User talk:Yamla/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Images

I've acquired images from a journalist officially. I put them up on Wikipedia but I've received messages. (see my talk page). What's the copyright tag I'm supposed to add? If you want to research these journalists are Akin Falope and Ashanti OMar. Reply ASAP Universal Hero (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

?? Universal Hero (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:COPYREQ. Chances are good we cannot use these images, but that page gives you all the information you need. --Yamla (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PIO unblock

Would you be happy with me unblocking PIO (talk · contribs). He has retracted the legal threat and I have laid out conditions for his unblock which he has accepted. I will keep an eye on him to make sure he acts within wikipedia guidelines. Regards. Woody (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not currently support unblocking this user. He has continued to edit Wikipedia articles as recently as yesterday. See here. I would support shortening his block to 14 days starting now if he has read and understood WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK and agrees to refrain from yet more abuses in the meanwhile. That said, you are free to unilaterally lift my block if you believe that I am being a hardass here and you believe you can reasonably expect PIO to start abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the future. --Yamla (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I will shorten it as you say. He stopped evading the block when I told him to, I am not sure he was aware of the policy on evading blocks at the time, even if it that policy seems common sense to me. Woody (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove my link on black tar heroin

http://url2cut.com?WwQ This was an informative page. Why would this bwe wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.255.133 (talkcontribs)

This is spam. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Yamla (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Why have you removed my link on Pablo Escoabr about the killing of Escoabr it is an informative video. http://buycocaineonline.blogspot.com/2008/03/true-story-of-killing-pablo-escobar.html It is an informative video. You are insane if you think that is spam. Spam has to be rubbish, you cannot say somehting is spam just because it has adverts. If that video is not quality then what is. Look at the video and then tell me it spam.

It is spam. Please do not contact me further until you have read and understood WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Yamla (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually seen the video yes or no.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.255.133 (talkcontribs)

Not relevant. This is your last warning. No further comments until you have read and understood WP:EL and WP:SPAM. And WP:COI while you are at it. --Yamla (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

unblock Żebbuġ, Gozo

Could you please temporarily Unblock Żebbuġ, Gozo for me to replace the Coat of Arms with an SVG version? Maybe it's safe to leave unblocked now too. (what's normal procedure?) --Inkwina (talk · contribs) 08:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Yamla (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

C++

I hadn't realized the C++ article was under your ownership. Last time I looked Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, as I did. Whether or not my edit was appropriate or required a post to the discussion page is a matter for discussion, not your idle threat.

Regardless of C++ standards, returning a value from main: a) is considered good practice; and b) will not generate a compiler error. Anyone who's of a level of expertise to be writing a hello world type application would be well advised to ensure functions delcared with return types ensure the function always has an execution path which leads to a return statement.

Fizzackerly (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The hello,world example is directly from Stroustrup and has a specific warning (which I did not place) not to alter it without prior discussion. --Yamla (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Fizzackerly.

As an administrator, you should know enough to assume that edits are being made in good faith. Furthermore, your summary-less reversions (misuse of the rollback toll) and warning messages to user talk pages are troubling.

Examples from the last 24 hours:

This is concerning behavior for an admin. --Elliskev 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The C++ hello,world example is cited as straight from Stroustrup with a warning not to change it without discussion. The consensus is that the version straight from the creator of the language is appropriate. Modifying it so it no longer matches the source, when you have specifically been told not to, is clear vandalism. It's not clear how the examples you give above are inappropriate, particularly, say, this revert which was undoing blatant vandalism. Do you believe it is inappropriate to revert blatant vandalism? If so, you are free to request that Wikipedia change our policy on this. --Yamla (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a request not to change. That's not the same thing as a warning. You also refer to users being specifically told not to .... Your use of this type of rebuke and language and use of a threat to block in relation to my mistake in not seeing the request was disproportionate. In my view your authoritarian approach goes against the ethos of Wikipedia and you do neither yourself nor Wikipedia any favours in garnering new users and their contributions to the project. Fizzackerly (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have stricken my last example.
Regarding the rest of your response: I think you need to read the link you provided.
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.
Again, concerning for an admin. --Elliskev 14:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't the only problematic example. What about this which is also undoing a change which is blatantly false? And for that matter, this which is removing an unnecessary internal link placed by an address with a previous history of vandalism? --Yamla (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The first is a personal opinion. It's inappropriate, but not vandalism. The second... You really don't see how that's not vandalism?
Anyway, I'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to point out that some of your reversions need edit summaries and some of your "warnings" lack the assumption of good faith. As an admin, you should be setting the example of the right way to do things. --Elliskev 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The first was blatantly false. Even apart from the fact that personal opinions have no place here. I will grant, however, that the second rollback, the one undoing the inappropriate internal linking of BCPL, should have had an edit summary. I wish the rollback tool had a means to add an edit summary but as it does not, it was my responsibility to undo the inappropriate edit by hand and leave a summary there. --Yamla (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Reset indent: Look. You seem to want to argue the point. I don't. I'm really surprised to find this attitude in an admin. --Elliskev 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to revert instances I consider vandalism. On the other hand, I admitted that one of my rollbacks was inappropriate. That is, the undoing of the other person's edit was appropriate but I should have left an edit summary indicating why the other person's edit was inappropriate. I will work to avoid making the same mistake in the future. --Yamla (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:84.12.55.2

User talk:84.12.55.2 is not blocked. Last block was for 48 hrs on the 6th. Maybe an autoblock? Can you handle it please? (I'm at work and don't have much time now). Thanks. -- Alexf42 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Yamla (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Alexf42 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Neights

I feel sorry for this user. It's clear at this point from his edits that he's seriously mentally ill, and doesn't have any way of understanding what we're telling him. But at this point I think you were right to protect the page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Fraberj

If you don't remember this user, he is yet another possibly mental ill user whom you blocked indefinitely. He has since severely vandalized the Talk:Self-replicating_machine page repeatedly under a few IP addresses. In addition to this, the article itself is still a little whack due to his edits, and the talk pages are unreadable. This is probably the wrong place to be writing this, but I think the articles would benefit from some strong administrative action. It wouldn't surprise me if he had a few different "real" accounts also. Wikiyuvraj (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have semi-protected the talk page. It is a shame that Fraberj refuses to leave Wikipedia with his dignity intact. --Yamla (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:ShahrukhKhan.jpg

Hello Yamla!

I think there will be no end to this image. It's already half a year since I uploaded this image, and since then it has been added and removed several times from the page of Shahrukh Khan.

Several editors claim that it is not free (even though the flickr status shows otherwise), and now it has been added once again.

My question is, if this is a copyvio and cannot stay on the page, why hasn't it been deleted already? Could you please tag/delete it if it is indeed a copyvio? I don't really know what to do with that and I can't always revert good faith edits when the matter is actually unclear.

Regards, ShahidTalk2me 21:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems very likely that the flickr user, SapnaChiara, is placing false licenses on the images he or she is uploading. You haven't made a mistake but unfortunately, I don't think we should take any images from a flickr user who is apparently playing fast and loose with copyright. --Yamla (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. So should this image be deleted or not? ShahidTalk2me 16:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Barring further evidence, it will have to be deleted. --Yamla (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Amazing

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I looked at your last 250 contribs and they were all counter-sockpuppeteer/vandal/uncited crap edits. Wikipedia is lucky to have an admin like you. Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 20:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No prob. Being a WP:HUGgler, one can run into many editors of both good and bad natures. You're the latter, needless to say. Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 20:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting my page, lol I didn't know what hit it. Tourskin (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

213.42.21.62 (talk · contribs)

Hello!

Sorry for meddling in your business, but I see that you unblocked the above IP with the intention of reblocking and never reblocked him again. Keep in mind, I may have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about so if I'm wrong about any of this, please just ignore me.

Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I did eventually reblock. Wikipedia was acting snaky for a while.  :) --Yamla (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the reply, anyways. I actually wanted to ask you for your opinion on something else, too. What do you think the chances are that Brexx is on a dynamic IP? I ask because of the similarity of contributions between the above IP and 213.42.21.53 (talk · contribs). SWik78 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Taking a look at the contribution log, it's all but absolutely certain that Brexx has also used that address as well. It's not at all unusual. I've gone and blocked it. --Yamla (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi, I do not want to sound obsessive or something but on what grounds did you declined the unblock request of User:157.228.118.212 (me) ? Please follow the evidence here and here. Is there something I can do to remedy the situation and re-evaluate the case? Thanks --157.228.98.181 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked for edit warring. You clearly engaged in edit warring. That's why I declined the unblock. --Yamla (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You said clearly, where? May I remind you that there is no evidence whatsoever presented in the alleged 3RR violation [1]--157.228.98.181 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of blocking this IP, since, if she's blocked, it seemed to me like she shouldn't be editing. Do you still love me? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock issue

Car5ly85 (talk · contribs) just signed up and claims not to be Car5ly858 (talk · contribs) and I suspect both are Randy. What's funny is on User talk:Car5ly85 they actually claim not to be Car5ly858. Do they think we're stupid? KellyAna (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, they do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and look who's back today for some more fun to add tot he drama. Carly Jacks Corinthos (talk · contribs) ~ Randy's Randy Jaiyan (talk · contribs) back and uploading illegally again. KellyAna (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of attention when protecting an article

You protected Nelly Furtado, and that's great, but you left lots of vandalized parts in your protected version, which still sit there. I suggest you remove the numerous vandalism lines from it yourself, if you insist on keeping it protected, and that you pay more attention to cases like this in the future. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.141.58 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You can make your request using the {{editprotected}} template. --Yamla (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Another sock of User:Ianjones1900 has emerged. This time it's User:Ianjones50 will you take care of it? Admc2006 (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. --Yamla (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I did not vandalise the Sugababes page, I only compiled all of the singles which reached #1 in any country. I didn't give false information, all chart positions were provided by the singles wikipedia page. If you want to punish someone for vandalism, send a message to the person that hasn't cited where they got information about the Russian, Japanese + Croation chart positions for each of the singles pages. I am sorry if my editing was considered vandalism, because I edit mainly to clean up pages. Charmer (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

i also did not vandalise the page..what i entered was TRUE. i went to the angels with dirty faces tour in spring 2003 in manchester!!! someone here has a power trip! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.110.55 (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are required to cite your information with a reliable source. Additionally, you continued to violate WP:MOS. --Yamla (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

MilitaryHOMEFRONT

My new version, while similar, removed the "advertising". I am trying to provide a complete and accurate definition of MilitaryHOMEFRONT. I do not understand why you keep deleting it. What can be done to make it available. Thank you! Smgreber (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for you to create this article. See WP:BFAQ and WP:COI. --Yamla (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy Jaiyan new sock

LeoJai (talk · contribs) I know you have worked on the Randy Jaiyan issue. He came in and wanted to add a Claudia Zacchara page and posted a message on the talk page for Claudia. I have it on my watchlist and did some looking. Looks like he's Randy and not very creative leaving Jai in his name. He's almost as annoying as Grant Chuggle but Grant was far more creative.IrishLass (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Yamla (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. He also created an author that he made up and a book. Can those pages also be deleted along with the pictures he uploaded? You're too fast. Thanks.IrishLass (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem.  :) --Yamla (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Found another incarnation Car5ly8585 (talk · contribs). Not much activity but why not block it just for good measure. IrishLass (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, blocked. By the way, this editor has promised to refrain from any further editing for a period of six months. Hopefully we can put this behind us now, though he or she has made a number of false statements before. --Yamla (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Emergency at Sexual intercourse article

Yamla, there is apparently something very weird going on with the Sexual intercourse article at the moment. On the talk page, two people (one editor, one IP) have stated that the article says lulz (and nothing else). It appears that way to some people who don't have accounts on Wikipedia and are not logged in. I logged out and looked at the article, and it looked fine to me, but this isn't the case for everyone else. Will you check this out and see what's going on there? I cannot really help because I am without computer access at the moment (I'm communicating via the PlayStation 3), so I came to you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like someone beat me to it. And by "it", I mean resolving the vandalism. --Yamla (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Oh, my bad Yamla. I thought that information about Jamie Lynn Spears had been verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquareWheelGames (talkcontribs) 02:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Stickles

Please note the expansion; I hope it satisfies your concerns. Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it does. Thank you for your work. --Yamla (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Gillian Welch

An IP editor had added an interview with her as an external link. You reverted it. I just reverted you. I don't understand why you removed the addition - it seems entirely reasonable to me. Aleta Sing 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was added by a user with a long history of spamming and without establishing that this particular interview was notable. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Socks

Hello, friend!

I wonder if I could get your opinion on what I strongly suspect is a block evading sockpuppet. I'm convinced that the well known puppeteer Brexx (talk · contribs) (responsible for all these socks and more) is back under the psedonym Forever Britney (talk · contribs) making predictable edits to the ususal articles: Mariah Carey, Touch My Body, E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)‎, and The Sims related articles. Currently, Brexx is serving a 6 month block as well as being indef-blocked under all his other aliases and temporarily blocked under his 2 known IP's 213.42.21.62 (talk · contribs) and 213.42.21.53 (talk · contribs).
Thanks for the help. SWik78 (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look into it. --Yamla (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, clearly a sockpuppet. I'll block appropriately. --Yamla (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow!!! You are fast!!! SWik78 (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Tgannon (talk · contribs)

Perhaps the block on this user should be extended indefinitely? His edits to United States after 3 blocks seem like outright silliness or vandalism. Spellcast (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Yamla (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain

This is about mammootty.jpeg, you did not leave a proper reason to delete? In what extend it is blatant copy vio? The author has claimed that it was a self-created stuff. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted a note here also. --Avinesh Jose  T  07:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Will respond there. --Yamla (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Brock Lesnar

I just protected the page for another three months, outside of the usual high levels of vandalism there was a rash of different addresses re-posting some ridiculous nonsense, based on the pattern and your previous encounters, do you think this is the same banned vandal as before? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Socks keep you warm

Or so really freakin annoyed you get hot, hot, hot. Randy is back as HIBigdog (talk · contribs). He can't even think of new names Wabigdog (talk · contribs) (look two whole letters off from one of his other names) or get away from the actresses that play Carly. Tamara Braun is now on Days of our Lives and he created her a page for that show. He is so predictable. Can we ban this one, please? KellyAna (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done. --Yamla (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I edited one of my links. Tamara Braun is the actress on Days who was originally Carly. He's obsessed. By the way, is stating he's obsessed with her a personal attack of him? An admin seems to think saying he's obsessed and his grammar is an obvious tell of who he is is a personal attack. I find it to be fact and evidence of who he is, not a personal attack. I mean, the grammar is part of the evidence to tell who he is so how can that be a personal attack? KellyAna (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable gossip

I dont actually know if this is hYou complained about the information i posted on Katherine Heigl, but obviously you did not notice that i said she SUPPOSEDLY had a a feud with Kate Hudson, this information came from perezhilton, which may be unreliable in your standards but i think he may have more knowledge of this subject than you do considering that his living is on find out celebrity info. Also, she did attend the same high school as Seth Rogen, which i know for a fact because of an interview on the television with him in which he stated that he did go to the same high school as her, this i believe is extremely reliable as it is from his mouth. Much appreciation for deleting the section that i created, it must be great for you to feel that you believe you can do that but really it isnt in the spirit of wikipedia ethos in which anyone can make a contribution!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.8.209 (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip site. If you cannot find a reliable source, please do not add the information. --Yamla (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you therefore saying that Seth Rogen is unreliable. Also, i believe that the information wasn't gossip it was as i would like to put it rumoured fact, and in fact i do have the information to prove it to you: "Who is she? Oh, that girl in 27 Dresses? I just don’t think about that stuff." This quote is from the UK edition of ELLE, which is an interview with Kate Hudson herself, and i believe that she would know Katherine Heigl due to her fame so therefore the comments were of someone who is in a feud and or rivals. Apology whenever you want to give it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.8.209 (talkcontribs)

I am saying that information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable and sourced appropriately. See WP:V and WP:RS. --Yamla (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So even after i prove that the information was reliable, you still can't apologise. If i knew i was wrong, i would have apologised but i know that i am correct - how exactly would you source information from a tv interview. Does that mean that all information that is verbal is unreliable, in my experience being a historian, i have found that the most reliable pieces of evidence are when someone actually says them in an interview, but obviously for you, you would prefer a website that could be completely infactual, but because it is an exterior website the information must be correct. It is a sad day when someone cannot add a simple fact to a surposedly friendly encyclopedia without being hassled by someone who believes that this is not right. There is more to life than rules and credible sources - I'm going to a party tonight, what are you doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.8.209 (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You added uncited information. You received a templated warning. This is how we inform people. And you can read WP:CITE to find out how to cite t.v. interviews. Note, though, that you have yet to provide a reliable source that meets WP:RS concerning the feud. Please refrain from any further personal attacks, these are not permitted here. Anyway, you now have enough information to understand what you did incorrectly; WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:NPA, and WP:NOT. --Yamla (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes i know what i did wrong now - i made a stupid assumption that i could add something that i thought was right. And as to this supposed personal attack, i was just being friendly. The link you put on about the cite thingy was very interesting, thanks for all the information and help :) I'm sorry for your misunderstanding of a harmless comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbieatwiki (talkcontribs) 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to apologise for my attitude and behaviour. I just got annoyed at the fact the whole section was removed and that on the Seth Rogen page is also says that he went to school with her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbieatwiki (talkcontribs) 18:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

C0o0okieluv

Um -- Yamla, this is c0o0okieluv. I know you said that I vandalised Miley Cyrus, but the truth is that I didn't. Or at least I don't think I did. I thought I was telling the truth. But I guess that doesn't matter. I didn't try to vandalise. But... Yeah.

I'm new, so I really don't know what I'm doing. Huh. That's the reason I made a new thing-a-ma-bob.

But how did you know I added something to the Miley Cyrus article? That's ... strange. But that's okay if you don't tell me.

My source for the Miley Cyrus thing was a rumor around school, so yeah I guess I probably shouldn't have done that. Sorry, I hope I can be forgiven. I make mistakes a lot, I'm not perfect. So, yeah. :D

Also, is it okay if I went to the one thing about Cookie (food) and made a new article? Is it okay if I add articles to stuff like that?

--c0o0okieluv —Preceding unsigned comment added by C0o0okieluv (talkcontribs) 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Blatant vandalism. If you continue to vandalise the Wikipedia, you will be blocked. If you start contributing productively, you will not be blocked. --Yamla (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno

Certainly looks like she's back but the IP's all wrong. Precious Roy (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Which user? Is this user reintroducing the same comments as our mutual friend, or just similar edits? You are right, the IP address resolves to a different location. --Yamla (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking both the IP and the editor. It's very much her style. And 142.205.212.203 (talk · contribs) is back to blanking its talk page. Precious Roy (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

IMDb/Celia

Firstly, I don't know what the first comment referred to - also not entirely sure why IMDb is not reliable.

Secondly, in reference to the picture of Celia Imrie holding her Olivier Award - (i) it was used also to depict the Olivier award, (ii) I was under the impression you were supposed to give a certain amount of time to dispute the fairness of the picture before deleting it, (iii) a little courtesy wouldn't hurt. I have taken a long time discussing potential descriptive images with other users, and to have someone just delete it and be condescending isn't enormously appreciated. Adaircairell (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS to understand why IMDb is not reliable. As to Image:Celia Olivier.jpg, it was a fair-use image used in blatant violation of WP:IUP and WP:FUC. Importantly, though, it is an image from viewimages.com and you provided no evidence that you paid for a license for the image. The company behind viewimages are sticklers for copyright enforcement and so our use of the image placed Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Finally, the fair-use claim, that the image "does not limit the copyright holder's ability to sell or show the film", shows that no effort was made to provide a detailed fair-use rationale for this particular image as it is clearly and by your own admission not a film screenshot. It looks like you simply copied and pasted an inappropriate rationale from some place else and made no effort to provide a rationale specific to that article, at least not in the section entitled, "Fair Use in Celia Imrie#Selected Awards and Nominations". You've received numerous warnings about your inappropriate use of images on User talk:Adaircairell which is why I was much more specific in my warning to you there. Normally, users get two to four warnings, not the fifteen or so you have been given. --Yamla (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine. But once again, you are displaying a remarkable lack of tact. Adaircairell (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Chrisbrd

Hi there, we were dealing with this at the same time - I'd just unblocked him but got an edit confilict on the notification and saw that you had declined the request. I was going to watch him like a hawk and slap it straight back on if he strayed. Now not sure where to go as don't want to contradict your block decline so I'm going to put the block back on. Next time I'll do the notification first and the unblock second! kind regards, nancy (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to override my decline and go ahead and unblock the user, provided you watch him closely.  :) I didn't think the unblock was warranted but I'm quite happy for someone else to disagree with me. You clearly think the user should be unblocked, so I recommend you do so and don't worry about me. --Yamla (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Alba

Lefted the church doesn't mean that she has lost her her in God or Jesus which is what the christain religion is based on. Unless you can find a reliable source that specifically states that she no longer believes in God or Jesus than she is still considered to be a christian. There are plenty of christians that don't go to church because they disagree with the church which is her current stance on life. P.S. don't threaten me on having me blocked.Mcelite (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

You are mistaken. You are adding new information which directly contradicts the article. It is your responsibility to add a verifying citation from a reliable source. --Yamla (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Laura Prepon

Image was already on Wikipedia, have found it in the Donna Pinciotti article. So that was not "my violation". HND. --Pediboi (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was. Please reread WP:IUP and WP:FUC. You are the one who added it, in violation of our policies, to that article. --Yamla (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Note

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Willy on Wheels. While you're at it, it wouldn't hurt to brush up on WP:AGF and WP:BITE. —David Levy 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the first time I've heard of the book series. Every other time I've had anything to do with Willy on Wheels, and that's got to be well over one hundred times, it's been in relation to the long-term vandal. --Yamla (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Flavor of Love 3 Deletion

What can be fixed so the page is not deleted? Is it the chart, which I have made changes to? --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, the whole thing needs to be scrapped. The episode summaries are inappropriate and far too long even if they were written in an encyclopedic manner, which they most certainly are not. The chart needs to convey the information without the use of colour, though colour can still be used. Independent and reliable sources need to be provided. And notability must be established. Do you really think this is salvagable? At best, it requires a ground-up rewrite. --Yamla (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You say Flavor of Love isn't notable? It's VH1's most-viewed reality series, started several folks' careers, and launched about three spinoffs. Besides, about "encyclopedic," have you ever heard of [Wikipedia is not paper]? Tom Danson (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, then, it will be easy for you to find reliable sources to establish this notability. --Yamla (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll do it. But do you think you could take the deletion off and put a tag for the page is under a major re-vamp or something? It gives me more time to perfect it. It will be better then ever before. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I placed it anyways. Thanks for your quick response (sarcasm) --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove AfD tags. I have replaced that tag but also put back your underconstruction tag. I will freely admit that the AfD is very unlikely to succeed given that only one other person seems to agree as to the unencyclopedic status of the page. Also, comments from users such as 23skidoo are insightful. And I do thank you for your work. --Yamla (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see

It's good to see a vandal get his comeuppance occasionally, as with I'M TEH REAL NUMBER ONE. Thank you for permanently blocking his whiney ass. Of course, I expect he'll now go all anonymous again, as someone just vandalized Seattle, Washington again... - Denimadept (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Randy?

1MoreChanz (talk · contribs). Only edits are to Carly Corinthos and they include making a new page for her. KellyAna (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeap, confirmed. --Yamla (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. KellyAna (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity is this him or just coincidental that he's pushing for the Claudia article back NikoSwavae00 (talk · contribs). Between he and RionDC (talk · contribs) I just "feel" a sock. Can't confirm, can't figure out of who, just know I've seen "both" of them if they aren't the same person to begin with. See here where an article that isn't touched for months is immediately edited by both in the same day. New editors finding the same article so quickly? It could be Grant, Randy, or even Creepy Crawler. They just feel familiar. KellyAna (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Additional evidence, looks like RionDC is Grant [2]. KellyAna (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Community service sock

FYI re this tagging, it's been essentially confirmed although RFCU was declined. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Natali Wikipedia Image.jpg

The image owner is Ms. Del Conte. She is in progress of e-mailing permissions-en@wikimedia.org to that effect and giving rights to the image as required under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYREQ.

If we aren't doing this correct I am sorry but I can't give the link to the image as it currently is not in a public link that I can give you. But Ms. Del Conte has said it is OK to use this image. And she will send you an e-mail within 48 hours. Other then this I am not sure what else I can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BitStop (talkcontribs) 02:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just having her email permissions-en is sufficient. No need to have her email me. I made a note on the image page that she is contacting the permissions address, so that's all that needs to be done. Give me a shout if the image gets deleted before the time's up, but that really should not happen. --Yamla (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I gave her all the info she needs to send so it should go through... —Preceding unsigned comment added by BitStop (talkcontribs) 02:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. Good job staying on top of this, by the way. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on image use are one of the most difficult areas for most people to grasp. --Yamla (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Page Deletion

I know you put a deletion tag on Flavor of Love 3. However, I was wondering if you could put one on I Love Money: Challenge Show Thanks! --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You can do it! WP:AFD. --Yamla (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didnt know I could. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Antigone28

Hi, do you remember dealing with Antigone28 (talk · contribs) last year? It appears that after your June 2007 block, she may have switched to username CelticGreen (talk · contribs), and then changed the name again to KellyAna (talk · contribs) in December. It's also possible that she's been using IrishLass0128 (talk · contribs), though this is not certain. I would appreciate your thoughts at the SSP report as to whether or not you think that they are all being controlled by the same person. Thanks, Elonka 11:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use claim

Dear Yamla, I have responded to the disputed fair use claim at Image talk:Tool - Undertow - Prison Sex - sample.ogg. Best wishes! Johnnyw talk 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, responded there. --Yamla (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:PetraSchelm

I unprotected this page as I can't have a teaching experience with this user if we can't converse. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. The page was protected for unblock abuse, I would expect that the user would refrain from further spurious unblock requests, but I am not questioning your decision. Nothing wrong with unprotecting the page so as to converse with the user for teaching purposes. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Scott Brown

You seem a lot wiser and more experienced, and you reverted the vandalism on my page, so I figured I'd ask you. What's up with that Scott Brown guy? Is he just here for trouble, or is he really a psycho maniac? Lesserm (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, which user? --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

68.111.105.237

I adjusted the block on that IP to a softblock just as you were denying the unblock request. If anyone wants to edit from there, they need to create an account. Hopefully that's appropriate. Blueboy96 15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that it was a hardblock. A softblock is entirely appropriate, thank you for your actions. --Yamla (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Herunar

I concur with your assessment regarding my block of this user and your proposals regarding an early unblock. I am happy for you to take whatever action you think appropriate, including unblocking or any other reversal of my actions you judge necessary, as I will likely be offline for the next few hours. However, you may wish to extend to the same courtesies to User:Camptown, who was the original subject of the WP:AN3 report by User:Herunar and who is also blocked for 8 hours. CIreland (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! --Yamla (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:MacedonianBoy

Not sure of the protocol - the template got mangled (probably through the user not knowing how to use the template) and I fixed it. I noticed you had declined it per no reason given previously, so this is just a heads up. Orderinchaos 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

I would like an explanation to the revert you did with my edit on the MySQL article. I'm new to Wikipedia, but this seems like it could be grounds for removal of revert rights since it was defiantly not an obvious vandal. My edit contained information from the reference link, and was formatted in the same way. Axecution (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit didn't add any information to the article. We already had the pronunciation there, in proper format. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I changed "MySQL" is officially pronounced /maɪˌɛskjuːˈɛl/[23], not "My sequel" /maɪˈsiːkwəl/. to "MySQL" is officially pronounced "My Ess Que Ell" /maɪˌɛskjuːˈɛl/[23], not "My sequel" /maɪˈsiːkwəl/. -- I'm confused if "My Ess Que Ell" should not be there, then shouldn't "My sequel" also be removed then? Axecution (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, probably. Sorry for the delay getting back to you, I didn't see your response until just now. --Yamla (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN notice

FYI, you are being called at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Yamla_is_abusing_power. I hope I explained the situation well enough for your sake. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Issue was already resolved before I read this message. Deletion was endorsed. --Yamla (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I knew you'd go rouge some day. But when you start abusing your power, I hope you'll do something more entertaining than this. When I start abusing my power, I'm planning to methodically delete as many articles about members of the Republican party as I can. I'm still deciding whether to start with George W Bush and work my way down, which will be more satisfying but get me blocked faster, or to start with local-government officials, which will be less satisfying but which I can probably do for hours before anyone notices. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No way. When I go rouge, I'm going to start adding false information to articles, but citing them with books with real ISBNs. Nobody checks book citations. So long as the information is not blatantly false, I figure I could keep at this for weeks.  ;-) --Yamla (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooo, I like it. Last night I was so irritated with myself for spending too much time on Wiki (again) that I seriously considered carrying out my plan, knowing that I'd get blocked and desysopped and then would be ashamed to come back and ask for an unblock. But I decided against it. I'll try that 'willpower' thing I've read about. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

fair-use images

is it suitable to upload these living football players pictures as a fair-use images? i think these pictures[3] are promo-foto i want to use this Template:Non-free promotional. could you help me?--Qwl (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Only freely licensed images to depict living people. We cannot use those images. --Yamla (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

there is an option like image_is_of_living_person is available. is it suitable for these? these pictures are for promotion of clubs players.--Qwl (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You would have to provide evidence that no freely-licensed images exist or could be created. For example, if one of the players is currently in prison for life, it may be acceptable to use one of these images. But given that they are all public figures who are currently (I believe) playing soccer, this would not apply. In general, if the person is still alive, we cannot use fair-use images to depict them. --Yamla (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks..--Qwl (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


My User Page

Hi there! Sorry about the spam! I forgot that website about Holly Marie Combs would have spam. By the way, can I ask you about something? On my userpage I categorized myself under living people. Am I allowed to do that? Here the link to my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neptunekh Please reply back when you can. Neptunekh (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, though I am sure you are a living person.  :) That category, like most others, is only for articles. --Yamla (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My User Page

Yamla could you ndo me a favour and edit my userpage? Check to see if I have no spelling mistakes and nothing in the wrong cagergory. Things likwe that. Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Some feedback

Hi Yamla,

I was actually writing a little 3 sentence justification to the reviewing admin for my somewhat quick block of User:Dem#### when you beat me to it by declining the unblock. Still, I'd like a little feedback. I've slowly come to the conclusion that allowing vandal-only accounts 4 strikes before blocking takes AGF too far, particularly when the {{unblock}} option is available in the 0.1% of cases where they might reform. I very much like the way you've given them an out (I've seen it before); if they aren't willing to do it, they should remain blocked. If they are, then we've successfully identified that 0.1%.

Obviously you don't think I'm completely off base since you declined the unblock, but in your opinion, is blocking an account like this after two edits and no official final warning taking things too far? I'll back off if people think I'm being too quick, but my own opinion is: if it's blatantly not "test editing", but clear "vandalism", you don't need a warning to know its wrong.

Any feedback you've got would be cool. --barneca (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless something is really really inappropriate (posting pictures of a penis on Winnie-the-Pooh, for example), it's worth remembering that a user may not receive notification about a warning until after they've made a second edit. So it's almost always worth giving two warnings at least. But I think if the user is clearly vandalising and has no constructive contributions, there's no reason not to block indefinitely as a vandal-only account. I've seen some small percentage turn themselves around afterwards, but the vast majority are just here to waste our time. --Yamla (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm very careful to identify possible test edits, even if it includes profanity, and give those users the benefit of the doubt. I added a brief justification at their talk page why I don't consider these to be test edits. The beauty of your system is there's a way open to them to turn themselves around. Anyway, I see you handle a lot of unblock requests, so please let me know if you run across one where I went overboard. --barneca (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If I may, I would like to add my two cents here. Granted, obvious vandalism is justified, however, in this case, the user was warned twice, on different articles, and indef. blocked. He/she is requesting an unblock so he/she may be a positive editor to Wikipedia. I support unblocking this user and watching his/her immediate actions to see if they continue to vandalize. If this user continues to vandalize, block again indef. and that will show proof of his/her actual intentions with Wikipedia. Dustitalk to me 17:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Brexx again

User:Leavin = Brexx. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I blocked and where I could, I rolled back all of this user's contributions. --Yamla (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bye Bye (Mariah Carey song)

I realise that the page was created by Brexx, and that it was deleted twice before, but the song was officially confirmed as the single a couple of days ago by Mariah's official site. Is there any way to reinstate the page, or should I just recreate it? SKS2K6 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, you have to go through WP:UNDEL. While I cannot speak for other admins, I would support you simply recreating the article, though, provided you can find some reliable sources (not just rumour sites) confirming it. Sounds like you have those already. --Yamla (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock!

I love it when I inherit bad IP's ;) Appreciate it. -- Irixman (t) (m) 16:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Perhaps these issues will be resolved when the world moves to IPv6, though I doubt it.  :) --Yamla (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That took a long time...

A whole two hours or so. Wonder if that's a record of some sort. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, well I suppose that was too be expected. I'm excessively optimistic about this sort of thing. Ho hum.  :) --Yamla (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Bye Bye (Mariah Carey song)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bye Bye (Mariah Carey song). 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. (Thanks for your reply. Please see my comments in the deletion review.) SKS2K6 (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Editcount!

Heh, I thought you were joking around when I saw that on my watchlist :) Close, but apparently not :) (My tool has no upper limit). Wow, that's a tonna edits :) SQLQuery me! 20:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm using the count from my preferences screen, which actually shows 65,953. I just like round numbers.  :) Interesting to note I'm almost up to 4096 users blocked and 1024 users unblocked... though again, not quite. --Yamla (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I like your tool, SQL. Er, and that isn't a come-on. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, TS has some lag (down to 4h IIRC, from 13+h). You must be one of the only people I know, that considers multiples of 8 to be 'round numbers' :) Thanks, FisherQueen! :) SQLQuery me! 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa

Hi Yamla, you're a person who edits the Vanessa Anne Hudgens page a lot. Would you mind giving your input on this topic please? Thanks. Acalamari 23:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, sure, though I'll warn you I don't actually know much about her. --Yamla (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, neither do I: that's the main reason I've started the discussion. :) Thanks. Acalamari 23:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Respond to Yamla

Hey Yamla...I don't know if this is how to contact you...but I'm the guy that u messaged regarding the Jarome Iginla bio. Please note that I have added the source, but accidentally saved the page before I put it in the first time. Please check again if you wish. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.112.106 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Yamla...There was no malicious intent on my edit of the Great Khali's page. I edited his page to more accurately describe Khali's occupation. His employer, WWE, considers him to be a sports entertainer. Further, and I say this with no disrespect, have you ever watched an entire Great Khali match from start to finish? ANY match of his? If you did, you could understand why further clarifying his page was critically necessary. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Text97 (talkcontribs) 02:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that he was a professional wrestler. Is that actually not the case? It's certainly true that the WWE employs quite a number of staff who are not professional wrestlers, but I thought in this case, that's what he was. If so, of course, the appropriate thing is to link in to the article discussing his occupation, which is why I reverted it. But if you can show that he is not a professional wrestler, please do let me know. --Yamla (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I just double-checked. Turns out I was correct after all, he is indeed a professional wrestler. As this is the most descriptive, it is appropriate to use that on the article about him, linked to the article describing that occupation. I'm surprised that you thought it better to remove that link and replace it with a much more generic description. --Yamla (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)