't know how things worked, and randomly clicked a button and my user name appeared right next to the edit...so what should i be doing? should i just leave it alone or let someone else edit it..thanks Ô 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd just leave it alone if I was you. It'll be deleted automatically in a few days. Thanks! --Yamla 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JonBenet

Hi Yamla, You're really not giving me an explanation of how the license is being violated. You keep complaining that there isn't a detailed fair use explanation -- I elaborated last night and gave what I believe to be ample evidence that the picture is eligible for fair use, and at the same tiem you are not giving a clear or detailed explanation of why you keep removing it. Please advise.

---Mellowaim10 17:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The license states that the image may be used "to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question, with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above". The publication name is not visible in the image itself, nor is it written in the image description. The image is not being used to illustrate the publication of the magazine or newspaper but rather, to identify Ramsey. We may not use the image under this license to depict Ramsey but only in accordance with the license itself to illustrate the particular newspaper or magazine article. --Yamla 22:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Block

This moron vandalized the Rolling Stones page. Please block him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75pickup (talk • contribs)

Advertisments accusation

You have Recently sent me a PM ascribing that I have added advertisments to the page of sombody called Evangeline Lilly ( a lady whom I have neither heard or visited the page of)

Please Do Not PM me again with such non-sense accusational rubbish again.

-TDK1987

(unless it was some kind of joke then I don't realy care; I would have thought there is more things to life then randomly accusing people) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.169.208 (talk • contribs)

Please see the message at the bottom of your discussion page. Someone from that IP address clearly violated WP:EL: here. If you don't want to get confused about messages, please ensure you log in as your discussion page indicates. --Yamla 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image deletion

WRT to this out of respect to other editors, please explain at the talk page how you arrived to the conclusion that the dispute is not valid. TIA, --Irpen 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation was given as to why a free replacement could not be created. You provided a rationale that tried to claim this could not be replaced except by a professional photographer but that is insufficient grounds for a dispute. The subject of the photograph is still around so by the first fair-use criteria, a replacement could be created. Admittedly, it may not look as good but this is irrelevant. If the entertainer is unhappy with a free image, they are certainly free to provide a replacement freely-licensed image themselves. Then you brought up the issue of whether it would be reasonable to create a free replacement, again not a criteria under WP:FUC. --Yamla 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please read the talk page and explain your position wrt to other editor's points there. TIA, --Irpen 23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page has been deleted as per speedy G8. None of the disputes raised had validity as per the fair-use criteria policy. --Yamla 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Read talk again. Also, even if you disagree we oviously have a good faith disagreement here which is impossible to discuss since you single-handedly deleted thew discussion page. You owe it to users who disagreed with the image's being disputed to treat their arguments with respect and respond to them rather than delete the whole page. --Irpen 00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement is, I'm sure, in good faith but as an administrator, it is my responsibility to enforce the policy. And I did so. The problem with the objections raised (actually, that the objections were not sufficient grounds for a dispute) was clearly explained by Quadell and by Postdlf. Your objections were with the policy itself rather than to do with this particular image. You believe, for example, that the fair-use criteria should allow for fair-use images if they are of a higher quality than likely freely-licensed replacements, but this is not what Wikipedia policy allows for. The image violates WP:FUC and has been deleted accordingly. If you disagree with the policy, please suggest a wording change though I'll note that several such have failed to garner consensus in recent weeks. --Yamla 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is not clear-cut and is subject to interpretation. You owe an explanation not just to myself but to all users who opined at the talk page. You failed to provide any and dismissed others' argument by deleting the talk page where the arguments where placed along with the image. I request you restore it until the issue of policy interpretation is resolved between users who discuss it. Again, this is not only about the policy as I explained at the article's talk. --Irpen 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly straight-forward. The subject of the photo still exists, therefore Wikipedia assumes the image is replaceable. Replaceable images are deleted after two days (or seven, for older images). No evidence was given that the person was dead or in hiding or that there was any other reason to believe the image was not replaceable. It was deleted according to process. I have nothing further to say on the matter. --Yamla 02:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?

If you read the whole description page on Image:Fergalicious cd.jpg you can clearly see the rationale for fair use, its right there, Im not sure what more your looking for, if you look at all the other CD covers used on Fergie (singer) they all use simuliar rational and those images are fine, whats the difference? Aspensti 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have specifically pointed out, WP:FUC requires that the fair-use rationale specifically list which article it is for. The fair-use rationale for that image does not. If you find other images which also fail WP:FUC, please mark them appropriately. --Yamla 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your the one whos so hard up on it, so you can go ahead and delete the image, just make sure you delete every other album cover on that article, and corresponding articles, and if you feel that strongly about it, you can start looking at every other singer and band article and delete all their images which use the same liscencing. Aspensti 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User IAF

Hi Yamla, could you have a look at these repeated vandalism by IAF which are blatantly POV vandalisms. I have explained to him that his edits are unacceptable, but User_talk:IAF#IPKF he has admitted that he is deleting things he deems propaganda. As such these are blatant vandalism. Please could you have a look? Rueben lys 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Allen image

I tried to upload an image of Woody Allen Image:476px-Woody Allen - statue.jpg from Wikimedia Commons to Woody Allen, I'm not sure if I did it properly because when I viewed other Wikipedia pictures that reference wikicommons I do not see any text on the edit page. Also I can't find the template for: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below", I was wondering if you could tell me how to upload a picture from Wikicommons for an article? :) Valoem ^talk 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't know how to do this. However, my understanding is that you don't need to do this except for an article about to hit the front-page. The point of Wikicommons is to share such content amongst the various Wikipedia projects, so you should just be able to reference the image in the commons. --Yamla 15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out how to do it :). You can delete the image Image:476px-Woody Allen - statue.jpg as it is just a copy of an image from wikicommons now. Thanks Valoem ^talk 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sugababes image

Still in violation of WP:FUC. You are saying that my image 'Sugababespromo.jpg' fails the first fair use criteria because "the source of the picture still exists and given that this is the current lineup, that is the case." So i cannot upload an image if the subject still exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel patrick (talk • contribs)

You cannot upload a fair-use image if the subject of the image still exists, that's correct. At least, except under extreme circumstances. For example, if a person has gone into hiding, we do not consider it possible to get a replacement even though the subject still exists. --Yamla 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well i have changed the license tag as i see i cannot use it under fair-use image and have appropiately changed it. I found Image:Gapromo.jpg and my image applies by and shares the same properties, so i have used a similar tag. Lionel patrick 23:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You changed it to another fair-use license. In fact, any license for this image will be a fair-use license as it is clearly a copyrighted image not released under a free license. --Yamla 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well if it doesn't abide by law, then remove it, i'm not trying to take the mickey, just trying to understand this. Could u just explain to me how i can get a picture of the current line-up by abiding the wikipedia law. Do i use their official websites or can i not? Where do i get freely licensed images? Does this mean no picture can be used for this group? I see pictures of other subjects that still exist, but thought because most were from the US, i had to find a license that applies to the UK. Lionel patrick 07:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the subject of the image still exists, you have to find a freely-licensed image. That is, an image released to the public domain (not copyrighted), or licensed under the GFDL or most Creative Commons licenses. This essentially means that any copyrighted image will likely be unsuitable, which includes any image from their website. If you yourself took an image, you could release it under one of those licenses. This may not be reasonable, of course; there's little chance that I could get an image of the Sugababes, for example, as I no longer live in the United Kingdom. However, if someone else has taken an image of them, they may be willing to license it under one of these licenses. Often, you can find images on flikr taken by fans that are already licensed appropriately. There are also search engines to find CC-licensed images, though I don't recall where exactly. As a general rule, promotional images are inappropriate on the Wikipedia except where it is a logical impossibility to find a replacement. That means they are acceptable to depict fictional characters. --Yamla 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LonelyGirlWiredCover.jpg

G'day mate, Regarding the recently uploaded LonelyGirlWiredCover.jpg and you subsequent dispute of its fair use, would you consider my addition to the summary as fair use rationale? I didn't upload the image but I believe it helps strengthen the remarkability of the article. Hope to hear back. -Lemike 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you've already responded on the image, hehe. I understand entirely what you've appended, thanks for clarifying. -Lemike 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is sufficient. Of course, it was being used to depict Lonelygirl which is a violation of the license, but I just took a look and it seems that you have moved the image further down. But now, the image seems to be used simply to illustrate this section of the article and does not really contribute meaningfully to the article as a whole. As such, it is still in violation of WP:FUC. This is particularly true as the article itself does not discuss her appearance on the cover of the Wired magazine which tends to imply there's no reason to depict that cover. --Yamla 17:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I wrote a bit on her appearance on the cover, would it qualify? Also, regarding LonelyGirl15 Bree.jpg, I've added a little bit of rationale to the summary. The image that was in the respective articles infobox prior to the Wired magazine one was a screencap of one of the videos so I figured I could use the same theory (but of course with a better capture :P). Help me out, if you would. -Lemike 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if and only if the image adds meaningfully to the article. We are not permitted to use fair-use images solely for illustrative purposes (that is, simply to add more images to the article). It is unclear to me if the wired cover could add meaningfully to the article, however. --Yamla 17:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm with you now. I think the only fair grounds for usage of the Wired image would be to, as very briefly mentioned on the image page, illustrate the fact that a videoblog (which is of course one of hundreds of thousands online), has been surprisingly and extensively covered in traditional media. What do you think? -Lemike 17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. That the character made the cover of Wired indicates that the coverage has been fairly extensive. --Yamla 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having found an online copy of the Wired article it seems the focus is definitely on YouTube and not lonelygirl15 itself. I presume this could hinder the aforementioned fair use rationale? Either way I am going to write a little piece on the extensive media coverage. -Lemike 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have that edition of Wired but have not read the story yet. The safest approach, of course, is not to use the cover. However, if you write a paragraph or more on the extensive media coverage and in that paragraph, specifically mention the Wired article, I'd support the inclusion of the image if you thought it appropriate. It seems to me that you have a pretty good understanding now as to whether or not it would be includeable. --Yamla 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jen.jpg

- "Used in blatant violation of license and deliberate violation of WP:FUC. --Yamla 22:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" - Very rude comment from User:Yamla. To use the words "blatant violation" without discussing with image owner is very unprofessional. Please get your head out of the sand every now and then. I have uploaded this image for the same reason your working so hard for Wikipedia - try and make information pages as high-quality as possible for readers. I don't do this for business! - I have uploaded this image with confidence that I can use TV screenshot to identify the actress. The image summary is pretty self-explanatory. Any technical violation is inadvertent. Plus, your comments do not fully explain the violations made by my image upload. So I suggest you come up with a better and more professional explanation. This way, you will help us to understand copyright issues better - that is if you want to. Ash sul 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit shows you removing the warning not to insert copyrighted images such as the one you inserted and points you to the policy that deals with fair-use images. That you removed this to insert your image in violation of this policy is what merited the warning. You may not use a TV screenshot to identify the actress. Please reread WP:FUC. --Yamla 17:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am baffled by the sheer lack of details on your work or explanation on my image. You have so far only explained why you have removed this image from "Jennifer Aniston" article (although that is still a matter of debate as I have plenty of examples of screenshots being used as actor/actress identifier - Example). But I cannot understand why you have tagged the image itself for deletion.
I have read WP:FUC. TV screenshot upload (copyright) issue clearly states that an image can be used for identifying/commenting a TV program and/or its contents. So logic would dictate that my screen shot is perfectly valid as it describes a TV advertisement.
So please stop this nonsense and remove your "quick deletion" tag from my image immediately. If you have any rational objections (which you are currently lacking), I suggest we get a second opinion, possibly from an actual administrator. Ash sul 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete the image, another admin did. However, if the image is not used in any articles, we are not permitted to keep it around (assuming it is a fair-use image). As to other fair-use images being used to depict living people, these would also generally be in violation of WP:FUC. This is grounds to mark those images as problem, not an excuse to use fair-use images inappropriately in additional locations. The license clearly states that the image can be used for "identification and critical commentary on the station ID or the program and its contents". You were not doing so, you were using the image solely to illustrate a living person for whom a replaceable freely-licensed image could be created. Note that a tv screenshot may be used to depict that t.v. show. This is entirely different from using a t.v. screenshot to depict an actor from that show, which is not permitted. Now, you are welcome to seek another opinion but note that another administrator (Nv8200p) already reviewed this image and found it to be inappropriate for the Wikipedia as it was being used. However, given that the image was clearly a fair-use image (it was a t.v. screenshot) and given that it was being used to depict a subject which still exists (in this case, a living actor) in violation of the first criteria of WP:FUC, you will not get very far with a third opinion. --Yamla 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No! I didn't know that you're an administrator. Your willingness towards being more arrogant and unprofessional was a far cry from general web administrators (especially on non-profitable sites), who generally tend to be more helpful and professional.
As for the copyright issue, it is now clear to me that, although you know copyright facts in great details, you are just willing to make things difficult rather than take the professional and rational approach. If you knew all along that all this image needed was "specific pointer towards the TV program itself" (i.e. - if the image had been labelled as (for example) "Jennifer Aniston seen here during a Heineken TV commercial - Example", this image could have been saved). You could have done this yourself. Obviously it is your ego that has prevented you from resorting to "fixing other peoples problems".
But certainly it was a good experience for me.Ash sul 10:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case as has been pointed out to you both by the pointer to WP:FUC and by explanation. Once again, you may not use a fair-use image to depict an actor from the show. You may not use fair-use images to depict living people. Had the image been marked with a specific pointer towards the TV program itself, it could have been used in an article about that tv commercial but not in an article about Jennifer Aniston, to depict Aniston. Please do not leave me any more comments until you have read WP:FU to which I have repeatedly directed you. Additionally, please read WP:NPA. Your personal attacks are unwarranted and may lead to a block. --Yamla 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You said that, "Deleting well-sourced information is vandalism". No matter how well-sourced, if the information is unrelated to the article and counts as propaganda (not accepted globally) then that is cleaning up the article not vandalism. If I include literature sourced from Taliban in the 9/11 article and you delete it, that won't be vandalism. Indian Air Force(IAF)

c14u sockpuppet (13th time???)

Would you mind checking User:PumpkinPie on the Checkuser? The account, welcomed by User:Pumpkin Pie (see talk page), seems very suspicious.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I alerted admins on WP:ANI in case you're interested.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by User IAF

Hi Yamla, please could you have a look at these repeated vandalism of the IPKF page by IAF which he admits editing with POV, and is accusing me of making POV edits (although I haven't contributed to this article) when I pointed out to him that these are well referenced claims of human rights abuse.

He is now accusing me of vandalism. Rueben lys 13:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:James.jpg warning on my talk page

Not me, guv - if you check the File history I was only reverting another user's replacement of that image. The original uploader for the current version is Rajsingam (talk · contribs), it is they who you should be contacting.

Keep up the good work, new image patrol is a thankless task (I used to do it myself), your efforts are appreciated, by me at least. :) Qwghlm 16:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll post the warning to the correct person. And yes, definitely a thankless task. :) Have a good day. --Yamla 16:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocking my current and my old usernames

Please block my current username and my old Lieutenant D. G. username forever. Thanks. Sergeant Gerzi 10:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lonelyboy

As I said earlier, this user is a sock of User:Twentyboy/User:Hungrygirl. This guy is operating from User:65.31.99.71. He was able to appear because the block on the IP was only one month (as opposed to the indef-blocks of the named accounts). He reappeared as soon as the 1 month IP block ran out, and I decided to give him a chance, but it's my belief he has no wish to participate constructively. He's started trolling around religious pages, insulting other users, and basically reverting to the type of behaviour that got him blocked beforehand. I gave him a warning to calm down, but he replied in a rather unpleasant way. Would you mind re-blocking his IP (I'm asking you because you were slightly involved in the Twentyboy episode)? Thanks. yandman 15:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When he was trolling me he stated he just had to disconnect to get another IP address and was blocked several times - I don't believe eh actually uses a static IP. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, he made this claim to me beforehand, and it's false. All his edits have been from the computer at 65.31.99.71 (as attests the fact that there was no activity on certain pages he likes during the month his IP was blocked). yandman 15:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this IP address for 6 months. We can't block IP addresses indefinitely but given that this user has uttered death threats and claims he has every intention of continuing to attack the Wikipedia, the block seems reasonable. --Yamla 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yamla. Hopefully he'll have grown up by then. yandman 15:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about admins

Hi Yamla! I have some questions about administrators.

How can I become an administrator?
Is an administrator able to block other administrators?
Are the administrators paid?

Oh and I'd like to know, how can I create a Stop-hand image? What shall I enter to the edit page to create a stop-hand image?

Greetings!!! Pooter-the-clown 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ADMIN for the answer to most of these questions. Administrators can block other administrators. It is most definitely an unpaid position. As to a stop-hand image, if you don't want to use one of the existing ones, you'll have to find or create a freely-licensed image yourself and then upload it. --Yamla 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page blank

Please do not blank my userpage. I spent nearly an hour to create my own userpage. Pooter-the-clown 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to use copyrighted material on your user page. --Yamla 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t care anymore

Hi. Ok, I´m done here. I was trying to make this encyclopedia better, with better images on my series pages. But now that you are bugging me, I don`t want it anymore. You are a very hard person, and makes noise with things that any other admin does. I`m just sad that there is a admin like you, that look for trouble when there is not one. Seems like if you are stocking me, what is just a sad thing to do. I will not make edits in this wiki anymore. You got what you want: send people away. Congratulations! In some time, you will be the only user on the english wikipedia. I hope you enjoy! Oh yeah... Doesn`t need a reply for me. I will not read it. Thanks! Rockdolly 00:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]