User talk:Yamla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Yamla/Archive 10. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents 1 Archive 2 ATL 2 3 Prince Godfather again 4 Thankyou very much. 5 What would be the copyright status of a collage? 6 Breathing a lil easier... 7 Username vandal 8 Thank You. 9 AIV 10 Question 11 User talk:85.12.72.2 12 40,000. 13 Hi Yamla 14 Image notes on Jennifer Morrison 15 Potential Issue 16 Possible Comeback Of The Kate McAuliffe Vandal. 17 Verdict LIED AGAIN (no surprise) 18 Please, check 19 RE: WP:FU violation 20 Two more socks 21 checkuser 22 Edit Request 23 you have provided no evidence that the claims are false 24 JB196 25 R. Madhavan revert 26 Coolkidgeorge12345 27 User talk:Shakirfan 28 Miaers 29 Another sock 30 Sockpuppets 31 Graduation 32 Gharonda 33 Edit Request 34 Re: Checkuser 35 Image:Randy-orton2.jpg 36 Verdict range block 37 User:Rock245 38 Jennifer Morrison 39 Young doupe 40 Vandal 41 Socks keep my feet warm in the winter 42 Regarding my edit to Ellen Feiss. 43 User talk:The jester man 44 Cryme Tyme 45 Asking. 46 Banned user Verdict 47 Apology for posideon comment 48 Edit Request 49 burninthespotlight.com/forum - Official Nelly Furtado Fans Forum 50 User:Wikifect 51 Age of Yamla

[edit] 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
• Archive 7
• Archive 8
• Archive 9
• Archive 10

[edit] ATL 2

There will be no ATL 2, so you can delete that.

[edit] Prince Godfather again

Hi , nothing seems to have happened to the User:86.138.135.30 report you made at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Prince Godfather. But that user has now stopped editing and now another user User:FA Maker has started (exactly after the IP user stopped) editing the same pages as User:Prince Godfather (i.e. Oscar Ravichandran), in a similar style (small edits with only occasional comments) and shows a familiarity with wikipedia, as demonstrated by the user name. GameKeeper 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated the request, it's marked as non-compliant and I'm not sure why. Also, noted suspected sockpuppet on this new user. --Yamla 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi I did a bit of digging [1] this change categorized it as non compliant and added the addition condition request must not have 'Included IP addresses'. The closest I could get to finding a justification for this is here Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser where it says 'Wikimedia:Privacy policy does not allow us to make a check that has the effect of revealing IP addresses'. Which seem a bit odd because the actual privacy policy specifically mentions checkuser as a circumstance when the user's ip may be released. GameKeeper 19:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thankyou very much.

Thank you so much for un-autoblocking me, I'm quite new to Wikipedia, I thought I was doomed there for a while.--Brinstar 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What would be the copyright status of a collage?

If I made photo collage of copyrighted images what would be the copyright implications? Please, answer to my talk page. Aditya Kabir 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You would own the copyright to the collage itself but each individual image would remain copyrighted to the original holder. So yes, multiple copyright holders. So, let's say I made a collage of film screenshots. I would own the copyright to the collage itself but would not be able to publish or distribute it because copyright would also be owned by each of the movie companies. --Yamla 15:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breathing a lil easier...

No sign of you know who yet today...perhaps shutting down the ISP worked? Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 16:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The word is that his parents became involved. I didn't actually shut down the ISP, not yet anyway. We'll see if he's really gone or if this was yet another lie. --Yamla 16:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it's about freaking time someone did something anyway. Who got the parents involved, or is that privileged info? Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 16:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Indirectly, I did. But I'll warn you, it's hard to know the truth when dealing with Verdict. It would surprise me more than somewhat if we didn't see him back within a week. --Yamla 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also willing to bet he's back within the week. *sigh*. This probably wont stop until his ISP threatens legal action. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username vandal

A new user (TJ Spike) created a new account with a name similar to a good editor TJ Spyke. He's been reverting every edit the good editor has recently done and called it vandalism. He's using the name to basically attack and make the good editor look bad. Here's an example [2]. is there anything you can do? Thanks! Bmg916^{Speak to Me} 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

nm, it got blocked by another admin. Bmg916^{Speak to Me} 18:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You.

First of all, I want to say that I just reverted vandalism from your user page; and from the sandbox, as the kind user who vandalized your user page then attacked you in the sandbox. Secondly, I want to thank you for your support in my RfA. Your support was a nice surprise, and your advice was very helpful to me. Thank you. Acalamari 18:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been a surprise, I think you are a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia.  :) Thanks for monitoring my user page and reverting the vandalism. --Yamla 19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

Do you think you can take a look at the user I reported to AIV? They are continually vandalizing and there's a backlog at AIV. Thanks. Bmg916^{Speak to Me} 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I should just ask you immediately after reporting someone, it always seems to get done quicker that way :-) Bmg916^{Speak to Me} 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

|If I may, can I delete the vandalism warning you placed of my user page, 70.111.231.43? Please leave me a message on either this account, the ip address, or on this, my new account. Thanks!20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Once the issue has been dealt with and there is no substantial chance of you doing the same thing again, you may remove the warning. Ideally, you don't want to do that within a couple of weeks of receiving it but administrators will generally not complain if you remove the warning and in the edit summary, leave something like, "read and understood". In this particular case, please feel free to remove the warning immediately. I have no doubt you are acting in good faith. --Yamla 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:85.12.72.2

Heya. The reason the school staff requested the block was because it was autoblocked by Can't sleep clown will eat me originally, and I pestered my IT teacher until he emailed Clown to request a different block. He really won't object if we unblock. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 40,000.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I just checked your edit count after taking a quick look at my own, and thought you might be interested to know that you just reached 40,000 edits. Congratulations! Acalamari 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, awesome. Last time I checked, I was a little past 35,000.  :) --Yamla 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Yamla

[edit] Image notes on Jennifer Morrison

Hi, I noticed you added the text "Promotional material from House is inappropriate and will result in an immediate block if used here." Seems a little harsh to me. I didn't think we blocked people for adding non vandalistic photos (non fair use or otherwise) on the first go, but you're an admin, and would know better than me. Is there new policy I've missed (not that I stay that up to date on policy)? Iorek85 10:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In actuality, I think it would still be unfair to block someone on the first offence even if they are deliberately placing Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, as would be the case if they were deliberately adding an inappropriate image such as a House promotional image there. In truth, what I'm trying to do here is to come up with some wording that makes it clear to people that they are not to add such an image here. Every form of wording, including specifically noting "promotional images", has failed so far. I welcome suggestions for anything better. --Yamla 13:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Issue

Hi, User:Factual80man may be behind the vendetta socks against good editor, User:TJ Spyke. I was wondering if you could run a check user between him and the socks User:TJ Spike and User:Steelchair. This editor is extremely disruptive, and placed wikipedia in legal jeopardy by adding a copyright violation video to Survivor Series (2002) which TJ has kept removing, but Factual80man refuses to discuss it and keeps on violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. He is currently blocked for a duration of 12 hours. But if the checkuser comes back that these are his socks, can we block him indef from Wikipedia for his EXTREMELY disruptive behavior? Bmg916^{Speak to Me}_{Leave Your Mark} 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it. Likely, you will see the results of the checkuser before I do, so please notify me when it comes back. Thanks! --Yamla 14:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Two more socks User:Spielberg2002 and User:The master of puppets, could you block them please? They have already been reported at the checkuser. Thanks. Bmg916^{Speak to Me}_{Leave Your Mark} 18:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Comeback Of The Kate McAuliffe Vandal.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think the Kate McAuliffe vandal is back. See these three edits: Natalie Erin, Persian Poet Gal, and Acalamari. If this is the same person, they've changed their tactics slightly, and they're now targeting me as well as you and Ryulong. I thought I'd let you know; just in case. Acalamari 16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre. That's all I can say about this. --Yamla 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verdict LIED AGAIN (no surprise)

User:wwe for life, made another unprotect request for Brock Lesnar, I just deleted it, being a banned user he isn't permitted to make such requests, right? Bmg916^{Speak to Me}_{Leave Your Mark} 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. No, a banned user is not permitted to make such requests. --Yamla 17:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please, check

I have uploaded Image:Ananthabhadram Riya.jpg again, this time for use on the article on the movie Ananthabhadram. The screenshot is of that movie, and it has detailed rationale this time. Please, tell me if it is alright this time. Aditya Kabir 17:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any critical commentary on this particular scene in Ananthabhadram. Can you please point out which part of the article is providing critical commentary that necessitates adding this image to the article? It is entirely possible that I just can't find it. --Yamla 17:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you check it again? Is this what you were looking for? Also, can I upload an image of the song sequence featuring Kavya Mahadevan that emulates Raja Ravi Varma's work, instead of the painting? And, oh, I have also posted a request to check the image to User:Anetode, who deleted the image. I believe, between you and Anetode the issue can be solved fine. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 18:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: WP:FU violation

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Jennifer Morrison, you will be blocked from editing. --Yamla 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The only edit I made to the Jennifer Morrison article was to link it to a picture of her as Dr. Allison Cameron, her character from House, with a short caption explaining as such. In fact, I linked to the same picture that is used in the Allison Cameron article. Could you please explain how this would have been interpreted as vandalism as well as provide a good reason why the picture should not be used? Thanks. --Ioeth 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This violates WP:FU. We are only permitted to use freely-licensed, not promotional, images to depict living people. In your edit, you explicitly removed the warning not to do exactly what you did. Additionally, the image itself is missing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale which you'd have had to add if Wikipedia allowed the use of this sort of image (which, of course, it does not). Given that you removed a warning telling you not to add a promotional image and then went ahead and added a promotional image, it seemed reasonable to leave you the warning. --Yamla 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't think I would call call the silhouette with "No free image" a very specific warning against using promotional images, I do apologize for not having read the Fair Use section of the image carefully enough. So that you are aware, the articles Omar Epps, Lisa Edelstein, and Jesse Spencer all use similarly copyrighted promotional photographs for House, originally released with and under the same license as the photo of Jennifer Morrison, which was not fair use. It seems that these photographs should be removed from their respective pages as well.

At this time, I would like to protest your decision to issue a very nonspecific warning which amounted to little more than a threat to ban my user account in response to my edit. People meaning well do occasionally make mistakes, you know, and it certainly doesn't help to encourage education or collaboration to respond so harshly. Perhaps this is asking too much, but I would have felt a lot less like I was being persecuted if you had included your explanation above with the original warning.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify this instance of Fair Use to me; I certainly won't forget the lesson. --Ioeth 19:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not calling that the warning. The warning you removed is evident in this edit. "Only freely-licensed, not promotional, images may be used to depict living please. Please see WP:FU before adding an image here." If you can think of a way to make this warning any more clear, please let me know. --Yamla 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll describe my thought process below, which may help you come up with a more effective warning. In this case, I wasn't able to combine 1. what I perceived to be precedent (i.e. the use of similar character images as I mentioned above, all fully documented in their Fair Use sections even though, as I know now, not complying with Fair Use), 2. WP:FU itself, 3. and the warning comment into a proper interpretation of policy. Particularly, I could not find anything as clear cut as "don't use character images" in either WP:FU or the warning comment, as it's disguised in jargon like "8. An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." (taken from WP:FU under Counterexamples, which in hindsight I think may apply here). Given that nothing so explicit could be found, the vote in my head appeared to be 2 for (WP:FU and perceived precedent) and 1 against (warning comment) making the change.

How could this have been avoided?

In the warning comment, having stating "DON'T USE CHARACTER IMAGES" (or even more specifically referencing House) would have made me realize my err before committing it. Of course this wouldn't work for all living persons cases, as not everyone is an actor or actress. However, I surmise from the structure and placement of the warning, along with other comments I now see on your Talk page, that this is a singular (non-template) warning. It seems that if this is the case, then the addition or substitution of a less verbose (ans more to the point of the problem) warning would at least help to quell some future problems before they started. Additionally, perhaps this particular counterexample (using a promotional image of an actor or actress' character as their Infobox picture) to Fair Use could be added to that section in WP:FU, as it appears to have happened before.

Additionally, I find the Fair Use policy to be less than specific for the reason that actors and actresses are depicted in photographs or screenshots, as in Jesse Spencer's case, in character under their personal bio articles. Although I'm no lawyer, it seems to me that there is very little difference between this and referencing an actor or actress' major role in the main article and then depicting them as such with appropriate captioning in the Infobox. For this reason, the problem seems not to be using a promotional image, but rather the use of a promotional image in an Infobox (i.e. Infoboxes always describe the person, not their roles, no matter what disclaimer is added). This particular issue stems from the relative vagueness on this very specific subject in the WP:FU policy, rather than with the warnings. To rephrase, would it be any different if the offending picture in this case were in the same position with the same caption, but outside of the Infobox?

I'm eager to work with you at coming up with a good solution as ergonomics and specifically human-computer interaction have both been fascinations of mine for quite a while now. Hopefully my previous training in the two areas won't prove to be useless!

Cheers! --Ioeth 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two more socks

I'm not sure if you saw this above, so I'm gonna leave it again in a new message down here. If you did see it above, my apologies. Two more socks of User:Factual80man User:Spielberg2002 and User:The master of puppets, could you block them please? They have already been reported at the checkuser. Thanks.Bmg916^{Speak to Me}_{Leave Your Mark} 21:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> another. USER:SUCKDXIT

[edit] checkuser

Based on your earlier request, please take note of this page. NoSeptember 00:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added my name to the list, though it sounds like there's been some debate about the list itself. Well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Thanks for letting me know. --Yamla 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Request

I made an edit request at the talk page of Brock Lesnar. Think you can take a look? Thanks. Bmg916^{Speak to Me}_{Leave Your Mark} 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you have provided no evidence that the claims are false

Decline reason: "But you have provided no evidence that the claims are false. — Yamla 15:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)"

Why I should?, please explain. --200.82.18.26 06:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are or what this is in reference to. --Yamla 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JB196

As a change from the numerous Verdict socks I think I've spotted a sock of the other banned wrestling editor JB196, Butttown (talk • contribs). Follows his MO of being created and instantly creating wrestling related deletions. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R. Madhavan revert

Yamla, I see you reverted a name change in the Infobox for R. Madhavan from Madhavan to Maddyhavan. I reverted that since I couldn't find any reference to Maddyhavan anywhere, thinking you were either wrong or vandalizing. However, after reviewing your contribs and user page and that of FA Maker I'm obviously more suspicious of him (although the Madhavan info seems fine). Could you fill me in on the situation, please? Thank you.

— Jim Dunning  talk  :  15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have used an edit summary. I reverted an edit made by a banned sockpuppet under the theory of WP:DENY. Please feel free to redo that edit, but note that you will then be "owning" it. For example, if I reverted an edit which inserted libel and then you redo the edit, you would then be responsible for the libel, not the banned user who originally made the edit. I seriously doubt that's the case here, mind you. Please feel free to contact me again if you want any more information. --Yamla 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So, if I understand this, you reverted the edit even though it appears to be a valid correction just to deny recognition to the suspected sockpuppet? I have no problem making the subsequent correction, but I should not revert, just make the correction as if the sockpuppet's edit never occurred, correct? Thanks for the education.

— Jim Dunning  talk  :  20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly correct all around, yes. I mean, it's hardly like anyone would mind if you just reverted, but yes, the correct course of action is for you to go ahead and make the edit as though the sockpuppet's edit never occurred. Have a good day! --Yamla 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coolkidgeorge12345

Yamla, I aren't vandalising your page or anything, but I don't know where to put my point of view (like a chatbox or message board or something) so I need to put it here. Where are all my pages going man? I edited the Primeval page and I have created several other pages that have been deleted. I don't blame you in any way, but I just thought that you'd know, that's all. ;-]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolkidgeorge12345 (talk • contribs).

Please see WP:NOT. The Wikipedia is not the place for you to express your point of view. We are not a chat site or a message board. And articles such as Cheap Movie are being deleted because they are not notable (see WP:NOTE) or are vanity pages. --Yamla 16:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, my edits to pages keep disappearing! PLEASE HELP! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolkidgeorge12345 (talk • contribs).

Yes, this is because they are vandalism or you are introducing non-notable information. See WP:VANDAL and WP:NOTE. --Yamla 16:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my messages when I am trying to offend you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolkidgeorge12345 (talk • contribs).

You are trying to offend me? That's not permitted. Please see WP:CIVIL. If you want to be blocked indefinitely, just ask. But note that I am not deleting your messages. --Yamla 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Shakirfan

Why did you remove a message from FA Maker from this editor's Talk page? It contained nothing that indicated the need for deletion, and you gave no explanation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this was on the principle of WP:DENY. This account is a confirmed abusive sockpuppet of a banned user. --Yamla 16:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miaers

I've unblocked, thank you for bringing it to my attention. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another sock

User:Lesnar fan deleted his request for unprotection of Brock Lesnar at RfPP. Bmg916^{Speak to Me}_Sign 18:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Chrislk02, I've alerted him to the situation, this should help you as now there are other admins being made aware of the socks. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

Could you take a look? Looks like he has another sockpuppet: User:Debris420, same exact edit pattern (i.e. reverting all of my edits). TJ Spyke 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graduation

What happens when you were adopted (on wikipedia) and then you graduate? Zerorules677 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure.  :) --Yamla 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gharonda

If I want to upload a picture then what should I do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gharonda (talk • contribs) 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

First, you want to make sure it does not violate WP:FU. We may not use fair-use images (promotional images, film screenshots, etc.) to depict living subjects. If that's all good, go to Special:Upload and upload your image. Make sure you choose an appropriate license and provide the source (identifying the copyright holder) and other mandatory details. --Yamla 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Request

I made an edit request on the Brock Lesnar talk page. Think you could take a look? Bmg916^Speak_Sign 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just blocked another Verdict sock, by the way. --Yamla 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

nm, completed already. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeap, looks that way. --Yamla 16:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks though. Another one? He is really ruining WP:PW. I don't want to make edit requests for half our articles forever. He needs to be arrested. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Woops, looks like there's an extra period under the K1/Hero's section of Brock's article. It reads ".Royce Gracie..." think you can erase that extra period before Royce? Thanks. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 16:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Since his first official MMA fight has been announced, do you think we should change Brock's infobox template from pro wrestling to MMA fighter? Bmg916^Speak_Sign 16:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Checkuser

Thanks for the message; I was, on the whole, not too happy with the way things were set up regarding that page, especially given that we were telling people (yourself and a few others) just two or three weeks ago that we had no plans to expand. Thanks for your opinions, though. Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Randy-orton2.jpg

What makes you think the uploader is telling the truth on Image:Randy-orton2.jpg when he has been proven to be lying on every other image he has uploaded? In the future, please do not remove tags from images unless you resolve the problem. Your act here directly placed Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. --Yamla 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't trust your judgment on cases like this because of your history where you have jumped to conclusions and have been proven incorrect.DXRAW 02:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will thank you not to remove tags from images until the necessary information has been provided. Particularly in cases like this where the uploader admits the license is incorrect and where the uploader has added fraudulent information to every other image he has uploaded. --Yamla 02:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does he admit that the license is incorrect? DXRAW 02:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

On the image talk page, he states that he did not take this image, meaning the image cannot be licensed under PD-self. --Yamla 02:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All i see on the image talk page is censorship as it has been deleted. How convenient. DXRAW 02:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The image was not deleted by me. Your personal attacks are unacceptable. Please stop. The deleting admin left note on the admin noticeboard why this image was clearly and obviously a violation. --Yamla 02:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks. Kindly point out where you think they are. DXRAW 02:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that things have been censored (and that this is convenient), etc. etc. This was a simple case of an obviously false license on an image uploaded by a user with a history of false licenses on all the other images he uploaded, deleted by an admin other than me. In the future, please make sure you adhere to WP:V which requires that information be verifiable which was the very reason I tagged this image in the first place. --Yamla 02:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate your incorrect thats not a personal attack. In the future, please make sure you adhere to Do not biting the newcomers DXRAW 02:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ymala you do overreact a bit, man! Personal attack! Your 'avin a laugh!!!!! ;-)

Oh yeah, and just cos you're an admin, you ain't any better than anyone else, and you certainly aren't better than me *_*! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FFXIICOOL (talk • contribs) 11:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Verdict range block

User talk:213.113.231.176—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a message on that user's talk page. I believe this is Verdict (talk • contribs) requesting an unblock even though he knows he's banned. If not, whoever it is can email the unblock-en list. --Yamla 05:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rock245

I'm getting fed up with him. Verdict is really starting to piss me off. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 15:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Howltwit, another one

[edit] Jennifer Morrison

I'm sorry, you seem to be arguing in circles. Would you happen to explain, in clear english, why using the portrait of a character she plays in another TV show/Computer game, is in violation of FU if it is clearly and already utilized in Wikipedia on another article(s)? Count23 14:53, 1 April 2007 (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 the 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." --Yamla 15:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That fails to answer the question in clear english. What you could simply have said is "Don't use Character images or promotional photos from other sources", i figured that out after reading that confusing paragraph many times over. Perhaps you should consider ammending your commented warning to say such, so it doesnt confuse people - Count23 16:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not my warning. But "Any fair use photos (i.e. promotional photos, album covers) are copyright violations and will be deleted" seems clear enough to me. --Yamla 16:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

However it becomes a grey area if the image is already used elsewhere on wikipedia and is not specific enough to say so. - Count23 16:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young doupe

We have another one. Georgia Peachez 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

AND another one. Georgia Peachez 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

Hello, no time for an introduction, but User:Tjsynkral keeps blanking his talk page, despite being warned by me, and two other users, he also dropped a message on my page that seems like a threat. Could you please warn him? Brain40 ^{[talk] [contributions]}

• Never mind, it has been dealt with. Brain40 ^{[talk] [contributions]}

[edit] Socks keep my feet warm in the winter

User:Sidr1. Why wont he just go away? Bmg916^Speak_Sign 21:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea. You'd think having all of his edits reverted over the past, what, four months would make him give up. --Yamla 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He does realize that as long as he's around the Brock Lesnar article will never be unprotected, right? What's up with notifying his ISP? Bmg916^Speak_Sign 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I notified his ISP. They did not take sufficient action to prevent his continued attacks and so nobody from his ISP is allowed to edit Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, this vandal already knows how to use compromised computers and anonymising proxy servers to get around that. --Yamla 22:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So, do we notify the authorities? We can't leave these articles protected forever. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the next approach is. I need to check to see if TOR proxies are being properly blocked. I know there's a bot which blocks them but I'm not sure if it blocks them anon-only or not. This would make a big difference. --Yamla 22:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, true. It should block them completely, and unfortunately a check-user IP on every sock would be a pain in the ass. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 22:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you block the IP I reported over at AIV? He keeps violating WP:CRYSTAL by writing in factual errors about results from tonights WrestleMania 23 PPV that hasn't even happened yet. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 22:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding my edit to Ellen Feiss.

Before I get to my edit, I'd like to say 1st that your message on my talk page was really quite unfair and borderline rude. I've been an editor of wikipedia for over a year, and I got my welcome message back then, thank you. I don't need one now. I was not creating a directory of links, nor trying to advertise anything. And I could care less about any search engine rankings. Also, I've been to the welcome page many times before, and I am rather familiar with it.

As for my edit, I'd really like to know how it doesn't comply with our guidelines for external links. As far as I can tell it doesn't fall under any of the Links to be avoided. And it seems to contribute more to the article than either of the other two external links.

I will be adding a section to Talk:Ellen_Feiss to discuss ellenfeiss.net. If by the end of the week there has been no good reason for the external link to not be included in the article, I will re-add it. Johaen 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:The jester man

I removed the aurtoblock on this user. If you read through his talk page carefully I think you will see he wasn't trolling but simply didn't understand how to use the unblock template. To be honsest, I think you bit him when you could have helped him :-( Anyway, just letting you know for future reference. No harm done. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was concerned that this user was deliberately vandalising the Wikipedia ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], abusive use of sockpuppets), but if you were happy unblocking him, I will not contest it. --Yamla 14:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cryme Tyme

Some one moved this article to The Gang Stars for a dubious reason, and now the article is a re-direct to The Gang Stars and is pretty much missing and ruined. Is there a way to get it back to it's original state? Bmg916^Speak_Sign 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

nm, taken care of. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 17:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asking.

Was I in the wrong doing this revert? I was taught that controversial matters should be discussed on the talk page first. I'm not trying to make that user look like an idiot or anything, and I'm not saying the user is wrong. I'm just asking whether I was right or wrong in reverting the edit and trying to create discussion over the topic before adding it. There's currently a discussion going on at the talk page now. Acalamari 17:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Such information requires a reliable source. The quote is properly sourced but the information about bisexuality is not. I do not believe the quote is particularly controversial. We have sufficient reason to believe that she really did say this. It's not clear to me what basis you have for excluding that information, though you could well have a reason. --Yamla 17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't sure, and thought discussion would be better. I'll inform the user. Acalamari 17:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned user Verdict

You may want to document his abuse at User:SunStar Net/Long term abuse/Verdict. Hopefully this can keep everything in one place! --SunStar Net ^talk 17:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology for posideon comment

Yamla

    I received your comment and I would like to apologise for this. I was trying to give people a perspective on how studio bosses forecast a movies commercial expectations. Any other comments that I make I will makesure there is 100% truth in what I type. I know your dedication to this site is extroadinary, whatever mistake/s I make I promise you they are not intentional mistakes.
                       Thank you and sorry again. 

USER: BRADYBANG

[edit] Edit Request

I made one over at the Dave Bautista article. Can you take a look? Thanks. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] burninthespotlight.com/forum - Official Nelly Furtado Fans Forum

Hi,

I have acted upon your request and made a formal proposal in the Nelly Furtado talk section, regarding the website burninthespotlight.com/forum you can read it here:

[9]

Please consider my proposal.

Kind Regards,

Josef —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josefdunne (talk • contribs) 01:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User:Wikifect

This user, who you had blocked as a sockpuppet of Wikitful, recently requested unblocking. I denied it, as I was eventually able to trace the account to a sockpuppet of User:Worthadonkey, but it was pretty confusing: Wikitful was blocked as a sockpuppet account and only really made one contribution, and that one was not related to Wikifect's contributions. You seem to be familiar with the situation... so if more socks come up could you try to be more explanatory about things? It was pretty hard to deduce what was going on. Mangojuice^talk 02:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Yamla

Yamla how old are you??????

Why do you care? Do you think he's cute? wanna take 'em out for a hot date Saturday night? Bmg916^Speak_Sign 12:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)