User talk:Yamla/Archive 20

This is the user who held the CanadianWriter5000 and R-41 accounts. As said before, I started the CanadianWriter5000 account through WP:FRESHSTART to do editing on Wikipedia because my personal life is currently facing serious difficulties and I was looking for distraction. I focused on the old articles and that behaviour was not in keeping with WP:FRESHSTART. To be honest, WP:FRESHSTART could not have worked

In spite of my desire to seek distraction from these problems, it is not helpful to the Wikipedia community nor my own health to be committed to editing here under the current circumstances I am facing. However I am concerned that my recent behaviour and behaviour in the past will condemn me from being able to restore the R-41 account in the future.

There have been times in the past that I have been addicted to editing Wikipedia. In that state I was very protective of my edits, hostile to those who challenged the quality of my research and edits, was standoffish if something I thought was right was strongly disagreed with by someone else, and on-and-off I edited here on Wikipedia anonymously but did not request that the R-41 account be restored - that was sockpuppetry. I believe this previous behaviour even as recognized by me here will not be enough to allow me to return to Wikipedia in the future because of alienation of a prominent user.

The user The Four Deuces (TFD) has had to endure too much of drama caused by me in the past, and I believe that he/she has no confidence that I can or should edit on Wikipedia again. A few years ago in a very bad state I engaged in vitriolic argument with TFD, it was utterly unacceptable and if such behaviour were to have been done in public I would have been arrested under such circumstances for threatening behaviour. With regards to the CanadianWriter5000 account, TFD has personally undertaken to cross out all conversations that my account made; my concern is not with the action but with who has done the action. If the admin who decided to block the account did so that is the admin being thorough to inform other users that this account is no longer in the community. With TFD doing this, I am concerned that it could also indicate a strong disgust with my returned presence here.

The point that I want to address now is that should I attempt to restart the R-41 account, that User:Dennis Brown blocked in cooperation with me because my behaviour then was going out of control; that TFD if he does not believe that I should return to Wikipedia will obviously be able to make a strong argument to keep me blocked for good because of his past experience with me and the fact that I have mental illness that has influenced my behaviour in the past. I addressed this problem to TFD, he did not respond.

On the other hand one user whom I had problems with in the past User:Writegeist commented on TFD's talk page prior to TFD removing it, and said that my editing on the CanadianWriter5000 account did not appear to have serious problems.

The bottom line is that I believe that I have severely alienated a respected user on Wikipedia, TFD, and that I do not know what I would need to demonstrate to allow a restoration of the R-41 account in the future as I imagine that TFD has little reason to trust me and because of that will very likely strongly oppose any action that would result in me returning to Wikipedia.--69.159.45.51 (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I'm not sufficiently familiar with your case to be all that much help. My immediate thought is that this probably belongs as a discussion on

ping|Yamla}}. --Yamla (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Given what has happened and current circumstances, I do not believe I am ready to pursue unblocking the R-41 account. Personal problems I'm facing right now need to be resolved. I need to know info from users whom I've had interaction with in the past and have seen inappropriate behaviour by me in the past, such as User:Dennis Brown, User:The Four Deuces, and User:Writegeist. The info from them I need to know is for them to describe the inappropriate behaviours I have exhibited; I know that there have been times that I have resorted to sockpuppetry to edit articles in the past because I grew too attached to editing Wikipedia, I lashed out at users as mentioned above, and I have done sloppy editing including bad referencing format (I've been too lazy to properly format the references) as well as sloppy research at times out of my instinct of what the content of something is, that is biased. But there are also problems with behaviour in general and I'd like to know what others' perspectives are on it. If you could engage in a brief conversation with these users, especially TFD, showing them what I've spoken to you about here and asking them to define the problems that I have caused, so that I know details of what it is that I specifically need to overcome in order to be able to eventually return to Wikipedia on my original R-41 account.--69.159.45.51 (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. What happened in this particular case was that when the tables were originally being compiled, it was from a source which incorrectly listed that session of the legislature as ending in 1922, when 1923 is actually correct — but it then got corrected to 1923 in some, but not all, of the tables later on. I absolutely agree that it's better, given Mo's history, to revert anything they do on sight, and then let an established editor sort out whether it was actually correct and valuable and reinsertable or not — but agreeing with that process is exactly why I restored the 1923 corrections via AWB instead of hammering on the revert buttons. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the block help!TheNerdisHere (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for granting my block request. I went online last night, and lo and behold I was Autoblocked. Thank you again for the help!

Did you even bother looking at the page in question? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_State_of_Origin_series&action=history User:Cheeselandabc and its sock User:Starmaker1234 have been vandalising this page for some time. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_State_of_Origin_series&action=history I removed one instance, this user User:Jim1138 put it back in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_State_of_Origin_series&diff=721956760&oldid=721956374 Three days later, after constant vandalism from cheeese and star, the same user reinserts removed vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_State_of_Origin_series&diff=722453974&oldid=722453953 and warns me. I removed it again, he puts it back with more spurious warnings. Presumably the penny drops and the matter is resolved. A few hours later I then find myself blocked, and two requests for a rationale go unheeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.145.145 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, no comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.145.145 (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that you appeared to be evading your block and engaging in personal attacks. Is that not wrong? Did you not in fact make edit and edit and edit after being blocked? Clearly, you did. --Yamla (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla. Not sure whether you noticed this edit made to User talk:NottherealJonFavreau. Did you unblock this editor? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks. I did not unblock that editor, but have now blocked them directly. --Yamla (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yamla. I want to inform you that, apparently, banned user

Thanks. I'll investigate and block if appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a probable sock of Roarkp too, although I don't feel like filing or following through with it: Thelitigator1776. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, looks pretty clear. I've blocked. I'm... not sure why Roarkp needs multiple sockpuppets at the same time. --Yamla (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please make a decision on PatW's unblock request? The ANI thread will probably archive soon as there have not been substantively new comments there for a while. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do right away. --Yamla (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The UTRS appeal was declined BECAUSE the user could appeal on-wiki. Declining the on-wiki appeal because there exists a closed UTRS ticket seems a bit like we're giving them the runaround. ☺ · 

Ah! I'll revisit immediately. --Yamla (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing a UTRS request for this user. I am wondering about the sock puppet tag you added to their userpage, is there an account associated with that? HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (
  ✉ 17:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Okay I see now, thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, that's it. Sorry, and good point. --Yamla (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed about him (here). He returned again, this time as

Thanks! Very definitely a sockpuppet, marked as such. --Yamla (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla, do you think you could block 64.68.178.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for a while. It's clearly being used by Veganlover1993 on a fairly consistent basis, and every week or so he comes bask to disrupt the Matt Guthmiller article. Sro23 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my own investigation and I think that IP address is almost certainly Veganlover1993. I'm curious, what makes you think it is? I'd like a bit more evidence before I block. --Yamla (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here it edits the user talk of a confirmed sockpuppet (self revert of 24.220.207.163, another IPsock), and it has been vandalizing the Matt Guthmiller article a lot lately, another Veganlover1993 trademark. Sro23 (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. IP address geolocates to the right region, too. I've blocked the address. --Yamla (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla, thanks for your kind words and for my unblocking so quickly!!..again, thanks Aldebaran69 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblock me.

Rro4785 (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yamla. I have noticed that, apparently, a single user is editing with several accounts. These accounts are:

I'm curious, who do you think they are? That is, which blocked user? --Yamla (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't say, Yamla. I'd like to know that as well. But, judging by the pattern of editing and setting up of multiple accounts at the same time (which is REALLY suspicious by itself), I'm pretty sure its a block evasion by some banned user... IMHO, all four accounts should be indefinitely blocked. By the way, Abdullsaed is currently blocked by @Buckshot06: for 72 hours due to copyright infringement, etc. Maybe Buckshot would like to give his opinion about this. --Sundostund (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance and my eventual unblock. Mllturro (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It seems like 124.204.159.139!Please kindly see to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsll2016 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no block on that address! And the fact you can edit my talk page means you are not currently affected by a block! It's very possible you were unable to edit earlier today, of course, but it looks like you are able to edit now. --Yamla (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla's mother is a c u n t w h o r e

c u n t

w h o r e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.34.112 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User already blocked for a month. IP address ranges in use by block-evading user have also been blocked. --Yamla (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

can you block him on wikimedia.Alhanuty (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlAboud83#Question.Alhanuty (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot. I don't have any special permissions on wikimedia. --Yamla (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help 2.124.190.95 (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are being removed because you are threatening physical violence, and because you are a blocked user who is not welcome to edit here. At all. On any page. --Yamla (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response, however inevercry blocked me on commons and I cannot upload a free wiki recommended image due to the block. It states this "User is blocked Your username or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by INeverCry. The reason given is promotion-only account.

Start of block: 19:29, 11 August 2016 Expiration of block: infinite Intended blockee: Jackguitarfan You can contact INeverCry or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the "email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 2601:602:c700:ad9e:68f6:64d5:a90:21c5, and the block ID is #269317. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

Return to Main Page.

Categories: (+)"

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Jackguitarfan (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Jackguitarfan:, you'll need to make an unblock request there. I do not have admin rights on Commons, only on the English Wikipedia. If you're interested in whether or not an image is appropriate for upload, give me a link to the specific image and let me know its source and why you think it's appropriate, and I'll explain why you are correct or incorrect. --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone monitoring my user and user-talk page, thanks for reverting the personal attacks and vandalism. :) --Yamla (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have written it but she has posted it on my behalf ,she used my account but the work is mine .I have the authority over my work not lazychick.maria

Great, but we need proof. Please have her post to the thread, as I described. --Yamla (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please fix what you did when you declined the unblock request? I'd do it myself, but it's not clear to me what you wanted to say. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damnit. That's what I get for patrolling before I've had any coffee. Better now? I'm happy to reword my decline if you think it's unclear. --Yamla (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is he had only one unblock request outstanding before you declined it. However, you have made it so there are two identical unblock requests with two different declines both signed by you, one standard decline, and one with an expressed reason. There's something wrong with the way you copied and replaced the template.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[sigh] My guess is this is a copy and paste error. I'll fix it. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked this editor indefinitely as they just ignored the block and decline. I think I'll ask for a review at ANI. Doug Weller talk 11:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe I won't. Seems clearly spam, and a lot of the links are about proposals, which wouldn't be acceptable ELs anyway. @DMacks:, what do you think? Of course they need reverting, one reason to go to ANI! Doug Weller talk 11:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Yeah, we specifically warned that editor about this. Now, I'm a bit uncertain about the best course of action. It looks like blacklisting the domain wouldn't be a good idea. While we don't want unicode.org on every single page on just about the entire freaking Wikipedia, it's entirely appropriate in some places. I am tempted to suggest just a global revert of all contributions from that editor, but WP:ANI would be the right place to get more informed feedback. --Yamla (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support the block and I rolled back. I commented at ANI, so let's keep any further discussion there. DMacks (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the system of removing edits that has been done at COIN to even know it is called, so please bear with me. I think it's time to learn as I was quite confused by the removal of the three comments starting at 20:39, 12 September 2016‎ by

Yes! The situation is, there was content on that page introduced by another user which was an attempt to

out another administrator (one I had previously had no contact with, until yesterday). As such, I was trying to hide the content. The problem is, the content wasn't removed until after subsequent editors innocently introduced unrelated content. Their edits were in no way inappropriate but unless their edits were hidden, you could access the inappropriate content by viewing that particular revision. So, my goal was to hide the inappropriate edits and to make it impossible to view the contents of those edits, without removing the content of the appropriate edits from innocent users. This was a bit tricky. I'm very happy to give specific links if you wish, though (the whole point is) you won't be able to view the inappropriate content unless you have admin rights. --Yamla (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I realize outing problems are a regular problem at that noticeboard, and that this type of oversight is the solution. I was just surprised to see my edit, and two others', being accidentally caught up in it.

To get me up to speed, if I see inappropriate outing, how should I address it?

talk) 16:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah. Once again, I'd like to explicitly state there were no problems with your edits, none whatsoever. And yes,

WP:OS is the best way if you see inappropriate outing. Any admin can hide the edit contents, only oversighters (and I'm not an oversighter) can hide it such that even admins cannot see. --Yamla (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. So there's at least two levels of hiding edits. That explains a great deal. Thank you again. --

talk) 18:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeap. And it's incredibly rare. I've been on Wikipedia more than twelve years and yesterday's revision hiding probably accounts for more than half of the edits I've hidden. I'm sure the oversighters hide much more than I do, of course. --Yamla (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see on the Apple Website, it shows it using lithium-ion battery, it not lithium polymer battery. Only Ipad series is using lithium polymer battery. (https://support.apple.com/en_GB/specs/iphone) Johnlyh77 (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that lithium polymer batteries are lithium ion batteries. It's not necessarily a contradiction. It's hard to imagine the iPhone 7 doesn't use polymer batteries; the iPhone 6s most certainly did. Of course, as you know, what Wikipedia cares about is reliable citations. I won't revert you if you wish to make the change again, so long as you are aware of my first sentence, here. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is some different between lithium-ion battery and lithium polymer battery. This website can help you. Thanks! http://www.polymer-search.com/polymerbattery.html Johnlyh77 (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polymer-search is a bit misleading. Now, I know Wikipedia itself doesn't meet our own requirements as a

WP:NOR. All of this is why I'm not reverting you, but it's also why I'm explaining this. --Yamla (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, never mind. I've found a reliable source for the iPhone 6S using lithium polymer batteries. I mean, it was already obvious looking at the teardown (for the iPhone 6s or the 7), but now I have a specific source. --Yamla (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take our discussion to the article talk page. --Yamla (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Thank you for pointing out that I had forgot to add a fair-use rationale to the iOS 10 screenshot for the article iOS. Thank you and have a good day! As11ley (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I think I removed it from lower down on the page, too. Now that your FU-rationale is in place, you may be able to revert that other edit of mine, too! --Yamla (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_mobile_phones) always vandalism by people who doesn't like Apple or Samsung brand, and just anyhow put a figure as they like. They are 1.(61.3.6.32) 2. (5.179.99.15) 3. (117.197.226.152) Johnlyh77 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to use

WP:RFPP. I'd be a bit uncomfortable protecting the page myself, as it's not one I typically monitor. It looks like most of the vandalism is from anonymous users, so semi-protection may be a good choice! --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Yamla. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

"extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion

with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016,

a request for comment

established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your conduct with Wikipedia Sovereign and protecting Trump-related articles from being bombarded by his disruptive editing. Darth Tacker (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you didn't actually want

Yeah. I didn't want that. If you go to the revision before I declined the unblock, you'll see that this is the default when you show the 'Administrator use only' section. Now, normally, we don't even have the IP address available on an unblock-auto review. In this case, we obviously did. I wonder why it defaults to 127.0.0.1. Any thoughts? --Yamla (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but my page was a user page if you want me to remove the logos you could have simply warned meRoger Delacroix (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned, as I pointed out. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla, Could you again delete User:Luke de paul/sandbox and salt it please?, They've recreated it and have again added navboxes, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. Yeap. --Yamla (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd really think they'd get the hint and you know ... contribute to the actual site but nope clearly not! , Anyway thanks for your help. –Davey2010^Talk 17:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for lifting the block on me. I really appreciate it. You won't see me again on that list, I can guarantee it! Cheers! Kbabej (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing! --Yamla (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, I understand the policy. I will make a note to disconnect when editing Wikipedia pages. --Zerbey (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla, Sorry for the ping!, Just to let you know I've mentioned you at ANI inegards to Luke de paul [2], Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re this: I've seen {{Checkuser needed}} used below unblock requests by reviewing admins. —SpacemanSpiff 23:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Great! Just what I was looking for. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Detallado&oldid=prev&diff=749106354

The national animal of Venezuela was added, I'm a venezuelan citizen, therefore the information I'm providing is real, I added it because I saw the information of my country was missing.

And here's your fucking source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_troupial

Please reread

WP:RS. Wikipedia can't itself be used as a reliable source. --Yamla (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at

Hello, Yamla. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

-- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Received, responded. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand the purpose on my talk page. I am not at all blocked... So why did you say on my talk page I am?
Adèle de Reiset (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim to be blocked, you did. I was responding to your request to be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand.

1- I am not blocked

2- I never claim to be blocked and I never requested to be unblocked (I had never be blocked).

3- Who is the person who put a board «This blocked user is asking that her block be reviewed» at 16:35, the 16 November 2016 and do it under the username of Adèle de Reiset?

4- I request that an investigation will be open to know who and how somebody can modify my talk page (for the first time) under my username.

5- What is this big board on my talk page saying: «This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.» and «Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.» So as I am not blocked (I can edit and make changes), I will remove this waffle. My IP address is 109.51.228.148 (Lisbon, Portugal) just in case.
Adèle de Reiset (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ANI. See this section. Hopefully, we can get this all cleared up shortly. --Yamla (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I saw your request on the ANI and I thank you to do that. I hope it will pay dividends. With all my gratitude.
Adèle de Reiset (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just saw your message. I think my IP address is XX.YY.ZZ...ETC. (Apple MacBook). I'm currently traveling abroad & using my hotel room internet connection (as usual) => could this be the reason? Thanks for your help: that's appreciated --B.Andersohn (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Just deleted my IP address from prev. mesg. --B.Andersohn (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you imposed some requirements on JakeNyg25 for unblocking. Examining his latest attempt at good faith improvements (diff between first and last edit) I'm satisfied that he met your conditions. Even though he cited a blog in one place, I honestly don't know what more he could do to improve an article about a single track on an album. I won't unblock him unless you're satisfied though. If you unblock him, please advise him that further vandalism will result in a permanent block that is unlikely to have a successful appeal. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yamla. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yalma,

You were nice enough to leave a note on my Talk about about the Shery Sandberg issue, where I had a COI and requested a review on BLP. Thanks for that.

I wonder if you would weigh in, as an admin, on a draft I submitted for review Draft: Jim Brett, where I am having a disagreement with the reviewer. It's also a BLP where I have a disclosed COI. I am trying to be open to suggestions (and already did a complete redraft of another editor's first draft, which had bad NPOV problems) but I think the reviewing editor is incorrect in his/her application of Wikipedia policy to the facts here.

I could also put up a note on the BLP noticeboard asking for more opinions, if you think that would be better.

ThanksBC1278 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

You made >66,000 edits, so I got you a 2 cheeseburger meal with large fries and a 32 oz. pop. Enjoy! Brynda1231 [Talk Page] [Contribs] 03:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your talk page comment on my (auto)block? However in your comment you mention another account and this may have been a case of autoblock? Can you clarify this? As now I'm wondering, what other account? I can supply a screen capture that unequivocally shows that I received a "block" for spamming, if you are at all skeptical that I received this message. Boundarylayer (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boundarylayer:, I can assure you that there's no block targeting you since 2012. If you have a screen capture, I'd be happy to take a look. It's very, very likely it's targeting someone else and perhaps you just aren't sure which section to look at, to determine this. --Yamla (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the clarification. I took a screen capture of the block message and saved the picture. Would you prefer I upload the picture to wikicommons or do you mind if I send it to you via email?

If the block was targeting someone else, how did I get notified of it? and which section do you recommend I look at to determine this?

Thanks for helping me get closer to the bottom of this.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Email is fine, and probably better than posting it on wikimedia. Unfortunately, I can't immediately tell you where to look. I've (luckily) never been hit with an autoblock, so I'm not exactly sure what it looks like. --Yamla (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yamla, just checking in to make sure diff to respond to the user's admin help template is okay, as I saw you had addressed their concern (and the page still shows up under the template's category unless removed or replaced with admin help-helped). Thanks, and please ping me or reach out to my talk page if there's a concern. --JustBerry (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit at

Thank you very much for doing this. I really do hope this editor learns his lesson and returns as a productive editor, but he's certainly going out of his way to be annoying at the moment. --Yamla (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help at SPI. Just wanted to let you know that removing the "awaitingadmin" tag will not actually change the status of the case - if you want to close the case, just look near the top of the page - where you'll see {{SPI case status|admin}} - and change the "admin" part to "Close." That will do the job. Thank you again! GAB^gab 02:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for the future. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 18:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yamla. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

After I told them to stop pinging me and I don't help Sock puppets. Now they are threatning me with ANI for

Thanks Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was mostly Boing!. Let's hope things quiet down a bit now. --Yamla (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You both contributed, maybe now my phone will stop blowing up. Like I said before, the battleground behavior, false accusations, and threats make me 100% sure who that is. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yamla. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

That's a really good idea! I'll apply shortly. Thanks for the suggestion. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It might help if you can offer to assist with the global rename queue too, but whenever I check it's almost always clear - the global renamers are a pretty efficient bunch ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry that User: Vjmlhds was having edit-war on Wikipedia users especially what this person did to me and User: Boing! said Zebedee. This person also had an edit-war on me over the List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV page. This person was very mean and disrespectful especially what he wrote on my talk page. This person does not have the rights to take control any Wikipedia pages especially having edit-war on other Wikipedia users. It is not fair for us that we all worked hard in contributing in any Wikipedia pages that we have created and edited and this person "edit-war" on us. I think this person does not deserved or no longer edits Wikipedia pages after harsh comments on my talk page and our negative feedback and complaints on the person's talk page. Do you know how to block this person from editing any Wikipedia pages? Wikipedia users and myself had the Antenna TV program page well-organized and this person keeps reverting it back. Vjmlhds and myself have been doing edit-war for several months. Again, this person thinks it has control of editing Wikipedia pages and then reverting it the way this person wants. I know how frustrated it was that we have all worked hard in contributing and then a Wikipedia user starts the edit-war. I agree that it was very disruptive to have an edit-war on Wikipedia users. Cbears22 (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla. Re this unblock, note that in the period from 2011 when the user was indef blocked and yesterday when he was unblocked, the article was extensively edited by several SPA IPs, some resolving to the area where the subject is based, e.g. 173.76.107.110 and 96.237.233.170 and others using a proxy server, e.g. 73.25.142.235. Note especially this edit [3] on 28 December by 173.76.107.110 and this discussion on Commons two days later and a further continuation of the photo saga here. That evasive behaviour doesn't give me a lot of optimism about the COI promises made in the unblock discussion. Hopefully, I'll be proved wrong. His first (and so far only) edit after being unblocked was to archive the contents of Talk:Jonathan Cohler [4]. I have added {{Connected contributor}} to the talk page and tagged the article for lack of references for many of the assertions made, and the fact that it is written like a press release. Many of the so-called "references" are failed verifications. Many other self-serving claims still in the article have no independent sources whatsoever. Anyhow, we'll see what happens. Best. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hhhhmmm. This looks like maybe a case where I should have brought in a checkuser rather than just assuming good faith. But still, I'll monitor that article for the next little while and see how things go. --Yamla (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll monitor it as well. As you can see from the talk page archives, I was involved in the initial struggle to tone down the worst aspects of the article in the face of considerable resistance from the subject (see also here). Over the next few days, I will probably rewrite and re-reference the article which at the moment is simply a load of name-dropping and touting his achievements. Not to mention the fact that the exact DoB appears nowhere except on Wikipedia [5]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am only interested in improving the quality of the page. I have responded to all of your recent spate of changes to Jonathan Cohler on Talk:Jonathan Cohler and would appreciate a response from you. As for your statement here that "Many of the so-called 'references' are failed verifications," that is inaccurate. I see you have marked 4 failed verifications out of roughly 35 references, hardly "many". And I have posted questions to you about those four references. Furthermore, I find your statement that the article is "a load of name-dropping and touting his achievements" odd given that you heavily edited the article years ago and didn't make any edits for about 5 years until the last couple of days. In any case, as I'm sure you are aware, an important part of any classical musician's biography is precisely the other musicians with whom they have performed, collaborated, played under and so on. You will find that in all biographies of classical musicians. Also, I would appreciate knowing what specifically you consider to be "self-serving claims" that have "no independent sources whatsoever"? If you have a contribution to make, please post to the talk page, and I will respond promptly. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 04:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cohler, I have responded on the talk page, and I will point out to you that simply because the worst of the promotionalsm, puffery, and unverified claims had been removed back in 2011 does not mean that the article is free of problems and doesn't require considerable improvement. I have now raised these issues at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jonathan Cohler. Voceditenore (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor made a report here of a potential sock. Notifying you as blocking admin of sockmaster of suspected sock. I may look into this case in more detail later. --JustBerry (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user has one unconfirmed IP sock account. Is it appropriate to tag them as sockmaster on their user page. Are they check user confirmed as sockmaster? --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are not checkuser-confirmed (at this time); the tag indicates they are suspected. But as you are obviously uncomfortable with me tagging them as such, I'll remove the tag. --Yamla (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]