User talk:Yamla/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 9 |
Archive 10
| Archive 11 →

Contents

Responses

I try hard to respond to all of the comments that are left here. I'm almost always overloaded, though. Sometimes I do not see a message, sometimes a message takes more time than I currently have to come up with a good response. Please do not take it personally if I do not respond to your question. --Yamla 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Randy Orton image

RE: :No I don't. However, we are not permitted to use fair-use images there which is why I made the change. --Yamla 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why I asked if you had a better one! heh. Shame, need a better one than the one you put in. Govvy 09:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My user

Yes, I want you to deactivate my user and then block it forever please. MM 10:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will do. --Yamla 14:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed Joyce

Just wondering why you reverted the edit to Ed Joyce. It looked like a perfectly good edit to me? It may be a sock but it looks like you have removed some very useful info. Frelke 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppet accounts are not permitted to edit. When we catch one, we try to revert all edits. By definition, any edit from a blocked user is a bad edit. You are welcome to reintroduce the edit yourself if you wish. This would not be considered a revert. You would be responsible for the edit just as if you were the first person to perform that edit. --Yamla 14:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for future reference, given that there are no block logs for that IP, how do you know he is an abusive sock? Frelke 16:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't reverting the IP's edits, I was reverting edits by Maddy92 (talk • contribs), a couple of revisions earlier. That is a confirmed abusive sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Prince Godfather. And thanks for keeping people honest! --Yamla 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I picked that up in the meantime. Given that the IP editor edited the same paragraph, how were you able to isolate his/her changes and keep them whilst reverting Maddy92's edits? Have you some cool editing tool that allows that? Frelke 16:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I wish. That would be very very useful, particularly when reverting contributions from a different long-term vandal, Verdict (talk • contribs). No, I did it by hand using the history. --Yamla 16:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Does that go for the other reverter as well? OC 16:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked in to it. It depends on whether the person is reverting vandalism or not. --Yamla 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Power Rangers stuff

I thank you for dealing with BlackRanger, however, I have added fair use rationales to several of the images, and outright deleted others that were going to contribute to a massive fair use gallery. As a member of the "ruling" WikiProject, I will contact someone to develop an image that can be used under fair use at the articles, one that isn't fifty separate images, and from a user who knows about copyright. With BlackRanger's contributions, I would watch him, as he seems like an individual that got indefinitely blocked for listing images as GFDL when they are obviously fair use. He also tended to ignore talk page messages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryulong, I appreciate it. --Yamla 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Surfin' USA.

You're going to love this; this user was the Kate McAuliffe vandal, as demonstrated with this edit. As that user has easily seen my name now, I'd better check the user list a bit more often. Acalamari 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's possible that Kate McAuliffe is a super-hot, wonderfully smart, witty sweetheart. Okay, I doubt it, and I have some concerns about how her affection is expressed (though quite likely not by her), but hey. --Yamla 01:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I responded with I find it weird that this person is obsessed with Kate McAuliffe; whoever she is. I've seen strange usernames like "Yamla has a crush on Kate McAuliffe" and "Ryulong has a crush on Kate McAuliffe." Acalamari 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Randy Orton

So, then its not a reliable source? I mean I just wanted to ask, so I wouldn't get blocked. Do you have fun blocking people from wikipedia? Zerorules677

Responded on user's talk page. --Yamla 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Verdict (yet, again)

Another suspected sockpuppet, User:O.C12. on the Brock Lesnar pages. There are days I wish I was an admin... -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs)

It wasn't initially clear to me that this was a sock, especially as Verdict emailed me and specifically promised not to create any more sockpuppet accounts and not to edit until the end of March. However, this was just confirmed by checkuser. I guess I am a sucker for believing Verdict was anything other than a blatant liar. --Yamla 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
"This is a sockpuppet of OC and only of that one." - Fusionxking (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). --  oakster  TALK  15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pink (singer)

Gotcha, sorry, wasn't too familiar with the whole image bit. I thought promotional stuff was ok, so i reverted. Taalo 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Issue resolved. --Yamla 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks Yamla; I was reverting that user's spam links about 20 hours or so ago. I should have warned them about spamming. Acalamari 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Issue resolved. --Yamla 14:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

--Snorklefish 00:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Yamla 14:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Batista

hey, can you delete the caption under the pic in the infobox? I think that was from an older picture, I've never seen it there with that picture before. Thanks. Bmg916 Speak to Me 17:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Yamla 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please verify yourself for Commons

Upon verification, you should create an account on Commons, such as User:Yamla-en, and then confirm that account creation here, via a diff or link to the new account name. We will thereupon rename the imposter account and then you can usurp the account. Bastiq▼e demandez 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. See here. Thanks, Bastique. --Yamla 20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I have renamed Yamla-en to Yamla and displaced the impersonator. You are now Yamla on Commons! Bastiq▼e demandez 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince Godfather again.

User:Prince Godfather is back again, now editing as an IP User:81.129.181.25 I have filed a report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Prince Godfather (2nd), I have already unpicked one of his/her edits to R Madhavan as it qualified as vandalism even if this is not another sock. I am amazed by you diligance in defending wikipedia. If I can make your job any easy when reporting these things do not hesitate to say how. GameKeeper 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He's not the most annoying vandal, that'd be Verdict (talk • contribs) which has so far created over 70 abusive sockpuppets. But thinks for reporting this one to me. I've blocked the address. --Yamla 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Fair-use

The template lists as one of the criteria, "in the absence of a free alternative", which contradicts what you claim. I understand that in general, for living people, it is generally presumed that a free alternative can be created, but I handled this one differently because of the text of the template. I removed the tag, because I am cleaning out Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 26 February 2007, not disputing the RFU claim. enochlau (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but WP:FU trumps that. That is, we may be using the image in accord with that particular license but may still be violating another policy such as WP:FU and the image needs to adhere to all policies. Consider also that the wording in WP:FU was tightened up after the wording on the license. If I did not make it clear, there is no doubt that you are acting in good faith, I'm just trying to clear up what I think is a minor misunderstanding. --Yamla 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless FU is trying to trump itself - that tag itself was a fair use tag (for promotional material from WWF). It appears that FU has been tightened up recently, and I haven't caught up with the developments, so yes, I do agree with you now. That template probably needs to be changed. enochlau (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, he wont quit

Verdict is back.....again. Musclebig88 Bmg916 Speak to Me 15:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Unstoppable89 Bmg916 Speak to Me 16:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not forgetting Musclebig89...--Cometstyles 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As annoying as Verdict is, I think semi-protection might be more appropriate. Both sockpuppets used today were new, and would not have made it past the four-day requirement. Just my two cents. -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs) 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the sockpuppets used today did make it past the semi-protection on Brock Lesnar. Verdict long ago figured out how to create abusive sockpuppets, let them sit for a few days, and then bring them in to play. --Yamla 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, never mind then! I change my "verdict". ;) -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs) 17:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Unreleting Unstoppable (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). --  oakster  TALK  17:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Oaksti (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), he likes me. :) --  oakster  TALK  07:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Trachtenberg

Regarding an incident that occurred on Michelle Trachtenberg, you reverted a picture posted by 82.134.121.18. You then issued him his first and final warning for vandalism. Could you please justify this? Because, at least as I see it, it seems as though he attempted to add a different picture and made a mistake. This is hardly vandalism in itself, unless I missed something. Thanks for your clarification. Kntrabssi 10:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This user removed the following warning: "Only freely-licensed images may be used to depict living people. Please see WP:FU before adding an image here. Deliberate violations will result in a block." The user then replaced the image with a fair-use image. Furthermore, the image itself specifically points out that it may not be used to depict the actress. Not once but twice. And the image license contains text that notes it may only be used to depict the product (in this case, the character, Dawn Summers) where a free image could not be created to replace it. And the license notes that a detailed fair-use rationale must be added for each use (though obviously here, WP:FU means no such would be appropriate for use on Michelle Trachtenberg). Given all these violations, I concluded that this anonymous user was deliberately violating at least one of those numerous prohibitions and believe the warning to be appropriate. --Yamla 14:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking your time to clear this up :) Kntrabssi 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hi. I see that you are an admin. Could you please help me out?

User:Garygarfield (User talk:Garygarfield|talk) was blocked almost a year ago by User:Curps on account of a single instance of vandalism. The user has given a clarification that he was testing how prompt we are in catching vandalism. While its true that vandalism is a big pain in the ass, its also true that many new users do this test to gain confidence in the system and before becoming a part of us. Thats why we have the warnings, isn't it? But he was blocked indefinitely without any warning or notification whatsoever that he might be blocked. (While the user is a friend of mine is immaterial; when he brought the issue to my notice, I felt there has been a misuse of admin privileges by User:Curps).

Its not my point to judge the misuse, if any. I believe User:Curps was acting in good faith. I would have taken the issue directly with him, but he seems to have taking a break from Wikipedia for quite sometime now . So, can you you to please take a look at the block and overturn it if you deem it right (I do not want to take it to WP:ANI without getting a third party opinion, at the least)? Thanks a lot. Cya around. --soumtalk 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The best option here would be for the user to create a new account. I don't think anyone would complain about that, assuming he doesn't use that account for vandalism. If this is unacceptable for some reason, the user should use the {{unblock}} template on his user discussion page to request an unblock review. Deliberately vandalising the Wikipedia is a big problem but it is probably reasonable to give the user a second chance if he promises not to vandalise again. --Yamla 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but the user wants to use the username he already registered with. Thats why he is staying from re-registering. I will let him know. Thanks. :) --soumtalk 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Uma Thurman

You put a warning on my user page that an edit I made to Uma Thurman was unsourced, but that is incorrect. The webpage itself says she is either 5'11" or 6' 0", so it's hardly "unsourced." Each of their height claims is sourced. So please be more careful with the warnings.216.83.83.166 18:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks for unblocking me, Yamla! -- Zanimum 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem.  :) --Yamla 18:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Community Ban on Verdict

I voted but I'm not exactly familiar with what exactly a community ban is. Do you think you could explain it to me? Thanks. Bmg916 Speak to Me 15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it is just a community consensus that the user in question should not be permitted on the Wikipedia. It has some implications; an admin can't just override the community consensus, for example. In this particular case, an argument could be made that Verdict was already banned by community consensus, though, as he was blocked by at least nine independent admins and had his unblock requests declined in every case. I just want to make the ban official in this case. --Yamla 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought it was, just wanted to be sure. Thanks for your help! Bmg916 Speak to Me 16:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale

You more than anyone has to agree with me that this article needs to be semi-protected. The vandalism has just been out of control over the past few days. QuasyBoy 13:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll semi-protect it for a month. --Yamla 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That's quite a long time, but it's worth it. QuasyBoy 13:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

celeb external links question

also -- i was wondering: why are Yahoo Movies celeb pages not taken down, if imdb is the community consensus? (it's under External Links for Jessica Alba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_alba#External_links), for example) -- Aargabrite (Talk) 16:46 ET, 16 March 2007

I don't know, I didn't add that link there. In general, though, there are a great many pages on the Wikipedia that contain links which should be removed. --Yamla 20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Keira Knightley

Her Date of Birth is wrong so I simply corrected it. It is 22/3/85 not 26/3/85. See www.keiraknightley.com/biography.php if you don't believe me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.56.226 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Please find a reliable source (not a fansite) to cite your claim. Thanks. See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:RS. --Yamla 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Visit web page edit

you suggested I not vandalize the Windows Vista entry. I did not. The page said "windows vista fuck shit bitch" I removed the "fuck shit bitch portion". I suppose I may have inadvertantly made another minor change, but I would hardly imagine it warented a vandalizm warning.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.29.26.68 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

That's not what you did. Please see your edit here. --Yamla 21:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. It looks like someone reversed the edit before I got to it. And so I must have mistakenly remove the bolding. I'm not sure that exactly an indicator of the fall of Wikipedia's reliability. Anyway, I'm sure you're just trying to keep people from messing around, which is good, but you could have just fixed the problem and left it at that.

Your user page

Man, your user page gets continual vandalism. You don't mind if I satisfy my inner vandal-fighter and watchlist it, do you? bibliomaniac15 05:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'll warn you, though, that if you start reverting, tney'll start targeting you.  :) Most of the time, I don't even see the vandalism to my user page, kind souls like yourself revert it before I check. --Yamla 06:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that changing your yamla.jpg to homosexual.jpg was an odd choice for vandalism. :) bibliomaniac15 21:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

C++ texts from freecomputerbooks.com

Thank you for your message.

I am concerned about your apparent inability to assume good faith, your accusations of spamming which upon independent review I have found unjustified, your apparent lack of reluctance to bite an obvious newbie with a final warning after what I believe to be an unjustified accusation of spamming, and your hastily withdrawn accusations of sockpuppetry against me.

You have asked me to evaluate http://freecomputerbooks.com/langCppBooksIndex.html in terms of WP:EL. I have done so. I find that adding it to C++ would be a service to our readers because it:

  • is more informative than at least three of the existing external links in that article;
  • has merit, linking to dozens of free references, tutorials, and guides;
  • is at least as accessible as any page rendered in Wikipedia's monobook style;
  • is clearly appropriate to the article;
  • has a well-articulated copyright policy, allowing submissions of only free materials and providing a means for copyright holders to remove their material if it appears on the site;
  • is supported by advertising and referrals, as are tens of thousands of our existing external links. This fact alone does not prohibit its exclusion under WP:SPAM or WP:COI;
  • provides unique resources beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article;
  • does not mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research;
  • is not mainly intended to promote a website;
  • does not primarily exist to sell products or services -- although it is ad- and referral-supported, those links are few and sparse in its text, and again, these sorts of compilations are not at all uncommon in our articles;
  • does not have objectionable amounts of advertising -- I count less than ten referral links and zero direct ads on the linked page, spread among dozens of useful resources;
  • doesn't require payment or registration;
  • works on all Mac and PC browsers, and my Nokia 9300 phone;
  • doesn't require Flash, Java, or other external applications;
  • isn't a search engine link or aggregated search engine results;
  • is not a social networking sites, discussion forums or USENET (which I might add is included in the article's external links); and
  • is not a blog, a personal web page, or an unestablished open wiki.

Based on this determination, I will continue to replace the link in the article, and I will encourage others to do so as well.

If you are truly concerned with keeping the external links in C++ to a minimum, won't you please consider removing one of the links to a single reference manual or tutorial instead of the link in question, providing a collection of such works?

If you disagree with my decision, I encourage you to establish an RFC on the topic. Thank you. AnAccount2 22:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Verdict

based on the information provided, I have enacted the community ban on the above user. --wL<speak·check> 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

C-TIME

I just can't stop laughing, but this person does not exist in the music industry. He has not been on tour with T.I. or signed to Def Jam. Georgia Peachez 01:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your tireless revisions of blatant vandalism. On the behalf of Wikipedia, thank you MelicansMatkin 14:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

When I edit Mischa Barton's page, I don't vandalize anything. My idea was introduce a picture from this actress, because all actresses of The O.C. have pictures in their pages. If you cannot accept contributions by users on Wikipedia, I think you should not edit more pages. Wikipedia is a big community and have a mission of contribution, and not blocking as you want to do to exerce your power. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that you call me "person who vandalize pages" when it's not true. 84.90.89.43 17:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. In this edit, you removed a warning that only freely-licensed images may be used to depict living people. You removed a warning to check WP:FU before adding an image. The image itself was missing mandatory information and was a blatant violation of WP:FU. And you added a link which violates WP:SPAM and WP:EL to the bottom of the article. All in all, I think it is fairly clear the warning was warranted. --Yamla 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not my intention violate anything on Mischa Barton's page. But I cannot understand why others users had been deleted all Mischa's pictures and why we can't put their biggest fan-site on external links list. If you can complete their page, please, do it. And I'm sorry if you don't understand my intention. 84.90.89.43 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPAM and WP:EL for the appropriate policies. And WP:FU. --Yamla 19:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Douchecanoes friend.

You may want to fully protect this page; after you and Sandstein declined the unblocked request, the user put up another. I declined that one for you. By the way, I've declined unblocks a couple of times before to help ease the administrator's backlog; after all, I can decline unblocks when it's appropriate, I just can't grant unblocks. :) Don't worry, I review the situation before declining. Acalamari 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with IP 74.109.244.5 and new account

I'm sure you remember vandalism trouble with this user, and it seems to have gotten much worse. They appear to hold a grudge against me because of my frequent reverts of their vandalism to Southwood Secondary School, and reporting them because of this vandalism. This user has indeed created an account in a parody of my own, with only one letter being different. You can compare my User Page with their own here. I realize that this may not be against the rules, but with this account that is so similar to my own they have continued to vandalize SSS, as seen in this edit, which I have since reverted.

I just want information on Wikipedia to be accurate, and since you were able to deal with this user last time, I thought it best to bring to your attention what has transpired. MelicansMatkin 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it. Nobody is permitted to impersonate your user account here. I'm sorry you had to go through that. Happy editing, let me know if things turn sour again. --Yamla 03:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your quick response. It was certainly a shock to see that happen. I'll be sure to drop you a line if that user creates any more trouble for me, or any other editors. Once again thanks, to both you and Netsnipe MelicansMatkin 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that this users IP block has expired - he immediately began to vandalize every page listed on my User Page that I have worked on/created, and also vandalized my user page. Thanks to revisions by Zarius and Raven4x4x, all of the vandalism that I know of has been fixed, but the user seems to once again be free on Wikipedia. MelicansMatkin 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Reblocked, this time for six months due to the immaturity evidenced by this user's edits. --Yamla 14:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you once again for your help! MelicansMatkin 14:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I hate to bring this up again, but this guy just won't quit: his new account MelicansMatkin 22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Stop being such a sissy.PelicansPatkin 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the link http://freecomputerbooks.com/langCppBooksIndex.html

Three different wikipedians (independently on each other) suggested to talk to you about removal of the link [1]

  • Can you please elaborate why did you remove it? The page contains links to 41 freely avaliable documents (the documents are opened in the browser; for these documents there are no links to amazon.com or other similar links) and 9 links to documents avaliable both freely and from amazon.com (for each of these links, there is a choice between reading it at the browser and buying at amazon.com; the amazon.com links have a refid, however)
  • Are you sure that removal of the link was right?

--Urod 06:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (slightly rewritten --Urod 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

Okay, let's take a look through the criteria outlined for WP:EL. As you know, external links should be kept to a minimum. We are not allowed to link to sites which violate copyright. This may or may not be an issue with this particular link. I did not see any copyright violations in this case but it's worth checking out whenever a site provides a PDF of a book. But again, I don't think that's the case here. So, let's see how the link fairs under "What should be linked to". It debateably meets the third criteria there. However, we already use a number of C++ books as references in the article itself. We also have a number of links already. And many of the other links could better be provided by linking to a DMOZ category.
So, let's take a look at links to normally be avoided. It definitely falls prey to number 4. The site primarily exists to make money on amazon referral links and to sell "deep discounted Computer Books [sic]". It may also fall prey to number 3, though probably not. Note, though, that I am assuming this is not your site. If so, please let me know and I'll explain the problem there.
Okay, so we know that Wikipedia does not like external links. We prefer keeping the list small, so on an article like C++, adding a new link requires justification. This particular link debateably meets one criteria for inclusion but definitely fails a criteria for no inclusion. Also, the link does not add substantially in a manner that a link to a DMOZ category would not do better. For all of these reasons, the link should not have been added. Remember, the "links to be considered" does not cancel out the "links to normally be avoided". A link should normally be added only if it avoids all reasons not to link. --Yamla 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's definitely not my site! --Urod 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed that the site, although it has an unobtrusive ad for discounted books at the bottom, primarily provides "free" reference material on the subject. I find that the fact that you would highlight the unobtrusive ad and ignore the primary purpose makes it very difficult for me to assume good faith. Comparing the proposed external link to the others in the article suggest to me that it is at least as high quality as the others. I intend to replace the link and remove some of the less useful. AnAccount2 21:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, our friend continues to add his favorite external link to C++ while taking care not to violate WP:3RR, a clear case of WP:GAME. I wonder what can be done about this peculiar friend of ours? Xerxesnine 13:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and apologies

Thank you once again for helping me out, but I have to apologize about all of this. You must be really tired of blocking this user and his many sockpuppets by now. I feel really bad about bothering you so often about the new accounts. MelicansMatkin 23:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, not a problem.  :) --Yamla 23:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Johhny T: Another sockpuppet of Alfredosolis

I wasn't sure where to report this but given your involvement in the block of several of Alfredosolis's sockpuppets, I figured your talk page was a good start. Johhny_T's recent contributions have led me to believe he is another sockpuppet of Alfredosolis because of his similar editing style and problematic image uploads. Note the similarities of R.bobby's(another sock of Alfredo) edits here and the edits of Johhny T here and here. A look at his talk page also shows evidence of more problematic image uploads. TheHornyBug 07:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This one should probably go to WP:CHECK. It looks at least possible but I'm not convinced enough to block out of hand. --Yamla 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(Continued vandalism by 70.56.114.160 reverted. AnAccount2 07:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Unfriendly Warning on My Userpage

Why did you put a warning on my user page? I thought I was properly adding an image license to that image. Way to welcome new users. :P --KermMartian 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You falsely claimed that Image:Smash Hits.jpg was a screenshot of a web page. As noted in the license text, "This tag is not appropriate for images and media found on websites; it should be used for screenshots of websites only." This is clearly not a screenshot of a web page. --Yamla 16:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, then I made an honest error. I would think such an action would warrant a friendly notice, not a threatening Talk Page edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KermMartian (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
If it was an honest error then I apologise. It looked to me like you were removing a no-license tag and replacing it with an obviously false license. --Yamla 17:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the unblock! You're a life saver! I couldn't edit Wikipedia for like 5 minutes and I was clawing at the walls! :) Kafziel Talk 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you should see how frustrated I get when the database goes read-only for the servers to catch up. Gah! Anyway, I left a message on the blocking admin's talk page. Normally, I'd just bring it up with them but this looked so clearly to be a mistake, I just went ahead and unblocked. --Yamla 21:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Urod == User:AnAccount2 ?

Hello, have you done much in attempting to expose these likely sockpuppets? Since this person is an especially persistent nuisance, I would be willing to pursue it myself. I only ask because I don't want to step on your heels if you've already started. Xerxesnine 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't. There's not much I can do without checkuser access, especially given that neither account is currently blocked. It does look at least strongly possible that they are the same person, though. --Yamla 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If you truly believe that then I demand that you request a checkuser at once. Such accusations are reprehensible and if you continue on this path you will do little more than make yourself a poster child for administrator review, the time for which is ripe given the Essjay scandal. Hours before you wrote that you already decided you were wrong, so why would you continue such insinuations? With the mop comes responsibility, and I suggest you start taking some instead of continuing to abuse it with your many violations of WP:BITE and WP:AGF. AnAccount2 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
A checkuser is pointless with all the open WiFi points and Internet Cafes but I am truely shocked when it does occasionally return a positive hit. So a false positive (or is that a true negative?) does not mean much. Also, no actions have yet warranted a checkuser according to their policy.
I have a bit of history with Urod so here is my opinion: User:AnAccount2 has a short temper just like User:Urod but AnAccount2 has a much better usage of the english language. So I do not think that they are the same person, but I believe that they are both non-native speakers, possibly Russian, and that they are friends at work, school, military, or someplace else. What I would like to know is how/why did AnAccount2 enter this angry hornets nest that is swarming over at Urod's? All of AnAccount2's edits focus around electric cars, so why enter a C++ dispute? I'd also like to point out that Urod is not a wiki-newbie and AGF was nullified after the 2nd or 3rd warning. Those who act in bad faith do get bitten. (Requestion 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
I brought this up because their wiki-personalities appear to be identical. The same quixotic semi-threats (including one toward me), brazen challenging of common-sense actions by others, and a bizarrely inflated sense of "purpose" for the link spam in question.
Incidentally, freecomputerbooks.com is owned by "Ju Rao", which is phonetically similar to "U Rod" (perhaps more so in another language). Of course this is nothing substantive -- just a minor curiosity. Xerxesnine 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that they do have the same defiant and aggressive personality. Urod once said to me "Remove it if you can! I will not let you to remove external links." It is interesting that "Ju Rao" and "U Rod" are similar but I don't think that Urod lives lives in the U.S. I have no idea what motivates Urod. It's puzzling. It is almost like random lashing out at any sort of authority. (Requestion 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
I went back, read some old talk pages and analyzed Urod's AfD. Urod mostly edits on the Russian Wikipedia [2]. I thought the large number of WP:SPA's and/or WP:SOCK's that arrived for the AfD was amazing. Even a couple dormant wiki accounts woke up, commented, and have since fallen back asleep. It was all very strange. Now I believe that help was WP:CANVAS'd in from the Russian Wikipedia. I suspect the situation we currently have with AnAccount2 is similar. (Requestion 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

As the offerer of a third opinion on the talk page of C++, how the heck did we switch from a link conflict to a sockpuppet accusation? Maybe we should focus on the underlying issue. bibliomaniac15 23:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to know check out User_talk:Urod. Also look at the AfD and the AMA request. It's a swarming hornets nest over there so be careful. (Requestion 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Hi there.

Hello there. I've just had a look at this user called User:MGAME who signed up yesterday and uploaded a load of images under public domain and I'm slightly concerned. A lot of the images are about Brock Lesnar (hence my concern), however none of them are ones I've seen Verdict upload so far (along with the fact they look fan taken unlike some Verdict have uploaded). I'm not exactly sure how to handle this and I really hope I'm wrong about this. :/ -- Oakster  Talk  16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure as well. I've requested a checkuser on that particular account. --Yamla 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
BatistaTheMan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), Sebastian P 12 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Oakster Oakster (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) -- Oakster  Talk  10:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User: Verdict

What is the deal with this guy and why has he been targeting you? Could you please fill me in. Big Boss 0 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The deal is that he refused initially to accept a block placed on him by another admin. I don't recall the original reason but you can take a look at Verdict (talk • contribs). I know he frequently violated copyright and/or WP:FU on images. He started creating sockpuppet accounts to bypass the blocks. These were found and blocked. He requested an unblock review on unblock-en-l and this was declined. At this point, he's created at least 80 abusive sockpuppets. All of his unblock requests have been declined by numerous admins. He's been blocked by at least ten separate administrators. He continues to violate WP:SOCK by creating more accounts. Up through last week, he continued deliberately violating WP:FU and lying about the sources of the images he uploaded. He's repeatedly lied when setting up sockpuppet accounts. As to why he is targeting me, it's because I've blocked over 80% of his accounts and am the admin other people turn to when they discover another one of his accounts. He is banned by community consensus and is not welcome on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock

Cheers, mate. Everything great now! SqueakBox 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Congradulations!!!

You are now recognized as a recipient of the Big Boss Award. This is for dealing with such a persistent vandal. This is for all of the hard work you have done in an effort to stop this person. I will not allow something like this to go without reward. Thank you for all your hard work. The Real People's Champion Big Boss 0 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

This user has been recognized as a
Big Boss Award recipient.

Blocked User:talk page

Is there any chance you could unblock my user talk page please User talk:Greatestrowerever Thank you

Done. It was only protected for the lifetime of the block so it was already unprotected, it's just that the tag was still there. --Yamla 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Our best friend

He's now, to no surprise, targeting yours and Oakster's talk pages Bmg916 Speak to Me 12:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

His most recent socks have been blocked, but the images uploaded are still here. Thought you should know so that you can delete them. Bmg916 Speak to Me 12:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree they should be deleted. Big Boss 0 14:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for the information. Big Boss 0 14:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
He has requested his most frequent targets (Bobby Lashley, Dave Bautista, and Brock Lesnar) for unprotection at the RfP page. Big Boss and I have commented against this, thought you might wanna know so you can take a look over there. Also, perhaps Wikipedia should contact his ISP and consider legal action. This is just ridiculous already. Bmg916 Speak to Me 14:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

copied from my talk page

Greetings. I posted the following to my talk page after you blocked me (Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs)); if you recall, you upheld the block even though there were not four reverts. I didn't argue with your decision but I am curious what to do with editors who consistently revert exactly three times a day.:

Fair enough. Can you tell me where to report revert warring that does not reach 4 reverts? The person who reported me (Isarig (talk • contribs)) is notorious for reverting exactly three times a day. I have reported this before and was told that only 4 reverts in a day may be reported. I feel it is unfair if I get blocked based on a deceptive 3RR report filed by him, whereas when he engages in the same behavior it is ignored, and even encouraged by administrators. csloat 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

--csloat 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe WP:3RR would be the correct place. Note specifically, however, that the person is gaming the system. --Yamla 16:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal Action?

Has anyone from Wikipedia contacted Verdict's ISP? It seems the only way we can get him to stop is to pursue some sort of legal discourse. Bmg916 Speak to Me 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. The problem at the moment is that he is now using TOR proxies to hide his address. We have already blocked direct access from his ISP. As such, this makes it much more difficult to assemble an abuse report to forward on to his ISP. Not impossible, mind you, just more difficult. --Yamla 15:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Damn TOR proxies. That would explain why some of his IP addresses show up as being from Germany, though. But the sooner any sort of abuse report can be filed, the better. As difficult as it has become, hopefully it is done soon. Bmg916 Speak to Me 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:JessieDaniels.jpg

Regarding your comments on my talk page. I apologize for my misunderstanding of the policy. I have no objection to the deletion of this image. --Wordbuilder 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Yamla 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Prince Godfather back again maybe

This time as User:86.138.135.30. She/He is showing familiarity with wikipedia and editing the same pages as User:Prince Godfather. He has also reverted one of the pages you reverted when his sock puppets were banned. your edit removing disography his revert and additon of small amount of text. GameKeeper 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested a checkuser. --Yamla 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Sweetnglamorous

Vandalized Hilary Duff again and is starting to blank info from Haylie Duff. You know what you need to do. QuasyBoy 12:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Fang Aili got to her first. QuasyBoy 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Datghettoplaya

Another sock of Verdict, pretending to act and talk like a stereotypical person living in the ghetto to make us think its not him. His laughable unprotect request for Brock Lesnar over at WP:RfPP tipped me off.

Thanks, I'll block. --Yamla 17:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Rafal Mirek

I filed a speedy delete for this page, do you think you could take a look at it? Thanks. Bmg916 Speak to Me 17:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Pow! Done. --Yamla 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks. :-) Bmg916 Speak to Me 17:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Anesthesiologist

Can you please help with Anesthesiologist? See Special:Contributions/Infidelvato and User_talk:Infidelvato. Touchdown Turnaround 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Best to report this to one of the subpages of WP:AN, I'm in the middle of something at the moment. --Yamla 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Added 1B6 to List of banned users

See Wikipedia:List of banned users#1B6. -- Ben TALK/HIST 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Verdict for the 900th time

Made another unprotect request for Brock Lesnar at WP:RfPP under the IP address 82.131.50.220. Please comment over at RfPP too if you can, this is getting ridiculous. Unprotection request was denied. However, not sure if this sock has been blocked yet. Bmg916 Speak to Me 13:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. That was an anonymising proxy. --Yamla 13:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Is that the kind of proxy you mentioned above? Bmg916 Speak to Me 14:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a TOR proxy, you can see a list at this location. --Yamla 14:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This is just ridiculous. Have we figured out who his ISP is yet based on past socks? Bmg916 Speak to Me 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we know his ISP. I'm not sure if anyone has lodged a complaint with them yet. Blocking the entire ISP was tried but led to a lot of complaints. --Yamla 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What's his ISP? Someone should file a complaint. Does it need to be an administrator? Bmg916 Speak to Me 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try writing one up today. --Yamla 14:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Anything I can do to help? Bmg916 Speak to Me 14:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope, not at the moment, just keep on reporting the socks.  :) --Yamla 14:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, it's easier to do now that they've slowed to only about one or two a day, and all they do is request unprotection, then pow! blocked. :-) Bmg916 Speak to Me 14:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblockabuse

[3] [4]
Now that's teamwork! – Steel 17:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Three seconds apart. That's entertaining.  :) --Yamla 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Deletion Request

Hello Yamla, if you have a second, could you please delete Image:Isuzu P'up.JPG, as the image creator has specified that he would like it deleted, since his license plate number is visible. It is already tagged for speedy, as it did not have a free license yet. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 17:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Yamla 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Tractorkingsfan 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer Wanted

there needs to be more flattering pictures of Amanda Bynes and JoJo I am an intern at their management company and I have overheard people from BOTH of their camps saying that. Those pictures are not copyrighted by ANY SITE..what so ever so I would like to know who you think you are by deleting free pictures found on various fan web sites..so you tell me how to make that happen without you deleting the pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChadLH04 (talk • contribs).

If you have specific evidence that these images were released to the public domain, please provide it. This is a truly exceptional claim, however, and will require that you identify the photographer and provide evidence that the photographer has released the copyrights. Alternatively, if you can provide any provably freely-licensed images, we will happily take those. Note, though, that well over 99% of the images you find on the Internet are copyrighted and not freely-licensed. Also, as you are an intern at their management company, please read WP:COI. You are no longer permitted to make any direct edits to their pages. Thanks. --Yamla 23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


YOU SIR. NEED A LIFE! you have no authority to tell me who's page i can and cannot edit with true information. YOU ARE NO authority to me so please re think that strategy immeadiately —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChadLH04 (talk • contribs).

I'm sorry, but if you wish to edit Wikipedia articles, you must abide by Wikipedia policies. This includes WP:COI. --Yamla 03:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I look at you talk page and remember why I stay away from WP <g>. Anyway I am the same person on Wikibooks and an admin there too - we have just acquired a user called Darin Fidika! I see you reviewed a final unblock request from him, anything you'd care to share (here or offline)? Realising that there were issues with Nihonjoe (according to Darin) I felt it worth approaching you, hope you don't mind - cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, even with a bot auto-archiving this talk page, it's almost too much to deal with.  :) I wasn't involved in the decision to block this user and there's not much I can add other than what's available in the contrib logs and on the talk page. I know this person had a history of copyright and fair-use issues and created abusive sockpuppets to get around the block and continued to show no understanding of what he was doing incorrectly. You'll probably have more luck with Mangojuice (talk • contribs) who was more directly involved. --Yamla 15:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Vox Humana 8'

Hi Yamla, You had some doubts as to unblocking me - well, here's further evidence for why you were wrong. I have now started Wikipedia:WikiProject Surrey and its associated portal, Portal:Surrey. I am determined to keep making positive contributions to Wikipedia and will continue to do so for as long as I can. --Vox Humana 8' 15:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's great news! --Yamla 16:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, having been a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Brighton for some time, I thought that I ought to join the WikiProject for my own county. I was rather surprised to find that there wasn't one! I decided there and then that the situation ought to be rectified ASAP and, if I didn't rectify it, why should anyone else?--Vox Humana 8' 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hope you're having a good weekend, btw.--Vox Humana 8' 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Catastrophe

I guess people love to use wikipedia to promote themselves and their invisible albums. Here's another one. Georgia Peachez 03:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Prin sock

User_talk:Naveen_Sankar. The guy was silly enough to use the unblock-auto template on his talk page. Patstuarttalk·edits 04:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This person is indeed a sockpuppeteer (see Template:PhysInd anon) but does not appear to be the same person as Prin, just someone at the same university or college. --Yamla 14:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Riya Book.png

The image was going through a replaceable fair use dispute, which have not closed yet. I, the unloader, have made have made considerable arguments to validate its fair use, and have made changes to the article that uses the image to conform to Wikipedia principles. It uses a plain fair use license tag, with elaborate rationales, provided with readily verifiable external links (not a logo, promotional, book cover, album art, screen shot or any such specific fair use tag). How did it become an image with a clearly invalid fair use tag; or it is an image that fails some part of the fair use criteria? The fair use dispute was about the first fair use criterion, not a clearly invalid fair use tag. Surely there must be mistake here. Aditya Kabir 13:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Death threats

As regards your thread on WP:AN, I have had experience of death threats on Wikipedia. Not the press-legal-charges ones you were mentioning, but rather threats from various users saying they hope I die of lung cancer.

Regarding the bomb and school test example, I feel that is sufficiently serious enough to count as a death threat. --sunstar nettalk 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Suricruisefirstphoto.jpg

- Yes, I did indeed know that, but thank you for pointing out the obvious. (Quentin X 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

Okay, great. Thanks. --Yamla 22:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You made my day!

Just wanted to thank you for blocking User:Bigdaddyc187, with whom I had been having a battle of sources at the Kim Kardashian article. (If nothing else, managed to find three open proxies out of that little editing adventure.) I was never in a position to post to AIV when I was cleaning up his edits the last 2 days, so I am glad he ran into you. Risker 22:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem.  :) --Yamla 22:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

71.250.15.4

This user is apparantly a sock puppet of Mapkid13, who is a blocked user, and just thought I would put out a reminder to everyone. If it is not okay, leave me a reason on my talk page. Thanks!! 70.111.231.43 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen your reasoning, and agree. I am deeply sorry for putting that on 71.250.15.4's page, and will not do it again.--70.111.231.43 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Input.

Yamla, as you were partially involved in this in the following incident, I would appreciate you input here at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unresolved:_Dr._Stephen_J._Krune_III. Acalamari 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Over.

WikiThanks

I believe it's over now. I've apologized to Leflyman. I now want to apologize to you. I am sorry I wasted your time with the whole thing. With any luck, this has finally put a rest to the whole thing. Acalamari 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no need to apologise to me! Happy editing! --Yamla 00:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock drawer!

Just to let you know the latest is blocked and confirmed (Commons) --Herby talk thyme 09:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Joy!

back again. User:I Shook Up The Pedia I'll report him to AIV, dunno if they'll revert all his edits though. *sigh*. Bmg916 Speak to Me 12:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Update - blocked by Chrislk02, but you might have to delete the image he uploaded. Bmg916 Speak to Me 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I've been playing around and looking at Verdict's logs and I believe I've found a few sleeper accounts that Verdict has registered using other accounts (or vice versa). They haven't been used yet but I'll tell you them anyway:

I'll have a glance for any more that I can find. -- Oakster  Talk  17:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks. I'll block them. Which tool did you use to find these? --Yamla 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No tool, possibly a flaw in the Wiki software. You can access the registration page whether you have an account or not, which places a note on the log if you are already logged in. For example, I've just tested out on a doppelganger account and now under my log it gives:

18:04, 27 March 2007 Oakster (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Oakstr (Talk | contribs)

-- Oakster  Talk  17:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check these in the future. We'll be shutting down his ISP tomorrow, though this will be only a minor impediment. --Yamla 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, what do you mean by "shutting down his ISP"? Like, his ISP will be revoking his internet access? Bmg916 Speak to Me 17:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Given his criminal actions, I'm hoping so. But no, just blocking the address range from editing Wikipedia articles. If we flush out legitimate accounts, we may have to undo this though. --Yamla 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, we can't just take his internet access away? If he's using TOR proxies, how will blocking his IP's address range work? Bmg916 Speak to Me 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
We are blocking the TOR proxies when we find them as well. He still does a lot of editing without TOR proxies, though. --Yamla 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see it now "Teenager arrested by local police for menacing Wikipedia" :-P Bmg916 Speak to Me 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Yeah, In hindsight I realize that while signed in, everything works fine. Sorry for bothering you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Therisingend (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Another sock

Since I've noticed that you have been involved with socks on WP:PW, I just wanted to bring another sockpuppet user to your attention. User:Zenon2007 and User:Jet2006 have been editing Wrestlemania 25. It is suppose to be a redirect page mainly because nothing on the subject has been verified or even acknowledged anywhere and the only thing these socks have been adding is rumors and speculation such as..."It has also been rumored to be in Boston, Massachusetts." They have also been adding the page to 2009. The reason I believe they are both socks is because of the similarities in their user names and edits. Both have edited the same articles such as those that are soccer related and have reverted the redirect on Wrestlemania 25 to the same version as the other. It would really appreciated if you could protect the page and leave it as a redirect. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, protected the redirect for one month. You are right, likely sockpuppet and crystal-balling. --Yamla 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. -- bulletproof 3:16 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Image problem

Hi. You recently uploaded Image:Crystal Lo.JPG. You specify a source but the image does not appear on that URL. Were you perhaps claiming that you yourself took this picture with your own camera? If so, please note that you must license your contributions under the GFDL, not the CC license. If this is the case, please correct the license and make a note that you, the uploader, took this image with your own camera. Thanks. --Yamla 16:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I took this image with my own camera, but it was originally published online at that URL from 2005-2006. Also, I'm a bit confused regarding the GFDL vs. CC licensing - I read up on my options before uploading and according to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators I have a choice between the two (with GDFL designed more for software, documentation)? As the author, I wish to permit free use, including commercial use, as long as any use attributes me as the creator. As I'm sure you can tell; I'm quite new to all this so any help would be appreciated. TCB007 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you took the image. I was concerned but thought it likely. As to licenses, I believe that all contributions to the Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL. It gets a bit confusing with images as we allow CC licensed non-original contributions. I believe that original images (that is, images for which you own copyright) must be licensed under the GFDL. Certainly, that's what it states at the bottom of my page whenever I'm editing any article. You can read the license itself at WP:GFDL. Please let me know if you believe (even if you aren't sure) that this license would be unsuitable for your image uploads and I'll check into the matter further. Happy editing! --Yamla 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for un-autoblocking me. Is it possible to delete my user talk page history? There's nothing else ever been on that page, and I'd rather not be associated with vandals. Thanks. Jamdonut 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to blank your page. No reason whatsoever to keep an accepted unblock-auto message there.  :) If you really want to delete the page history as well, let me know and I'll do that. It would not normally be done in situations like this and there's no way this would ever be held against you. --Yamla 23:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

70.111.231.43

I have created an account, by the name of DGS43825. Thanks Yamla!! User:DGS43825|DJ]]☺
00:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/a/m/User_talk%7EYamla_Archive_10_d778.html"