User talk:Yamla/Archive 5

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.

In case you overlooked my previous complaint...

As you know better than anyone, an image of a magazine cover is fair use for an article about that magazine. So why did you delete the cover images for

Ghosts&empties

03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't had the chance to go back and verify. I'm not ignoring you. My understanding is the following. Legally, we are probably permitted to use a magazine cover to depict the magazine generally. However, Wikipedia policy, which is more restrictive than the law requires (for example, no copyrighted images in user space, no matter what the rationale) still does not permit this. I haven't had the chance to double-check to see if this has changed recently so I may be out to lunch. I am sorry that you and I are running up against this. --Yamla 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been blocked by you for relevant that I have put up. You also use the phrase multiple vandalsim with me. I want someone to explain to me why putting a link to a site that is directly on point can be construed as vandalism. Most of the links are either samples of what the topic is or a more detailed explanation of the definition. Can you please explain this to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Teflon (talk • contribs)

There's no evidence that I can find that I have ever blocked you. Are you sure this isn't an autoblock? I need to know what IP address you are trying to edit from and how you are able to edit this page if you are blocked. --Yamla 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that the licenses I added for the Mel Peachey pictures [1] were not intentionally false. I put them there with good intentions, but it seems as if they weren't appropriate. I just didn't want you think I was putting fake crap there to get away with the image. I've found a good enough image that doesn't have any negative ties, so it's good now. — Chad "1m" Mosher ^Email Talk _Cont. 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I still don't quite understand what fair use rationale needs to be added to the images that I have uploaded. Could you explain please what can be added to prevent any more copyright violation messages and me being blocked from editing. Thank You. (Shakirfan 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

Go to www.google.com and search for paris Hilton cartoon in Images and you will find those pics. So ha. Jtervin [VS] 02:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. who the hell are those people?!?! User:Jtervin 02:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand how that is relevant to anything. We most certainly cannot use an image just because it shows up on Google. --Yamla 03:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea but they released it to the public and so it is OK to use it here. It is a promotioanl photo which is OK to use her. HAHA. Jtervin 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What's your evidence of this? Certainly, the fact that it shows up in Google is not sufficient to indicate this. --Yamla 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but your the only administrator i've had any dealings with. On the above page, that I have been mostly responsible for editing, someone has added a "citation needed". It appears after the name of the personthe article is on and I was just wondering if it is really neccessary to provie proof of the guys name? Your input would be appreciated Basement12 15:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it requires a citation. Has anyone ever disputed that this is actually his birth name? --Yamla 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No i don't think so, there was bit of confusion over various diferent Jonathon Goulds at one point but this was cleared up by the (game show presentr) addition. I shall remove it for now then, cheers for your help. Basement12 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The album cover for FutureSex/LoveSounds IS in use. What are you doing? It's the album cover. It has the source as well. Please refrain from removing images without first checking it's usage. Stewiegfan 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This image is missing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale as required by the license. It is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright and fair-use policies to continue using it. --Yamla 16:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User:S-man gave himself a barnstar on his talk page.He can't give himself a barnstar can he?-- Cute 1 4 u 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If he wants to, he can. The barnstar doesn't have meaning in and of itself, only in the act of giving or receiving. It's somewhat existentialist. It would be safe to say that such a barnstar has much less meaning than one awarded by an independent editor. But there's nothing wrong with it. --Yamla 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you tell me how link to images from the above as I've found an image on the site that I wish to use but i'm unsure how to link it into a wikipedia page. Basement12 22:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don'y worry, i've just stumbled across the answer Basement12 22:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Yamla,

How do I go about providing the fair use rationale when submitting photo's? Also, how do I archive. Thanks --7g7em7ini 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In case you overlooked my previous complaint...

As you know better than anyone, an image of a magazine cover is fair use for an article about that magazine. So why did you delete the cover images for

Ghosts&empties

03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't had the chance to go back and verify. I'm not ignoring you. My understanding is the following. Legally, we are probably permitted to use a magazine cover to depict the magazine generally. However, Wikipedia policy, which is more restrictive than the law requires (for example, no copyrighted images in user space, no matter what the rationale) still does not permit this. I haven't had the chance to double-check to see if this has changed recently so I may be out to lunch. I am sorry that you and I are running up against this. --Yamla 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been blocked by you for relevant that I have put up. You also use the phrase multiple vandalsim with me. I want someone to explain to me why putting a link to a site that is directly on point can be construed as vandalism. Most of the links are either samples of what the topic is or a more detailed explanation of the definition. Can you please explain this to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Teflon (talk • contribs)

There's no evidence that I can find that I have ever blocked you. Are you sure this isn't an autoblock? I need to know what IP address you are trying to edit from and how you are able to edit this page if you are blocked. --Yamla 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My username is Dwslassls...Why did you block me? It says for "multiple vandalism"...I'm going to assume it is just my IP being blocked, but could you just clear that up please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwslassls (talk • contribs)

I've never given out a block to that username. That you can edit my talk page implies that you are not blocked. However, it is entirely possible that your IP address was blocked. If you let me know which IP address, I can look into it for you. --Yamla 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an autoblock, from Tanerious (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), I've been hitting them too--152.163.100.70 18:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My User Name is Mike Teflon - I have been adding some links from a commerical site. But they are not advertising. My site's primary purpose is to educate other attorneys. It is one of the leading sites on the Interent in this regard. Could you please look through the site it is at Miller & Zois. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Teflon (talk • contribs)

Your sites are inappropriate. Once more, please reread

WP:EL. Linking to your own site is specifically prohibited. --Yamla

18:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it says normally to be avoided. Can we agree on this? If not, show me where it says it is specifically prohibited. I think this is completely unfair. You are taking down a link not available elsewhere on the web that would be of interest to users. Should this not be the test? Can you please tell me how I go about protesting this if you will not reconsider? Take a look at the topic. Take a look at the overall context. I'm sure you are a nice guy and, like you say, you can't pick up tone on the Internet. But I don't think you flip response is correct or fair to us or the readers of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Teflon (talk • contribs)

You agree that the link shows up in the links to normally avoid. So you agree that Wikipedia policy states that these links should not be added by you. There's nothing that says "specifically prohibited" because Wikipedia tries to follow the spirit of the policies rather than having people engage in Wikilawyering. If you feel the links are appropriate, they should be brought up on the discussion pages for the articles and someone else should add them. --Yamla 19:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wikilawyering comment is not appropriate. You can't call logic and reasoning Wiklawyering. It is not fair. You point to the "spirit" of the policies. I agree this is what should be controlling. Yet your initial comment makes no reference to "spirit" of the policies. Read the category. Look at the link. And then tell me it is inappropriate. I realize and appreciate the power you derive from all of this. But, in my humblest of opinions, it might not be the worst idea to allow the best interest of the readers to trump your desire to assert your power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Teflon (talk • contribs)

Just to be clear, I'm quite happy for these links to be added. But only if the regular editors on the various pages come to a consensus that they would be good links. --Yamla 00:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, and I'm not trying to make a federal case out of this. But I don't like being treated like some sort of spammer. Google something like sample deposition or sample interrogatories. We are first on the internet on these things. Why? Because we are the only law firm who offers this kind of stuff for free. So I'm trying to add some of this material into Wikipedia but only the stuff that I have screened to make sure there is no commerical message of any kind and that it is truly suitable for the topic at hand. You raising the spirt of the rules I think was appropriate - I am trying to operate within the spirit of the rules. And I feel like your knee jerk reaction is commerical website=spam. But in this case, it is far from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Teflon (talk • contribs)

Okay, I apologise for coming down harshly on you. The reason I did is because, with a little over 3000 pages on my watchlist, it's almost a full time job reverting spam and copyright violations. I tend to revert and use the standard warning templates and then not spend enough time pointing out exactly what people are doing incorrectly. I truly do hope that you request additions of your links on the various articles' discussion pages as I think they would generally be great additions. By the way, you can sign your comments by adding --~~~~ to the end of your comment. That is, two minus signs, four tildes. --Yamla 00:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know if we agree but I think at least we understand each other better. We spend a lot of time working on the educational content of our site. Believe me when I tell you we don't get business from it but we still continue to do it. I like spreading our education message everywhere I can because, I don't know, I just like doing it. (Probably the same reason you are on here on a Saturday night.) You tell me, Yamla, how do you want me to approach this medical malpractice complaint thing? Mike Teflon 01:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the sign your name thing...

P.S.S - Look what I just did to contributory negligence. Tell me if you think it is helpful or not.

I'll settle for understanding.  :) And I must say, I'm fully in support of a law company who provides free education. As to the medical malpractice, what I'd recommend is to add a brief note to the discussion page of that article stating something like, "I'd like to add the following URL to this page. I believe it adds information which would be of general use to readers of this article. However, it is on a site that belongs to me so I thought I would run it past the other editors of this page. Please speak up one way or another. If nobody objects within a week or so, I'll add the link myself. If people object, I won't add the link." Something like that, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Feel free to mention that you have run your actions past an administrator. Anyway, the point is that this demonstrates you are acting in good faith and gives people a chance to object. If nobody does object and you add the link and then LATER people object, you are quite justified in pointing out that you've gone above and beyond in your good-faith efforts regarding external links. Anyway, I'm not dictating how you should continue, just letting you know that if you acted this way, you'd have my full support. Additionally, if you choose to follow these guidelines, I would recommend you archiving your talk page. This will clear off all the current warnings which, in my opinion, have now been dealt with. I can help you out with this if you wish. --Yamla 01:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me out? Because while I appreciate what you suggest, I have no idea how to do it. By the way, take a few minutes and look around the Internet. The stuff we are making available no one else is making available. It is not that hard to do, but no one is doing it.

Okay, give me a URL here and a page you'd like it added to and I'll add the comment to the article's discussion page. You'll then see how you can do this to other discussion pages. --Yamla 01:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.millerandzois.com/malpractice-complaint-medical.html This is the link to a sample medical malpractice complaint. Again, someone is looking to Wikipedia for medical malpractice information is looking for basic stuff. This is the legal document that initates any medical malpractice case. There a million (I exaggerate, of course) medical malpractice cases filed every year. Yet google "sample medical malpractice complaint." Besides ours, which is first search result, it is hard to find another one. We are really the only ones providing legal education of this sort using this medium. Thanks, Yamla. Mike Teflon 01:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, please take a look here and see what I did. Note that I added the request to the discussion page. When you are viewing an article, you can click on the discussion tab to go to the discussion page. I would expect that you would monitor that page and respond to any comments that come up in discussion and if nobody speaks up, you can add your link to the article itself after a week. --Yamla 02:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep I did and I added in a quick comment. Thanks.

I just wanted to let you know that the licenses I added for the Mel Peachey pictures [2] were not intentionally false. I put them there with good intentions, but it seems as if they weren't appropriate. I just didn't want you think I was putting fake crap there to get away with the image. I've found a good enough image that doesn't have any negative ties, so it's good now. — Chad "1m" Mosher ^Email Talk _Cont. 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I still don't quite understand what fair use rationale needs to be added to the images that I have uploaded. Could you explain please what can be added to prevent any more copyright violation messages and me being blocked from editing. Thank You. (Shakirfan 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

Go to www.google.com and search for paris Hilton cartoon in Images and you will find those pics. So ha. Jtervin [VS] 02:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. who the hell are those people?!?! User:Jtervin 02:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand how that is relevant to anything. We most certainly cannot use an image just because it shows up on Google. --Yamla 03:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea but they released it to the public and so it is OK to use it here. It is a promotioanl photo which is OK to use her. HAHA. Jtervin 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What's your evidence of this? Certainly, the fact that it shows up in Google is not sufficient to indicate this. --Yamla 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but your the only administrator i've had any dealings with. On the above page, that I have been mostly responsible for editing, someone has added a "citation needed". It appears after the name of the personthe article is on and I was just wondering if it is really neccessary to provie proof of the guys name? Your input would be appreciated Basement12 15:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it requires a citation. Has anyone ever disputed that this is actually his birth name? --Yamla 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No i don't think so, there was bit of confusion over various diferent Jonathon Goulds at one point but this was cleared up by the (game show presentr) addition. I shall remove it for now then, cheers for your help. Basement12 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The album cover for FutureSex/LoveSounds IS in use. What are you doing? It's the album cover. It has the source as well. Please refrain from removing images without first checking it's usage. Stewiegfan 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This image is missing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale as required by the license. It is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright and fair-use policies to continue using it. --Yamla 16:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User:S-man gave himself a barnstar on his talk page.He can't give himself a barnstar can he?-- Cute 1 4 u 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If he wants to, he can. The barnstar doesn't have meaning in and of itself, only in the act of giving or receiving. It's somewhat existentialist. It would be safe to say that such a barnstar has much less meaning than one awarded by an independent editor. But there's nothing wrong with it. --Yamla 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you tell me how link to images from the above as I've found an image on the site that I wish to use but i'm unsure how to link it into a wikipedia page. Basement12 22:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don'y worry, i've just stumbled across the answer Basement12 22:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Yamla,

How do I go about providing the fair use rationale when submitting photo's? Also, how do I archive. Thanks --7g7em7ini 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You posted the following to me earlier today

"Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Jennifer Garner. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links as long as the content abides by our policies and guidelines. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia."

First of all, the site in question is NOT a commercial one - the only advertising on it is that placed there by the host, Geocities, over which the site owner has no control.

Secondly, the site is NOT mine - So you're dead wrong on two points there. Check the update history of that page, and you'll find the link etc were originally added by another user, NOT by me... (And I don't think it's their site either) I was simply restoring content deleted by someone who's only purpose on Wikipedia seems to be deleting content they personally don't agree with.

Thirdly, I have now added a correctly-formatted reference to the embedded citation in question, as detailed in the official Wikipedia guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Embedded_Citations), rather than having the site listed in the external links section as previously. There are currently four embedded citations on this particular page, and only one with a correctly-formatted reference - the one I've just added. Surely, if this gets deleted as well, it's the person doing the deleting who's then in breach of the guidelines, isn't it, for removing correctly-formatted content?

Gidz 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Gidz, you did a good job with that reference. As a general rule, Wikipedia doesn't want external links but we do want references. I apologise for the earlier warning, it was a standard warning template (and I didn't create it) which could perhaps be reworded. --Yamla 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete my Tego link to his new album? And don't give me that B.S. about Advertisement! I see you have worked with magazines before I think you're abusing your power!! While I see you leave links to other websites that are in question. I 've personally talked to Tego's Atlantic reprsentative about this and I must say you're a racist!! Go ahead block me but I'ma write a article on Wikipedia !! Y'all all abuse you powers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danger99 (talk • contribs)

As was pointed out to you already, your link to a commercial site violated

WP:NPA. Your accusion of rascism is inappropriate and further personal attacks will lead to a block. --Yamla

14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone vandalized my userpage. It said I don't trust Jimbo but I do. --Pretty Woman 03:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been reverted. In the future, you can just fix this yourself. --Yamla 14:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you removed the cover for 20 Years Old from the Janet Jackson videography page? Stewiegfan 08:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a detailed fair-use rationale for each use on the Wikipedia. It's been justified for Janet Jackson and for 20 Years Old but not for anywhere else. --Yamla 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you put a speedy flag on the

Oh sure, let's put the burden on "them" to fix up one-sentence substub articles on schools (uniquely of all content areas). Just zis Guy you know? 18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Acadamenorth is a POV pusher who engages in vandalism and harrassment. If he is unblocked he will reoffend. He will also find our he is unblocked almost immediately, from past experience. Absolutely any AOL user can be caught by the autoblock. I am in Philly with restroicted access so I will leave it to you. Maybe take it ot the noticeboard. I won't oppose an unblock, but it is frustrating -= I thought the recent changes were supposed to fix this problem. Just zis Guy you know? 18:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamla, I am having trouble deciding about the usage of an image at Wikipedia. I have described the situation at Talk:Bismillah Khan. Please see through the matter and give an opinion, since I see you are an expert in copyright-things :)--Anupamsr 10:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, in this edit, it is shown that you had a slightly rude response to Bethicalyna. In the future, please try and be firm, but a little more friendlyness. It takes much more muscles to be rude than to be polite. Although you are an adminastor, and you can just unblock yourself if I were to even ask someone to block, it doesn't mean warnings won't be given away by me. Now, please be polite to my sister and any other Wikipedian, or else, they'll report to me (P.S, this is practice for being an adminastor, I'm doing this in deffence of my sister and practicing administration so I can develop more skills.) Thank you, happy reverting, blocking, and editing. Lindsay1980 22:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to be abrupt or rude with your sister. My only point was that she could revert vandalism. Please apologise to her from me if she was at all offended and wish her a happy weekend from me. --Yamla 22:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamla, I was wondering if you could do me a favour and send a message to Tcatron565 (talk · contribs). At the moment I'm struggling to get through to him about some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how important it is to listen to other editors; he's been rather uncivil in his messages to me, and most recently he's chosen to ignore me completely (see, for example, [3]). I think that maybe he believes he's doing nothing wrong and I just have a "bee in my bonnet" (so to speak); if somebody else had a word with him, he might realise what I'm telling him is important. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 16:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yamla, another problem with a user, User:kadavul. He has added this picture [4] to Ajith Kumar's article and I did some research, since the picture looks kinda familiar.

Looks like the picture is taken from here: [5] and has been cropped. No indication that the picture is from the movie Paramasivan (2006) as Ajith Kumar looks slightly different in this movie. See here: [6]. Exact same picture has been uploaded by User:Kanna90. See his discussion page. Case of Sock puppetry? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 16:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I create a bot?I need more infomation.-- Cute 1 4 u 22:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You can but you'll need to learn computer programming first. --Yamla 22:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be quite a feat for you to accomplish. =] --DieHard2k5 22:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Compter programing?Why can't I just create one?(just asking)-- Cute 1 4 u 22:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Bots are computer programs. In order to create one, you need to write it. --Yamla 22:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

okay.I was just curiuos.gotta go.Thanks. Cute 1 4 u 22:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you can archive my talk page? It's getting pretty long. --S-man 00:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. The Werdnabot will do this every six hours, moving content older than seven days. See the links I added for more information. --Yamla 00:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but all my images have sources. You cannot put "no source" on the image when it does have a source. Please take out all the "no source information" I've added a source from where I found the picture on every image I've uploaded. --StolenHearts511 03:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is inaccurate. For example, you claim that Image:Litapinsmickie.jpg appears on this page but the image does not appear there. Just identifying the site is insufficient. You also need to provide a detailed fair-use rationale for each use of a copyrighted image on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please check again. The image is on wwe.com go to SHOWS>>RAW>>PHOTOS you will find it there. Please check twice before accusing of no source. --StolenHearts511 03:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. So you are admitting that the images are not on that page but instead, are on a subpage. --Yamla 03:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Check this page out [7] the image has been there for quite long and I don't see you making any warnings or "no source info." --StolenHearts511 03:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I added a warning to that image. Please note that I monitor less than 1/10 of a percent of Wikipedia articles so pointing out other images in violation is not sufficient grounds to justify another image. --Yamla 03:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I have to do to the WWE images is adding the exact page where it is, right?

No, you also need a detailed fair-use rationale. And for images that you got from the wwe website, you need to include your scanned and signed letter from the WWE allowing the use of the images on the Wikipedia, or provide some other evidence that the image is fair-use as promotional material. --Yamla 03:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How many users can one ip have? We plan to have 9 users on our IP. 71.231.130.56 04:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no limit. However, essentially all users sharing the same IP will be held accountable for the actions of a single one of them. If any of the 9 are blocked, for example, all nine will be blocked automatically. --Yamla 04:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. My mother was trying to make an account on simple Wikipedia for my five year old sister, and she kept on getting it wrong (six times to be exact) and when she finally got it right, they said it's too late because it counted six tries which they think made six succeses. Then they said we can't make one and boy was she mad. Just curios. 71.231.130.56 04:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There's possibly a daily limit. Tell her to wait 24 hours and then try again.  :) --Yamla 04:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yamla says: Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in

  "links r interesting, not neccessarily spam" . 

KR is most famous for her Felicity tv show, so definitely links to & about Felicity tv show are appropriate. You also called them spam, but as I stated b4, they are links from the Felicity tv show page; so how are they spam? Wouldn't the links have been labelled spam & deleted from the Felicity tv show page as well if the links are/were in fact the spam u r labelling/calling them?

The links would be appropriate for Felicity because they deal directly with that t.v. show. Linking them in to a page about an actor who played a character on the show is inappropriate, however. Additionally, if these are the links I am thinking of, they require proprietary browser plugins which also make them inappropriate. --Yamla 16:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

208 says: Yamla, Again, you are deeming appropriateness, which I think is very unfair. What about RocyMM who found the links useful.

The 3 links are

• TV.com: Felicity – includes full episode guide
• FelicityPage.com – fan site
• NoelCrane.com – site that was referenced several times in the show; it was updated during the show's run as if Noel Crane were a real person

You say tv.com is not appropriate? It is reuptable.

The felicitypage.com is a very nice site about the show.

The noelcrane.com is directly affiliated with the show.

No as you said "proprietary browser plugins" (I dont even know what those are) are required. I viewed the pages and I dont have shockwave ( I think that is what a proprietary browser plugins is right?

Since we are not going to agree, & I dont want to get into an I edit-you revert-I edit-you revert wiki war, who do we take this to for a decision to be made? Is there a wiki arbitrator?

The Noel Crane website requires flash. That makes it inappropriate to link in to any page. The fansite is inappropriate (see

WP:EL where fansites are generally not permitted, though an exemption can be applied). And the tv.com website has nothing to do with KR. It is an episode guide about the t.v. show. Hence, it may be appropriate in an article about Felicity but not about KR. Someone looking for information on Felicity episodes would presumably go to the Felicity page. If you still disagree with this, feel free to bring it up on the KR discussion page. Note which sites you want to add and why you feel they add content about KR rather than just content about Felicity. Also, you'll have to add rationale for ignoring Wikipedia's prohibition on linking to sites requiring browser plugins if you want to link to the Noel Crane site but maybe now that you've seen it requires the Flash plugin, you'll change your mind on that particular site.  :) --Yamla

16:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How many edits do you have to have (at least) in order to become an admin? --S-man 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not there's an official standard. I suspect 2,000 edits would be considered a reasonable minimum though there are probably some special cases where only a thousand edits would be sufficient. On the other hand, I've seen people not nominated until they went over 10,000 edits. --Yamla 19:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --S-man 20:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the tag that i did isn't considered vandalism thank you very much. If i was going around and removing it for no reason and doing to to all of them then its considered vandalism but i didnt. I removed the tag because it isn't needed, i have provided the url link of the site the picture is on. i had this arguement before with someone about this tag and i won it. As i stated before and i will state again if your gonna add the tag to just certain pictures then its not acceptible seeing as every single wrestlers profile has that tag, on nearly all the pictures. now unless you go around adding that tag to every single picture then i will not accept it on just that one picture, so you can stop picking on certain users which i have noticed cos your only adding that tag to pictures certain users have uploaded and not all of the users that have uploaded pictures using the tag. Lil crazy thing 19:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I currently monitor 3,756 pages. I apply these standards to every page I monitor. Clearly, I do not monitor the entire Wikipedia. Removing the fair use disputed tag without providing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale as is required by the license (and spelled out in the license text) is considered vandalism. And a specific source must be identified. That is, the specific page the image appears on, not just the general site. --Yamla 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yamla says: Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in

  "links r interesting, not neccessarily spam" . 

KR is most famous for her Felicity tv show, so definitely links to & about Felicity tv show are appropriate. You also called them spam, but as I stated b4, they are links from the Felicity tv show page; so how are they spam? Wouldn't the links have been labelled spam & deleted from the Felicity tv show page as well if the links are/were in fact the spam u r labelling/calling them?

The links would be appropriate for Felicity because they deal directly with that t.v. show. Linking them in to a page about an actor who played a character on the show is inappropriate, however. Additionally, if these are the links I am thinking of, they require proprietary browser plugins which also make them inappropriate. --Yamla 16:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

208 says: Yamla, Again, you are deeming appropriateness, which I think is very unfair. What about RocyMM who found the links useful.

The 3 links are

• TV.com: Felicity – includes full episode guide
• FelicityPage.com – fan site
• NoelCrane.com – site that was referenced several times in the show; it was updated during the show's run as if Noel Crane were a real person

You say tv.com is not appropriate? It is reuptable.

The felicitypage.com is a very nice site about the show.

The noelcrane.com is directly affiliated with the show.

No as you said "proprietary browser plugins" (I dont even know what those are) are required. I viewed the pages and I dont have shockwave ( I think that is what a proprietary browser plugins is right?

Since we are not going to agree, & I dont want to get into an I edit-you revert-I edit-you revert wiki war, who do we take this to for a decision to be made? Is there a wiki arbitrator?

The Noel Crane website requires flash. That makes it inappropriate to link in to any page. The fansite is inappropriate (see

WP:EL where fansites are generally not permitted, though an exemption can be applied). And the tv.com website has nothing to do with KR. It is an episode guide about the t.v. show. Hence, it may be appropriate in an article about Felicity but not about KR. Someone looking for information on Felicity episodes would presumably go to the Felicity page. If you still disagree with this, feel free to bring it up on the KR discussion page. Note which sites you want to add and why you feel they add content about KR rather than just content about Felicity. Also, you'll have to add rationale for ignoring Wikipedia's prohibition on linking to sites requiring browser plugins if you want to link to the Noel Crane site but maybe now that you've seen it requires the Flash plugin, you'll change your mind on that particular site.  :) --Yamla

16:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How many edits do you have to have (at least) in order to become an admin? --S-man 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not there's an official standard. I suspect 2,000 edits would be considered a reasonable minimum though there are probably some special cases where only a thousand edits would be sufficient. On the other hand, I've seen people not nominated until they went over 10,000 edits. --Yamla 19:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --S-man 20:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the tag that i did isn't considered vandalism thank you very much. If i was going around and removing it for no reason and doing to to all of them then its considered vandalism but i didnt. I removed the tag because it isn't needed, i have provided the url link of the site the picture is on. i had this arguement before with someone about this tag and i won it. As i stated before and i will state again if your gonna add the tag to just certain pictures then its not acceptible seeing as every single wrestlers profile has that tag, on nearly all the pictures. now unless you go around adding that tag to every single picture then i will not accept it on just that one picture, so you can stop picking on certain users which i have noticed cos your only adding that tag to pictures certain users have uploaded and not all of the users that have uploaded pictures using the tag. Lil crazy thing 19:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I currently monitor 3,756 pages. I apply these standards to every page I monitor. Clearly, I do not monitor the entire Wikipedia. Removing the fair use disputed tag without providing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale as is required by the license (and spelled out in the license text) is considered vandalism. And a specific source must be identified. That is, the specific page the image appears on, not just the general site. --Yamla 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mr.Yamla, my friend User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz is no longer existing. Why? Did he all of a sudden leave Wikipedia? Did one of the administors ddecide to delete the user? Did a user delete him? Whta happened? I want to talk to him! --Bethicalyna2 00:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know very much about that user. It appears that the username has been blocked indefinitely for being gibberish. However, it could also be that the user was using Wikipedia simply as a place to chat (

WP:NOT points out that this is not what the Wikipedia is for). Anyway, the admin who dealt with that user is User:The Anome so I suggest you check with him or her. --Yamla

00:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to abide by Wikipedia's copyright and fair-use policies then I suggest you refrain from uploading images. Thanks. --Yamla 15:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to the Windows Vista article. I have been struggling to get recent edits "accepted" on this article, although my latest contribution (which you added to) seems to have survived for the moment. You may be interested in commenting or expressing your opinion on this discussion on the article's talk page at Security updates and patches --Peter Campbell Talk! 04:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem with you requesting Fair use ... but could you be a little less strident about it!

the "Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded" is a little over the top since I have been asked for information on this once before (and added the requested info) and the image has bee uploaded since 22 June 2006, so the week limit seems a little redundant?

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

I have added a fair use justification ... ^Jaster 07:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the "unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded" is official Wikipedia policy and is indeed part of the standard warning template that we are expected to use in these circumstances. The problem is that probably more than 90% of the images uploaded cannot be used on the Wikipedia and there's a long history of people simply not bothering to provide the necessary information even on images that can be used. Legally, we perhaps shouldn't even wait out the full week, we should instantly remove the images. The compromise is to wait the seven days, though. Anyway, I apologise if you thought this was over the top and I hope you understand that this was just a standard Wikipedia warning template and was not something I wrote specifically to target you. --Yamla 14:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

* You said "Thank you for clearing up the fair-use rationale for that image! Your effort is much appreciated!" 
   Thanks Jaster 14:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with point about the default tags - I find them a little overbaring and so I usually add my own comments with a more detailed reasoning and advice (where I can) ^Jaster 14:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamla, you removed the image used in the Afrikaners article. Would you please say why you did not see it as fair use? -Gemsbok1 09:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually referring to Image:Arrested Development - Rita.jpg? If you take a look at the image page itself, you'll see that there's no fair-use rationale provided for the Afrikaners article, thus we can't use it there. Remember, we are not permitted to use a copyrighted image without a detailed fair-use rationale. Additionally, it is a screenshot from a t.v. show; using it on Afrikaners would not be using it to illustrate the work or product in question, in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose. So I do not believe any fair-use rationale could possibly be given for this image. I hope this clears things up. --Yamla 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell me how you want me to sort this problem? I found the image as part of a press pack to accompany the music video, which I assumed was allowed under "an image freely provided to promote an item, as in a promotional photo in a press packet", but as stated, I couldn't find a relevant title in the drop down menu. Thanks! HamishMacBeth 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with this image, I'd like an answer how to sort it please. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do to prevent it being deleted. Thanks! HamishMacBeth 00:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As indicated, you need a detailed fair-use rationale. The license text has a link to a page which describes this requirement in more detail. Thanks. --Yamla 00:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yamla. The picture on Trisha Krishnan's article is now from the movie Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana. I provided a critical comment on the movie, so we can keep the picture. The pic is *not* from the movie Aaru anymore, as mentioned in Meeg's warning box. --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's from a movie, we can only use it in the context of providing critical commentary on that particular movie. We cannot use it just to depict the person. Sorry.  :( I appreciate you working so hard to get images into copyright compliance, it's just a little tricky. --Yamla 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yamla, sorry, I'm a bit slow. Oookay, that picture is from the movie

In 2005, she starred alongside

Something Something ... Unnakum Ennakum, where Krishnan played opposite Jayam Ravi

was released in 2006.

It's just - I took Eric Bana's article as a role model. The article is featured, so I guess it will do. It shows Eric Bana in a screenshot of The Mugget. The movie is mentioned thrice in the entire article:

1. In the filmography
2. While filming The Nugget, Bana was offered the lead role of Bruce Banner in the film adaptation of the popular comic book series The Incredible Hulk
3. A comedy, the film portrays the effect of instant wealth on three working class men and was released with moderate success in Australia. Bana read the script after filming Chopper in 2000 and was drawn to it because it reminded him of his childhood and because he found its characters amusing and likable.

Would this be better:

In 2005, she starred alongside

Something Something ... Unnakum Ennakum, where Krishnan played opposite Jayam Ravi was released in 2006. Krishnan noted that "'Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana' is the best entertainer that I have seen in my life"[12]

.

Best regards and thanks for your patience, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the current situation would probably count as critical commentary. Technically, you basically need to be discussing that particular image but I'm very pedantic about fair-use and even I am not that pedantic. The problem is that the image is appearing at the top of the article in the info box if I remember correctly. That means it's being used to depict the actress, not to provide critical commentary. If you move the image down into the article body itself and attach it around the paragraph where you discuss that movie, that would satisfy me. --Yamla 22:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: why is it that Eric Bana's The-Nugget-pic isn't in that part of the article where the corresponding movie is discussed? I mean, shouldn't people be ultra-mega-pedantic (<- and that's not a bad think, I think) when it comes to featured articles?

Best regards and sleep well, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 22:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, I'd definitely much prefer that the image get attached only to the paragraph discussing that movie. The problem is that not everyone is as pedantic as me. It's a serious problem, I tell you! And not just on the Wikipedia! In the end, a lot of this is allowed to slide. And I monitor far less than 1% of the Wikipedia so I don't catch that much of it. But yes, featured articles should be held to a higher standard. --Yamla 23:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamla. I wish I had checked here earlier. Plumcouch and I have been having basically the same discussion on my talk page. All the best. ×Meegs 17:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

HI yamla, i've recently added in an image on trisha's page, I have found that it has been removed because it didn't have a correct copyright status. Can u pls give me links to how an example should be of a perfectly copyrighted pic.

i hav been around wiki for about 2 years now, i have previously go blocked for different reasons, mainly because of User:Anwar saadat who is now blocked. But he will be back soon...

this is probably my fifth account at wiki, and i haven't managed to get blocked this time, so if u can giv me gud example pic i can kee the same account, if not i'll get blocked again.

thank you for your patience Kadavul 10:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

user yamla wrote: "No evidence that Cola Cao has released this image under the GFDL"

argumentation of YY-bo: "no evidence that commercial manufacturers usually release images of their products under GDFL."

The edit action is arguable by the added signature Images:cola_cao. However, it can be removed easily, or upon request. If this action is correct, other imgages must be removed as well (see discussion of Images:Cola Cao, see article Red_Bull.

Compared to the Red_Bull article the edit is only argueable by the format conversion. The purpose of the image Cola_Cao is to documentate a product article. The data might be obvious for Joe Public (american slang), but who knows what people in foreign countries know about Cola Cao? The data might have documentary value for these individuals.

I am awaiting an explanation why the licensing was considered not valid; in relation to other articles on wikipedia. User:Yy-bo 13:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am writing to you in function of your administrator status.

Can you please verify of the recent add to

Jennifer Morrison image is already in use by Wikipedia on the Allison Cameron page - ergo, if it's acceptable on one Wikipedia page, it's acceptable on all. 64.103.37.71 16:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you are mistaken. Copyrighted images must have a detailed fair-use rationale for each use on the Wikipedia. Images may be acceptably used in one context but not in another. --Yamla 17:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is probably very late, so: HAPPY BELATED ADMINSHIP!!!! Good job! loulou 01:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick fair use question for you. Can the image in the info box in the article on Playboy be used there under the fair use guidelines? I don't think so because there isn't a discussion about that particular issue, but I'm a fair use idiot so I figured I'd ask someone who's more familiar with the FU guidelines. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 02:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither image as they currently sit are acceptable because neither have a detailed fair-use rationale. A pretty compelling justification could be given for the Marilyn Monroe cover as this is specifically discussed in the article. However, the other cover is not discussed in the article istelf and does not seem to be being used to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question. Thus, no fair-use rationale would be possible for that one. --Yamla 02:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay you only have to tell me once. I tried to cite the information but I guess that I better learn the correct way to cite before I try to cite. You don't have to jump down my throat like you did.Thanks for nothing!MgHoneyBee 03:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Yamla! I hope this message finds you well. I'm wondering if you can help me, someone keep undoing all my edits (just to piss me off?). He makes comments that I haven't added original content, which is true but only because I was only tidying up the article in question. What can I do about this person? He goes by the username "Drett" and keeps reversing the

No offense, I hope. :) I almost speedied it under G4, because there was an old article by that name that went through AfD and was transwikied. However, this new version was created by someone different and it is not the same text. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See my response here. Thanks. Debuskjt 18:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am Sylvia and I am new to Wikipedia. To prevent my talk page from getting long, I'd like for one of the bots to archive anything that is 5 days old. How can I do that? Regards. --

Hi. I got rid of the old pic of the album cover on the Into the Rush page and added a new, low-res pic of the cover. I also added a detailed fair use rationale in the picture's summary. Sorry about the mixup... :-) Doodoobutter 20:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I got rid of the old pic of the album cover on the Into the Rush page and added a new, low-res pic of the cover. I also added a detailed fair use rationale in the picture's summary. Sorry about the mixup... :-) Doodoobutter 20:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I got rid of the old pic of the album cover on the Into the Rush page and added a new, low-res pic of the cover. I also added a detailed fair use rationale in the picture's summary. Sorry about the mixup... :-) Doodoobutter 20:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The image source is there, man. WWE.com. I don't control where or when they move the images, but that's where it's from.--

Are you sure you mean the image is on that particular page and not another page within that site? I can't find it on the main page and you must specify the exact page the image is contained on. --Yamla 19:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Direct link to the image; Page where image is found--

The Scourge

19:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. Please add that source along with the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale to the image. --Yamla 19:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough... I was hoping to sneak it by you somehow, but I guess it didn't work. Oh well... :) Mad Jack 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be original research, but it's still there in the movie.

So what would you suggest I do with it?--Machchunk 23:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Find a

citation for this information. --Yamla

00:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of Admin over reacts to this? How did somebody as caustic as you get elected to the admin position? --68.184.81.196 02:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see

WP:RS. Note that the article itself states that Doyle is not a supporter of the Republican Party. You are welcome to correct the article but please do not introduce uncited contradictions. --Yamla

03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Administrators certainly can be blocked, yes. Really, being an administrator just means it's easier to revert vandalism and gives you the possibility to block other people. --Yamla 15:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I asked because I'm new and still having an adventure. I've looked at a lot of administrators and I've yet to see one blocked. Thank you for the archive again. --

Sylvia

18:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Presumably any who were blocked would be likely to be fired as well as to be blocked they would have demonstrated their unsuitability to be administrators, if you want to see Administrators blocked then

Lord of the Isles

21:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am just wondering, but do you speak French? All people I know in Canada speak French. I would just like to know because it's easier for me to speak my Mother tongue. --

Nope, sorry, I don't. I wasn't born in Canada.  :) --Yamla 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I could teach you, but it'd be hard to do the pronounciations. Where were you born? --

Sylvia

18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was born in England and still only hold British (not Canadian) citizenship. I wish I could speak more languages but I find French very difficult. Too many vowels. If I was to learn another language, it would probably be German. --Yamla 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yamla. Would you have the time and willingness to help with (what I think is) a very simple issue with the potential to become a bad thing? I'm trying to have the image

This is not a sufficient fair-use rationale and I have tagged the image as such. I suspect the uploader simply didn't read the image description help page. A friendly warning, you've made three reverts to that image page within the past 24 hours or so, please see

WP:3RR. I'm not accusing you or threatening a block or anything, just pointing out the 3RR policy. --Yamla

16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for you attention on this matter, Yamla. I just hope this doesn't get lost on the backlog of Disputed fair use images. Also, thanks for the 3RR warning. This is surely the policy I'm most likely to break considering the insufficient ammount of attention I give to this. Gonna take better care on that. Anyway, in this case, it was 1 edit and 2 rv, not yet 3 rv but very close. See you. Best regards, --Abu Badali 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, although the license clearly requires a detailed fair-use rationale, I have found it causes less confusion if you leave the license in place, add a brief comment stating that the license requires a detailed fair-use rationale, then use {{fairusedisputed}} instead of {{subst:nld}}. In other news, at some point in the future, I'd like to set up a Wikipedia "group" for policing image copyright and fair-use violations. The main benefit would be to provide more standard warnings and easy-to-understand simple explanations for what people are doing incorrectly. The goal would be to ensure more editors who upload images have a better understanding of what is required. The major problem is that I don't have enough free time so this may not happen for a while yet. :) --Yamla 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use is the place to ask for help on this. --Abu Badali

17:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just thought your father had an account on the Wikipedia. My apologies if he doesn't and if my comments confused you. Also, I hope you understand that I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong! It's just that you had more identifying information than I do on my user page.  :) --Yamla 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank goodness. I thought someone was impersonating my Father. That's good. I'm just putting the most personal is my religion and lifestyles. Oh, and I'm putting the breed of my dogs because those are the most feared dogs in Canada. --

Sylvia

20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You may or may not want to add User:213.200.187.45 to your watchlist. Seems fond of adding the "Italian-American" category to person after person, mostly based on last name, dubious sources or distant connections, and seems to ignore reputable sources (i.e. on Adam Goldberg). Mad Jack 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with your message about spamming and I dont understand why you are happy to accept other links to other less qualified sites that contain fewer information about artists or even almost empty webpabes as imdb's biography of Christopher Uckermann that contains no information at all. Just because IMDB is self proclaimed the international movie database it doesnt mean their pages are accurate or complete. We have always contributed with wikipedia with valuable links and pictures, added not just by us, but by other wikipedia editors,and I think your warning message is completely agressive and unfair; It's like giving a present to someone and receiving a kick in the butt in return. You should not treat like that people that collaborates with you, should you!??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.133.88.163 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I think you are confused. As near as I can tell, I've never made an edit or a revert to

WP:NOT. --Yamla

00:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to your comments to User talk:200.57.91.61 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.133.88.163 (talk • contribs)

Oh. Well, those links clearly violate

WP:SPAM. --Yamla

00:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am David. i understand my daughter is a member of Wikipedia, permission given by the mother (I had nothing to do with this) and I am not sure about what you are talking about. I don't know who Kristin Kreuk is but I'm not even sure if that's my daughter's image. She looks like that, but I've been out of her life lately (do to work). I'd like you to explain the situation of the image thing. --David Pierre 01:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The images,

SpecialSylvia uploaded them and attempted to mislead people into believing they were pictures of her. --Yamla

01:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd noticed that 'SpecialSylvia' seems reminiscent of a couple of users who've been blocked lately, for example in the use of the fake 'new messages' tag on their page: pure circumstantial evidence, but according to their talk page they also share an IP address with one of those blocked users. I'd been keeping an eye on their page as a result, and recognised the Kristen Kreuk image immediately, though it took me a while to remember her name so I could track it down on Google: if they were going to use a fake image, they could have picked something less well-known... Mark Grant 01:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked the page history and it looks like I confused her with someone else over the fake 'new messages' thing, I must have found her page by following links from one of the other blocked users' talk pages. Mark Grant 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, someone claiming to be User:Bethicalyna, who was just banned, is posting from the same IP address used by someone claiming to be 'SpecialSylvia': see User talk:Alexbuirds, User talk:CyclePat and User talk:Schrandit. Seem to be an amazing number of teenager wikipedians sharing that IP address. Mark Grant 21:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me at all. I was absolutely sure that SpecialSylvia was part of that mess. I've blocked the IP address for one month. I have reached the limit of my patience. That said, I (probably naively) only blocked the IP address, not the other sockpuppets we know about. --Yamla 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Je n'ai pas su. En outre, je prends un long wikibreak. Je vais de nouveau à l'école. --

This is an un-noticed article and I think we should either consider deletion, re-writing plot (because it was copied off of IMDb) or anything else to keep it updated. I was looking at contributions and before the latest attention to this article, it was edited August 5! What do you suggest might help? --National Girl 04:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my talk page! I appreciate it. You got to it before I even noticed. :) - Debuskjt 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but you have it all wrong! I just don't want people questioning me because that's what admins do, and I want to help expand articles instead of talking about my troubled life on Wikipedia. I was creating a subpage called warnings for admins and me. Thanks! --

I just got stung by a wasp and my Mother showed me how to cure it, as I am still stinging, my brain thought up of an idea for Wikipedia. I was thinking of WikiClasses/Administrating lessons. Kids or other people on Wikipedia who have just become an admin can get a private session with an admin and learn! Does that sound weird? Just voice you're opinion and then I'll ask Jimbo. --

Hello, Yamla, User:Prettyw0man and User:Prettywoman2010 have been messing up with this [13]. See file history at the bottom. I'm fairly sure it`s bthe same user and warned him/her about copyright violations, but to no avail. Maybe you could have a kind word with him/her? Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 01:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How am I vandilizing the T-Boz and Ciara pages? their origins are Atlanta, Georgia because there are from there are interviewed they say they are from Atlanta relax and chill I do the vandalism stuff that is so childish trust me I got you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twany22 (talk • contribs)

In that case, please

reliable sources. Otherwise, please leave the claims that they are from their place of birth in tact. Thanks. --Yamla

03:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yamla, I really need to ask you about OrphanBot. I noticed that there are many messages that were sent by OrphanBot. Sometimes, User complains about OrphanBot that OrphanBot keeps sending messages. Does OrphanBot's message represents for tagging of image? Or Perhaps Images are unsourced? Just Curious. Please, reply in my talk page. Daniel's page ☎ 03:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe what the orphanbot complains about is when a copyrighted image is uploaded and then is not used in an article. This can happen by one of three methods. First, the uploader never added the image to an article in the first place. Second, another editor removed the image. Third, the image was never provided with a detailed fair-use rationale. We aren't permitted to use copyrighted images without a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale. Eventually, the image will be removed from the page by another bot (fairusebot?) and then the orphanbot will notify the user. Anyway, the end result is that most of the time, the reason the image is orphaned is because the uploader failed in some way. But that's not always the case. Sometimes, it's a fine image but someone replaced the image with a better one. I hope this answers your questions. --Yamla 04:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yamla I noticed yesterday that you tagged this image with a fair use dispute tag. I added the source from where I got this image and added a bit of a rationale. Could you please explain what needs to added to it if it is not detailed or is it OK the way it is. Shakirfan 14:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are almost there now. See

Deewane Huye Pagal and that all other uses require additional rationale. Mostly, just make clear that you are only justifying it for that one page. Feel free to remove the fair-use disputed box once you've done so. Thanks! --Yamla

14:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree that there are similar problems with the Republican list. It's all a huge mess. Just for the record, I do not live in the U.S. and support no party in the U.S. I just don't want you to think I have anything against Democrats. Thanks. --Yamla 18:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yamla. I'm here again to ask for your help. This time, I believe I really need an Admin. Some user posted some copyrighted text on my talk page and I'm not really sure on what needs to be done. Should I simply remove it from the current version or is it necessary to to remove the specific page versions from history?

This was the edition in question.

Although the text is basically someones's resume, what may be considered ineligible for copyright, I'm really unconfortable with the text ending with "© 2003 by Richard Moskowitz, M. D.".

The user was probably unaware of the copyright implications of what he was doing.

Thanks in advance, and sorry for disturbing you again. Best regards, --Abu Badali 21:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'd suggest is just removing it. While we could remove it from the history, we'd normally only do this when it is specifically requested. The resume would indeed be copyrighted. A fair-use rationale could, I suppose, be made that the resume is being used fairly (that is, under fair-use) to discuss someone's qualifications. But the same could be done just with a link to the page and fair-use isn't permitted in user space anyway. --Yamla 21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean "specifically requested" by the copyright owner, right? Ok, I will follow your advice here and just remove the text from the page for now. Thanks again, Yamla. --Abu Badali 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My account keeps getting deleted for no reason. What can I do about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldodd2000 (talk • contribs)

First, you can stop blatantly vandalising the Wikipedia. Second, you can stop creating new accounts simply to get around blocks. Third, you can stop adding potentially slanderous remarks to your user page. --Yamla 02:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Vandal with IP: User:199.97.121.99 is vandalizing again. He's vandalized before. Can you temporarily/permanently block him? Thanks for the help on the manatee thing. --Adam Wang 01:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not much we can do. We can add longer and longer blocks but it's not a good policy (and not generally permitted) to permanently block IP addresses. The IP address may belong to a vandal today but in two years, it may belong to a respectable editor. --Yamla 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The user

The policies in question are

WP:3RR as well.  :) --Yamla

03:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Yamla, just wanted to thank you for assuming good faith on the Katee Sackhoff page. I did save it direct, purposefully in that instance, for two reasons: 1. I was in a hurry and (more importantly) 2. I was changing it back so fast I assumed that it was before the photo would have been deleted (was thinking orphan rule for delete). While I do appreciate your fixing the page, I was wondering if it would have been (and thus for my future reference) possible to simply update the images comments? Anyway, thanks for realizing it was a simple error on my part. Lesson learned! ;-) VigilancePrime 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

About Eva Green's image, is this what you want? http://www.jamesbond.com/news/pressRelease20060216.html

About Chocolat movie poster, is this?

http://www.impawards.com/2000/chocolat.html

Hi Yamla! A couple days ago I saw that user Cute 1 4 u was blocked. Recently, a girl called GhettoGirl wrote to Quasyboy saying that Cute 1 4 u had an account at Wikiquote. Is she allowed to do that? Sorry if it seems I'm "tattle-tailing". Just tell me if I am. loulou 16:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe she is. Although Wikiquote is clearly closely related to Wikipedia, I don't think the bans necessarily carry over. Really, though, an admin at the Wikiquote would be better qualified to answer this question than I am. --Yamla 17:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on the external links/'link spam' on the cerebral palsy and medical malpractice pages. I have no qualms with you removing the links ofcourse, however there are other commercial links listed (of our competitors), which is why I had assumed policy had changed since they were also listed. See askthelawdoc.com on the cerebral palsy page. Specifically advertising "lifetime benefits". —The preceding

It is very difficult to find images that are not protected by copyright. We certainly can use some that are copyrighted under the appropriate license and detailed fair-use rationale but I prefer to avoid copyrighted images altogether. Are you aware of any images of this person which are not copyrighted? --Yamla 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to "vandalize" her page Although I don't really think what i did was really vandalism I just got mixed up with Jennifer Love Hewitt and Sarah Michelle Guellar. Geez. They somewhat look alike.

User:Ebegoun

Hi Yamala, I came across

Thanks. That user is definitely having a hard time grasping appropriate image tags. If you noticed, the user demanded that I produce a replacement image for one he or she uploaded that was totally inappropriate. I'll try to keep an eye on the situation. --Yamla 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume Scollura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock... Thanks/wangi 22:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You people are complete losers like who runs around and deletes pictures i mean you all need to like find something more constructive to do. And atleast this poor person is trying and i mean yall are like gossiping about how swiftly you deleted someone's picture that is really sad! you litte shi*s need to like go elsewhere and just leave the new and updated pictures these people are replacing your crap*y outdated ones. yall are like attacking this person. you need to get a life you little as*holes hoars!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wangi"

Hey Yamla,

It may seem like I have not linked that image to the page I got it from, but I have. If you read below you can see that it was lifted from the band's official page at allmusic.com. Thus, it is released to the site as a promotional image. I have read the fair use link you left on my page under images, and the image fits in the following categories:

Other promotional material. Posters, programs, billboards, ads.[14]

Publicity photos. [15]

Musikxpert 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Yamla, User:King Dracula keeps vandalising actor Surya's page: tried to talk to him (see here:[16]) but to no avail. He wouldn't answer. The article got worse when he started to edit it with several double mentions and a clumsy introduction. Also, he keeps adding co-stars and directors to the filmography. None of the featured article actor pages have those and there are generally not added. See for his edits here:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19] the same edit was made by User:Kadavul before you banned him.
4. [20]

Could you talk to him?

Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 12:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamla, just a quick note to tell you I've blocked User:Yamlà, who appears to be an impostor of yours (they copied your user page and user talk page to their own verbatim). Cheers, Tangotango 12:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)