User talk:Yamla/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hello and

! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on
  talk pages
  , for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the
  test area
  .
• If you need
  help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore,
  be bold in editing pages
  , and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:20, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

This was not a "commercial ad" that you just removed but a description of a specific feature which in part overcomes an important issue discussed in the article and a link to a specific implementation of this feature. --Daedelus 09:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Your feedback was appreciated. --Daedelus 22:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My apologies about the Millet History page and the Copyright Violation. Don't honestly know what I was thinking, because I never do that sort of thing. Thank you for clearing it up, but only the first paragraph was a copyright violation if I remember correctly. The rest was changed, or in my own words! ---ACL-

Hey, you just sent me a message and said that i couldn't put paris hiltons nick name was Sill on her paige, and that nicole richie's is Bill, but its true.. anyone who has seen even one episode of the simple life knows that its true

Hi. I was thinking we should get an Admin to block editing of the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen article temporarily. The situation there is getting ridiculous. Nothing new has been added to the article recently, and all we do, on a daily basis (and several times a day) is revert vandalism, which I suspect is being carried out mainly by the same person (notice how the IP address varies only in the last set of numbers). Maybe we should request that the page be blocked for a month or so... How about it? Regards, Redux 15:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for answering. I must say I share your feelings about the Olsens article. I've made it into some sort of mission of mine: the minute I saw that article, I knew that in that one it would be tough to maintain encyclopedic standards (although I did not expect this level of vandalism that we are experiencing now), so I thought I'd step up and do my share of the "dirty work" ;). Since you've agreed with me on the need to block the page for a while, I've placed a request for page protection here. I've taken the liberty of mentioning your support of the initiative, so feel free to drop by and comment as well. Admins usually respond quickly to requests in that page, but I say we keep an eye on this. If they start taking too long to do something about it, we can go directly to the talk page of an Admin (I've worked with a few of them) and place a request there. Regards, Redux 17:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, didn't I say Admins respond quickly to requests in that page? BrokenSegue has already protected the page. Regards, Redux 17:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that the anon finally started talking on the talk page. I wouldn't get my hopes up though. You probably noticed his ultimatum ("I expect to see changes immediately"): goes to establish character, and it's not a very nice one. And cabal proof: in his last edit of the day (today), he again altered someone else's comment on the talk page (I've already reverted it). I've dropped BrokenSegue a note in his talk page, since he took an interest in the issue as an Admin. Feel free to comment there if you want. We have not seen the last of that vandal. Regards, Redux 02:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your grammatical edits to Garbage.

Acegikmo1 06:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. A few days back you reverted a link spam on Angelina Jolie for a commercial/semi porn site. A user has repeatedly reinstated the link. I have reverted it twice today and I cannot do so a third time without breaking Wikipedia's three-revert rule. Since you were the first to notice it, I was wondering if you could help me keep an eye on the page. I left a message on the user's Talk page but I don't know if it'll do any good. Thanks! 23skidoo 02:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it'll be a huge deal but having an extra set of eyes always helps. 23skidoo 07:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I've just crossed a symbolic milestone. Three thousand edits! I feel like celebrating. Have a cigar! Don't worry, I don't smoke them either, but it's all good :)! Cheers, Redux 15:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay, no worries. It's actually not too hard to move an article to a new title; you should have a "move" tab at the top of the article. Just click on it, type the new title and a reason for the move in the boxes provided, and then click on Save. Then, on the new article, click on the "What links here" in the toolbox on the left, go through the list and change the links the same way you did. Bearcat 16:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the subtle graffiti on Ciara... I reverted the blanking but didn't notice the graffiti, guess I'm getting too old... :) Usrnme h8er 16:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

How do you figure "Fictional squirrels" is a legitimate category? >:(

14:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Aha. So if I said "Possibly cute girls with possibly big noses", then I'd be covered. And that's a category as likely to be looked up as "Fictional squirrels".  :\

16:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Far be it from me to play the censor and nominate things for deletion. Besides, it's not nearly as enjoyable as making fun of it. >:)

18:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• from tcatron565
• Look, just delete the page and I didn't do any of it! Look in the page's discussion and you'll find that it was not a tcatron565!

Now now. No need to lie. We can clearly see your name in the history. --Yamla 14:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• from tcatron565
• Look, just delete the page. I didn't know about any of the copyright violations. I'm very very new. Okay! I'm sorry. Do we have an understanding?

I was coming down too hard on this user (though the user misleadingly posted that s/he had permission to post the lyrics). I've apologised in the user's talk page and hopefully we can look forward to lots of valuable articles and edits from Tcatron565. --Yamla 20:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Tcatron565 20:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• How old do youhave to be to be registered on to Wikipedia? --Tcatron565 20:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

no problem, i have the rollback button along another function allows me to do it alot faster than the average user. If you find any other spam and see me editing, feel free to notify me and I will smite it down by the grace of Wikipedia =) Happy editing (oh, I also temp blocked the user until s/he realizes that we don't need links). Sasquatch讲看 03:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking over my user page too! Hehe, looks like another wikifriend =) Sasquatch讲看 04:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I haven't left for Rocky Mountain House yet, but I've been there before, its rather nice and quiet with lots fresh air (the truth is the camp is closer to Nordegg but Nordegg is tiny and not as recognisable) =) I liked it. I am actually in Edmonton right now =) nice to meet a local! Hehe, well, actually i'm from China but I consider myself a Edmontonian through and through (actually, I know Mark Messier's cousin once removed =) that's how Edmontonian I am!) Anyways, if you need any help at all, I would be more than glad to help out, and I'm thinking of finishing up

List of mayors of Edmonton, Alberta someday... just so we can compete with Calgary! Regards and happy editing! Sasquatch讲看

04:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Why not add links to Piccas?

hi there..

Just noticed you told me to not add links to Piccas. I wonder why?!?? I notice so many other links to sites like imdb, askmen etc.. and Piccas is nothing else, also a place where users can talk about famous people and add pictures. I think the site is great. -- Unsigned comments from Femail, 11:13, August 16, 2005

hi - you deleted my comments. what does POV stand for aqs I don't recognise the abbreviation mitchellanderson

Although there are dozens of other pages in download-latest-online-music.com I never planned to submit any more at present. I thought that the two pages you reviewed would fit in looking at the other links. Did you check those out as well? Further, I hope you really don't believe that the site is useless, I think it's great. But just to be sure I'll have it reviewed in the near future.

Just FYI that anonymous Nabou spammer you warned last month (

16:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Transclusion

Hi. Here's some boiler-plate:

Keep up the good work! -

11:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Episodes of Lost

Hi there, Can I ask what was so wrong with my comment on

15:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Yes 'jungle' to 'junglse' was not my intent. Kilo-Lima 13:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello...

I do not understand what you mean. I cannot see what is wrong with the website Mia Kirshner Online? I have absolutely no intention to "vandalize" anything and I felt a bit upset when I read "or links to your own private websites". The Mia Kirshner article is on my watchlist because I am interested in making it a good article and with carefully selected external links. Mafics 22:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. Harprit is angry at me and has been vandalizing my user page and reverting all my edits. Zora 05:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I recently received this message before I logged in and so was still identified by my IP (84.9.112.197):

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed or reverted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.--Yamla 20:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

To what does this refer?

October 16, 2005

I recently recieved the same posting in my message box for posting a link to a picture on the Dianna Abdalla page. From looking through all the negative messages left for this Yamla person, it's strikingly clear that Yamla is a petty bureaucrat control freak who whimsically reverses edits he or she disagrees with (labelling them "Vandalism" and threatening people with banishment). It's not often that one encounters someone as pathetic and odious as this, but sadly it happens. --unsigned comment from 63.91.182.132

See the talk page on this issue. PatGallacher 02:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I added an external link with photos of Evangeline Lilly, but that link was removed because you thought it was `link spam` and removed it. Same with wallpapers from X-Men. Why is that? -- Ddofborg 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The message I received is in error. I am not adding commercial links. The database that I am linking to is a free service that no one is charged for using. Other links to this service already existed before I started using Wikipedia. In some cases I have improved or corrected the links to it, in other cases I have made links from the relevant artist pages similar to the ones that already existed on Wikipedia. October 27, 2005.

An additional thought - what is the definition of "commercial link" per se? 3/4ths of the pages I visit on Wikipedia have an "external links" section. The Doctor Who page links to dozens upon dozens of websites. Some of these are professional, some of them are amateur. Some of them retail Doctor Who merchandise for profit, some of them do to cover expenses. In what way is the term "commercial link" therefore even relevant? It seems to me the only way to remove "commercial links" would be to take every "external links" section off every page on Wikipedia. That would be rather foolish though, as external links are relevant to the reader both for providing additional content and additional information beyond the scope of a Wikipedia entry. It seems to me the only gauge for removing a link should be if it was completely irrelevant - for example if one was to add a link to the page for bicycles about plasma screen televisions. If you are adding an external link to a page that is directly related to the subject matter of the page and not abusively modifying any other section of the page as some are prone to do, I fail to see what calls for a warning at all. I would argue you need to set a fair standard - if you are going to call into question the external links that I add to Wikipedia then you should remove any others that offer the same content, often in a less professional and truly "commercial" manner unlike the free sites I link, sites with directly relevant information. October 27, 2005.

One further thought - if one creates a page entry for an NFL player which did not previously exist (as I have done several times to reflect pride in my alma mater) would this not be considered "commercial" in nature since NFL players are paid professionals and the pages could as such be considered advertisements for their services to other NFL teams? October 27, 2005.

Generally, I don't bother answering a user's comments here (I do so on their talk page), but this user is clearly out to lunch. They are repeatedly spamming their low-quality commercial links to numerous pages, even after being asked to stop. Anyway, I rebutted some of this user's claims on their talk page. Some of the claims are simply too ridiculous to bother with, though, such as the example of the NFL player. --Yamla 17:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Out to lunch? That's a laughable bit of hotspur. You didn't even answer a single question that I posed and you're impugning my faculties. If anything the suggestion here would be that you are incapable of having a conversation about valuable Wikipedia issues, despite being a self-appointed Wikipedian net-cop. I therefore put to you the following: first and foremost, if already existing pages on Wikipedia were linking to these resources before I arrived, are you saying these "commercial links" should be removed? Second of all, if these links are on topic to the pages in question, how are they irrelevant to the users of Wikipedia? Third and perhaps most importantly, if I am revising links that are in err, am I not doing a service to the users of Wikipedia? Now you have raised the seperate question that I have edited other external links which appear on the site. To this I would respond that first of all, the site I am linking has been on the internet for over 10 years and is considered "the standard." The sites whose external links have been replaced are rip-offs of this site. Second of all as previously mentioned other Wikipedia users were linking to this site long before I arrived. Obviously they consider it a reputable resource, advertising or otherwise (which is there to offset the cost of bandwidth). Third of all the site is the ORIGINAL Wikipedia, since the content is all user created and revised. Fourth of all, there's simply no reason to accept pathetic copies of this site which are actually far more abusive in their commercial nature and spammy advertising than the one they rip off. If my links are spam, so are theirs. In fairness Wikipedia should remove all of them or none of them. A further thought - shouldn't Wikipedia be by the users, for the users? If it's self-created the users should decide what content is valuable, not self-appointed net cops. October 27, 2005.

Answered on the user's talk page. In the future, please sign your posts. --Yamla 20:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you are tracking my entries by IP address (and clearly that in itself is a matter for concern as it means Wikipedian net cops are cyber-stalking people) then they are already "signed" by the mere act of where I am logged in from and the fact you are keeping tabs on them. October 27, 2005.

This is a bizarre statement. I'm not tracking your entries by IP address, Wikipedia is. --Yamla 20:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

In addition you haven't answered the standing question - are you going to remove all "commercial links" or just the ones you attributed to me? October 27, 2005.

Asked and answered on your talk page. Yes, my intention is to remove all inappropriate links. I obviously don't have time or motivation to do this on every single Wikipedia page but I'll do the ones on the pages that I help maintain. --Yamla 20:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

For your convenience, I have created the handle BronzeWarrior. You may track all future responses and/or respond to my posts by this handle. - BW, October 27, 2005.

Regarding your anonymous user page post -- the domain name has existed since 1997. On that we agree. The website itself has existed since 1995 though. You can find references to it dating that far back if you search the archives of the Google newsgroups, when it was originally hosted on a server at UNCC and later moved to a server at [Iowa State University]. It actually existed three years prior to that as a Gopher/FTP archive and eventually morphed to a website as that feature of the internet emerged and proved useful. So please do be careful of the tone and verbiage when you say that I am a "liar" because there is documented evidence of the site being around 10+ years and being the single most valuable resource and repository of hip-hop information on the web. BronzeWarrior 20:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

For your convenience here is a link showing the site's existance dating back to 1995, thus proving it's age (I don't enjoy being called a liar). You may feel free to continue this on my own user discussion page for your convenience. BronzeWarrior 21:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Additionally as to your contenton that the "site in question" does not offer any relevant content beyond lyrics, I would note that each page which was linked to the relevant artist actually offers a discography of all albums released by that artist as well as a comprehensive listing of all singles, remixes, b-sides and guest appearances by said same artist. BronzeWarrior 21:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally I wonder if

21:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What

What do yo mean? I'm not doing anything to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season anymore okay! That's the onlt problem. I'm doing it to anything else just that so take that thing off. Please! -- Unsigned comments from Tcatron565

Thank you for notifying me. I will begin to gather the appropriate evidence. Extraordinary Machine 15:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me notice. /probell (Talk) 13:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Have added my view on it. --

> 01:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to ensure that you realized that these two edits ([1], [2]) don't remove Religion from the Civ IV article, they expand its information and move it to its own section. Why do you keep reverting this change? --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 20:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I took it down. I meant to do it myself yesterday when I found the Batman promo photo, I guess I only took down the one that was at the top of the page. AriGold 15:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Yamla, in response to your question on my talk page, here is the cite to the AfD discussion about blog coverage of Natalee Holloway. [3]

A brief paragraph on my persoective, I started

article. The same people went over to the new article and voted to AfD it as nn blogcruft etc.

If that is consensus, then I think the Kuroshin reference in the

article should be deleted. Kuroshin's sole "coverage" is what is conceded to be a "profanity-laced editorial". But the blogs which act as mini-encyclopedias of media coveragev videos, ( e.g. www.blogsfornatalee.com and joranvandersloot.blogspot.com ) are continually deleted.

Regards Joaquin Murietta 00:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Both ways are correct: The Latin plural data is also used as a plural in English, but it is also commonly treated as a mass noun and used in the singular. For example, "This is all the data from the experiment". This usage is inconsistent with the rules of Latin grammar, which would suggest "These are the data ...". However, given the variety and irregularity of English plural constructions, there seem to be no grounds for arguing that data is incorrect as a singular mass noun in English.

Please, don't start a spelling war! --tyomitch 20:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

moved from userpage «»Who?¿?^meta 03:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My change here was not a test, but a correction. Katie's legal name is Kate Noelle Holmes. Please see the links on her talk page. —The preceding

) 02:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Black Eyed Peas

Hey. Sorry for not citing a source about the chart position for the single 'My Humps'. Hopefully this link can clear it up so you don't have to delete it again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/top40.shtml

Yes, I added links to my own pages to the list. But it wasn't done purely to advertise my own site. In some cases, I also added links to other helpful/well-known fansites that weren't already on the list. And in every case when I added my own link, yes, it was partly to advertise, but partly because I genuinely want anyone who is seeking lyrics/translations for a genre I cover to be able to find a place to go to for that. I know Wikipedia isn't a collection of external links... but something as important as, for a particular singer, a link to good-quality lyrics should be something that can be included on the list. Whether or not it's my own website.

-frecklegirl

Hi. I've just commented about the BMX Bandits image on the Nicole Kidman talk page. It would be great if you could respond to my quiery. thanks. Cnwb 04:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Karla Homolka - She is still a criminal by definition and all the information that the anon is adding is true. (A criminal is someone convicted of a crime. This does not change after serving time for the offense. For example, Martha Stewart is, and always will be, a convicted criminal.) - Tεxτurε 16:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

My change here was not a test. I had just updated Dont Bother's chart position on the page. Newantt 17:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

but a mistake. I'm stuck in 2003. --VKokielov 17:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Good day. I would like to direct your attention to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:220.247.247.77 thank you

Hmmm...Dont know how to proove there promotional pictures but usually labels release artist pictures for promotional uses by the media on artists sites. shakiragallery, widely known fansite, has the picture listed as Official Shakira Site Promotional Pictures [4] Not sure if it can be used then but i changed the picture to Promophoto instead of Promotional.

While the typeface of the Canadian Jewish News spells "News" with a lowercase, the paper is referred to on in its own pages as the "Canadian Jewish News" or CJN. For instance "The Canadian Jewish News (CJN) is Canada's largest weekly Jewish newspaper"[5]. Lower casing the "n" based on the font used in their logo is rather pedantic.Homey 03:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

About this edit of yours: why did you remove the link to the wallpaper site? it's not link spam, but relevant to the core. This site gets lots of traffic from people looking for Charlize Theron wallpapers so why shouldn't it get listed in the Charlize Theron wikipedia entry? --Gulli 13:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

hey. thanks for your comments. so where should i reference where i got the changes from if i do? i will fix the page, as soon as icollect all my references, but just out of curiosity where should i cite references? thnks

-Khizer

Yay! Thanks for your diligent work on tracking down a citation for the Lindsay Lohan article. Now I can be much less grumpy.  :) --Yamla 18:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I finally had a moment to stop complaining and start researching ;) RadioKirk 19:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It also appears that the U.S. position was not cited. So just for the record, I will be removing its postion, and including the Canadian position. —Hollow Wilerding 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Before the colour picture, there was a black and white I had uploaded, with a source link as well. Can we revert the image back to that one, or is that one gone when some one else uploaded the colour one?--Azathar 03:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you look at Into the Rush, it will say the album is #36. I got it from other websites and of course Billboard 200.com.

Umm, me and Stanley Ipkiss had reached an agreement on Beckinsale. I gave him the link and there is no longer a problem. His version has a few incorrect bits of information as well as un-encyclopedic trivia. He saw the link and he won't make any more changes. I am reverting it to the correct version. DocOck 16:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any concerns about my response to the Kate Beckinsale situation you reported. Jkelly 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Woah. What happened here? The pressure of dealing with the spammy hordes affecting your hand-eye co-ordination? :-)

chocolateboy 14:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Yamla 18:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

fuck you

What vandelizum!!!!!!!!!!????? All I did was add five pictures to the darn article. That is not vandelizum! I think it should be there. Because the table is Album Information the cover is information. DUUUHHHHH!

HEY!!!, i dont change the cited link in the Lindsay Lohan discography because it was ok, the problem was that the one who put the numbers was wrong, because change the albums information, thats why i dont change the cited link. NOT FOR VANDALISM

These users both vandalized Image:ALMP_pub.jpg; the revision by MattyGum was a different pic of the same crater-faced kid used by BobbyJ, leading me to believe this may be the same person. BobbyJ has been blocked indefinitely; given MattyGum's continued vandalism today of Lindsay Lohan's page, at least a warning is in order, I would think. In any event, I'm watching this emotional nine-year-old...

Jasongolod Hi, just for clarification, is it against Wikipedia's TOS to add a site that you happen to own? I can appreciate you wanting to keep WP from being overrun with spam. As an editor of 3 categories on the ODP I can relate. I can hardly see how having a site like the ones you removed (that I posted), which have hand produced content about the band, removed when you have junk sites like MTV's page for the band listed...hardly a good/valuable resource. At the end of the day, I figure you probably don't have time to really look at most of the external links that are posted, simply that they appear to be junk and therefore removed. But, I would like to know if some of the items you cited or eluded to in your talk post to me are true. Specifically, if it is against the law at WP to post a link to a site you own.

-Cheers

Jason

Jasongolod 22:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Hmmm, if you have a second, can you point me to where it says you cannot link to a site you own? I have spent a couple of hours (for some reason) looking for someplace in the rules and help sections where it states that linking to a site you own is prohibited. Happy holidays.

Jasongolod 20:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time for showing me those links...as well as your kind follow-up message. I was curious to see if there was anything that expressly prohibited a site owner from linking to their own site...and, as I suspected, there is not one. Should not link to is not the same as never to me. I can appreciate that the site I linked to may not have been the best site to create an external link to (and, now thanks to you, I have read and re-read all of the pages on article creation, link spamming, linking, et al), and will probably never link to a site that I own in the future. Thanks for your guidance and responses.

-Jason

Hi. Looking at the edit history diffs, it doesn't appear that he cited the edits that I reverted; from what I can see, only the links to Billboard.com were supporting the material in the discography section, and Tcatron565 had just added Canadian, UK and Australian chart positions (and record certifications for Australia), without adding any references. Extraordinary Machine 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! They were sited. Right beside Album Information were two. Singles and Albums. Thanks! : )

I've already done that! If you see Singles right beside Album Information it has Wake Up as #29 U.S.! You've seen that. I know you have.

This guy vandalized three more pages after your "last warning". RadioKirk 20:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Add: This guy has made approximately 31 total edits; about 26 of them are unquestionable vandalism. This, I would think, deserves an extended "break" from editing... RadioKirk 20:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop calling edits you disagree with "vandalism". User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about the Katie Holmes edit in particular. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Although most of your reversions are quite proper, you might consider asking for cites before just deleting them. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

LMFAO, practice what you preach Zoe before lecturing others on wanton removal of content. F**king hilarious. --84.66.233.136 10:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You recently accused this anon IP's first edit - [6] - of being nonsense and considered to be vandalism. The IP in question changed Philosophers to Sorcerors in a HP related article. This isn't vandalism, this is most likely a USA resident believing in good faith that the correct title is Sorcerors as per his or her understanding. A polite message explaining the reason for using Philosophers would have been an appropiate response, not an accusation of non-existant vandalism.

03:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am an AP, and you recently accused me of "vandalizing" an Emma Watson page. That's ridiculous, considering what the page was before (WARNING - GRAPHIC): [[7]]

BECAUSE U DONT DISAGREE WIT SHIT DONT CALL IT VANDALISM, U ALWAYS DO IT TO EVERYONE, WELL YO DUMBB ASS NOT GON DO IT TO ME.

How can adding the CORRECT info to a page be vandalism?? About the BEP... that's black eyed peas in case you didn't undestood...

Elephunk is already TRIPLE platinum... it was certified A LONG TIME AGO...

And Monkey Business just got the triple platinum... go to billboard.com and see it for yourself...

And PUMP IT is beeing released as the next single, follow up to my humps...

you can add the info yourself, but just PUT THE RIGHT INFO THERE, god dammit, if you're keeping the article "updated" it just DO A LITTLE RESEARCH to know about the sales and everything else... GOD YOU SUCK... plus the Hilary Duff article is pretty terrible without the sales numbers on the albums and singles...

Sorry to say this, but you're an ass... Vandalism is when you mess up the article on purpose... now trying to help the article with correct information is vandalism because?? just explain it to me... God knows what goes on inside your little sick head...

It was useful edition. It was very easy to check and this way the people are scared away. KittenKlub 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

CITE is a guideline is not meant to randomly revert stuff without even bother checking it or seeing if there is anything else in the pages which could even confirm it.

17:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

CITE is a guideline as well. If there is a dispute then you can refute. We do not revert at their first entry. You are biting the newbies and reverting is slapping them in the face. In this case the information seems plausible and can be verified from the wiki pages and from beyond. You can talk to the user, but reverting is slapping them in the face. And it is a guideline, just like BITE.

And reverting stuff like Sex Symbol is weird and does not require a revert. Especially if it has been there a long time. All in all it has a negative effect and driving people away. There is no need to revert immediately without even bother to check the information if it seems plausible and in good faith. KittenKlub 18:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Yamla. I got invited into this dispute by KittenKlub I have no stake in any of these articles, but it seems like the cite thing is causing problems between other editors and newbies and yourself. Despite the changing standards of the pedia regarding citations, most people are unfamiliar with the important of bibliographies and citations and all that, which is not to say they shouldn't learn, but most IP/anon/newbie editors are working in good faith. Where possible, it's only kind that we allow them to participate--it's also the smart thing to do for wikipedia. Newbies become registered user become great editors, but the training and the learning curve is sharp. Anyway, might I suggest preserving the edits made by newbies and moving them either to an "unverified trivia" section with a Verify template at the top or to the talk page, where perhaps more experienced editors could tackle filling out the citation stuff? You totally have a right to protect the integrity of existing articles, but there has to be room for evolution and change, don't you think? Good luck! jengod 04:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My side of things... users are very quick to post uncited and often (though certainly not always) unverifiable information to pages. While I cannot speak specifically to the Kelis article, in many cases what happens is that unverified information is posted anonymously, then another anonymous editor changes this information, again without citing, then more anonymous editors change that, again without citing.

I generally revert the edit, often warning with the test template or with a little note reminding them that they have to cite the information. Sometimes a user continues to post information without bothering to

it, in which case it gets a test2. Other times, I warn a user with test2 if there have been a series of uncited edits in a day, each of which were warned.

Now, I have had some of my edits reverted (I'm talking regular edits here) and I never felt "bitten". However, I understand that KittenKlub believes I am being rude to the newbies, even though this is not my intention. I am frustrated, though, that KittenKlub has expressed a desire to leave uncited (and often, though not always, incorrect) information in the articles simply so we can be nice to the newbies. In my opinion, the goal of Wikipedia is to provide an encyclopedia-like resource. Presenting uncited and often incorrect information is simply not the way to accomplish this goal. As chart information is frequently incorrect, I really do feel that requiring it to be cited is a good idea. Most pages that I watch (though 'possibly' not the Kelis articlee) follow this principle.

I found today that you can use the fact tag which I 'think' can be used to indicate that the information needs citing. Jengod, would it perhaps be better for me to indicate uncited information using this tag and only revert after a week or so? This seems easier than moving the uncited information into a different section. If you think this would be a good approach, how should I go about informing the newbies? It is not clear to me if KittenKlub believes it is even acceptable for me to add a "please cite" section to the newbie's talk page and I am not aware of any standard template other than the test series for this purpose.. I'm not trying to claim that KittenKlub has expressed an opinion on this, however.

KittenKlub, while I strongly disagree with your statements that uncited information should remain in a page (particularly information as likely to be incorrect as chart status and sales figures), I do nevertheless welcome your comments on this matter. --Yamla 05:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The fact tag looks perfect for this purpose. Slap a fact tag on it, and then let things marinate for a while. Newbies may in fact come back and add a citation; experienced editors could do the same. And after some reasonable period of time, if no citation has been added, just delete or move it to the talk page, which I find tends to be the graveyard of possibly valuable/possibly totally incorrect edits. Yay. :) Good luck kidlets :) jengod 06:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it depends on the user. If somebody changed 13 into 30 then it's usually nonsense, but if there is a long story and it sounds highly plausible and reasonable well written then leave it for a time and see whether the user can add some info about it. In this case we had information which was correct. The point is that if it is deleted immediately and then a question is askedit is unlikely that the user will go back and add it again. If you ask them but still leave the information then there is a no problem.

All in all it depends on plausibility and quality of the overall entry. The same if an addition isn't completely neutral or maybe a bit speculative. It is usually better to slightly change it or ask the user to improve it a bit, but revert is for vandalism. So if somebody changes a number from 125,000 to 532,000 then it's vandalism. If it changes to 150,000 then it could well be correct and if the previous edit should that the anonymous knew a lot about the subject and those statements turned out to be correct as well then give them the benefit of the doubt. KittenKlub 09:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the sources. The only time I don't cite my sources, I get picked on *lol*

Sarz 09:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I had just started a discussion point on an edit you've now reverted... let me know your thoughts, please :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I started the discussion before your reversion; I figured you'd like to join in ;) RadioKirk talk to me 17:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Indeed, the citation was confusing; the editor added the source following the comment. I just moved it to the proper spot. RadioKirk talk to me 17:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. What was your problem with my picture on the Heather Graham page? It was a single screenshot. Michael L. Kaufman 06:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

...and, auburn is technically correct, anyway ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamla. We've run into each other multiple times in the past, [8] and I am of the belief that you shouldn't have to revert vandalism by hand any longer.  ;-) If you feel you are ready, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yamla and sign your life away acceptance to the nomination! Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations! I knew you could do it. Hall Monitor 23:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop you a note and thank you for catching the vandalism I missed on Jodie Sweetin. I'm going to take Jodie off my watch list, since it looks like it was just a tag and run vandalism. Caelarch 18:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I always get info from sites that are on articles. So why would you have to make me provide a citation for the info that I put on the Emma Watson article. You should check imdb if the info is correct or other official sites before telling people to put a citation for it.

I don't appreciate your implication that I typed 'nonsense' in the Nickelback section. I cited my sources (the albums themselves). The revised paragraph took your previous comments into account and deleted all opinions of the music. Please refrain from giving orders that you lack the authority to enforce.

Thanks for leaving that message on my discussion page. Now every person wouldn't let me remove it because you made that unnecessary comment. You actually think my edit for University of Alberta is vandalism? It says Macleans rankings but did not provide the table references which I thought wasn't enough, guess not. You sir, are misusing your admin power. 24.57.131.18 03:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you have claimed to do something that you have not previously done. It is clear in your replies in my discussion board that you have never previously asked me to look for a consensus. Therefore that point is moot and there is no need to address it anymore. As for the rules of Wikipedia; I shall adhere to them as they are written. I noticed that you have no explanation to your previous comment of 'nonsense'. You are not an editor / administrator yet; you should demonstrate a bit more tact and discretion. Learn to perform your actions this way and you will get less negative responses. --unsigned comments from User:MotionJ5.

Actually, take a look at User_talk:69.251.185.198 and you will see I have indeed asked you to look for consensus at least twice. I didn't post to your User:MotionJ5 account because that is not where the edits came from, assuming we are even talking about the same thing. --Yamla 14:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

For your convenience I have pasted our previous discussions below. The word 'consensus' never appears until your third message. You are also incorrect that I have not offered any justification; look again at the Nickelback discussion page at the bottom. You have not even mentioned consensus until today, the 15th. I consider this subject closed and will no longer comment on it; my priority is now to use Wikipedia as I have in the past. If you continue to interfere with my edits than so be it.

I moved some of your most recent edits to the Nickelback article into the discussion area. Please take a look and let us know what you think. Thanks. --Yamla 03:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This message is regarding the page Nickelback. Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --Yamla 17:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. Your edits to Nickelback need consensus to stay in the page. So far, not a single editor has spoken up to say they believe the information should stay and you have not offered any justification on the discussion page. Continuing to readd the information is considered vandalism. Please do not add this section to the page again without getting a consensus from other editors. While I agree that you have modified your text and it is clear that it is coming closer to being acceptable and encyclopedic, I have already asked you to gain a consensus before adding the text back in. --Yamla 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the history and repeated blockages, this IP may be due for another block (and, you probably beat me in reverting Lindsay Lohan by a fraction of a second ;) ) RadioKirk talk to me 18:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

With a great deal of input, my first article from scratch is up for Featured Article status (self-nominated). Feel free to visit and vote! RadioKirk talk to me 18:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why else you think I'd move the text over to the discussion area, an area of Wikipedia specifically set up to build consensus, apart from the possibility that I was asking you to look for, well, consensus (and inviting your comments). --Yamla 15:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

From the above text, I have determined that you indeed never mentioned consensus before. Keep in mind that the discussion area is an area for "discussion". If you glance around at random discussion areas, you will see a great deal of discussion happening. Perhaps I thought you were placing my words in this area to be discussed for validity and accuracy, which it was. Rather, you were implying that I ask for consensus, and not using the discussion area for discussion. Since I missed your unvoiced wish that I submit the test for consensus, we have had a new discussion. I believe I see the divide in our ways of thinking in this new discussion about our old discussion. I have also come to the conclusion that this new discussion has resolved itself satisfactorily. I have enjoyed using your discussion area to discuss our discussions.

When you mark press release the description automatically says that it comes from an organization. I dont feel there is any mistake considering it was from an award show picture released by the press.

JJstroker 19:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am 100 percent positive it was released by the press especially considering that they were famous photos. Also the website doesnt own the copyrights considering they were a hair site. It most likely didnt specifically apply to that picture considering they received it from the press as well (It wasnt their own work) they only put copyright info for their own stuff. Technically I couldn't find a site that actually stated that it was released so I just put that one site. I dont think anyone would mind because I feel that it is an obviously released photo.

Hopefully we can get this resolved. If you can help me find a good site that would officially release it for technical matters that would work.

JJstroker 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought we could upload images for Amazon.com. That's where all the images are from. And by the way, your picture is way cool! Where did you find it? Tcatron565

You're probably aware of this already, but this link has been added from at least three different IPs, all in India. If I might make a suggestion: If you block any one of them, block them all. RadioKirk talk to me 22:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yamla, I could use your help. My biographical page Steve 'Flash' Juon was unfairly marked for deletion as it was noted I was not a "person of importance." Besides being insulting (which I can ignore) that statement is factually incorrect as I am a noted author and webmaster who is widely published and interviewed. I have re-added the bio page with just a few of the many external links that prove the validity of that statement and that this is not delusions of grandeur on my part. Besides which the bio page itself was very un-aggrandizing and entirely factually correct. Since I worked with you so closely on conforming to Wiki standards regarding the external links policy and created an account to discuss this as an un-anonymous logged in user, I would appreciate your help in return in blocking this bio page from further attempts at deletion. BronzeWarrior 07:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamla, Well I must say I am pleasantly surprised with your reply. Yes, I have been told that about words before; but never in the context of Douglas Adams. I will have to read up on him. I also suppose that you are just trying to keep the articles accurate and simply want everyone to adhere by the rules. Really it was the implication of nonsense and vandalism which drove me to defend the article to this extent. As for the test of the Nickelback section, I'll hold off putting it up for a couple of days; see if I can't find some extra sources to support my firsthand observations to the audio. -MotionJ5

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an

16:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if your first act as an Administrator would be to protect the Steve 'Flash' Juon bio mentioned above. BronzeWarrior 18:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say congrats on becoming an Admin! :)

Sarz 03:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the link I posted for Daniel Radcliffe on AskMen.com? The link is simply a link containing biographical information written from a man's perspective, and I'm confident that it would make a welcome addition to the External Links section. I don't see how the AskMen.com article differs from those of the Internet move Database or Aced Magazine...please explain!

You'll probably find they feel external links that are not directly referenced in the article about the person or thing being edited are not considered appropriate. I learned the hard way myself. Don't worry though, Yamla's good people, you'll understand once it's explained. Read my talk page if you want more info in the meantime. BronzeWarrior 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I hope that I'm right here so this is the right place to contact user Yamla.

You have deleted my links to db4free.net and my MySQL 5 related weblog at db4free.blogspot.com.

First I'd like to tell you that none of these sites is commercial.

You also show a link to FreeSQL. Can you tell me ONE reason, why FreeSQL can be listed and db4free.net not? I don't see ANY difference in the subjects of both projects. So if you think that db4free.net can't be listed, it would only be fair to also delete the link to FreeSQL!

And my blog is at the moment the 2nd most active according to the ranking at planetmysql.org. So I also don't see the reason why other weblogs can be listed and mine not?

I'm looking forward to reading your explainations!

Regards, Markus Popp

Greetings! As no doubt you've noticed, I've done significant work on this article with the aim of bringing it to FA quality. Please add your comments here! :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting for the new Main Page has begun! There are several candidates to choose from. Voting ends January 28th. To see the candidates, CLICK HERE

If you think the voting time should be extended another week, feel free to change the ending date to February 4th.

Thank you. --Go for it! 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for saying that. -- Luigi-ish 12:53, 25 January 2006

You're telling me that you don't want to spank her? 129.97.77.142 17:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC) God, there's no pleasing you. You citation nazi. 19:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Argh, User:FallingDown really isn't getting it re source and copyright! Thanks for also working on them.

When do you think {{

20:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

(copied from original) Thanks for reverting all the link spam from User:70.97.175.15. Much appreciated! --Yamla 18:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Glad to do it. :) --Buchanan-Hermit 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Yamla,

I understand your impulse to delete the external links to our article on the film BIRTH, which I added to its Wikipedia page as well as under "Jonathan Glazer." Still, I politely ask you to reconsider them. 24LiesASecond is not a commercial site, neither is it my personal site--it's a platform for people interested in cinema. Many of our writers have academic and/or professional backgrounds, but we do it all strictly for the love of film (much like how Wikipedia was put together). This specific movie is one we feel very passionate about, and it was strictly my intention to give people who want to know more about it the chance to discover what we have to say about it.

If my words are not enough to convince you, please have a second look at the essay itself. It's not a standard review; it's about as in-depth an article on BIRTH as one could possibly hope to find. I honestly believe that people who are interested in the subject would find the link of great value and very relevant indeed.

This was the link:

• Why Is This Film Called Birth? Investigating Jonathan Glazer’s Mystery of the Heart Essay at 24LiesASecond

Let me know what you think. I'll check back later on this page, but you can always email me on "info at 24liesasecond dot com".

Best regards, Peter

Consider me a newbie bitten.--194.165.179.230 23:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sweeping up little mistakes on my user page! --TML1988 00:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Please insert the webitaliansite of Nicole Kidman... Is not personal or commercial website, is dedicated to the Star Nicole Kidman!!! www.nicolekidmanfans.it Visit it! Ideated by Angela & Diego!!!

Please put my comment back in the starforce page, or discuss it with me. I don't appreciate you calling what I think is a legit comment "an experiment." If you read it carefully I was saying the article is lopsided, and I gave a good reason. A lot of what I was saying was putting my actual point into a context, not "chatting". If you really think I was just trying to chat and that I added nothing to the discussion, I am willing to discuss it more, but frankly I think what you did was somewhat insulting and immature (or hasty).

I am concerned that your removal of my comment was censorship of an opposing view of the majority. The article, as it is, carefully documents criticisms but has few positive points about starforce. I know first hand that starforce does what it claims to do very well, which is exactly what my comments said. If you disagree than say so, instead of insulting me and wasting my time.

I still think my discussion is legit. I put it at the top of the page because for whatever reason there is no index to the comments. I think it is because the top comment has no heading - a bug in wikipedia? I feel like unindexed comments don't get any attention, but deleted ones don't either.

What I said was not neccesarily original research (although I wouldn't have been able to say it without firsthand experience). A quote from the bottom link in the article states:

"Our job is to protect the product during the peak of sales, which is usually one to three months. So that the developer and the publisher could get their revenue and invest the money into their new projects which we all so much anticipate every time. And believe me, we do our job well, some of the games we protected stayed secure for 6 months and longer."

How come this viewpoint is not presented in the article? I think it is a very legitimate one. I can add it, but my reason for placing a comment in the discussion was to see what other people think. I am fairly conservative about changing actual article unless I see a total NPOV or an incorrect "fact". Concerning "I removed your comment because it appeared to be discussing StarForce itself rather than discussing the article," take 30 seconds to reread my comment and you will see that my main point was entirely about the article. 70.93.249.46 04:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just been browsing wikipedia and was planning to make some edits but it seems I have been accused of vandalism - I've never edited a wikipedia page before now. You seem to be keen on blocking people, in your time since adminship, does this extend to blocking anonymous ips used by many users? --unsigned comment from 129.67.10.16

Dear Yamla, I would like to in vite you to my 1st poll, Best DCOM. Thanks! : ) Tcatron565 9:47 am CST 2/04/06

Forseeing that you had to revert all the vandalism on the article Evangeline Lilly, I suggest that you put up a template called "Heavily Moderated Article", meaning that the article will be checked to make sure that all edits are credible and within Wikipedia boundaries. I think the article should say "This article is a heavily moderated article. Any edits that are not credible will be purged and offenders will be disciplined." Just my two cents and just a suggestion to help you curb vandals on the Evangeline Lilly Article. — Dark Insanity 04:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Yamla,

Thanks for your input about the posting of Brad Pitt in Relationships on his page.

Please consider the following:

1. Top Synergy is everything but a commercial website.
2. The study about Brad's characteristics in relationships is unique and of great interest to the public.

I believe that Brad Pitt in Relationships should be considered as a source that enriches one's study of Brad Pitt and that the link should be allowed.

Please comment back. Midas touch

Greetings! You have edited the

18:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Rich List

A series of tracks are being laid to collate with what will be an entry on estimated worth of Canadian politicians past and present. This is a very important issue, and the entry is about to be created, and then verified by Canadian journalists. Please give space for this to be created, and APPROVED as an entry by the Wikpedia board. Thanks. Can Journo 16:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You left a message at User talk:194.72.54.34, presumably regarding these edits. That wasn't me (as in me personally, rather than this IP address), but you should have used {{blanking|MacBook Pro}}, or {{subst:test-n|MacBook Pro}}, as it was clearly a test edit and no nonsense was added. I don't know why you jumped to a second level warning, or what the need for the warning was at all. There isn't a history of vandalism from this IP, AFAIK. It doesn't bother me, as I'm a long term Wikipedia user, but this is the kind of thing that could easily scare off a newcomer to the website. Particularly if the edit in question wasn't theirs. 194.72.54.34 16:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. 194.72.54.34 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Be on the lookout for nonsense pages from the Douglas County School District IP Address. Please contact me if you find any. I wil deal with the IT department at DCSD. Vmatikov 19:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Notice: Hellomoto456 is attempting to (and doing) vandalize Wikipedia. Please do something about thios. I am not as high up in Wikipedia, and do not have deletion privillages. Vmatikov 16:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to reword myself. I must have mis-understood the thirteen-year-old seventh grader about whom we are talking about. He must not have been saving his vandalizing. The fiation fo the grammar was done by his firend, an unknown user account, as he noticed it. This person is responsile for vandalizing under the IP address of Douglas County School District. He must have stopped in order to retain his user account. If anything comes up, I will notify you. Vmatikov 02:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the guy you warned about "vandalizing" the X Marks The Pedwalk page. I changed the dates for 2 albums, because they were wrong. Drawback definitely didn't come out in 96, it was either 97 or 98, and I'm quite sure that Meshwork was 96, not 95:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000001JUG/sr=8-2/qid=1140080466/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-6767349-8507039?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Citation for original dates. --Yamla 15:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Happily Enough i placed some sources at User_talk:Superdude99#POV2. Also you must know that most of the information in wikipedia is uncited and that it would just be a childish act aimed to hurt wikipedia to remove all information that is uncited, even though you say this is allowed. --137.120.222.64 15:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Messy Thinking 03:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) The Ami Cusack citation is up; partway down, you will find links to the males who were interviewed on her behavior, all on that one page.

I saw on Talk: Angelina Jolie that you referred to the inability to maintain dual nationality between the US and Britain (should you wish to become a US Citizen). This is not actually true, as dual nationality between the US and UK is legal (however, neither country recognises the other's citizenship on the person, as they would only view their own citizenship as valid). Having been born in the US (and having lived there) I was required to renounce US citizenship (in my case through intentional military service in Britain). This is due to the fact that British nationality can be passed other than by birth (that is, through parents, up to one generation being allowed to be a citizen other than by birth or naturalisation) while the US makes one a citizen by place of birth. Thus, should I have been born in Germany, I would have only been a British Citizen, because Germany does not transfer citizenship by place of birth and (with exceptions) does not allow dual nationality (in Germany's case you must request permission from the Foreign Ministry). However, there are restrictions for dual nationals of the US and UK which include the US's requirement that it's nationals submit self-assessment tax forms (regardless of residency), US Selective Service registration, or in the UK's case the inability to serve in HM Forces as a dual national with a non-Commonwealth country, or more particularly the inability to serve in things like the SIS or Submarine Service as anything other than a British Citizen (dual nationality being unacceptable). Hope this is informative. Nick Kerr 18:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Yamla. Thank-you for restoring the binary unit multipliers on Intel Core. I guess there's nowt as queer as folk. Duckbill 23:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yamla. Thanks for volunteering to help with my understanding of "Fair Use". It is obvious that you have painstakingly scrolled through my history and deleted a goodly portion of the images I have contributed. I fail to understand why you deemed some "fair use", yet wiped out others that had the same fair use justification. The wiki link you so helpfully provided stated that screenshots of television and movies are a "blanket category" that falls under fair use. Pretty much all the uploaded images were screenshots, and were clearly labeled as such. How are you determining that some of my screenshots are fair use while others are not. Unless I'm missing some of your thought process, your editing style seems rather arbitrary and sporadic.

Thank you for reverting the vandalism of my user page in a timely fashion. Hu 19:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My dear sir,
I was shocked you saw my edits as vandalism. I strongly believe that users are allowed to post whatever they want on their user pages as long as its appropriate. Although 200.55.213.30's user page was wierd to say the least, it does not waste up much space and it is not inappropriate. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I assure you I have no intention of vandalizing Wikpedia or standing up for this vandal.
Sincerely,
200.119.252.110 21:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a dispute with

21:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

okay why was my opinion on a discussion page for natalee holloway refered to as vandalism? i did not do anything to the actual page. if you dont like my discussion ignore it. --unsigned comment from 70.112.192.176

WP:NOT --Yamla

06:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Yamla. You've just dropped this:

"Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as ...Baby One More Time, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! --Yamla 14:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)"

You just told me use citations, while i do use citations... I cited chart info of Germany, Austria and Ireland. All that chart info about "...Baby One More Time" in Indonesia, wasn't me... I did not add that... So you're at the wrong adress here...
By the way, I'm not new :) Luigi-ish 10:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with you!?! I shall edit what ever the fuck I want to without reprecussions from you or any body else on here!!!! 131.95.165.70 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT --Yamla

18:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

LAST WARNING !!!! Ahhhhh? You have lost me !!

Hi

I posted on Jessica Alba and the i was wondering how it was deleted, so i happened to notice you posted " LAST WARNING" sorry mate, i have nevere recevied any previous warnings..

how do i speak to someone on what i can do and what i cant do..

User bigblog.

J

P.s I never spam and I hate spammers......

Vandalized

Your page was vandalized [9] --TKE 08:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What vandalism? The informations are sourced by brazilian media. Who made vandalism was you balking important informations that being continued the case.

Please, if you're not capable to understand

Wikipedia:Sources. Regards, --201.58.104.110

17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

SOURCED! GET A PORTUGUESE DICTIONARY

I will translate for you OK?

Fã que beijou Bono pode virar artista da Globo - A fã que dançou, acariciou e deu um selinho no vocalista do U2, Bono, durante o primeiro show da banda em São Paulo, na segunda-feira, pode virar artista da TV Globo, informou o colunista Daniel Castro do jornal Folha de S. Paulo.

Fan that kissed Bono can turn Artist of Globo - The fan that danced and kissed Bono during the first Brazilian show in São Paulo, on Monday, can turn an artist on Globo informed Daniel Castro from Folha de S. Paulo newspaper.

This makes no mention of the person "acting in novels", nor how this would physically be accomplished in any case. It is a logical and physical impossibility. --Yamla 17:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Novel, Telenovela is all same thing in Brazil. Was a misunderstanding by your side and no reason for a IP block. You aren't capable percept a misunderstanding? You need resolve this calling vandalism and blocking users? It's only your modus-operadi a in front of a simple and stupid easy situation like that?

Starforce

I've already posted this massage on appropriate discussion page and I paste it here because I eagerly wait for clarification.

I've invested a lot of time in reading about StarForce and I see no reason for avoiding the truth. All SF protected titles are available as functional clones immediately after or on the day of release and that fact is easy to verify. I understand that this is a rather sensitive subject, but the tone of the article tends to favor SF. Please let me know the reasons why actuality cannot be presented within the main article. Correct me if I'm wrong or inform me if this collides with editing policy? The person who wrote the original article should visit forums of video game publishers that implement SF, along with those of Alcohol, CDFreaks and Daemon Tools. There are numerous tutorials that explain how to make a perfect SF clone and I wont to know why is this neglected? The swindle goes both ways, and the article should be closer to the center. In many ways SF is far from a bulletproof copy protection system, so please give me a good reason why that cannot be clearly stated? Please visit NFOrce and similar locations and check the .nfos. If you are willing to open your eyes then you're bound to see a number of actual SF cracks (not clones). I don’t care about copy protection, I don’t care about piracy, but I do care about the TRUTH!

Interiors

Why did you remove my contribution? See the movie's talk page. --87.244.137.1 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Look what did post that was soooooo wrong? --unsigned comment from 66.183.250.80 (though it has nothing to do with Interiors)

I cannot believe that you have been put forward for adminship, given your attitude. The wording of this article is deeply offensive to some in the community. Also to be called a racist is a terrible terrible thing to call someone. How would you like it if someone called you a racist? It hurts me that some people are trying to besmirch Wikipedia. It only takes a few bad eggs. Wallie 19:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you have removed my comments on your user page. But of course this is not censorship. About Paris Hilton, if you think that removing offensive material is censorship, then you and I are diametrically opposed. It is a sad state that the world is in that mean minded persons will always beat down persons like myself who try to find good in others and do not support material that causes hatred and dispair. Wallie 20:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The comment was moved from my user page to this discussion page because this is the correct place for it. I've followed up with the rest (specifically including your misunderstanding of the word, "censorship") on your discussion page. --Yamla 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Sorry for putting the remarks on your user page. A mistake on my part. As for Paris Hilton, do you honestly believe in your heart that she is a real racist. That is what Wikipedia is telling us. Note that George Washington had black slaves himself, and not white slaves, but is not accused in any way of being racist. I find that Wikipedia is becoming very political, and if people like myself try to protect the little people, people like yourself are there to clobber us. Wallie 16:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you trying to turn the discussion? It is about racism. You mentioned the article about slavery and Washington. However, the word racism or racist does not appear anywhere in this article. Are you seriously thinking that racial words (which she may or may not have said) are seriously racist and that what Washington did is not? The fact that you are disagreeing with me on this means that you actually support that Paris Hilton IS a racist, and by implication you and others holding this position are not in any way racist youselves. Always remember the old adage "He who casts the first stone..." Wallie 18:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise I couldn't add my website to external links. I thought that was the point of that section.

I don't have a problem with that if that is Wikipedia policy, but I think it's unfair you won't let me post my site, but you allow www.wanting-moore.net to be posted.

You shouldn't have rules for some people, and rules for others.

Hey Yamla, You blocked 199.43.172.254, for a month. While I understand that it was the 18th block or so, that is a school IP, and at least one user and possibly two were unable to edit because of the block. Please keep blocks to school IPs at a lower time period. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf 16:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I see you are on my case now. You seem to have it in for Paris Hilton too. So be it. At least this is all "on the record" for when things really escalate. Wallie 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RFA. I appreciated the show of support and all the kind words. If there's ever anything I can do to help with my new administrator status, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Myles Long 14:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Fire down below is used generally as a term for people with red hair. Although in a narrow sense this term refers to pubic hair, a "true" redhead is said to have "fire down below" because such a person has red hair not only on the head but also in the pubic area. Thus, in common usage, to say that someone has "fire down below" is an affirmation that this person is a natural redhead. In short, this term refers to somethign more then pubic hair. Thanks for asking -- I posted this not to be silly but because this is probably as common a way to refer to redheads as "titian" or "ginger". Interestingstuffadder 15:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok seriously, you do have some issues. How did I "vandalize" her page by adding her to a category? That's nothing but an exaggeration of a non-criminal act. If you disagree with her belonging to thw category, it requires people to be able to sing in the whistle register or in the whistle range(E6+). Since Eb6 is only a half step lower it shouldn't be too difficult to execute an E6. To support this, she held the Eb6 for a while. It may have been weak but so was Kelly Clarkson's F6. my falsetto is comfortable singing from D5-D6 but I can hit G6. There is not really much doubt that she can hit the whistle range if she has hit Eb6. So I have no idea why you're acting in such a manner and by the rest of this discussion I see you have a history of this. 67.181.94.96 09:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't vandalise the PlanetSide article. 2 reasons for this: 1. MMORPG mean Massive Multiplayer On-line Roleplaying Game.

   I saw Massively instead of Massive, so I attempted correction.  
   If I am mistaken about this, then forgive me.

2. My computer was on the fritz, so I wasn't sure if any changes

   made on the article stuck there.

Oh, and the Paris Hilton thing... Personal opinion. Not just mine, but pretty much half the population of the province of

says so.

You seriously get on my very last nerve, I don't see how you became an administator.131.95.115.201 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Everything Don't have to be fucking cited. They don't cite in songs when they use samples, they don't cite on tv either. So just get over ya self, ,it's a free encyclopedia, what do you expect, Harvard scholars? 131.95.115.201 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Who are you and why are you posting here? I cannot see any warnings I have given to

cite facts, especially if there's a chance they'll be disputed. Songs that use samples must be cleared. Television news reports must also cite non-original material or buy a license for it if such use would not fall under fair use. And I'm sorry that you feel Wikipedia does not need to adhere to these standards but you are wrong. --Yamla

21:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

watch the clerks II trailer and keep this in mind

Donkey show

no I am not just being an asshole 132.241.245.49 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yo, Yamla, why do u change every little effing thing? You think ur high and mighty, well my goal in life is to bring u down, eff ur mom, and eat ur head. Then i will change everything u did back to the hilarious offensive, funny as hell stuff everyone wants to see.

Yes, unfortunately this man is at the base level of some in the Administation of this particular encyclopedia. I'm afraid that standards may have to slip even further before things eventually improve. Please stick with Wikipedia. These matters do tend to sort themselves out in the long run. Wallie 19:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, i just checked their website, and dum diddly is the next single. sorry about that.

Thanks for taking this article in hand - I looked at it briefly, but didn't want to get into the long argument about reliable sources with the anonymous article creator. Just to be clear, "I puted sources" was the article's creator, not me! :-) Best, FreplySpang (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What did I do to earn your gratitude?

What can I say, I always find it heartening when I get ready to revert a multiple-vandal and find someone else has already done it for me. I've also noticed your edits in the past, you do a lot of good work in stopping vandals. Keep it up!  :) -Kasreyn 01:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your contributions to curbing vandalism on Wikipedia. -Kasreyn 11:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Can you do something about 72.229.186.113 (talk · contribs). The modifications he's making clearly show that he's an anonymous sockpuppet vandal that has been here last night and before. I warned him but he inores me. He keeps reverting and vandalising today, using this new IP. --Realek 16:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice job: you warned him while I was! You used the test4 template, appropriate in this case of course, but I wondered if you were aware of the test4im message, which displays an "only warning" message. If so you may want to use it in such cases. Happy editing!

Prodego ^talk 23:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In the future, when warning other users like 68.147.129.44, please take the time to at least revert the vandalism that you see, instead of warning and then forgetting about them. Thanks, KI 23:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If another user reverted the vandalism, then you should have told them to warn the user. Considering the warning template you used, which was incorrect since it was the user's first edit, the user got the point in February. KI 00:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamla - Thank you so much for reverting my edits! I was trying to edit at a level that I am not competent at, and was frantically trying to figure out how to undo what I had done with the "Jen Rivell" and "Jenn Rivell" pages. Rest assured I will not attempt this again until I am positive I have the skills. Thanks again! :) Panastasia 16:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Yamla likes to revert my stuff too. He likes to label us as "vandals". As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely... Wallie 07:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

For your time and dedication toward maintaining the integrity of the wide range of celebrity biographies on Wikipedia, I hereby award you this Hollywood Barnstar. Hall Monitor 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for reverting this page. The particular vandal has been around before (under a different name - may actually be her son, see early versions of the page). Is there a case for a longer block than 24 hrs? Dlyons493 Talk 18:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

OK..first of all, don't call them spamming! I am not spamming! WTF?! I thought it would be nice to just add 2 fansites and don't delete em'-they're useful sources! think!

You are being selfish. It's not vandalism to delete messages sent to me. You know, screw you. I don't get you admins. You all are like taking our rights away. I've never heard such selfishness before. I treat those messages like an e-mail. I can delete the ones I hate and DO NOT continue to put back messages in my discussion page!!

I'm sorry to inform you that my edit was NOT a test. A link to Spyware, is definately nessecary in that page. I also found that other software articles about programs that are spyware (such as eMule) do not inform users that contain spyware, adware, dialers etc. and provide direct links. I think that users should be informed and enter at their own risk. I'm also sorry to think that I have to re-revert the page to my edition. --87.202.40.24 16:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Followed up on user page. Link already warned about spyware so the edit was completely unnecessary and the extra link to spyware was superfluous. However, edit appears to have been made in good faith. --Yamla 16:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, then I guess I'm stepping back editing only the Greek Wikipedia. By the way, I have already made more than 50 changes in the english wikipedia but the IP keeps changing and I still don't know why --87.202.40.24 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've just noticed you've been dealing with some vandalism by Krabs504, someone I've been keeping an eye on for a few months. I'm just letting you know, I'm going report him over for investigation now. --Oakster 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Would you please block this sockpuppet of

20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Don't know why I bother with this article - I haven't the slightest interest in speedskating :-) Dlyons493 Talk

Just wondering why you removed the external link to Humbug! Online, from the

entry? (Which I've since re-added.)

14:22, 5 April 2006 Yamla m (Reverted edits by 211.26.1.7 (talk) to last version by 84.221.63.96)

Given it's a weblog which deals specifically with logical fallacies and has numerous examples, not unlike The Fallacy Files which is listed, I can't see why this was done?

Thanks

Theo Clark

Please don't steal copyrighted images. I will be forced to report you to the proper authorities. I don't care if you are a user or not. Thank you, Bleweyes.

The preceding comment has no basis in fact and Bleweyes is unable to identify which image he or she is talking about. --Yamla 16:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Numerous sources, including the Internet Movie Data Base, indicates her birthplace is Fayetteville, NC, NOT Boston, MA. Considering Fort Bragg is located in Fayetteville and her father was a military man, I would support this arguement! 65.210.22.66 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know that I'm very sorry from vandalizing the Mina Mongoose article, Mina Mongoose and Michael Jackson are perfect together, because they're pop singers. You have to accept that edit. She can even have MJ as a friend. Please accept my apology, Yamla.--Danucciguzman 00:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

apl.de.ap did move to America at the age of 14 - check his article - so he can't have been able to start rapping in the streets of Los Angeles in the 8th grade, which is when he was 12/13, and at that time he would have still been in the Philippines. Also, check the lyrics to the Apl Song (That's the title) He says there himself that he moved to America at the age of 14. --84.12.22.119 18:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You posted on

's pos IP ideas. But I digress.

I personally don't know the contact information for the Jefferson Area School district. All I can get from my school's website is the contact information of the High School.

© Copyright 2002 Jefferson Area High School - All rights reserved
125 South Poplar Street | Jefferson, OH 44047 | 440-576-4731
Email: [email protected]
Last modified: March 17, 2006

If you wish to talk with the district technology director (a good friend of mine), his email is mark.pickard at neomin.org. I'm not aware of what association neomin has with my school district, but all the staff get their email through there. Feel free to contact me for more information. I can't stay logged in via my

for more than 1 page, so email contact is preferred.

--67.142.130.31 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

--workman161

Please check the 2nd to last comment on user_talk:vmatikov. Is this considered vandalism? Vmatikov 02:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it was done by the same user owning user:Hellomoto456. You can see this if you check on their contribs. Vmatikov 00:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Due to the fact that there's been A LOT OF SPAM and A LOT OF UNWARRANTED EDITS in this article, it has came to my attention that this article has been severely beaten up to death. I hereby do request that this article be heavily moderated by anyone who knows A LOT about Evangeline Lilly in order to prevent a plethora of unwarranted edits and spams from coming into this article. I'm not gonna edit this article unless otherwise necessary but I am going to be more touchy with this article and because of what I have been seeing over the last couple of months, I do request that moderators and people who know more about Evangeline Lilly than myself (namely Yamla, I'm thinking Yamla knows more about Lilly than myself) to heavily moderate this article so that both spamming and unwarranted edits are being controlled. I'm not going to state messages like this but I really feel that this article has gone WAY OUT OF CONTROL and I think it's time to start getting serious about making this article encyclopediatrical. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 15:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia? That's funny.

I think it's terrible that you've become the External Link Nazi stating Wikipedia rules that don't even apply. I recently added a link on the Aishwarya Rai page to aishwarya-forever.com which is the best fansite out there, which defeats the official one. It has great content such as the biggest extensive collection of HQ photographs, videos, news, and even merchandise. How dare you label it spam! You left a link to the Wikipedia External links and my addition to the page on Rai is defended by the rules.

Under "Ocassionaly Accepted Links" it states 3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such.

So far there isn't even one fansite listed, maybe because you deleted them all. I'm re-adding the link, the rules are on my side. Thanks for experimenting with being an admin. --Speakslowly 21:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)