User talk:Yamla/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 2006 1.1 June 1.1.1 Marking of 202.156.6.54 as a sock 1.1.2 RE:Image problems 1.1.3 Edgovan20 and sockpuppets 1.1.4 Thanks 1.1.5 MySpace 1.1.6 Thanks 1.1.7 Sorry 1.1.8 Image deletions 1.1.9 Miss Ciara (talk • contribs) 1.1.10 I Know 1.1.11 Processing 1.1.12 You deserve an apology 1.1.13 external link 1.1.14 User:Gemini531 1.1.15 IP addresses 1.1.16 Fair Use Pictures 1.1.17 Changing some pages...opinion? 1.1.18 Message from 67.72.98.81 1.1.19 Image:24 Promo.JPG 1.1.20 blocking 67.72.98.86 1.1.21 Angelwear 1.1.22 Sorry 1.1.23 Stargrl576 1.1.24 ???? 1.1.25 Katie Holmes 1.1.26 Image:Sin City Jessica Alba poster.jpg 1.1.27 MostWanted05 is on a war path 1.1.28 Clerks II Posters 1.1.29 Aishwarya Rai Picture 1.1.30 Guess my Name Contest 1.1.31 Image --Yxa.blod.Keira.Knightley.JPG 1.1.32 Red Hair 1.1.33 house picture. 1.1.34 Original research 1.1.35 3RR 1.1.36 New User 1.1.37 Picture 1.1.38 Pictures 1.1.39 More Pictures 1.1.40 Emmy Rossum photo 1.1.41 Blanking page 1.1.42 Rachel Greene 1.1.43 Actually... 1.1.44 Tool Talk 1.1.45 Transformers (animated series) images 1.1.46 Vandalism 1.1.47 Joseph Vijay 1.1.48 Joseph Vijay 1.1.49 Spam 1.1.50 Re: Fair use 1.1.51 Nexopia source 1.1.52 Barnstar 1.1.53 Scientology Link 1.1.54 Image:Barely_Legal_082001.jpg 1.1.55 Re: vandalism. 1.1.56 BLOCKING 1.1.57 An unusual WP:3O Request 1.1.58 Fair use 1.1.59 Gripes 1.1.60 Your new threats 1.1.61 User:SKITTLES 1.1.62 Help needed 1.1.63 Blocks 1.1.64 Fair use 1.1.65 Lindsay Lohan 1.1.66 Ciara 1.1.67 Sneha Ullal 1.1.68 Sorry 1.1.69 Copyrighted Images on Personal Page 1.1.70 Adrienne Barbeau 1.1.71 Copyright violation about Jenn Rivell 1.1.72 This is Nelson M 1.1.73 From Nelson M 1.1.74 Another Message from Nelson M - Ashanti 1.1.75 Lohan 1.1.76 Scottsdale Pictures 1.1.77 Trisha Krishnan 1.1.78 I am upset 1.1.79 Tom Ford Vanity Fair Cover 1.1.80 Lost (TV series) 1.1.81 Image:Christina_promo.jpg 1.1.82 Regarding user:Nelson m 1.1.83 Regarding entry:Celebrity 1.1.84 Image:Trisha 1.1.85 Heads up

2006

June

Marking of 202.156.6.54 as a sock

Diff: [1]

How can a shared IP be a sockpuppet of any one registered user? I don't understand. That is the shared IP used by all Starhub cable modem users in Singapore. I have reverted your change because of this. Kimchi.sg 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Image problems

I have now successfully (as far as I can tell) applied approriate copyright to the following:

• Image:2005-02-10-003.jpg
• Image:Parisalbum.JPG
• Image:18hilton.jpg
• Image:Paris carl.jpg
• Image:Pariswax.JPG

I'm hoping to add these back to Paris Hilton, but I didn't know if you could maybe point out anything else that may be needed before I go ahead and add them all back; as I don't want them to just be removed again.

Cheers. :)

Pazuzu567 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Edgovan20 and sockpuppets

I think you have more than enough evidence to take this user's account away from him and block him permanently. Personal attacks galore, repeated edits against consensus opinion, inappropriate use of sockpuppets, vandalism, and a refusal to take the responsibilities of Wikipedia editing seriously. There's no point in playing his silly game anymore. If you want to take action I'll support you fully. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 18:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnarf, like anyone takes notice of what you think. oh how rude of me, i forgot to say hello. Edgovan20

Thanks

Thanks!!! Tcatron565 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

MySpace

I still need a clear statement about MySpace images...Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I try my best to provide fair use rationale for them. Thus far I have left the logo-tagged pictures intact because the tag speaks for itself and I couldn't find any rationales added to other logos by browsing about 50 of them on Wikipedia. I have finished with 20 of my pictures already. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this revert: [2]. --mtz206 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

--Gemini531

Gemini531 02:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image deletions

Hi there. I've just noticed that Image:Arwen2Work.jpg and Image:Arwen sword-2.png have been deleted. I can't rememeber what these images looked like or which articles they were in. Can you help? Also, do you have a link to the WP:IfD page about these images? It would help if the entry in the deletion logs had a link to the WP:IfD archive (if there is one). Also, when I scanned the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images I initially thought that you had only removed them from the gallery, rather than putting them through IfD (I don't have these images on my watchlist). It would be easier for me to see that they have been deleted if you leave the dead link there, and then a blank box will show up. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. These images were blatant copyright violations with no provided fair-use rationale. They were noted as fairusedisputed and the original uploader was notified. No fair use rationale was provided and so I speedily deleted them as they were copyright violations. They were both movie screenshots. Sorry for causing you hassle. --Yamla 17:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really a hassle. What would be a hassle is if you don't have a way of telling me what articles those images were used in. Can you do this? Carcharoth 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

These images were used in the articles on Liv Tyler and Arwen. --Yamla 17:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. OK. I had figured out the Arwen page (obviously), but forgot about the Liv Tyler one. Do you think you could leave a message on the article talk pages next time, not just in the page history? Thanks. Carcharoth 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I will try to do so in the future unless removing a blatantly inappropriate image (e.g. one not even of the subject at hand), or if removing vast quantities of images uploaded by a person blatantly violating copyright and fair-use. Here, I'm talking about someone who uploads a hundred images of American Idol contestants, for example. But as a general rule, I will try to leave a message on the discussion page. In fact, I'll try to do so a week prior to the scheduled deletion as well so the OrphanBot doesn't interfere with the notification. Do you happen to recall the tag you can add to an image's use on an article page to note that it is in danger of being deleted? Do you think that would suffice? --Yamla 17:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh sure, with hundreds of copyvio uploads, I understand. But for individual images, it would be nice to get warning on the article talk page. It is very common for people not to keep an eye on the image pages, though they should really... As for the tag, try Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_templates, or something similar. I'll have a quick look there myself. And its fine to keep the discussion here. We shouldn't be much longer anyway. Carcharoth 17:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The best I could find was Template:Unverifiedimage and Template:Nonfreeimage - that last one looks quite handy! Carcharoth 17:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the tag I'm looking for is something like {{unverified}} or something. I'll take a look the next time I need to add it to an image. And yes, you bring up good points. Looks like we are in agreement. Have a great weekend! --Yamla 17:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Miss Ciara (talk • contribs)

Why do you think this user needs to change her user name? Please do not bite the newbies. - ulayiti (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:USERNAME. Wikipedia does not allow names of well-known living people. Miss Ciara has specifically claimed she has chosen her name as she is a fan of Miss Ciara. --Yamla 13:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names if you have such a problem with it. I don't see any reason why someone would mistake this user with Ciara, especially as her user name is not 'Ciara'. Besides, it's only a first name - disallowing this would be enough to ban most first names from being used as user names (especially if 'well known' is interpreted as loosely as you just have). - ulayiti (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I thought it was a pretty clear-cut case. While Ciara's full name is well known, she is not professionally known as anything other than "Ciara". Similarly, Madonna's full name is known but she is also only known by her first name. We would not allow someone to be known as Madonna on the Wikipedia. I assumed "Miss Ciara" would fall into this same category. --Yamla 13:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. If the user name had been just 'Ciara', then I'd have thought it borderline, but 'Miss Ciara' is all right by me. Also, the WP:USERNAME criterion requires the person to be 'well known', and I'd interpret that slightly differently - Madonna would not be an acceptable user name, but Ciara is hardly as 'well known' as Madonna. - ulayiti (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like we have everything worked out. My apology to Miss Ciara was meant to be sincere, though, and if you think it sounds like I am hedging a little bit much, please do let me know. --Yamla 14:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I Know

I know what your talking about. But, I was thinking to hold off all the personal info until my book was published. So that's what I was going to do today! Thanks for the concern. Tcatron565 13:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Processing

I've done with 70% of the work. I've "invented" some fair use for the MySpace picture Image:Julio G.jpg, please have a look at it and tell me what you think. And here's a list of pictures I don't want to use any more.

• Image:Snoop we just wanna.gif
• Image:Nastackiremadream.gif
• Image:Sean paul.jpg
• Image:FatJoeWhatsLuv.jpg
• Image:Happy2.jpg
• Image:Strip .GIF (it was just my try if animated gif-s are working here, God, I was a novice then)

Can you give me an advice on how the heck I can get a full and correct list about my uploads? Edit counter comes up with many errors...Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You deserve an apology

Well Yamla and others, I am sorry for my disruptiveness
Although I still think I changed the redhead pic with good reason
Now I intend to use Wikipedia properly
Knowing this, will you give me a break?
Every 5 minutes I seem to get picked on here
Remember what I said please.
So, as I said I will make good changes here from here on.

Edgovan20

external link

Thanks for write your comments when delete my link. I dont kow very much about wikipedia. I hope make one big website with pictures and videos. No problem, Thank you

User:Gemini531

Hi Yamla. I happened across Gemini's user page, and was intrigued by the "kid" userbox. I didn't even know there were people under 14 on wikipedia (14 is an arbitrary number here). It seems to me like you're being a bit harsh with her. Or were, maybe. I'm not sure if you're still watching her actions or not. She's a kid. Just give her some leniency, eh? Canæn 07:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses

Would you please STOP blocking IP addresses as many people in a large region may use the same IP address. I know when I sign on I have obtained the same IP address and you have blocked it because of another using that same IP dial up address did something.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Yamla for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Vandalism, fourth unique block Your IP address is 67.72.98.86. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.87 (talk • contribs).

This IP address shows no signs of ever actually being blocked by me. What most likely happened here is an autoblock, i.e. a block of a user, not an IP. However, I can find no evidence that this IP address was autoblocked, either, though it may still be true. In any case, there's no real justification here to stop blocking people who vandalise Wikipedia, particularly those IP addresses not marked as shared, and even if there was, this would be a policy change and should go through the appropriate channels. --Yamla 14:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you blocked it for 6 weeks: [3]. (The IP address mentioned in the above comment, not the IP that the comment was left from). --mtz206 (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh. Thanks, Mtz206. That said, given that it was the fifth unique block (and sixth overall) with a previous block of a full month, given that the IP is not marked as shared, and given the large amount of vandalism originating from that address, the block was justified. The user can request an unblock by placing {{unblock|My reason for unblock here}} on the page. --Yamla 14:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Pictures

I think I am finished with labelling the pictures with accurate fair-use rationales. Can you please check them and let me know if I am really over it? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 19:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing some pages...opinion?

Hi yamla...im thinking of changing the pages Fucking and Wanker, perhaps adding some examples. I dont really want to make any changes unless I have some support ya know. Well, cheers anyway...Ed --Edgovan20

Message from 67.72.98.81

Refrain from blocking general IP address such as 67.72.98.86. Many people use the same IP address in one region, and are being limited due to your constant putting of blocks to edit on that particular address. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.81 (talk • contribs).

67.72.98.81, here you are asking that Wikipedia stop protecting themselves against any and all vandals who use IP addresses. This is simply not going to happen but if you really think this is worth pursuing, I encourage you to suggest this as a policy change through the appropriate channels. --Yamla 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:24 Promo.JPG

As it seems the only reason this was labelled as fair use disputed was the lack of a rationale, I have added a more detailed on to the article. Since it is used as a promotional image in the article on the show, I'm sure it qualifies as fair use. Thanks. TheProject 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

blocking 67.72.98.86

!@#$-it, can you PLEASE stop doing that!!?? I keep running into this blocking stuff over and over again. And I can assure you that I am NOT the guy who is doing the vandalism. What you are doing does not make sense; you only force me to logout and re-dial, sothat I can write this angry note. Of course, the guy who is doing the vandalism can do the same thing, so all you achieve is aggravate some innocent bystanders. JdH 08:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not doing anything. I have not added a block to these addresses in quite some time, more than a week. But if you are concerned, you need to mark these addresses as shared (you can use the {{sharedip|Internet Service Provider name}}). Until you do this, administrators are going to provide longer and longer blocks because of the totally excessive vandalism occurring from those addresses. Wikipedia has a right to protect itself. It would also help if you could provide the contact information for the ISP administrators so we can have action taken against the perpetrators. And by the way, there's no bug in the software. Please see WP:AUTOBLOCK to understand why you are being blocked as collateral damage. --Yamla 15:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Angelwear

Hi Yamla. I had thought that the links and information I put up on some celebrities pages were okay and not considered as advertising because they are to raise money for charities. I am sorry aobut that, and wondered why it isn't okay to help out if it's for a good cause? my log in name is Earth angel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Earth angel (talk • contribs).

Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM for Wikipedia's policy on external links. Thanks. --Yamla 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the image problems. I tried to fix the citing on the Joel Madden page, and i have not added any new pictures. i am still trying to get the hang of things around here. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stargrl576 (talk • contribs).

Stargrl576

You were kinda harsh on Stargrl576...-Good*charlotte*rox 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the warnings were standard warnings from the templates. And I did add a "Don't worry" section before your comments. I think I've been quite friendly in this case, though I did still flag the errors. --Yamla 22:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 ????

i changed the pic on the Joel Madden page. Is it okay now?-Good*charlotte*rox 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

On what basis did you determine this image may be used with no restrictions? I searched the source and can find no such statement. The terms of use for that page most certainly do not make this claim, nor does the copyright page on that site. Please let me know as soon as possible, thanks. --Yamla 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

---I'm sorry, I only read the terms of use and found the statement "All information compiled may be used at your sole risk." I understand that it does not apply to media. I just read the copyright page and realize that I was wrong. What should I do?- Good*charlotte*rox 23:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

---(Thanks for checking it out)

You can put {{db-author|Misread copyright restrictions}} on that image page. Copyright and fair-use are very difficult to get correct. --Yamla 23:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

Hi Yamla, I am not quite sure why you reverted my post there is a website dedicated to Katie Holmes baby, Suri, SuriCruise.com , my post is a supportable fact and facts deserve to be on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.233.21.53 (talk • contribs).

Your addition didn't make sense. Also, any such website hardly makes a notable addition to the Wikipedia (see WP:N), nor should the website link itself be added to the article (see WP:EL). Also, see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Yamla 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sin City Jessica Alba poster.jpg

Can you help me undertand specifically what is needed and what exactly it is I need to do rather than simply tag the images and move on? Thanks. --TJive 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from the license text, you need a "detailed fair use rationale for each use". See this page for an explanation of what is needed to justify each and every fair-use image. It's kind of a pain in the behind but it's the only way we can legally claim fair-use on copyrighted images such as this one. --Yamla 03:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

MostWanted05 is on a war path

Look at the user's record! Lil Eazy E, Spider Loc and Hot Rod. The user put up delete tags as retaliation for his Young Life and Lil Dumu articles. Is there a way to block this user. You can check out this resume! This user also is on request for comment. Are you an administrator? Cause we do need to solve this problem with MostWanted05. This behavior is gone far enough! Thanks for reading. LILVOKA. 8 June 2006 13:33 (UTC)

Clerks II Posters

I found the images from Kevin Smith's official message board at viewaskew.com. Kevin Smith uploaded the images himself. I even cited the source (http://viewaskew.com/theboard/viewtopic.php?t=47404). I don't know what the problem is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meph1986 (talk • contribs).

For Image:Dandrposter.jpg, the problem is that you forgot to include the detailed fair-use rationale as the license text indicates is required. For Image:Clerks2poster.jpg, you did not include information on the copyright status. --Yamla 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. Is it alright now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meph1986 (talk • contribs).

No. Please reread WP:IDP, particularly this bit on the fair-use rationale. You seem to have been providing extra information about the source of Image:Dandrposter.jpg. The source is fine.  :) You did not make any change to Image:Clerks2poster which requires both a license and, probably, also a hand-written detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still lost. This is my first time doing this. --Meph1986 22:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, most of the explanation is right here. The problem for Image:Dandrposter.jpg is that we know it is a copyrighted image but we are claiming that, because it is a movie poster, we can use it under the principles of fair use. But, as the license says, we need a detailed fair-use rationale for each use. That is, why specifically is its use in Clerks II okay? In fact, there's a very good chance that it is not okay because the image is of very high resolution. See this page for some examples of good fair-use rationales, but note once again that it probably can't be used as the resolution is too high. I am thinking it will probably have to be deleted. The same goes for Image:Clerks2poster.jpg but the more compelling short-term problem for that is that you have not given it an image copyright tag. See WP:ICT for a list of valid ones. Almost certainly the one you want to choose is {{Movie poster}}, again with the detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 23:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess it has to be deleted since the image is too large and I have no idea how to delete it. I should just stick to locating and fixing spelling errors. --Meph1986 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dont see what the big deal is. Jessica Alba's very hot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.108.156.111 (talk • contribs).

Aishwarya Rai Picture

Hi, Yamla, I upload the Aishwarya Rai Picture and tagged it. You tagged it as unverified. Can you tell me what's missing so I can repair it? --Plumcouch 18:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeap. What's missing is the detailed hand-written fair-use rationale explaining its use in the Aishwarya Rai page. Please specifically see this bit on fair use rationales. --Yamla 18:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yamla, it's me again. I provided additional information for Aishwarya Rai's Devdas picture. Could you check it to see if it's all right? --Plumcouch 20:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, that's probably good. Thanks.  :) --Yamla 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Guess my Name Contest

You have been invited to participate in the:

GUESS MY NAME CHALLENGE

(Try to guess my name and put it in my Talk Page under the section Guess My Name) Guess my first name.Contest ends June 16, 2006. --Cute 1 4 u 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Image --Yxa.blod.Keira.Knightley.JPG

I added the source you asked for. Why did you delete it then...? Bronks 15:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well the image is still missing a detailed fair-use rationale for each of its uses. Given that it is a promotional photo, it may only be used to promote the movie. That makes its use in King Arthur (film) okay (so long as you add the detailed fair-use rationale) and possibly the use in Keira Knightley as well as that article specifically discusses the movie. Remember, though, that the image cannot be used simply to illustrate the person depicted. Also, every single use requires a detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. thank you for the explanation. Bronks 19:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Red Hair

I do not understand what the issue is - Please explai. I added the link for the wikipedia article on Red hair to teh article on Maureen O'Hara - perhaps the most beautiful of all "red heads" - I suppose that thsi could be considered point of view but I am happy to compromise and simply leave her name alone under the famous redheads with the article.21:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

house picture.

I'm a little puzzled by your complaint about that picture. The picture has been on wikipedia since March, and no one has had a problem with it until now. The picture qualifies as fair use because it "illustrates the DVD in question". Isn't that enough? If you check out the House article, there is a section describing the dvd for the first season. The picture is there to show the dvd cover that is talked about in the section. I bet dvd covers are used in other articles about tv shows or movies, so i really don't understand the problem. If it isn't enough that it "illustrates the DVD in question", what can i say to make it so the picture qualifies and is able to be used on wikipedia? dposse 01:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Fair Use Rationale. Every single use of a copyrighted image must be justified. In this case, we don't need an extensive justification, but we do need a simple one. Just listing the license is not enough. --Yamla 01:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I added a fair use justification. Is it good enough? Do i need to change it in any way? dposse 02:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WOOHOO!!! You're welcome, and thank you. I'm glad it passed the test of a admin. ^_^ dposse 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research

If you look I did provide a source, both the episode date and an official recap of the show. 02:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the provided citation does mention a substantial portion of the allegations. Listening to the show will fill in the blanks. Ocatecir 02:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The page you link to does not cite any of these allegations. I've added {{fact}} tags to the uncited bits. I also cleaned up some of your spelling and grammar but it looks like you beat me to it. Thanks! --Yamla 02:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Hello Yamla. You had recently blocked Ravi5099 (talk • contribs) for violation of the 3RR rule on the Joseph Vijay article. He was a newbie, and was unaware of the rules. I just received an email from him, asking for his ban to be lifted. He now understands the rule, and would like to contribute more to wikipedia, he says. Also, the user who requested a ban on him, has a *ahem* very popular history. Thanks, and cheers! -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}07:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the block was only for 6 hours. Note that I did also block Anwar saadat for the same amount of time. But thanks for taking care of this. --Yamla 14:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

New User

just wondering... how do you know if a user has a sockpuppet?--Kamikaze*grl 14:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There are various ways. The most obvious is a set of edits in the same style to the same group of articles. There are many other ways, however. --Yamla 14:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

kay, thanx-Kamikaze*grl 14:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

What do you mean like to write a fair-use? (SKITTLES 20:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

Please see Fair Use Rationale. Every single use of a copyrighted image must be justified. Please note that you have already been told about this. --Yamla 20:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean I've already been told about this? you're confusing me... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SKITTLES (talk • contribs).

You were told about this by OrphanBot on 2006-06-10 04:10. --Yamla 20:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Are you satisfied with my work? Please inform me if there are any untagged pictures left, since *edit counter has recently been shot down totally, I don't know if I'm missed something. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 23:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Need to check on this. Looks good from what I've seen so far. --Yamla 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

More Pictures

For the images of Brad Pitt, Nicole Richie, and Peter Wentz. I have seen many other images been acceptable from magazine prints, the Brad Pitt Image shouldn't even be in question because it is a movie still, a movie is something that ANYONE can own. Peter Wentz has no picture, and it is important for him to have a head shot on his article. Nicole Richie also has no pictures, and that Vanity Fair article was an important event on her life, if you feel that what I chose as the copyright is incorrect, then please change it, or make a note of it, but you shouldn't have removed the images. thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myrockstar (talk • contribs).

Your license tags were blatantly false. Also, you cannot just use scans from the insides of magazines. Such images are not permitted on Wikipedia. Additionally, you have not been providing the detailed fair-use rationale required for fair-use images. I encourage you to read up some more on image copyright before uploading any more images. Thanks. --Yamla 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Emmy Rossum photo

Hi, you recently sent me a message about an Emmy Rossum Poseidon picture. What do you suggest I should do to keep the image up? I'd like people to be able to view Ms. Rossum in all her glory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.46.190.49 (talk • contribs).

Are you talking about Image:Jenniferramsey07.jpeg? If so, it needs a detailed fair-use rationale provided for it. See WP:IDP for more information. Additionally, it can only be used to illustrate and provide critical commentary on the film and its contents. So it can safely be used (with rationale) in Poseidon, but cannot be used on the Emmy Rossum page except to directly depict that movie. It cannot, for example, just be used to show off Ms. Rossum. --Yamla 22:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Blanking page

I did not know I was not allowed to blank my own page. Please do not say that If I continue to, I have never blanked any pages other than my own. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myrockstar (talk • contribs).

Rachel Greene

What's the problem with the changes I made? Acording to article Rachel Greene, this is the correct way of spelling.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raistlin8r (talk • contribs).

Sorry, my mistake. I was confused because the Greene spelling redirects to the Green spelling. --Yamla 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually...

I really am not that interested by her, I think I noticed that little tidbit always being altered, so I added it. :P I have too much on my watchlist. Yanksox 23:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have about 1500 pages on my watchlist which I'm sure is too many. Many of these are user pages, though, where I left the first warning. I claim it was because of this sort of thing that Hilary Duff ended up on my watchlist. Maybe. --Yamla 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tool Talk

Thanks for the revert on the Tool talk page. I'm glad someone else knows that "methinks" is a word. =) King Bee 23:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Yamla ...

Once again I tried to include the pic of Ciara's debut album into her main site, but once again you didn't accept my "Fair Use" reasons (I forgot to log in, didn't I?) ... Now I'm a lil bit confused cause I tried to explain, that - in my opinion - the album cover of an (debut) album is the best way to represent a ceratin era of a musical artist's career as people can see a link between the cover and the timeframe ... What should I add? I'd really like to here a suggestion - I think it's important - even in a biography! ...

Greez, Noboyo

(P.S.: You want to check and remove every single picture, which doesn't explain it fair use? Oh boy ...)

Transformers (animated series) images

On 15 June 2006, you removed a couple images from this page specifying that no fair use rationale was provided. I wasn't the person who uploaded these images, however I HAVE uploaded a HUGE number of other images and spent a great deal of time linking them and making this page look somewhat complete. So even though you're probably sick to death of discussing images, I have to clarify "Fair Use" with you so the rest of the images don't end up getting trashed.

I checked the Wikipedia instructions for posting Fair Use images. My understanding is that a Fair Use rationale can be something as simple as an explanation of how a particular character is depicted in a particular film or TV series. Therefore, is it fair to assume that a successful rationale for these images would be along the lines of "(character name) as depicted in (TV show)"?

Thanks.

P.S. I'm new here and still trying to learn how everything works. :-)

Vandalism

You did indeed vandalize the Laura Prepon page, as have other fanboys who are in denial. Don't go around accusing people of original research when you could have looked up the verification yourself. I don't appreciate your slapping me with a "newbie" message either, God-King. Evan1975 21:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to remove uncited information, especially when citations have previously been requested. It is your responsibility to cite the new information as per Wikipedia policy. And the "newbie" message was a standard template. --Yamla

I can and will say whatever I want on my talkpage, thanks. Evan1975 21:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, WP:NPA shows quite clearly that you cannot. --Yamla 21:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have the right to remove vandalism from my talkpage. I don't know what your problem is. Please leave me alone. Evan1975 22:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Current warnings from other users do not count as vandalism. --Yamla 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Vijay

Again User:Ravi5099 has begun reverting the article blanking links and paragraphs [4], [5]. What action will be taken, if any? Anwar 23:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Plumcouch and I have already given several vernacular and English links as proof of red card. But Ravi keeps removing them. Anwar 00:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Vijay

When you have biography of someone, (Joseph Vijay in this instance) You have to mention his credits. Not his small failures. My edits are based on removing his failures from the text, while "Anwar Saadat" is putting back on.

"Anwar Saadat" portrays Vijay as a person who is known for his 'notoriousness'. Which is wrong. Please take action against "Anwar Saadat" not me.

Spam

Apologies, I thought I was adding links correctly. I wont do this again! --Sunholm(talk) 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fair use

What sort of fair use images can be used for actors and actresses? They're all over Wikipedia and are tagged and deleted quite inconsistently. --TJive 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A promotional shot of the actor themselves, that could certainly be used. Headshots, for example. Just be careful to make sure it really did come from a promotional kit for the actor themselves. I agree, a great many copyrighted images are used on Wikipedia without a reasonable fair-use rationale. It is a big problem. --Yamla 19:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that no images pertaining to even the most notable and common of their works can be utilized, even iconic ones, e.g. Marlon Brando as Don Corleone or at the docks in On the Waterfront? I'm having trouble finding explicit recognition of this interpretation in policy. --TJive 20:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they can be used but they must be used to identify the character, not the actor. A picture of Marlon Brando as Don Corleone would be perfectly appropriate provided the article talks about this famous role of his. It would not be appropriate if the article makes no mention of his role in Godfather. Note that now, the image of the character is being used to illustrate the character in question, not the actor. --Yamla 21:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving specifics, as the relevant guides do not. May we relate this now to what is contended? Let's say that the Jessica Alba article is discussing her role as Nancy Callahan in Sin City. Would there then be justification for, say, a screenshot of the movie containing that character (esp. with prominence)? And is there a different standard applied to screenshots than posters? In other words, if there is justification for a screenshot, is there not for a poster, even when they essentially show the same thing? --TJive 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, was wondering if you had time to see my latest comment and questions, directly above. --TJive 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, too many messages.  :) It would be appropriate to use a screenshot depicting a character if the article on the actor discusses that character. So, a screenshot showing Nancy Callahan would be appropriate in an article about Jessica Alba if the article specifically talks about her role as Nancy Callahan. Now, if the article on Jessica Alba simply notes that she played a character called Nancy Callahan, that's not sufficient. It has to be a more detailed than that. A perfect example is Marlon Brando's role as the Godfather. That would be a perfect time to use the image of the character in the actor's article. I'm assuming, at least... haven't checked out Brando's article but I'm assuming there's a long discussion about the Godfather there. As to screenshots vs. posters, the main difference is that posters are specifically promotional material. As a result, we don't need to be quite so diligent in the fair-use rationales. There's a general assumption that posters are likely to be okay while movie screenshots need to be clearer in their rationale. There's no official difference between the two cases, though, as they are both copyrighted images. I'm speaking here about the unofficial general "feeling". --Yamla 17:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying you simply feel that the material at Jessica Alba, at present, does not justify the use of a Nancy poster? That did not seem to be the extent of implications in your comments on the image page, i.e. that it should not show up on actress material. I had the opposite impression regarding the two, that editors were generally more lax about the use of screenshots than posters.

So if the Alba article dealt with the Callahan character in a significant way, that is what would justify inclusion of the image? --TJive 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The image was being used to illustrate Jessica Alba, not her character. The article does not talk in any great detail about the character though it does mention that Jessica Alba played her. It didn't help that the image was the top-most on the page, typically a spot reserved for a picture of the actor rather than the character played. If the Alba article dealt with the Callahan character in a significant way, it would indeed justify inclusion of the image in that section of the article. What I'm saying on the image page is probably a little pedantic. In retrospect and from your comments, I think it would be reasonable to use this image to depict the character as well as the movie as this is clearly what the poster is trying to depict. My major concern is that it is not used simply to depict Jessica Alba. Thank you, TJive, for taking the time and having the patience to discuss this issue at length with me. I'm sorry some of my comments have been contradictory or slow. --Yamla 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That's alright. Even in the (almost) year and a half that I have been here, image and fair use policy seems to have shifted often and most of the stuff we are talking about is not explicitly written down anywhere, and seems to mostly come down to general interpretation. I don't follow discussions on it, so the best I can do is ask someone who seems to know. Thanks for responding. --TJive 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nexopia source

Hi, the number of users and hits shows on the bottom right. - Supmyman7 22:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks ! Appreciated Mad Jack 05:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientology Link

Did you even look at the links you removed? The video was not mine, but it was a valid MSNBC interview with a certifed PhD from Carnegie Mellon University. Its removal was completely unfounded. 128.226.219.107 21:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Barely_Legal_082001.jpg

Hello. You marked this image for deletion and commented "Removed image with no fair-use rationale". However, I think Template: Magazinecover used on the image description page made it quite clear why the image was acceptable fair use. I added the rationale to the image page as well. Thank you, PseudoAnon 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I asked for clarification at Template talk:Magazinecover. Of course I didn't mean it as a personal attack on you. Regards, PseudoAnon 08:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I responded on Template talk:Magazinecover. Thanks for letting me know, I didn't take it as a personal attack and please don't take my response as a personal attack on you.  :) --Yamla 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: vandalism.

Sorry, but I did not add that picture to the Sara McLean article. I thought I removed it, but was in a bit of hurry, so maybe I got something wrong? Anyway, if you have a look at the log, you'll see that I did not add it. Not a serious issue, but I don't want to have a reputation for vandalism...:\ vidarlo 13:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrote a bit more refined reply on my talk page. Thanks for catching the error :)

This was a simple mistake from my side. I checked an article I watch (pH) and found the image Image:Sarahvulva.jpg in that article. I checked other articles edited by the same IP, and looked for the image in them It was in the Sarah McLachlan aritcle. However, I must've waited until some other fellow had removed the image, and then pressed edit, and removed the first image line I saw. Sorry for not checking better, but it was not intentional harm. See this diff for more information. vidarlo 11:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

BLOCKING

Personal attack removed --Pilot|guy 00:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way. Your personal attacks and sockpuppet use show that the block was a good idea. --Yamla 16:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

An unusual WP:3O Request

Hi Yamla, I have a unusual request (!). You were very helpful with me with a previous Wikipedia:3RR case I put forward some weeks ago, and thought it may be appropriate to ask for your assistance with a problem I'm facing. Inline with WP:3O, I was wondering if you could help stop a persistant (unregistered) user who I've faced a few problems with.

The user has been blocked for Wikipedia:3RR and vandalism a number of times, but has dynamic IP rolling and thus an infinate amount of IP addresses which we can't block indefinately!

The problems are for the most part regarding the Shaw and Crompton article (but also Royton) and how a user is refusing to accept consensus (apparently it is an inappropriate way of presenting facts), the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) and citation (see this edit).

I'm trying to get the Shaw and Crompton article upto Wikipedia:Good articles status, but cannot until the opening sentence is inline with the formulation in the naming conventions and the opening line says "Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester". It currently says a very longwinded (and unique - no other article in the related localities use this method) "Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish in Greater Manchester, lying ten miles to the north-east of Manchester in the north-west of England. It lies within the traditional borders of Lancashire, and is one of seven areas which together form the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham."

It may appear quite trivial, but (despite going against the conventions) would be like saying "Alabama is in the traditional borders of the Confederate States of America and is one of 50 states that make up the USA". - just not appropriate!

The users demands, methods and trolling are becoming increasingly sophisticated and inappropriate.

The user demands that we place mentions of Oldham after a reference to an ancient and dissued British land division of Lancashire (possibly due to the stigma that the Oldham borough has a large Ethnic minority population) - also see this edit as an example of the mentality. He adds nothing else to the content of the page and has stimulated a massive debate on Talk:Shaw and Crompton, where we (a much larger collective of Wikipedians, backed by all the consensus and conventions) have tried to stop his changes.

I think admin intervention and a simple message for clarification would help the situation.

Do you think you could aid in any way? Is this an appropriate method to go about this?

Could you get back to me on my talk page, even if it is a negative response? - I do understand that an admin role would be hugely time-consuming. It would be very much appreciated however if you could help or point me in the right direction. Thanks, Jhamez84 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamla, many thanks for the swift reply. There have been some developments on the Shaw and Crompton article since, however. The page is currently semi-protected and has been targeted by the same vandal and a number of sleeper accounts and sock puppets.

I'm inclined to think that a simple message on the talk page would suffice given the developments. However you may think that the current climate doesn't warrent anything further.

Do please take your time for your own conveinience, and thanks again for getting back to me. Jhamez84 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

It seems that your interpretation of fair use is somewhat unusual. I have seen quite a few featured articles on music albums and band with album covers in them, and the best "detailed rationale" I found was {{fairusenoalternative}}, which doesn't really add any new information. I thought there was some consensus that a detailed fair use rationale has to be provided for any use that's not already covered by the text in {{albumcover}}. I don't care much either way, but I find it unlikely that editors will come up with original, detailed fair use rationales for every album cover we have, so it's most likely that the template needs fixing. That or we remove most if not all album covers from WP. Rl 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Gripes

You seem to have a problem with websites that talk about companies, yet there are hundreds of other sites you have not addressed (pepsi, coke, hersey, at&t, ford), so please stop pestering people who post legitimate data simply because you think wikipedia should not have information about successful entrepreneurs (NOT spam and NOT advertising in other's eyes). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.55.52.10 (talk • contribs).

Please see WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM so you can better understand Wikipedia's policies. --Yamla 21:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your new threats

I am aware.. if you ease of a bit you will se that i am archiving. I dont want to see this stuff everytime i log in do I?? -- max rspct leave a message 22:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I already issued an apology for this. It looked to me like your first act back from the block was to blank your user discussion page. Such was not the case, my mistake. I'm sorry. --Yamla 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you paid attention to other admins.. you will have noticed that others give short blocks for much more. Anyway you seem to admit that i was archiving all along. So what happend? You banned me for 31 hours unjustifiably and because you saw me talking about my clean record on 3RR noticeboard. You wanted to give me my first one. I waSN't deleting warnings - archiving.. and i got banned as you never waited or paused for thought. I want that block struck from my blocklog. -- max rspct leave a message 00:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No. You archived that most recent time. The evidence shows quite clearly that you were not archiving when you were blocked. You even admitted outright (six times, in fact) that you were blanking. You weren't archiving, you clearly stated, "if i want to blank i fucking well will." You will also find that a 24 hour ban for vandalism is quite appropriate, as is an extra 7 hours for attempting to bypass the block. When I blocked you, I had not seen your comment about your clean record on the 3RR noticeboard. Shorter blocks are generally given for the first 3RR violation, sometimes just a warning, but you'll notice that I imposed "time served" on you. You may think this harsh but I think you'll find most people would disagree. Your continued personal attacks aren't helping your case. I suggest you consider contributing productively to Wikipedia, as clearly many of your edits have already been, and stop this behaviour. It does you no credit. --Yamla 03:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SKITTLES

User:SKITTLES doesn't seem to grasp the concept of image copyrights, even after a lengthy explanation from me and a block by you. Most recently, he/she has decided to add photographs taken from fan (or otherwise unofficial) sites and claims that all right have been released. See Image:Laurenlc.png for a recent example. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 00:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

In recent weeks I have tagged a number of images uploaded by User:Fitz. This user seems to have serious issues with properly identifying the source and copyright of images they upload. She/he has recently taken to outright removal of warning tags on images. Can you help this user see the error of their ways? Thanks. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• It seems my efforts aren't appreciated by Fitz. Note their latest image summary on Image:Regz2.jpg. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 04:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocks

That was a completely unneccessary block you gave me. I was not blanking any part of any article. Quote: "Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to User talk:Max rspct." - That was not an article but my userpage. I was archiving. Where does it say that I cannot blank or archive my user talkpage? it is MY domain. See Wikipedia:User page:

"In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons."

-- max rspct leave a message 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I told you. Additionally, as I have also told you, the specific case of blanking current warnings from a user talk page came up for admin discussion recently and the decision was quite clearly that it was not acceptable. You were not archiving, you were blanking and said so in no uncertain terms (and with profanity). And you do not own the user talk page and specifically do not own the comments posted by other users. What you have posted above is about your user page, not your user talk page. --Yamla 14:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No you are wrong. That wikiepdia page refers to all userpages/userspace ..thats why it has a subheading in it called: '[and editing of pages in the user space]'. I have looked at the admin board. I cannot se anything you referrred to. In any case it is not policy to block users for 31hrs for blanking or archiving their userpage. I am going to take action on this later today.. Ps check RJII's talkpage. There is an organisation using his login name? A disruptive project to prove a point or..? -- max rspct leave a message 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You weren't blocked for 31 hours for blanking your user page. You were blocked for 24 hours for blanking your user talk page after being warned you were not permitted to do this. This block was extended to 31 hours when I discovered you editing from an anonymous IP address in an attempt to bypass your block. See Blanking own talk page for the discussion on blanking your own talk page. The policy is that you may not blank current warnings. If you have a complaint to make about RJII, please make it to the appropriate location. I am busy today and will not be able to look at RJII's behaviour in the near future. Nothing personal. --Yamla 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

THAT IS NOT POLICY. Chit chat among admins does not mean it is policy. I have never completely blanked my usertalkpage. And would have archived it anyway. It takes to to tango and you started this by giving me an unfair block (not even draconian as it is NOT policy). -- max rspct leave a message 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

It is my understanding that promotional materials released by actors are usable on their biography page and that dvd covers are usable on the dvd page. If this is not accurate, the templates {{promotional}} and {{dvdcover}} are innacurate, and need correcting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

These are usable but require a detailed fair-use rationale as the license notes. --Yamla 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, good. We're all on the same page then. Good luck in fixing troublesome user. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

I provided a source and a description. That's enough.--CyberGhostface 22:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly is not, as the license makes quite clear. --Yamla 22:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my userpage. Its my page, I should decide what is in it. You blocked me. I added the fair license protocols. What more do you want?--CyberGhostface 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't touched your user page. I was unblanking your user discussion page because those warnings were current. However, it does indeed seem that you have resolved the image problem. Thank you. --Yamla 21:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ciara

I put a citing source beside chart positions on Ciara's singles. There is no need to put a stub saying it needs a source. Charme36

Yes, but the citation does not cite the chart positions listed. It only cites a very small minority of them. --Yamla 22:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So do I have to put the citations at the bottom where the references or external links are? Charmed36 22:51 21 June 2006

Sneha Ullal

What information do I need to add for the image to stay. Tut74749 22:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to identify the copyright holder, provide an accurate license (though the license provided may be correct), and a detailed fair-use rationale for each use of the image. --Yamla 22:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Do I just have to state where the images are from and the copyright holder for these images? Tut74749 22:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and an accurate license and a detailed fair-use rationale for each use of the image. --Yamla 22:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you deleting these images. What did I not do that made u delete them. Tut74749 20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You stated that the film screenshot was being used to illustrate the actor, not the film itself. This is obviously a copyright violation, then, of the film itself as noted in the license. --Yamla 21:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But doesnt the image show kareena only and nothing about the movie. Tut74749 21:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Ullal.jpg alright? If not please tell me Tut74749 21:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks okay to me. That assumes the picture is a promotional picture of the actress, not a screenshot from a movie or a promotional picture used to advertise a movie. Also, of course, it would only be acceptable in Sneha Ullal, and assumes that perfectpeople.com took the original picture and own the copyright to it and specifically released it for promotional purposes. --Yamla 21:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks just wanted to make sure. Thanks for helping. Next time I will make sure I have all the info prior to uploading a pic. Hope I didnt annoy u. Tut74749 21:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I removed the template on Aly+AJ on accident. I know it was vandalism.

Copyrighted Images on Personal Page

I removed them but please I need a full clarification from you of that matter if you don't mind. Omernos 02:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

All copyrighted images may only be used under a fair-use exemption. For example, we may use a promotional image of Nicole Kidman on an article specifically about her. Use of copyrighted images on your user page would also require justification under fair-use. However, Wikipedia has declared as policy that nobody is permitted to use copyrighted images on their user page. That is, even if you happen to have a fair-use rationale, Wikipedia has determined that you still may not use a copyrighted image. You are, however, permitted to use public domain and other such images. See WP:FAIR, the bit about "Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages". --Yamla 02:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla for the clarification. It's good to learn! I won't use any fairuse images on my userpage. And I'll try to spread awareness if possible. Thanks again. Omernos 02:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Adrienne Barbeau

Was wondering if you'd mind helping me out on this page. Just a user that I am having a hard time explaining concepts like NPOV to - he insists on using phrases like "remarkable" and "known for her breasts" about this actress - doesn't seem to realize that those are opinions, and if we print those, we have to acknowledge whose opinions they are. Also, one picture is definitely too big and also seems to be an issue. Thanks in advance Mad Jack 04:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope that does the trick Mad Jack 17:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation about Jenn Rivell

Could you explain this more to me? I thought that screenshots from movies were okay to upload and use. Also, in the future you might want to provide a more descriptive edit summary or something because I wasn't sure who you were and why you were retagging the image. --Liface 22:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are, but only to illustrate the movie. Here, you are using it to illustrate the person and that is not a valid use of a movie screenshot under fair-use and Wikipedia policy. --Yamla 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is Nelson M

I wanted to say that I am sincerely sorry about the changes on the India.Arie page. I misunderstood the addition of original research/ opinion. I hope that you won't block me. I sincerely apologize. I am very sorry. And as for the Ciara page, I did not know that the Reference.com was an older Wikipedia source, I thought it was different. Please reply to this message. Again I hope you don't block me. Thank You!!!

Reference.com clearly indicates that it uses Wikipedia as its source. However, as you seem to have discovered the problem, there's no reason for me to block you. It looks to have been an honest mistake. Now I just need to finish undoing your changes. --Yamla 01:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

From Nelson M

Thank you for giving me another chance. I will make sure to never, ever use Reference.com as a source again.

Another Message from Nelson M - Ashanti

Can you explain to me why some other people's information gets to stay posted up and mine does not, like on the Ashanti page on Voice, I do not see a source for the information.

A big part of the reason is not enough editors around to verify the information. Thanks for pointing that out, though. I have removed it. In general, if you find information like this that you think may not be true, one way of dealing with it is to add the following: {{fact}}<!-- Added fact tag on 2006-06-25. I do not believe this information is correct and it is uncited. If it is still uncited after a week, please remove. -->. Information you know to be untrue can be removed right away. --Yamla 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lohan

Why is having the Lohan kids DOB irrelevant? I did not go into detail about one sibling on anothers page, I just said when that child was born. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.58.196.156 (talk • contribs).

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't warned you about that nor have I reverted changes of that nature as far as I can see. Perhaps you are confused. --Yamla 15:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yamla,I am confused. Your name & comment was over my edit to the Lohans page, which is why I sent you a comment.

What is wrong with my NK edits? I am trying to made each section seperate so when 1 clicks edit they are able to edit just 1 section & not the whole article. I do preview it & thought it was okay, but it was not. The size of the headings ( which depends on how many equals are placed arounf the words) is what I am trying to figure out. I am not senselessly/ stupidly playng with her page.

Sandbox: will looking @ the page's changes thru 'sandbox' instead of 'show preview' help me not having to make so many revisions ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.58.196.156 (talk • contribs).

Please put your comments at the bottom of my talk page. Also, please do not bold everything. I still have no idea what you are talking about regarding Lindsay Lohan. I have not reverted any of your edits on that page and my comments on your discussion page are unrelated to Lindsay Lohan (and do not mention Lindsay Lohan). As to your Nicole Kidman edits, as I mentioned you have been removing the {{unverifiedimage}} tag from the image on that page. The image is unverified as it does not accurately identify the copyright holder or provide detailed fair-use rationale. You have been removing this tag without resolving the copyright issues with the image itself. As to the sandbox, I'm not sure if it will help you compared to "show preview". It is meant to be used to try out areas you are unfamiliar with, such as figuring out how to add an image, without actually modifying a real article. --Yamla 15:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

(1)Yamla,as requested, this is at the bottom. However, I bold for it is easier to see.

(2)Forget the LL questions. Another user must have sent them to me.

(3)NK unverified image: I checked & you are referencing the NK pic at the top of the page of NK in a red dress. I never deleted any tag or naything from this pic. What I did delete was a link for a NK pic that did not work. This link was further down the NK wiki page. Are you a imdb administrator (*correction wikipedia administrator) for your words are very harsh ("blatant vandalism"; "you will be banned").

You quite clearly did remove the unverifiedimage tag. See hereand here. You were warned about this and continued doing it, that's why I added the harsher warning. Note that the warning was a standard template, not something I wrote. I don't know why you are asking if I am an imdb administrator as this has nothing whatsoever to do with imdb. --Yamla 16:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I mistyped. I meant are you a wiki administrator bc of your harsh sounding messages (("blatant vandalism"; "you will be banned".)?

When I first edited the NK page, there was no unverified image tag standard template. What I deleted was this: -->Image:Http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Nicole kidman2.jpg <-- look here: [6]. I checked subsequent editions since then and I see what you mean.

Scottsdale Pictures

All the pictures are listed at the side, however, I did not realize it does not apply to local governments, I will change the license. Steel87 10:05, 26 June

Trisha Krishnan

Hello, Yamla, I have a small problem over at Trisha Krishnan's article: User:Thala keeps changing her picture to one with an improper copyright status, source and copyright tag. We have a completely fine picture of the actress (one where she doesn't make a funny face even) with copyright information and correct tag. I tried to talk to User:Thala as you can see on his talk page, but to no avail. Could you try it, please? --Plumcouch 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am upset

I cnnot stand people like you If u got somethin to say mail me it.Tired of u. Mind yo own business. Get down or sit down —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shakim67 (talk • contribs).

I'm sorry, I cannot understand what you are trying to say. --Yamla 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom Ford Vanity Fair Cover

Im not sure if you would look at the article again but, how is this different from using it for Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley? Its the exact same thing except that Tom Ford was more heavily criticized being the creative artist of this photo and cover. He caused more controversy than both of the actresses together --Shrek05 15:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles on Johansson and Knightley specifically discuss the magazine cover, the article on Tom Ford does not. To be clear, I'd like more detailed discussion of the magazine in both of the women's articles, but that's why I have my objection. The use of the image in the Tom Ford article would just be to depict Mr. Ford, not to illustrate the controversy as the article currently stands. --Yamla 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost (TV series)

Huh? Why did I get a rather aggressive msg from you? I haven't editted anything to do with this "lost" series, I don't even know what it is. Stop being so pedantic and randomly accuse people of things they haven't done: "Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Lost (TV series). It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox."

See here. --Yamla 13:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Christina_promo.jpg

Hi Will you just delete it? When I find the source, copyright holder and a proof it's from a promotional kit I will reupload a new one. You don't have to revert what I edit on my talk page. I got the message, 17:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding user:Nelson m

Though it may be irritating, inserting uncited info is not vandalism, and so it shouldn't be reverted using the administrators' rollback feature (nor should test warnings be left on the user's talk page). Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, inserting copyrighted images without fair use rationale [7] [8] isn't vandalism either, and the blocking policy says nothing about users who have inserted images without fair use rationale into articles. In relation to images, users can only be blocked if they don't specify the copyright holder and status, and the description page for Image:Ciara Goodies Music Album Cover.jpg has identified those things. Because of this, I am requesting that you unblock ATL Boi (talk • contribs). Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, copyrighted material vandalism is considered vandalism. See Types of Vandalism. Additionally, if we allow editors to continue uploading copyright-violating images with no chance of blocking them, what possible reason would they have to stop? Fair-use rationales for copyrighted images aren't optional niceties (see WP:IDP). I'll try to be more careful with uncited info, however. I try hard to warn with {{Please cite|article}} first at least. --Yamla 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding entry:Celebrity

Why did you delete the external link to Who's Alive and Who's Dead on the Celebrity page? What Wikipedia Policy did it violate? I think it is quite informative as to whether or not a celebrity is alive or dead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sccosel (talk • contribs).

The information is (or should be) already available in the Wikipedia itself. See WP:EL for the policy that it violated. --Yamla 02:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

So, let me understand something... An external link that would be useful to all readers of an article can't be used if it "should be" on Wikipedia, but isn't? The person that updates the information on the webpage pointed to by this external link is extremely prompt in keeping it updated. S/he just isn't doing it on Wikipedia. So, just because they aren't maintaining constantly changing information on Wikipedia, the link shouldn't be in Wikipedia? And, what gives you the right to "police" (or maybe even a harsher word is in order) Wikipedia? --Sccosel 02:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you read WP:EL? Also, please see Category:Living people and Category:Dead people. --Yamla 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I corrected your Category links. I guess the Living people category is ok, but the Dead people category is not presented as well as Who's Alive and Who's Dead and it is not as complete. I only see categories for entertainers. You seem to be too strict and hardline in your judgements of "appropriate" content on Wikipedia. --Sccosel 03:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Trisha

So sorry about that. Rest assured, it wont happen again. =) Btw, I dont really understand what you mean by providing a detailed fair use rationale. Umm, I got that picture from the picture gallery of the movie I found at this [9]. Hariharan91 16:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've now provided a detailed fair-use rationale. Unfortunately, it is not accurate. The image is being used to depict the actress, not the character, and thus is not fair-use. --Yamla 17:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That image depicts the character of the actress in the film. I've seen the film. That's how she looks like in the film.

Heads up

While scanning through the disputed fair use image page, I came across an image linked to Sally Ann Howes. If you look, you'll see a ton of articles with copyright issues. I tagged a few of them, but it's been a long day and I'm done for now.  : )

Secondly, the user who uploaded the images on that page, User:Jennyarata, seems to have uploaded quite a few images with dodgy copyright info. Since you seem to be all over situations like this, I thought you might want to investigate. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)