User talk:Yamla/Archive 4

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 July 1.1.1 Images 1.1.2 Images 1.1.3 Images 1.1.4 Skittles Lover 1.1.5 Chris Brown's whole biography is copyrighted 1.1.6 Image copyright problems 1.1.7 On Laura San Giacomo pictures 1.1.8 Okay 1.1.9 Om Shanti Om(film) 1.1.10 Infoboxes 1.1.11 X-Americans (the ethnicity-American lists/categories) 1.1.12 Me again 1.1.13 Hrithik Roshan 1.1.14 Mena Suvari 1.1.15 Proper Image Information 1.1.16 Help!!!!!! 1.1.17 Tpgracesnl.jpg 1.1.18 Playgirl 1.1.19 Image:Wmagcovbrad.JPG 1.1.20 Image:Nrview.jpg 1.1.21 Just asking 1.1.22 Image:Aly & AJ - On The Ride (Concert DVD) - Front Cover.jpg 1.1.23 Signed comments 1.1.24 No problem man. 1.1.25 Sorry !! 1.1.26 Pfeiffer 1.1.27 T.I. 1.1.28 Image:Sonblue 02.jpg 1.1.29 Use of Copyright Images on Personal Pages 1.1.30 Trisha Krishnan picture (again) *sigh* 1.1.31 A question 1.1.32 Dear Yamla 1.1.33 Thanks for keeping the Merrill Lynch page safe and blocking Pittrader ! 1.1.34 Guess what: copy vio again 1.1.35 Your recent edit to Dr. Allison Cameron 1.1.36 About Image:KaciBrownYamaha.jpg 1.1.37 Jennifer Aniston 1.1.38 Hello. 1.1.39 Hi 1.1.40 Jodie Sweetin 1.1.41 Sweetin (again) 1.1.42 External links 1.1.43 Paris release date 1.1.44 Thanks 1.1.45 GB vs GiB 1.1.46 External Links 1.1.47 Alba's photo 1.1.48 AM2 reverse Hyper-Threading 1.1.49 Ay Yamla 1.1.50 Check Your Facts Before You Revert 1.1.51 Assistance Request 1.1.52 Wil Wheaton 1.1.53 Block of User:Jaysscholar 1.1.54 User:70.81.117.175 1.1.55 Demonte Morton 1.1.56 Samanello 1.1.57 Magazine pictures 1.1.58 User talk:Lesliephung 1.1.59 Re: Copyright violation 1.1.60 Omarion 1.1.61 My Work 1.1.62 Link spam 1.1.63 somethings wrong 1.1.64 editing Chart 1.1.65 Angelina Jolie horoscope chart 1.1.66 re abi titmuss 1.1.67 Abi Titmuss 1.1.68 Image:Tb-ab.jpg 1.1.69 Lost fan sites 1.1.70 Profile 1.1.71 Barnstar 1.1.72 Fair use image of Ms. A. Barbeau 1.1.73 Blocked 1.1.74 External Links 1.1.75 Thank you for my barnstar 1.1.76 Image:Tracksofth.jpg 1.1.77 New Picture 1.1.78 Image 1.1.79 User:Lesliephung 1.1.80 hi,yamla 1.1.81 Qho speaks to Yamla 1.1.82 Screenshots 1.1.83 UserTalk 89.32.1.82 1.1.84 Johansson 1.1.85 the ostream edit in the C++ article 1.1.86 Jack Jack image 1.1.87 Rationale of Image:Lluthor.jpg 1.1.88 Copy-righted artice 1.1.89 Editing Wishes 1.1.90 Ciara 1.1.91 How? 1.1.92 Are You 1.1.93 Jennifer Morisson/Dr. Allison Cameron 1.1.94 Hi! 1.1.95 Can U 1.1.96 Vandalism Warning Question 1.1.97 Image:HilaryDuff.jpg 1.1.98 Something's gotta give 1.1.99 Mena Suvari 1.1.100 Personal attack 1.1.101 Personal Attack II 1.1.102 detailed fair-use rationale 1.1.103 I didn't add nonsense 1.1.104 Eating Manatees 1.1.105 Trivia about you! 1.1.106 User talk: 89.32.1.82 1.1.107 Sorry and yes mamm 1.1.108 Ashley Judd link 1.1.109 Re: User:129.116.46.92 1.1.110 Ashley Judd link 1.1.111 Joel Madden image. 1.1.112 Exit to Eden 1.1.113 Please enlighten me 1.1.114 Exit To Eden 1.1.115 Request Image 1.2 Copyright Tag 1.2.1 I am getting bounced around 1.2.2 I've been attacked 1.2.3 Frends 1.2.4 Where does it say that? 1.2.5 Image:Dec 2005 Cover Interview Magazine.gif 1.2.6 Thanks 1.2.7 Ok.... 1.2.8 Thanks for Unblocking Me 1.2.9 Please Help 1.2.10 User:Mana.ustad 1.2.11 Wikiwikiwhack 1.2.12 Buster Keaton Image 1.2.13 Cream Image 1.2.14 RE: Copyvio 1.2.15 "current" warning 1.2.16 Upload 4 me 1.2.17 Eating Manatess 1.2.18 Eating Manatees on deletion review 1.2.19 Sarah McLachlan site 1.2.20 Pickup75/Registered user 92 & image problems 1.2.21 Personal attack 2 Sorry 2.1 Congratulations 2.2 Allison_cameron.jpg 2.3 Did I do it right? 2.4 Uploading 2.5 Picture 2.6 Image:Sailor Moon 01.jpg 2.7 Re:Copyvio image 2.8 Pleiotropy article 2.9 RFA for Abu badali 2.10 leave me alone 2.11 Trolling? 2.12 Request action to be taken 2.13 Deception? 2.14 Upload 2.15 Tool(band) 2.16 Carrie-Anne Moss 2.17 Image: Dennypic 2.18 Question 2.19 Add orfud tag 2.20 aaah 2.21 Images 2.22 Personal attack? 2.23 RCU 2.24 Oh 2.25 Question 2.26 User 195.93.21.106. 2.27 Spamlinks 3 Unblock? 4 Archive 5 Delete 6 Hi 7 WP:POINT and my userpage 7.1 Eating Manatees 7.2 Interview 7.3 Monkeys 7.4 I love Paris in the springtime 7.5 Administration 7.6 Bots 8 Magazine Covers and Stuff 8.1 Keira Knightley 8.2 Track Of Tyler Hilton 8.3 Private Website? 8.4 HSM 2 8.5 Eating manatees again 9 User Box 9.1 Christmas album 9.2 "Conflict" 9.3 Mediation 9.4 Autoblock 9.5 Fair use rationale on my images 9.6 Add me! 10 Nope

2006

July

Images

I apologise on not posting the copyright permission details up straight away.

Images

After repeatedly trying to find candid images, which the last image I uploaded to the Stacy Ferguson page was said to be by a website which I got it from, all you can do is be so rude as to speak to me rudely on my discussion page. How dare you! Especially if the said image is used in an informative article that could be used as publicity. Just ease up.

Images

Dude, get off people's nuts about images. they're pretty and it's pretty easy to rationaize fair use if someone ever lawyers up and sues. FAIR USE, man. 24.124.95.2 06:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Skittles Lover

Hi Yamla.I am not a sock puppet of whoever that other user was but anyway thank you for welecoming me to wikipedia. --Skittles Lover 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&action=edit# --24.124.95.2 06:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris Brown's whole biography is copyrighted

Yamla, Chris Brown's whole biograpy was copied and pasted from here. And if I'm not mistaken isn't that copyrighted material, and shouldn't it be removed? (Do It - To It 00:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC));

This is clearly false. --Yamla 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problems

I'm real sorry for all the trouble i've caused. As you can see, I just recently started my edits on Wikipedia and I'm still learning. I've corrected the information on the images I've uploaded and i've also added {{db-author}} to certain images that already exist. By the way, I did not upload Image:Trishakrishnan2.jpg. It was uploaded by someone else. Sorry again. It won't happen again. Now, since i've done what you've asked me to do, please do unblock me. Xena4441 18:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You should already be unblocked. Please let me know if this is not the case. --Yamla 16:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Xena4441 07:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

On Laura San Giacomo pictures

Hi! I need to understand something: you say that movie screenshots used to depict the actor rather than the character or movie do not qualify as fair use. Fine by me. Still, how come that the Nicole Kidman article has an image from the Hours? Or Tom Cruise article etc ? These pictures should be deleted as well, then. Otherwise, the Giacomo picture from The Stand should also be acceptable. By the way, do magazine covers qualify as fair use images (to be used to depict actors, that is)? I'm really confused with some of the copyright parametres. Xanthi22 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because another article is doing the wrong thing does not grant permission for another article to also do the wrong thing. But let us take a look at the two articles. Nicole Kidman, four images. First one is licensed under the Creative Commons. The second, from the movie, The Hours, is used specifically to depict the movie. The article goes out of its way to note that she got an Academy Award for this movie. The image is being used to depict the movie. Next image, Creative Commons. Final image from a music video. Again, there's substantial discussion of this music video in the article. The image is being used to depict the music video. Now, on to Tom Cruise, six images. First is licensed under Creative Commons. The next one is from Top Gun. Note that there is, once again, substantial discussion of this movie in the article. As a result, it is fair-use. Next, a screenshot from War of the Worlds. Again, there's a whole paragraph of discussion about this movie and the image is illustrating the movie. Next image is licensed under Creative Commons. The next image is clearly a copyright violation as it stands. It is marked as such. The last is from Oprah. There's a whole section on Cruise's Oprah appearance. This is clearly fair use, though the image is marked as missing a rationale at the moment. Note that in none of these cases was a film screenshot used to depict the actor, only as a picture of the film under discussion. It's a somewhat subtle point. Also note that the leading image, typically used to present an image of the actor, should not be from a film. Because, as noted, the leading image (the first one on the page) is used to depict the actor, not the film. --Yamla 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And no, magazine covers may be used to illustrate the particular issue of the magazine in question, not to depict the actor. However, take a look at Keira Knightley. There's substantial discussion of the particular issue of Vanity Fair (where Knightley appears) and so this qualifies as fair use; it is being used to depict magazine and only coincidentally the actor. --Yamla 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay

Ok, now I get it. You're right. Sorry for giving you a hard time. The difference is quite subtle but perfectly understandable.

Thanks! Xanthi22 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Om Shanti Om(film)

Dear Yamla,

A new article regarding a Hindi movie to be directed by Farah Khan named Om Shanti Om(film) was recently created. The thing is, this movie has already been named Happy New Year!!! and the article for the film in question has already been created. Look here. The person who created the page for Om Shanti Om must have been looking at the incorrect information provided by the July edition of the Filmfare magazine. See here. I think the article for Om Shanti Om should be deleted or redirected. I leave this in your hands. Thank You. 60.48.223.50 10:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i'm the user who created the page for the new movie. I did this based on the second link above [1]. The first link above is based from 2004, whilst the second one is from 2006, so that is more likely to be authentic. I would tend to leave the page as is till more information is obtained. - unni 15:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

If removing a picture from an infobox, please take care to only delete the file name and caption, not the field for the file name and caption. --TheTruthiness 16:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

X-Americans (the ethnicity-American lists/categories)

Yamla, I'm just curious, where do you stand on the whole "labelling" as X-American thing? I've recently sourced a majority of these lists to include only people who have been described specifically as "X-American" (or "X" - if they are American) by reliable sources i.e. as opposed to "X grandmother", "X descent", etc. citing a part of the no original research policy, which states that we cannot combine A (i.e. a definition of X-American) with B (a statement that says Person 1 has an X grandmother) to create C (Person 1 is therefore X-American). Do you agree on this? It's been a major help in tightening up the pages and takes away the right of Wikipedians to decide who they think/do not thing should be on these lists, most of which borders on original research. There is currently also a discussion on this here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_deductive_reasoning_original_research.3F. Hope to here from you on this subject Mad Jack 18:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What I am about to say is not Wikipedia policy. It is instead my opinion. Also note that I was born in England and have spent most of my life in Canada, though I am not yet a Canadian citizen. This may colour my opinion somewhat. Let's take the example of British-Canadian because it is one I am most familiar with.  :) In my opinion, a person can be described as British-Canadian if they hold dual U.K. and Canadian citizenships. In this case, it wouldn't matter how the person describes themselves. A person may also be described as British-Canadian if they describe themselves this way and there's at least some basis to accept this. If I claimed to be British-Canadian, Wikipedia should generally accept this because I was born in England and because, although not a Canadian citizen, I have spent much more than half my life in Canada. (For the record, I do not generally describe myself this way). My little brother, born in Canada to British parents, could probably be described as British-Canadian if he describes himself this way. If he does not and assuming he holds only Canadian citizenship, I do not believe Wikipedia should list him as British-Canadian due to WP:NOR. What about someone with a single grandparent who is British? Again, does the person describe themselves as British-Canadian? What about someone with some vague ancestor who was British? Well, in this case, I think it is silly to describe the person as British-Canadian but if this information was cited, I wouldn't remove it. This is actually more often the case with someone of, say, Irish ancestry. It is occasionally relevant and really, if the person describes themselves that way, that's how they identify themselves. Even if they are wrong.  :) Okay, so what about someone with one British parent, born in Canada, who does not describe themselves as British-Canadian (or for which no reliable citation can be found)? No. In my opinion, there is no basis to add the person into the category. They don't describe themselves this way, no reliable source describes them this way, and they hold only one citizenship. Two important points to note... Native tribes (pardon me if this is the wrong term) have their own definitions for who is part of their tribe. Some require 50% or higher blood to belong. Others require 12.5%. Some require but a single drop of blood. Again, in this case, I'd say the person belongs in the category if they describe themselves thusly or another reliable source can be found. The other matter is Jewish people. Being Jewish is both a racial description and a religious description. Also, the whole matter of Israel makes it also a national description. I may be a Jewish person "simply" by converting to Judaism, no matter what my nationality or birth. I mention this only because a lot of people describe themselves as "Jewish-American". SO, in summary: a person belongs in the category only if they hold dual-citizenship or describe themselves thusly, or if a reliable source can be found to cite the description. Otherwise, the person does not belong. --Yamla 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yamla, that is completely correct and the way it should be done. However, I will add that if a reliable source describes the person as "Whatever", that is fine. So, if The New York Times says "Keira Knightley is Jewish", we presume they checked their facts and we can put her in there (she isn't, I guess, but I am giving an example). Does this seem reasonable? And I would appreciate your contributions on the linked discussion, because it seems many people are leaning towards describing anyone as "X-American" because of their grandmother, etc. Mad Jack 19:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input. It may be that in America, things are somewhat different in that the X American label is applied to people on a descent basis, which accords with the definition of Irish American in reputable refrerence works: "an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland" without specifying that they were born to Irish parents, were born in Ireland or identified as Irish. Arniep 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, arniep, allow me to quote this, from the NOR page, again: "But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion." So, to paraphrase: In an article about whether or not Person X is an Irish-American, Arniep is saying that, given a certain definition of Irish-Americans, that person is Irish-American. Regardless of the fact that Arniep's opinion appears to be supported by certain definitions of Irish-American, it remains Arniep's opinion. It must be supported by sources that express this opinion on the person themselves. Mad Jack 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Me again

Hey, sorry, it's me again! You mentioned the pictures in the article about Keira_Knightley. The headshot is depicting the actress in a movie screenshot (and of course, there is no reference to this movie in the introductory paragraph). You told me headshots of actors should not be from screenshots from films/TV. Secondly, it is a copyrighted image (as the uploader admits), it is high resolution etc. And it's okay in his case? Just because the uploader basically says: Hey, it's copyrighted and may be from a film but I'm using it to demonstrate the actress in it, so I think it's fair use, blah blah blah. It's like, okay, if you use a fair use rationale like this, which basically says something like "oh, I think we can use, it's fair use", everything is finally justifiable even though in essence it makes no difference from NOT saying it and still violates all of the copyright parametres. It's like we are deceive ourselves willingly. No essential difference, just a fair use rationale with no real practical significance. It doesn't make sense. And this guy did with to other images, too. Please, check out the Knightley image and explain me.

P.S.: Sorry if this came out aggressively now, but I'm not confronting you or something. I just don't think that the copyright system in Wikipedia makes sense because it does not follow any real consistency that carries some weight and importance with it. -- Xanthi22 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, the image in Keira Knightley was indeed being used to depict actress rather than to illustrate the film. I have removed it. Please note that there are probably hundreds of such copyright violations. I fix the ones I notice and have time to fix but there's simply no way I can get to them all. --Yamla 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hrithik Roshan

Hello, Yamla. Something really weird has happened: as I'm writing this, the entire artice for actor Hrithik Roshan has disappeared (along with it's history). The talk page is still there, though. Since you're an admin, maybe you can "see" things on that page I can't. Can you check what happened to it? (I'm still hoping it's just a temporary server glitch ...). Best regards, --Plumcouch 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. It was vandalised basically to a blank page, then nominated for speedy deletion and deleted (by another admin) overly fast. --Yamla 03:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mena Suvari

I noticed you put unverified tags on the images in the Mena Suvari article but I couldn't find them on the unverified image page. Could you tell me what the problem with them is? Dismas|^(talk) 10:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither have detailed fair-use rationales for their use in that page. --Yamla 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't understand completely. The second image has a few rationales for its use on the image description page. If that's not good enough, what needs to be there? Dismas|^(talk) 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the second image does have a detailed fair-use rationale but the image is actually being used to depict the actress, not to provide critical comment about the film itself. For that reason, no fair-use rationale is possible. The first image is again being used to depict the actress rather than to publicise the movie. As such, we cannot use a publicity picture for a movie. A good example of a detailed fair-use rationale is Image:Knightley - Johansson - Vanity Fair.jpg --Yamla 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You've proven to me that I should never even touch an image relating to a celebrity or movie because the process is just much more trouble than its worth. I'm not a lawyer and don't intend on going to law school just so I can add images to articles. I don't understand legalese and I don't intend to try. Dismas|^(talk) 00:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Proper Image Information

I noticed a bunch of my uploaded images were tagged for deletion. I was just wondering what all information I need to keep them here? -- Jay 04:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out, thanks for all you're help, I was worried for a sec there! Thanks again. -- Jay 04:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Help!!!!!!

How do I upload images? What is a source filename? I'm confused! Please reply a.s.a.p.! -MCRGIRL

Check out WP:Image and more specifically, Wikipedia:Uploading images. I hope that helps! --Yamla 02:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tpgracesnl.jpg

go ahead and delete the image. found no use for it.Myrockstar 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Playgirl

Was just moving the image to playgirl since I deleted it from Brad Pitt didn't want to offend the person who uploaded it.Myrockstar 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides if you said it yourself on the image "Image may ONLY be used to illustrate the publication of the issue in question. It may not be used to illustrate the magazine generally and may not be used solely to depict the actor in question. " Why was it removed from the Playgirl article where it clearly makes mention of it. Myrockstar 07:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

While there is no doubt that the image would be appropriate on the article about Playgirl, it does need a detailed fair-use rationale. You are right that the article makes explicit mention of that particular issue. --Yamla 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wmagcovbrad.JPG

There is now a mention of the notable event for which I intended to use the image in question on the article of Brad Pitt. Myrockstar 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks good to me. You have done a good job, Myrockstar. --Yamla 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nrview.jpg

You said "Was being used to depict person, not to talk about that episode of The View." Thats exactly right, I used to image to depict Nicole Richie and not the episode of the view. If I am wrong in putting the image, please direct me to the place where it says it's only correct to use an image of a television show to talk about the show itself. Myrockstar 09:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. See Image:Nrview.jpg. The license itself says "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or the program and its contents". Note specifically that it does NOT allow you to use it solely to depict the person involved, as it was being used. You could place the image lower down in the page, attached to a section which specifically discusses her appearance on The View. But you cannot use it as the main image depicting Ms. Richie. --Yamla 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you for pointing that out, I'll try harder to find a correct image.Myrockstar 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just asking

Dear Yamla, I've provided a new fair use rationale for this image. I hope you could check it out for me and tell me whether it's correct. Thanking you in advance! Hariharan91 11:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is good if and only if the image is being used to illustrate the movie, not the actress. That is, it could be used on the movie's page. It could also be used on the actress's page attached to a section (not at the top) which goes into detail about the movie. That is, a paragraph or so of why that movie was particularly relevant to the actress's career. The image cannot be used solely to depict the actress, however, no matter what the fair-use rationale says. --Yamla 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I place this image in the Filmography section of the Trisha Krishnan article? Hariharan91 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It can only be used if there's a substantial discussion of that movie on the Trisha Krishnan page. A paragraph several lines of text would probably suffice. At the moment, there isn't anything like that there. --Yamla 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Aly & AJ - On The Ride (Concert DVD) - Front Cover.jpg

I don't understand what the problem with this image is? It's the official cover used to illustrate the DVD article in question (On The Ride (Concert DVD)). You said I needed a 'detailed fair-use rationale', but I thought that the {DVDcover} tag was sufficient for DVD covers? Was I out of line by adding 'Cut-down from original size, considered Fair Use to illustrate the proper articles', and should I just remove that, and it'll be ok? Please explain what's wrong with having it in the article. Thank You. Jay 20:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a general license. It needs a note indicating that it is used in that article to illustrate the publication of the DVD, etc. Consider: you are uploading it and using it in just that one place. But what if someone else comes along and adds it to ten other articles? It would be hard to tell if the image was being used fairly in each place without the detailed fair-use rationale for each use. --Yamla 20:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How's this:

• "Official DVD cover of the 2005 Aly & AJ release On The Ride (Concert DVD).
• Considered Fair Use to be used in any article to illustrate Aly & AJ or the Aly & AJ release On The Ride (Concert DVD)
• as long as no profit is made, and
• it is used only to properly illsutrate the article." Does that hit the mark? Jay 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To properly illustrate the DVD in question.  :) The rest looks good. --Yamla 23:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll add that info and return the DVD Cover to the article. Thanks a lot for all you're help. I appreciate it. Jay 01:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Signed comments

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I understand what you mean, but it didn't even occur to me that it was a problem until you told me. I'll leave it in future, if there are people who can't spell, that's their right ;-) thanks Rossrs 14:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem man.

It might look a little skimpy now, but it will grow as the rest of the article matures. Cheers. --P-Chan 19:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry !!

Hello Yamla, I'm French (so I'm sorry because maybe you won't understand all what I say !!)

In the T.I.'s article, I wrote the King album was Double Platinum (and it's wrong). It's a mistake and I didn't want to be a vandalist. I'm sorry !! Thanks.

86.195.125.203 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pfeiffer

Thanks, it is a great pic. I added a source - I hope that's ok. Mad Jack 02:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

T.I.

Is there anyway you can protect T.I.'s page from vandalism?? 68.154.15.86 02:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's only meant to be used for a short time. And as you are an anonymous user, it'd also block you.  :( --Yamla 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just made a screenname :) Bad Chick 05:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sonblue 02.jpg

In an attempt to "not scare off the newbies" I've added some information to the talk page for an image uploaded by User:Vinaixa67: Image:Sonblue 02.jpg. With luck it will be some help and that user will be able to get the rest of the way on his/her own. Hope this is useful. Crypticfirefly 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How did vadilize the Paris Hilton page. I added her album cover. How is that vandilizim plus the info for the Paris album cover is all true.

Did you even look at the preview? And the information on the image page is missing the detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 23:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How do I make it fit in the preview box on the Paris Hilton Page?

Use of Copyright Images on Personal Pages

I don't know how you got to find that I used Copyrighted images on my user page, but you need to use this method more to find more people who are using copyrighted images on their user pages and note them. User:Translucid2k4 is using some, I don't know how the user didn't get noted yet while I got the warning directly. -- Omernos 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Trisha Krishnan picture (again) *sigh*

Hello, Yamla. User:Thamizhan has uploaded two picture: the copyright-violating one of actress Trisha Krishnan and one for a movie, Thirumalai. Both fair use rationales state that a Venu Arvind, who is once credited as cinematographer and photographer. I googled the hell out of the web to determine if this claims are true, but didn't find anything. (There's a TV actor named Venu Arvind but that's it.) From my POV, User:Thamizhan has added wring copyright information so he can keep his pictures. Could you talk to him, please? --Plumcouch 11:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A question

Hello, I have a question. I list some foreign language sites as references to an article. Should I use the original sites as links or should I use the translated sites (via Google)? The translation is occasionally very awkward, but still, it is the only solution for someone who doesn't know, say, French but wants to click on the links and read them.Thanks in advance -- Xanthi22 22:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct answer is that you should search for an English language article which references the information. Barring that, though, the best answer is to link to the French site, noting that the link is to a French article, possibly providing a secondary link to the google translation. But the primary link should be to the original article. --Yamla 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Yamla

I dont understand. Why does this image have copyright problems. I just copied the same thing that was on this image. Why is it that only my image has been tagged with several copyright and non fair-use tags whilst the other one is going to remain there? 60.48.218.22 06:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't compare one image to another. I'm not at all convinced that the image of Trisha Krishnan is valid and Wikipedia is filled with many images used dubiously. --Yamla 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the Merrill Lynch page safe and blocking Pittrader !

--Ray 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess what: copy vio again

Hello, Yamla, it's me again. There have been problems with User:Kadavul over at Ajith Kumar's article. The guy keeps adding a copyvio picture time and again. I have written messages into my edit summary and one onto his talk page, but to no avail. Also, he has edited the filmography and added instead of roles the actor plays, all his co-stars. I remember an edit war between fans of Ajith Kumar and Joseph Vijay who have been doing this to "prove" their actor is better, because he/she has worked with "better" co-stars. I really don't want that to happen again. Could you talk to Kadavul? Thanks a ton. --Plumcouch 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC) PS. Sorry to bother you all the time.

I'll take a look at it. --Yamla 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The picture I have problems with is this one: [2]. When you scroll down, you'll see a small note with URLs which indicates *why* I doubt the copyright status of that pictures. --Plumcouch 11:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Dr. Allison Cameron

You removed all the images... which qualify under WP:Fairuse#Images with the comment "Removed images without detailed fair-use rationales." Could you please explain what you mean/want? I've noticed that images of this character have been removed before and in my opnion it is fundemental to the article to identify the person with a picture... so if there's somthing I could do to make the images stick, please let me know. I've temporarily reverted you because I think it is that important to the 'pedia to have these images. Crazynas ^t 15:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

All copyrighted images must have a detailed fair-use rationale and this is clearly spelled out by the license. See this bit on fair-use rationales. At the moment, these images are copyright violations but I'll let them stand because it is likely that at least one can be justified properly. --Yamla 16:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

About Image:KaciBrownYamaha.jpg

Please do not confuse me with User:Ae 3, whom you blocked for one month, when you read my comment. Since I have marked the image with the {{Promotional}} tag and placed the URL of the web page in the image description page, should the changes to remove the image from Kaci Brown be reverted, or should I nominate the image for speedy deletion as a copyvio because 48 hours have not yet passed and it is not used in Kaci Brown? Jesse Viviano 17:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll mark it with {{orfud}} and if it isn't used within seven days, it will be deleted automatically. In my opinion, it can now be added back to the Kaci Brown article, though that particular article isn't on my watchlist. If you want to do that, please go ahead and then remove the ophaned tag. Thanks for tracking down the source! --Yamla 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Aniston

I don't know if you have a problem with deleting photos, because alot of the topics in here are about photos, but if (promophoto) isn't a good enough liscensing tag, then what is? Does Wikipedia have to be such a tight ass dealing with pictures, that any picture that isnt uploaded correctly should be deleted? I mean seriously. Wikipedia has lost a great number of liscencing tags when you upload an image, which makes it harder and harder to find one to use. So if you can find a good enough tag, to use for the Jennifer Aniston image I uploaded, so people could see what she looked like, i'd really like to hear some feedback. --koolgiy 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure which image you are referring to. {{Promophoto}} is a perfectly fine tag provided that the copyright holder is identified, provided evidence is given showing that the image came from a promotional kit or otherwise was specifically released for promotion, and provided a detailed fair-use rationale is listed for every use of the image in a Wikipedia article. Most of this is explained in the subst'ed license text itself. One problem is that people (though not necessarily you) often just use that tag for images that were not released for promotion, or fail to include a detailed fair-use rationale for their use. --Yamla 01:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok if thats not a good tag, and I don't think that was from a promo kit, (It was froma photo shoot, unfortunatley there isn't a tag for photo shoots) then I dont know what tag will work. If you can find one put it on.--koolgiy 01:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the photo shoot was released for promotional purposes, it would be an appropriate tag. If it wasn't released for promotional purposes, the tag wouldn't be appropriate. In fact, probably no tag would be appropriate as we couldn't use the copyrighted image under fair-use. Wikipedia cannot just use copyrighted images. In fact, we should be using far fewer than we are. In general, it is a violation of copyright to use someone else's copyrighted image. Still, if you let me know which image we are talking about, I'll take a look. --Yamla 01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The image i'm talking about is the image on the main Jennifer Aniston page. (JenniferAniston.jpg) The big picture at the top.--koolgiy 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello Yamla. Could I know the problem with this image? Polo246 07:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The image was from a promotional still for a movie. As such, it is only fair-use to use that in an article providing critical commentary on the movie itself. It cannot be used solely to depict the actress herself. --Yamla 13:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Whats with all the love for Nickelback? --koolgiy 04:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What? --Yamla 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know. 24.124.95.2 06:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What? --Yamla 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Koolgiy shut up! Nickleback rawks! Yamla as a Nickelback fan I appreciate what you did for us! Thank you so much! 21.144.93.0 06:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not particularly. Their music is overplayed but that's probably because I live in Edmonton, Alberta. My tastes in music lean more toward Tool and Nine Inch Nails. I do wish Nickelback luck, though.  :) --Yamla 23:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Nickelback is overplayed, so can i please vandalize their wiki site? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.47.101 (talk • contribs)

No, but thanks for asking. --Yamla 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jodie Sweetin

I added a new image to the Jodie Sweetin article, this time, with a detailed fair use rationale. Is this one ok? the image is Image:Tbsweetin.jpg Karrmann 04:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sweetin (again)

That was not a private website. It was an offical website for a network she hosts a show on. Karrmann

Please see WP:EL. It would be an appropriate link on an article about the show itself and could be an appropriate reference in the article itself if needed to cite something. As a stand-alone external link, however, it is not appropriate. --Yamla 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a link to the network's page about her. Karrmann 00:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

Sorry, I didn't think they would classify as spam, considering what they are. More of a public service type thing. Sorry. Jay 22:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Paris release date

On the PARIS page, you have the 7th as the Release date in the USA but that is a monday. CDs are released on Tuesdays in the USA. Please check your sources. Even websites say it will be released on the 8th of August in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfreak7676 (talk • contribs)

The provided citation clearly shows a release date of the 7th. Please check WP:CITE and WP:V. --Yamla 23:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

But that's the thing. THE USA RELEASE DATE, THE OFFICIAL RELEASE DATE IS TUESDAY, AUGUST 8TH, 2006 NOT THAT 7TH AND YOU SHOULD MAKE IT THAT WAY. USA NEVER RELEASES ALBUMS ON MONDAYS!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfreak7676 (talk • contribs)

You are confused. Please reread WP:V. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please provide an alternate citation if you disagree. Otherwise, the date of the 7th must stay. --Yamla 23:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not confused at all. Paris Hilton's album WILL be released on the 8th of August in the USA. Please change the date to the 8th please and this argument will end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfreak7676 (talk • contribs)

Yet again, I direct you to WP:V. Until you can provide a better citation than is listed, the date must stay. Because you keep on missing it, please read WP:V and WP:CITE. Also, please sign your comments. I can explain how if you do not understand. --Yamla 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If I can someone provide sources that say the album will drop on the 8th, will you change the date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfreak7676 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the information can be changed with a reliable citation, as I have mentioned several times already. And please sign your posts. --Yamla 23:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Parisfan.org has reported the release date of August 8th. Musicfreak 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please reread WP:RS, a fansite is not a reliable source. --Yamla 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for warning me about the scanned pictures and also about the "personal website" for stuff magazine, that is actually their official myspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow123 (talk • contribs)

No problem. Note, though, that myspace links are inappropriate as per WP:EL. --Yamla 01:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

GB vs GiB

Could you explain what you're doing on the MacBook Pro article? Unless there's some policy I'm not aware of, GB is more correct than GiB, and so far you have not explained any of your reverts. -- Steven Fisher 16:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. Gibibyte is more specific. Gigabyte can mean either of two measurements. Gibibyte, while I hate the term, is an IEC standard (60027-2) and is what is recommended by the IEC. Gigabyte's only standardised meaning is as 10⁹ bytes. --Yamla 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're coming from now, and it makes sense. You might want to compose some sort of standard comment to use when making such a change, though. -- Steven Fisher 18:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Sorry, didn't think I was spamming, just adding similar content to what was already there. Can you explain to me the difference between the links I added and the links to IMDB or TV.com for example? Thanks.--207.188.29.244 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

imdb is widely considered an acceptable external link under Wikipedia policy. tv.com is not, as far as I know. Chances are good that links to tv.com should be removed. In any case, tv.com is a debateable link. In general, Wikipedia does not welcome external links. See WP:EL. --Yamla 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

it seems that the external link policy is applied inconsisently which only adds more confusion for users like myself. I do not want to be in violation of any policies. Are there any more specifics you could elaborate on? Johnny_Depp has links to Autograph collector and notstarring.com (which appears on many entries) both sites in addition to IMDb are commercial sites. Thanks in advance. 207.188.29.244 19:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, your examples for Johnny Depp are good examples of external links that should NOT be linked to. The best place to learn about external links (what's appropriate, what's not) is WP:EL. Some of it just comes from experience, though. As a general rule, editors should not add external links to an article. In rare cases (for example, an official website or an imdb link), an external link may be permitted. I agree that most articles have far to many. And there simply aren't enough people going around checking the external links to see if they are reasonable. --Yamla 20:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Alba's photo

The photo is not a good representation of Alba. She looks terrible in that photo. Do not post it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.154.49 (talk • contribs)

Please feel free to replace it with a better picture. Note, however, that only free (non-copyrighted) images are acceptable substitutes. --Yamla 18:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

AM2 reverse Hyper-Threading

thanks for deleting it while i was mearly trying to locate the source i would like to refer you to http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060622143710.html oops... added a new sub section.. i am clearly new... sry

Ay Yamla

I hear your great at pictures and I was wondering could you upload the image for me. The website link is [3]. Can you save it as whatever and upload it for me. It is the album cover of a new Lil' Kim album. Please, thanks friend Shinemygrillz 22:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC), PS I know we've never met before.

This does not seem to be an album cover. Can you please provide some evidence of this? If you can, I'll be happy to upload it for you. --Yamla 22:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind I'm thinking of the wro0ng thing, I'll find the4 actual one and give you a link. Shinemygrillz 23:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yamla I wasn't a new album cover, the message about that being should it be a album cover was only a poll. Which 52% said no. so it was cancelled. So can you upload it Im just going to make it a regular picture. Shinemygrillz 01:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Leave me a new message when you get this. Shinemygrillz 01:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but what license are you planning on using? This is a copyrighted image, we can't just use it because it is a good picture. I'm not aware of any fair-use rationale for this image. That is to say, I don't believe we can legally use this picture. --Yamla 02:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What, Why did you do that, we were talking about something else or do you want to change the subject. Shinemygrillz 17:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Check Your Facts Before You Revert

A few things I have added (such as that it was recently proven that 616, not 666 was recently shown to be the number of the beast) have been reverted with a clear explination as to why that i could see. as far as i know, everything i've added has been correct. I don't particularly mind, but it annoys me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.67.215 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:V. The information you add must be cited with a reliable source. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I am sorry you find Wikipedia policies annoying. --Yamla 00:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Assistance Request

Hey Yamla. I've seen your name rom time to time. I currently have some focus on the Billy Talent article, and I've been uneasy with the external links. Some seem to be okay, but im not sure. It seems you have a better wraparound about WP:EL than I do. If I could ask for a minute of your time, look over the external links on the Billy Talent article, and remove the ones you deem inappropriate, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Reaper X 19:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton

I heard you deleted my edits of the article on that Star Trek hating Wil Wheaton.Wil Wheaton does hate Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager.He is also known for hating The Late Show with Dave Letterman.Please revert my edits of the Wil Wheaton article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasha Yar (talk • contribs)

As has been pointed out to you, you need to provide a reliable citation. --Yamla 15:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

okay why not ask wil wheaton yourself.tell him about the uncyclopedia on wil wheatonYour Pal,Natasha Yar

Block of User:Jaysscholar

The image which seems to be the one you've blocked Jaysscholar over wasn't actually uploaded by them, they've asked to be unblocked, can you take a look into this? --pgk^(talk) 20:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:70.81.117.175

I'm glad to see that you've banned this user for a long time, but I can't help but feel an even longer block is in order. As you can see from their block log they've repeatedly been given long blocks (2 weeks, 3 weeks, 2 months, and now 3 months) and it hasn't done anything to stop this user. I've been following this user for probably 6 months now, and I've pretty much looked at every edit they have made. I have yet to find one single "good" edit that they have done. Every edit they do is about "ethnic" things, either inserting their strangely skewed demographics numbers, or en-masse inserting of ethnic categories to articles on people without providing a single source (I have a feeling they are basing their addition of these categories solely on the last name of the person). In every case Wikipedia is not better off by the edit this user has made.

In addition, it is my belief that User:70.81.117.175 and User:Alm93 are the same person. I made my case for this belief in this edit to the Wikipedia:Requests for investigation page. So if you agree with my belief then Alm93 should also be blocked. Qutezuce 07:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Demonte Morton

Hey man,

U didn't have to block me just because I got the wrong liscence on some of my pics. U should've of helped me instead of blocked me. how am I supposed to know what a photo liscence is. I'm just 13 years old. So help me next time. you've been warned for blockin' people for no reason. I told Wikipedia authority and they told me to warn you. Demonte —Preceding unsigned comment added by DL The Pimp (talk • contribs)

You are confused. I have never blocked your user account, nor have I previously left any comments for you. However, I would strongly advise you not to upload images if you are unsure what license applies. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Yamla 15:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I ain't no damn sockpuppet or whatever. I'm the real Demonte morton. I jus got a new username. Don't pull that on me Yamla. Now tell me about the right liscence for mty pics. Pleaze, thank u. Demonte —Preceding unsigned comment added by DL The Pimp (talk • contribs)

Well, I noted it as a sockpuppet because you currently have access to both accounts. As to a license, it will depend entirely on the image and on who owns the copyright and how the image was released. As a general rule, Wikipedia cannot use any images that you find online, it can only use images that you yourself take with your own camera. In some rare cases, there are exceptions, though. Do you have a specific example for me to check out? --Yamla 16:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm DLM_92. I mad a new account when I was wronly blocked because I put the wrong liscence on one of my pics. i'm just a kid. How am I supposed to know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DL The Pimp (talk • contribs)

In that case, your new account is a direct abuse and will be blocked. You are not permitted to create a new account simply to bypass a block. Particularly when the block was placed after at least 14 separate warnings. I understand that you are "just a kid" but this is not particularly relevant. You are still expected and required to follow Wikipedia policies. --Yamla 16:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Samanello

I have moved this discussion to User:Yamla/Samanello. This is in order to make it easier to find and to break it out of my rather active user talk page. I am not intending to hide this discussion. --Yamla 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Magazine pictures

thx for unblocking me. Now where do I go to figure out the correct labeling of that pic?? I asked here but noone has responded. I thought I'd asked since it seems to be your area. The pic was out of a magazine. I put promo but that seems to be wrong.

And slow down with your blocking people man. If they do something wrong, try to tell them the correct thing to do so they won't mess up in the future.--Jaysscholar 22:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We may not use magazine pictures from inside a magazine. There is no fair-use rationale. Barring exceptional circumstances, this would be a violation of copyright. --Yamla 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Really?? What do you mean "fair-use rationale"? Anybody can pick up a mag off the stand and skim through and see it so I would assume its fair-use. You may have a better understanding though. Where would I go to argue this? --Jaysscholar 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the situations are entirely different. In your example, it is debateably fair-use because at least theoretically, you are considering whether or not to buy the magazine. In the case of Wikipedia, we cannot use the image because we are not using it to depict the publication of the particular issue of the magazine (and the cover would be the appropriate image to use if we were). The magazines pay substantial amounts of money for the images that appear inside of them and they very firmly exercise their copyrights over them. We can't just go about using someone else's copyrighted material. If you are an intellectual property lawyer, I can put you in touch with Wikipedia's legal staff where you can argue the case. Otherwise, there's not really much else you can do. Wikipedia's legal staff have already ruled on this issue. --Yamla 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. The cover is fair-use to describe the issue, so could the pic be fair-use to describe the person in the image? --Jaysscholar 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Imagine there's a cover of, say, Playboy with Jennifer Aniston on it. And furthermore, this cover generates a lot of controversy. You could now use a scan of that cover in the article on Jennifer Anison but only in the section of the article that talks about the controversy. You could not use it as the first picture right at the top-right of the page, for example. But let us look at another cover. Jennifer Anison on the cover of Cosmo. No controversy, no discussion of that particular issue in the Jennnifer Aniston article. That image could NOT be used in the article, then, because it would simply be used to depict the person and that is not fair-use. --Yamla 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what about if there is a pic in a magazine and she is just simply modeling. no controversy or anything. regular modeling. can this image be used in a section describing how she has modeled in magazines, when she is mainly an actress? could the cover? could an image within the magazine? --Jaysscholar 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, such an image could not be used at all. The cover could be used if there's a specific discussion of that particular issue of the magazine. No image within the magazine could be used. --Yamla 17:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Lesliephung

Yamla, {{repeat vandal}} is to be placed on talk pages for IP addresses, not usernames. Also, isn't it a little excessive to set a first block at 72 hours? I mean, at WP:BP#Expiry_times_and_application it recommends starting at 24 hours for vandalism and disruption. Enforcing longer blocks straight away increases the possibility of the editor not returning than if the initial block had been for 24 hours. That said, your cracking down on copyright violations is extremely helpful for Wikipedia, and I admire you for taking on this often-thankless task. Extraordinary Machine 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Copyright violation

Your recent edit to Shayne Ward (album) was a copyright violation. All copyrighted images, including album covers, must have a detailed fair-use rationale and this was specifically noted in the license for the image and in the comments attached to the image. --Yamla 14:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't upload the image but I thought because it was a fair-use image it was allowed to be used on the page. I don't want the image to be deleted. What should be included in a fair-use rationale? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you check the license, it says, "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." You are specifically looking for this bit. --Yamla 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I never saw that bit before. I think fair-use rationale is what confuses/annoys people on here more than anything. One thing I've never been sure about: what is considered low resolution? Also, should I add a fair-use rationale to the images I've uploaded in the past? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what would be considered low-res. I think it mostly comes down to your own judgement. Certainly, an image which is 1280 x 1024 would not be low-res. On the other hand, 320 x 200 certainly would be. And yes, you need to add a fair-use rationale for any copyrighted images you have uploaded in the past. It is definitely a pain but the only other alternative would be to disallow use of any copyrighted images whatsoever. --Yamla 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Omarion

http://www.rnbkings.net/newsontheinside_news_slot_12.html

If you read the article I pasted above, you will see that Omarion's album has gone platinum so it should be changed on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.182.222 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:RS. This source is not reliable. The RIAA clearly state that the album only went gold. --Yamla 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My Work

I've created almost 40 articles. Is there anyway that I can receive an award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinemygrillz (talk • contribs)

There's no central award-giving authority. People will sometimes grant you an award just because they like you, or because you did particularly good work on one particular article. I have over twelve thousand edits and I am not even sure I've ever got an award, though I think I got one or two barnstars a few months ago. I'm obviously not the best person to ask about awards, then.  :) --Yamla 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whom would you recommend I talk to? --Shinemygrillz 20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure of anyone off the top of my head. --Yamla 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Link spam

Hi, I'm not experimenting. I post external links for all of my sites movies and in fact we are quoted in the 'External Links' article on Wikipedia as an acceptable site to link to. We have also been used as a reference on pages like the 'Clerks 2' Wikipedia page. We cover any celebrities who have been in any of the movies we have pages for. It seems strange that it's acceptable for me to create an external link to any movies we cover but not for an actor? I see IMDB has a link to their Tom Cruise page there...(confused)--mhanagan July 18, 2006

I see that rottentomatoes is listed in the "occasionally acceptable links" (not in the "acceptable links", as you claim). Nevertheless, my apologies. Nevertheless, WP:EL makes it quite clear that you must not go adding these links as it is to a site you control, if I read your statement correctly. --Yamla 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC

somethings wrong

Yamla take a look at this [4] It's something wrong when i'm not logged in it regular but when i log in its ifferent.

editing Chart

Lets make a weekly-changed chart of the top 50 users with the most edits. for example:

1. user://// for 500 edits 2. user:kksf for 300 edits 3. user: 432eb for 200 edits

are you in?, I already have several other users. 40 cal:Lil' Scrappie [I ain't playin] Talkin it and spittin blood That's right what you gone do know im da ultimate hustla yall aint nobody im da first king 02:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie horoscope chart

you sad commercial links, where did you understand it is a commercial link. Did you see any advertisement on this side. Did you see any ad, advert,. This side is open since 1999 and it never gets any advertisement and give free information and software.

But http://alabe.com/sf6.htm sales his programs Price: $289 and can give here a link for advertisement purposes. And you accept their link but my link has never sales any think... give free content and free software to the public since 1999. if you find any advertisement then delete it again.

Please reread WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and WP:EL. These clearly explain how your links are inappropriate, not least of all because it is a link to your site. I have not accepted any link to alabe.com, I think you are mistaken. Someone else may have done but the link would be inappropriate. --Yamla 13:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

re abi titmuss

Hi, I've been told by several administrators that it is ok to to include Screenshots from television so long as the show is discussed within the the article. The screenshot is from Celebrity Love Island, which is discussed in the article. Gungadin 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, provided the screenshot is used to illustrate the show in question. Here, it was not attached to that paragraph; instead, the image was being used to depict the person, not the show. It's a subtle distinction but I can provide more information if you wish. --Yamla 14:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok so if I attach the image to the paragraph is it then ok to keep? Gungadin 14:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be totally pedantic, the image would be okay to keep if the image was attached to the paragraph and the image was used to provide critical commentary on the show itself. It is not clear to me that this particular image helps you provide any critical commentary on the show. --Yamla 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ok I have several images from CLI including Abi, any tips on one that you think would provide critical commentry? Gungadin 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As the article talks about her weight gain during the show, I'd suggest a "before" and "after" picture from the show.  :) --Yamla 14:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I will upload an after one of her looking chunky. Is the removed one ok to use as a before shot? or would you prefer another one ? Gungadin 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks fine as a before picture. Make a note on the image page itself that you are using this as a "before" picture and that it is fair-use to illustrate her weight gain over the course of the show, specifically discussed in the article itself. Thanks! --Yamla 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Abi Titmuss

Hi Yalma, Ive done what we discussed. Does this look okay now? I havent removed the orphan notes on the first image page. Are they ok to remove now? Gungadin 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, looks good! I moved the images down to the paragraph discussing the show. Probably the images could be made to line up better with the paragraph still. But in any case, the images are, I believe, used under fair-use now. Thank you for taking the time to get this right and to please my pedantic objections. This is much appreciated. --Yamla 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for taking the time to explain it to me Gungadin 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"I have not accepted any link to alabe.com, I think you are mistaken. " Maybe you do not accept but its still an external link there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrolog (talk • contribs)

Well, it shouldn't be. --Yamla 15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tb-ab.jpg

ok, I asked in the movie discussion if anyone wants to use it. I wanted to ask you what image would you use to depict a movie star. since this was publicly on the person's official site where it also stated the copyright holder and it was low resolution I imagined it'd be fair use to use it to describe the person. I'm lost on this and the millions of discussion pages with people disagreeing about it. --fs 18:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

uhm, btw, would it be only a matter to add a more proper tag? (fair use for person depiction) --fs 19:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, image's text is clear on it now. btw, kevin spacey's main article's image i think falls in the same category (having an image for a promo of superman), even though the image itself is also on proper articles. --fs 00:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Lost fan sites

I think you need to look up commercial in the dictionary. --Peephole 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Profile

Hi, Yamla. On my discussions page for Redkane, I blanked out the discussions page. Is that okay or do the messages have to remain there permanetly? Please get back to me about it otherwise your going to think I'm a vandal... like it would be the first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redkane (talk • contribs)

You are not permitted to blank current warnings from that page. I took a look at your recent changes and they seem to be reasonable. In general, though, you should move comments and discussion to an archive page rather than just deleting them, though this is not required. --Yamla 13:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

If you Click Here you see a user rewarded me with a barnstar.Can you please check this out to see if I really have a barnstar?Thanks in advance, Peace, Cute 1 4 u 07:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can award a barnstar. It's not a formal process. If walkingencyclopedia says you have a barnstar then you do! It looks like perhaps walkingencyclopedia isn't quite sure how to get the barnstar image onto your page but you can have him or her contact me for help if necessary. --Yamla 13:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image of Ms. A. Barbeau

I added this image originally. The fair use rational is that it's the promotional photo and cover for her autobiography. It's also a well known photo that identifies her better than the other photo from imdb. Sufficient? Ghosts&empties 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I removed the image because it was missing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale. If it is the cover of her autobiography, it would presumably not be a promotional photo. it can be at most one or the other. However, assuming it is the cover of her autobiography, it would be reasonable to use it in an article about her provided that the hand-written detailed fair-use rationale makes note of the fact that it is being used to illustrate the publication of the book, not to identify Ms. Barbeau (book covers cannot be used to depict a person). --Yamla 18:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sheese. Gimme a second!! I don't do this fulltime. Ghosts&empties 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've noted the rationale in the image file. Lest this appear like an edit war, please revert the article if what I've done is OK. Ghosts&empties 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was fair use in the middle of the page, why isn't it fair use at the top of the page? The book for which is image is the cover is discussed and quated extensively throughout the article. The MoS layout that a sole image should appear top left. Ghosts&empties

In the middle of the page, an argument can be made that it is depicting the book which is fair-use. At the top, it is depicting the person, which is not fair-use for a book cover. --Yamla 17:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found a clever loophole to beat the agents of the IRS (Image Reversion Society) this time, but it's a minor victory in a war being lost at a rate of over 1000 pictures per day(which would be worth a million words at the current exchange rate.) Please, no barnstars. Obviously I do this for my own titillation, not the good of Wiki.Ghosts&empties 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Hey this is Miller Jones or Ridin' Dirty. And yesterday they you said that I was blocked or something and I didn't do anything. What was that for? I just been a contribuotr for 2 days. And they said I was blocked indefinately because of a sockpuppet or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.141.213 (talk • contribs)

Your account was confirmed to be an abusive sockpuppet of DLM 92. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLM 92. That is to say, the Wikipedia server admins have confirmed that you are editing from the same location as DLM 92 and with a pattern of behaviour that shows you are the same user. --Yamla 22:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

External Links

In response to the message you left on my talk page, I didn't create any of those fansites, nor am I advertising them. see my response at Talk: Summer Glau for my reasons for adding the links back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.132.73 (talk • contribs)

Fansites are inappropriate. The comment I left when I removed them noted they were being removed under WP:EL. You added them back regardless which is why you got the {{spam}} warning. No offence meant, just don't do it again.  :) --Yamla 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• see my response at talk:Summer Glau...
  • In case you haven't checked yet.. I added further comments at Talk:Summer Glau, which point out that Fansites are listed as "Occasionally acceptable links" according to WP:EL. see talk:Summer Glau for details. 70.17.132.73 05:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for my barnstar

Thanks so much! I really appreciate the friendly remarks. I'm also glad you like the username. When I picked it, I thought no one would get it. I guess I just hadn't watched enough Futurama. Take it easy, and keep up the good work! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tracksofth.jpg

Well, my bad bro. The tag on this image, 100px was used and had no reasoning behind it. It said there was a discussion on the discussion page but there was none. How is this vandalism? -- Diehard2k5 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I posted this on the discussion page. The rationale of the image states, 'solely to illustrate the album or single in question,'. I'd say it's location on the Tyler Hilton page does just that. So I'd assume the tag could be removed. - Diehard2k5 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I also cleaned up the page quite a bit. Since the album cover corresponds to the album in question, why did you put this tag? -- Diehard2k5 00:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you plan on responding to me, so that the tag can be removed? --Diehard2k5 | Talk 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you check the license, it says you must add a detailed fair use rationale for each use of the image. What you have written there is probably not sufficient; the license text has a link to some examples of point-form rationales that are considered good. Nevertheless, I have removed my objection because your note, "It is being used to signify the album in question..." is at least close to a detailed fair-use rationale. Sorry for not responding sooner, I was offline over the weekend. --Yamla 03:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries my friend. I should have written a better fair use rationale. Thanks though. --Diehard2k5 | Talk 04:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, sorry to bring up old stuff, but by removing the tag originally, I had no intention of vandalizing the page, so I would appreciate it if you removed that statement. Thanks! --DieHard2k5 | Talk 01:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It was good discussing things with you. --DieHard2k5 | Talk 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

New Picture

Yamla I would like you to upload this picture. --So Fresh and So Clean 01:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello I'm trying to create this article ASAP. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 15:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is copyrighted. What license are you planning on using? What is your detailed fair-use rationale? --Yamla 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

Please look at my page's talk. I notice you are an administrator. Can you please assume good faith and help me out with that image? If nothing works, can you upload the image with a proper rationale? I have no personal relation with that article and I don't want to pirate any images. Watching someone boldly deleting images when other articles have images with exactly the same (or less convincing) rationale, isn't good sight. --fs 01:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Which image are we talking about? --Yamla 03:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Thorabirch.jpg I have written a question in the image page --fs 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Lesliephung

Hi! There are even more image problems from Lesliephung (talk • contribs • logs). — getcrunk what?! 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

hi,yamla

i am a new user i started my account yesterday please leave me a message my older brother shinemygrillz told me about you--Chrisbrownwifey06 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Qho speaks to Yamla

If there are any rude remarks that I need to remove let me know and I will remove them.Sorry but this Is the last time I will say any thing to any one about this. I feel like I am being shooed away from wiki.If Iam let me know and Iwill go away. --Qho 17:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

But wouldn't that mean 95% of all actor articles on Wikipedia would have no images? That sounds like an undesirable result Mad Jack 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia policy is to have much fewer images than we currently have. Anyway, even if it produces an undesirable result, that doesn't trump Wikipedia's copyright and fair-use policies. --Yamla 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

UserTalk 89.32.1.82

hi, i regret i have to leave you a message from another pc, but i consider unfair my blocking. The fact are:

- I do not want to be abusively mentioned the country i live in within a context prone to generate further quarrels. I have deleted that comment as it was provocative and contributed to worsening of the situation. It is my right to remove any uncivil comments any other users may add. However, secodns after i deleted the comment, the block was extended. A few minutes later, Qho come back and readded the comment thus proving his unwillingness to drop the issue as he was requested. I was also request to do the same thing and after i read your last warnings i decide to completely remove that comment. I think you took a rush decision and i accuse user Qho, who is continuously reverting that edit with no other purpose but flaming the spirits, of vandalism.89.32.1.74 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You are not permitted to use another IP address to get around a block. Your block may be extended if you are caught doing this. Identifying a country of origin is not generally considered a personal attack. Additionally, you were explicitly told not to edit another user's signed comments. --Yamla 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking generally, i am talking this context (in which user Qho refers to being from FBI and has previously posted detailed personal information of mine on my user page. Furthermore in several users talk pages, such as Fenton's, he threatened to kill me if he caught me). In this context they are prone to generate further conflicts (for example, hypothesising on romanian general behaviour as he has attempted on several ohter user pages). Thus shows u haven't been listening carefully. Regarding the explicitely told thing, i repeat i have decided to remove and eplained on that page before doing so that i am compelled to accept such provocations and i will remove since i wanted to drop the issue. I regard as abusive not permitting me to REMOVE those flaming spirit contents.89.32.1.74 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide any specific evidence of Qho threatening your life, please let me know immediately. This would be a very serious matter. Just identifying your country of origin is not considered a personal attack but a death threat is. --Yamla 18:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MatthewFenton&diff=65436977&oldid=65436371 89.32.1.74 18:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) please check this

That's not a death threat, it is an expression of annoyance. Though Qho should have used a less loaded expression. He has already been warned about this, however. --Yamla 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Corelated to statements such as "i know how you are" i personally consider this provocative. Likewise the mentioning of my country, an otherwise needles fact to be mentioned. I have tried to DELETE this commnet on the line of dropping the issue yet i have been forbidden to do that although i explained my action in my last comment before being blocked. my purpose now is not to further blame user qho but to defend the deletion of his comment on my user page from the accusation of vandalism which led to my unfair blocking. 89.32.1.74 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You changed a signed comment several times. You were warned about this. You removed only part of the signed comment. You were warned about this. You did it again. You were blocked. You may consider it provocative but your actions were also provocative. I suggest you let the matter drop. When your block expires, I can show you how to archive your discussion page if you wish. I will no longer discuss this matter while you are blocked. --Yamla 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

^{I DID NOT REVERT IT. I RETYPED IT. IT IS A LOT SAFER THAT WAY. IT IS NOT FLAMING SPIRITS. IT IS JUST THAT I DO NOT CARE TO HAVE THAT DELETED BECAUSE IT IS MY COMMENT. IT IS FOR THE TRACK RECORD. IF YOU WANT IT DELETED YOU NEED TO TELL ME} --Qho 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

hello, my block has just expired and this is my first edit on other pages. well, i considered quite fit that the first edit since my blocking should be made here:) Oh, by the way, i have altered user's pilotguy comment to correct a spelling error. he said "you way want to bla bla " whilst the correct form is "you may". i found this spelling error disturbing but if you consider it inappropriate i will revert it.89.32.1.82 17:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely not permitted to alter another user's signed comments, even to correct a spelling mistake. If it bothers you, let that user know and have him or her correct the problem. That said, my opinion is that the spirit of this policy is not being violated in this case. --Yamla 18:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

user pilotguy issued a warning based only on the fact that he considers a comment of mine to be rude and disrepectful. unless he could solidly argue his opinion i will consider his warning unwarranted.89.32.1.82 18:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Johansson

Is this picture OK? [5] From the Russian Wikipedia. It says it's a promotional image (which I believe we can use) Mad Jack 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, I cannot read Russian. Does it have its source identified? It looks like it may be an image from inside a magazine, in which case it may not be used at all. If it is a promotional image, it may be used to illustrate what it is promoting. For example, a promotional image for a movie may be used to illustrate that movie but not solely to depict the person. --Yamla 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

the ostream edit in the C++ article

Just out of curiosity, do you have a link so I could have a look at the standard, because I've looked at the iostream header on my computer and ostream and istream are included. --Yankees26

Jack Jack image

Will ya give me a second here? Don't spam my talk page please. The image is now tagged with the same disney tag as all the other incredibles characters. It came from the same place.--SweetNeo85 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Rationale of Image:Lluthor.jpg

Hello Yamla, I noticed that Image:Lluthor.jpg has a detailed rationale for use on the actor's article. Is it sufficient if one bases similar uploads on such a rationale? --fs 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Copy-righted artice

If you look at the aritle, Hi-Jinks [in the section of episodes], you can see the episode's plots are copy-righted from This site.Just wanted to alert you.Have a good day--Cute 1 4 u 11:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you know anything about TV.com, you'll know that it's user submitted, just as WikiPedia is. So the stuff on there is not copywrited in any way. --DieHard2k5 | Talk 16:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are confused. The original writers would own the copyright and, according to this page, grant CNET Networks a license to republish. But the content is protected by copyright. --Yamla 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. So basically if you submit a summary or anything to there, they now own the copyright, and you can't use it anywhere else? --DieHard2k5 | Talk 19:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No. For that site, the original uploader still owns the copyright, they just license the text (or whatever) to CNET Networks. That gives CNET the right to reproduce it for free, etc. etc., but you can still use it yourself elsewhere. So for tv.com, if the person who uploaded the text to tv.com also uploaded it to Wikipedia, there'd be no problem. But neither you nor I may use the text from tv.com here unless we are the original authors. --Yamla 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Okay. I understand now. Thanks! --DieHard2k5 | Talk 19:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing Wishes

Qho wishes you a happy editing day!!

Ciara

Were you the one that removed Ciara's And I single cover because it is gone and for what reach if you did it? Charmed36 25 July 2006

Yes. The image was orphaned. However, the fundamental problem was that the image was missing the detailed fair-use rationale required by the license. All copyrighted images require a source (which identifies the copyright holder), an accurate license, and a detailed fair-use rationale for every use of the image on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How?

How do you redirect a page. Like at the top it says redirected from ..... How do you do that. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Can't Nobody Step To Me (talk • contribs)

Simply use a #REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]] command. --DieHard2k5 | Talk 01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Are You

Yamla Are You heterosexual, gay, or bisexual? --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 01:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats quite a rude thing to ask. --DieHard2k5 | Talk 02:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

While I can understand the question, I am choosing not to answer. If you take a look, I try very hard not to express much about myself here. I try to refrain from discussing politics and religion, for example. My hope is that this means I can as easily edit an article on, say, homosexuality as I could on hetrosexuality. Or I could edit an article on any particular Canadian politician without people accusing me of bias. I may still be biased, of course, but if so, the accusation should come from the edit itself, not from my stated viewpoints. One more thing to note. You (Can't Nobody Step To me/So Fresh and So Clean) are not yet an adult if memory serves. As such, it is potentially dangerous to you to engage in discussions of sexuality with other people here. There are people here who may pretend (even for weeks or months) to be your friend simply in an attempt to cause harm to you. I'm not trying to lecture you, I'm sure you are quite capable of taking care of yourself. But just as I would lock my car, you may want to keep from getting too personal on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 03:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Morisson/Dr. Allison Cameron

What's the problem with using the images found at http://www.fox.com/house/bios/. You deleted the image used in the Morisson/Cameron articles, yet when I showed you the articles for Lisa Cuddy, Lisa Edelstein, Gregory House, Eric Foreman, etc which all use images from the same website you didn't reply. --Chad Hennings 05:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As noted on the image page itself, the image is promotional and thus can probably only be used to depict the character, not the actress. Additionally, the image license requires a detailed fair-use rationale for each use which has so far not been provided (iirc). As to the other pictures, please note that I have 3065 pages on my watchlist. However, I don't have every page on the Wikipedia on my watchlist so some will inevitably slip through. I encourage you to ensure these images you discuss also are licensed properly and have detailed fair-use rationales. --Yamla 14:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi, i am Adrienna Dallas. You've blocked me when it wasn't my fault, it was my friends fault, remember me? What can we do to expand Amanda Michalka?

Can U

Can U fix up my userpage. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 20:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning Question

I just issued a 4th level warning for vandalism to User:68.4.18.69. While the user only had two previous vandalism warning tags, other users had left warnings in their own words, so I figured despite the lack of a tag, those should count. Furthermore (this is the reason I'm writing you specifically), you yourself already temporarily banned this user for blatant copyright violations. Do warnings need to be the official tags to count? Should I have delivered a 3rd level warning in this case? I just want to make sure I was doing this according to protocol. Thanks so much for your help! --Chuchunezumi 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, hand-written warnings definitely count. Furthermore, even without hand-written warnings, you are allowed to skip the templates (e.g. go from test-n to test3-n) if the vandalism is bad. --Yamla 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I wish I had known...this person's defacement was pretty extreme, so I would have referred had I known.--Chuchunezumi 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:HilaryDuff.jpg

Excuse me, I seemed to have made a huge mistake. Anyways, I reupped a usable picture (for HilaryDuff.jpg[[6]]), sorry for the trouble. (I hope this one is fine =p) -- Dr.Chopper 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading a different image. Unfortunately, while it is true that this new image is licensed under the CC, it is licensed only for "non-commercial use". Check the little license icon to verify this. This unfortunately makes the image unusable on Wikipedia (or at least, that's what the license text said when I changed it). Copyrighted images are a big pain in the behind, let me tell you, but thanks for your efforts in this regard. They are much appreciated. --Yamla 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Something's gotta give

Wikipedia's interpretation of fair use of images is too strict by far. The current system of self-appointed copy-vio vigilantes obliterating images is unproductive, inconsistent and annoying, even for the vigilantes themselves. I realize that writing to you about this problem is like asking President Bush to ease up on those nice boys in Gitmo, but pictures are an invaluable tool in a good encyclopedia and some members of the Wikipedia community have chosen to frustrate others efforts in making these improvements.

Case in point: Bianca Beauchamp. If the recently deleted picture of her was a copyvio, than there are a thousand other cover models whose smiling faces should be similarly expunged and a thousand more who will not be added because of the liklihood that they will be similarly summarily censored. Although these issues often arise regarding trivial celebrities, many invaluable photos on important topics are similarly being omitted from Wikipedia unnecessarily.

Could Wikimania be the beginning of a solution to this predicament? Start with the goal of increhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&action=edit&oldid=66161353asing the number and quality of pix and lower the barriers to get to this goal. Identify what the true legal concerns are, so that we can be less scrupulous and more informative in our use of images. A few level headed image administrators who balance a thorough knowledge of fair use with a the above goal would be preferable to the decentralized multitude of self-appointed free use image executioners. Put your heads together; it doesn't have to be this difficult. Thanks Ghosts&empties 02:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not see the image on the article about Bianca Beauchamp. I understand your point that I am unlikely to be neutral on this topic. However, I will point out that Wikipedia is in serious danger of being shut down due to the number of copyrighted images we freely allow (and oftentimes, encourage and look the other way about). Now, we are lucky in that the foundation is likely to get a takedown notice first as it is based in the U.S., and that is easy to comply with. However, the odds are that hours or days after the copyrighted image is taken down, someone else will upload it. I really don't think lowering the barriers is the right approach (though obviously, I am biased). I suspect it may actually make more sense to say, "no copyrighted images whatsoever". Or perhaps, no copyrighted images not licensed under the creative commons or GFDL or something. That would certainly be easier to follow than the current restrictions, though I have had several people get quite confused as to what is protected by copyright. I've heard claim, for example, that anything published on the Internet is not copyrighted which is clearly false. Anyway, I know you and I are on opposite sides of this debate but please believe that I understand your frustrations and agree that the current situation is probably unworkable. --Yamla 03:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Preventing the reposting of images after a takedown notice would seem similar to the very effective mechanisms WP has developed for policing vandalism.

The barriers I was speaking of are the frustration and wasted time caused by the scrupulous interpretation of fair use that inhibit new images. For example, deletion of an image at the top of a page that had been approved by the same copyright cop in the middle of the page (See Adrienne Barbeau). The only thing worse than the scrupulous self-imposed enforcement of a law that has no serious consequences most of the time is an interpretation that is both scrupulous and inconsistent.

One simple change I would suggest is that if an image is acceptable for one article, it's acceptable for any article. As is, wikipedians circumvent WP image policies by linking to other articles with the image. In theory this could result in the use of President Bush's photo on the "mental retardation" article, but other WP moderating processes would prevent this.

Is the risk that "Wikipedia is in serious danger of being shut down due to the number of copyrighted images" imagined or real? Yes, Wikipedia is high profile, but many websites in the top 250 include copyrighted images that WP would not tolerate. As you mentioned, you are biaed on this issue, so I'd appreciate if you'd raise it with fair use liberals and conservatives now and at Wikimania. Several sessions there address identifying legal liability. ThanksGhosts&empties 14:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Mena Suvari

One image is used to illustrate the subject of the article, the other is used to illustrate on of her more significant roles, as there should be at least one image illustrating one of the roles she's been in. At least keep the first one. --DrBat 14:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Any copyrighted image must have a detailed fair-use rationale justifying its use. Additionally, Image:Menasuvari.jpg may only be used to depict her character in American Beauty (if the source is correct), not solely to depict the actress. --Yamla 14:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a promotional photo of the actress for the movie. There's nothing to show that she's the character in that photo, its just a picture of her posing. --DrBat 14:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it still needs the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 14:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Stop being an annoying fag! You are one of those people who has to butt there head in and bother people. I wish you would not do that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpolster2005 (talk • contribs)

Personal Attack II

Hello. My name is Mubote. Registered user 92 (talk · contribs) is my good friend and neighbour. He has uploaded many images, with most of them being deleted by you because you assume their copyright statuses are not valid. The only problem is, even after you warned him, after he changed the status to a fair use one, you still deleted them. Though the above message is inappropriate and unpleasant, I am sorry to say that it is true. Thank you for your patience. Have a lovely day. PS. I'm not attacking you, I just thought that the title above was funny. Also, you said on, Image:Byrds-NotoriousByrdBrothers.jpg, "Please talk to the Wikipedia Lawyers," or something. I would like to talk to the wikipedia lawyers. My client, Registered user 92, has been blocked unfairly and is very hurt. I thank you again. --Adam Wang 20:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of your legal threat, you have been blocked indefinitely. This is not a punitive measure against you but it is Wikipedia policy (see WP:LEGAL) that you not make any further edits until your legal action is complete. I believe WP:LEGAL will give you all the information you need. Thank you. --Yamla 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

detailed fair-use rationale

I made the mistake several times of tagging images with {{no rationale}} when they were using a fair-use tag such as {{tv-screenshot}} or {{albumcover}} before I realized that {{no rationale}} only pertained to images tagged with {{fair use}} or {{Non-free fair use in}}. I brought up the subject here (Template talk:No rationale) and here (Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#i6) and was hoping you would weigh in on my thoughts. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you popular? I hadn't realized you were so inundated with messages; I just wanted to see if you'd had the oppertunity to look at these. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add nonsense

I add a true information on Aly & AJ arcticle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewonka (talk • contribs)

On Aly & AJ official website contains the sales number update of every week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewonka (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:V. The criteria to add information to the Wikipedia is that it must be verifiable, not true. The information you added was cited for the old numbers, not for your changes, but you left the citation in place which implied that your numbers were deliberately wrong. This is easy to fix. When you next add the sales figures to the article, make sure you cite your figures. Thanks. --Yamla 13:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Eating Manatees

You said my stuff on eating manatees was copied or something... i wrote everything myself. I am sure that the one image i borrowed was not copyrighted, and i made the other one myself. I think it's fair if i'm allowed to repost the article. If you have found some areas of copyrighted text, tell me and i'll get rid of it. --Adam Wang 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant now, the article has been deleted twice. You are not permitted to recreate it. However, I did find at least some of the text was directly copied from other websites. I noted which website in the copyvio notice on the article itself. --Yamla 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia about you!

Thanks for unblockcing me! You seem pretty friendly and I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and I want to make new friends. I'd like to know more about you, you can respond to me on my user page about this! Bye and thanks again. (I will be moving to Canada! Near Winipeg! That's something I'll let you know, bye.)-- Adrienna, leave a message! 12:59 July 28 2006 (UTC)

User talk: 89.32.1.82

I think I was submitting my message on the talk page whilst you were leaving yours and I ended up deleting it by mistake. My apologies...I'm not sure what I should do to correct it.

i don't mind.89.32.1.82 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry and yes mamm

Sorry just playing around. To see what I found on an odd userpage Go to mine. --Qho 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ashley Judd link

Would like to discuss link issue in Ashley Judd article. x 01:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:129.116.46.92

While I have and continue to defend the usage of IEC binary prefixes here on Wikipedia, I think you really jumped the gun in accusing User:129.116.46.92 of vandalism and subsequently blocking him. He seemed to have noble intentions, even if he was somewhat misinformed. I think he should have at least been directed to WP:MOSNUM and given the chance to read why we endorse IEC prefixes and raise his concerns on the talk page there.

As much as it annoys me at times to defend IEC prefixes against the same tired arguments ("the prefixes sound funny" and "nobody uses them"), we should give people the chance to try. Especially people who, despite some arrogance, seem to have altruistic motive. Can you please reverse the block on this IP and give him the chance to look over MOSNUM? Thanks! -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-29 01:05Z

Ashley Judd link

As far as I can see, in the WP:EL article the link I provided falls under these two items:
What should be linked to
Point 5
Occasionally acceptable links
Point 3
Can I get an explanation how it is otherwise, besides the strawmen? Thanks. x 01:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The link I provided was to a fan site that is a main source of information for Judd.
In a minor way it fits into the What should be linked to Point 5 requirement:
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

But it definitely falls under Occasionally acceptable links Point 3 requirement:
Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)

This link was not provided for commercial reasons, but because the site is almost a defacto source for her fans. It has much more validity than some of the other links provided.x 01:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

However, I am in complete agreement with the concern of Wikipedia being abused as a billboard or soapbox. No argument there.x 01:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Should be Linked To, point 5. This does not apply to fansites. It is most definitely not neutral, being a fansite and even if it was neutral, it's a fansite so the more specific rule applies. As to the occasionally acceptable links, you have to establish that there are many fansites, you have to establish why linking to a fansite directory is inappropriate, and you'd have to justify why this particular site is the major fansite, more appropriate than the others. None of this has been established. Now, you state in the comments above that this is indeed the major fansite of most of her fans. If you can provide some reliable evidence (see WP:CITE and WP:RS), the link could be appropriate provided it is marked as such. Such a justification would typically take place on the article's discussion page. It is entirely possible that you will be able to justify the inclusion of this particular fansite (though I am certainly not yet convinced... in any case you need to convince the other editors, not primarily me), but please note that in general, fansites are not appropriate on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 02:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Joel Madden image.

Thanks for pointing that out! I've uploaded a new one, and wanted to ask you if that one was ok? I've also made pages for every single from Good Charlotte, but those are stubs...

Exit to Eden

OK, let me look into the Judd links thing a bit. ITMT, what is the policy for the external links provided at Exit To Eden (film), as one of those seems even less applicable? Unless the policies are completely wierd.

Well, there were only two links on that page when I got there. I removed the link to the site distributing parts of the copyrighted movie and left the link to imdb in place. Links to imdb are specifically listed in WP:EL as acceptable. --Yamla 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. But of course it's been put back. Did you guys settle on something?x 04:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please enlighten me

I noticed you removed the cover-art for Paris Hilton's album from Paris Hilton, and I'm not sure why.

The image was in place to illustrate information on the album, it had it's fair-use rationale, it doesn't really violate anything as far as I can see. The infobox seems a little bit empty without it, and I'd like to see it restored, but obviously it was removed for a good reason. What am I missing here?

Cheers,

Celebrity-Benji 13:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem with it being used on the Paris Hilton article but the fair-use rationale should specifically state which articles it was being used for. I probably removed that particular image in my sleep (or was feeling exceptionally pedantic that day), mind you. --Yamla 14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Exit To Eden

Would you rather I posted the screen captures themselves and claimed fair use? As they keep telling me here, "Wikipedia doesn't censor". And that site has no popups, so it's non-intrusive. As far as "adding nothing" to the movie... have you ever seen it? 0 + 0 is still 0. Wahkeenah 15:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the screen captures on that commercial site add anything to the article, nor do I believe that site is following fair-use. Wikipedia policy is not to link to sites violating copyright. I have no objection to nudity, I just object to linking to that particular commercial site. --Yamla 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Define the practical difference between what they are doing, and what many articles do here when they post screenshots. And don't give me the "commerical site" argument again. It's a totally free site. You're not compelled to buy anything. Besides which, other commercial sites are on here. Consider the hassle I got into for posting your same argument in reference to the Greensboro Massacre#Video article where this guy was trying to push his own video... ("Greensboro's Child") and he won the argument, somehow. Oddly enough, I get a warning message when I connect to it. Not so with this site you're griping about. Also, I have no connection or personal interest in that site, it's just one I ran across someplace. It's a useful resource and it doesn't cost a dime. Wahkeenah 15:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The practical difference is that Wikipedia officially tries to determine which of the images are fair-use and has a strict policy about it which gets enforced when we find a violation.. Just because many articles here use images in violation of Wikipedia's policies does not mean that we should condone this. Additionally, external links are generally not appropriate and rather than justifying why one is not appropriate, we should really be considering whether that link is appropriate under WP:EL. --Yamla 15:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So that guy gets to post his own commercial site and that's just fine, whereas if I cite a commercial site that I have no interest in, there's a problem with it. Is that about it? Wahkeenah 16:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't compare one to the other. Just look at this particular site. On what basis (according to WP:EL) do you consider this an appropriate link? And what efforts have you made to ensure that the site is not committing copyright infringement, as seems to be the case and which would make Wikipedia liable as well? --Yamla 16:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough already. There's a double-standard here. So what else is new? Do you intend to check every last link on this pretentious weblog and determine which ones are violating copyright? Not bloody likely. You just don't like this specific site. Fine. You win. Wahkeenah 16:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have 3,153 pages currently on my watchlist. I check every one of them to make sure they are not violating copyright. Unfortunately, this is only a small fraction of the total article count on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 16:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Good enough. Now leave me alone. Wahkeenah 16:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Request Image

Where do I request images?Happy editing, --Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Tag

I don't know which copyright tag to chose for Image:ShortyMcShort.jpg.--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 03:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

_{I am getting bounced around}

_{by the help and reference desks all about this map}

_{I feel like shunning them but I cant if I want a possible awnser.}

_{All I want is to upload this image and make it smaller.}

_{You dont have to do it for me Just walk me through it.}

_{Because I tried to do as the turtrial shows me to but It does not work.}

_{More Info: It says bad title or stays blue then states that such and such isnt to be found.}

_{I have recently been working on Cavendish, Suffolk}

_{Also the matter has been dropped so I wont get any other awnser from them.}

_{--Qho·^(talk)·(contribs) 15:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)}

_{As the old saying goes give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, Teach a man to fish and he'll be fed a lifetime.}

Hello. Are you starting at Special:Upload? Have you checked out Wikipedia:Uploading images? For the source filename, you'd click on the icon to the right of the Source filename and choose the file from your computer to upload. For the destination filename, you'd choose an appropriate name for Wikipedia to call it. The key point is that the file must exist on your computer. Does that help at all? --Yamla 22:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been attacked

Dear Mr. Yamla,

in my user page, someone added preteen wikipedians, and changed favourite to favorite and who knows what else, can you block this vandal? OI ammm already way past 13 years of age! Help me... eh?71.231.130.56 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)User:Bethicalyna 12:44 in Edmonton July 30

Thanks Mr. Yamla!

Frends

HI! I am Lindsay from Croatia! I vvant to make frends on vvikipedia I hope you be happy too be one of them! --User:Lindsay1980, please leave a message! 20:20, July 30 2006, (UTC)

Where does it say that?

You've repeatedly insisted that the free image of Jessica Albe must be used when there is a free image present, no matter how crappy the quality. I was reading through the copyright policies and all that, and couldn't find that particular policy mentioned anywhere. I am not trying to imply that you don't know what you're talking about. Really. I just wondered where I could find this rule so that I can better educate myself on these policies. By the way, I'm currently working on getting my picture released to the public domain, because it's not really being used anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetNeo85 (talk • contribs)

Check out WP:FAIR. The policy section, first point, "No free equivalent is available or could be created". Now, you may argue that the other image is so low quality as to not give the same information which is possibly true, but note that a free photograph could still be taken. In any case, we fail the first point. --Yamla 22:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dec 2005 Cover Interview Magazine.gif

You recently removed both instances of Image:Dec 2005 Cover Interview Magazine.gif (it was used on Interview (magazine) for several months; I added it to Reese Witherspoon today because someone else removed all the other images of her). You also tagged the image as "Orphaned fairuse."

When I uploaded the image back in December 2005, it was permissible to use magazine covers:

1. to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine (as was the case in the Interview article)
2. with the publication name either visible on the image itself (as was the case in both articles, as you can see from looking at the image)

What has changed in the interim that these images are no longer fair use? Thank you, --M@rēino 18:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The image was not being used in either case to depict the publication of that particular issue. In the article on Reese Witherspoon, it was being used solely to depict the person. In Interview (magazine), it was being used to illustrate the magazine generally, not the specific issue in question, though this point is a particularly subtle one. --Yamla 18:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• You say "The image was not being used in either case to depict the publication of that particular issue", but

1. That's not the law in the United States (at least that's not how I learned it in law school). Could you cite a case to me? Under the Copyright Act of 1976, it's fair use if either it depicts the publication or it displays the source while being used for education, therefore not diminishing resale value.
2. On the Interview article, the Reese Witherspoon cover was being used to illustrate that particular issue. The caption read, "Interview's December 2005 cover". --M@rēino 19:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on copyrighted images is stricter than U.S. Copyright Law. We do not permit use of copyrighted images, no matter what the fair-use rationale, in User space, for example. And I understand what you are saying about Reese Witherspoon but I disagree. Although you added a caption to the image, it was being used to depict Ms. Witherspoon. An example of a magazine cover used to illustrate the publication of the issue in question is the Vanity Fair cover in the article on Tom Ford. Note how the article makes specific mention of that issue of the magazine; there's a whole paragraph specifically discussing the magazine cover. --Yamla 19:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK, if Wikipedia is now using the fair-use policy not out of fear of being sued but for some other reason, that's no longer my business as a lawyer, that's your business as an admin, and I'll cede that to you (although we should really change the text of WP:FAIR to reflect that; right now it looks like we track copyright law). My big concern is that from the way that you're describing this policy, it shouldn't be possible to take an arbitrary magazine cover and slap it on to the article describing that magazine. Yet that's exactly what we have had at, say, Time (magazine), Life (magazine), Fortune (magazine), etc., etc., for as long as I can remember. I am posting a comment on the WP:FAIR talk page to highlight this concern. --M@rēino 19:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Correction; I posted it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Fair_use_and_magazines. I left out your name since I see you're being flamed by some ppl whose images you removed, but if you want to comment, you're of course welcome. --M@rēino 19:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

.

I'm less magnanimous in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Fair_use_and_magazines about your deleting magazine covers (such as Stuff and Blender (magazine)) because as I've stated in the past, I believe your interpretation of fair-use is far too scrupulous. Wikipedians who make an effort to improve wikipedia's visual images should be encouraged and educated, not shot down.Ghosts&empties 23:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Dam!ta 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yamla,

You declined on Neve Campbell's page my substitution of "yoga instructor" for "psychiatrist", in the description of Neve's mother, Marnie, asking for a cite. I defy you to produce a credible cite for Marnie being trained as a psychiatrist. Or for that matter, a psychologist. The cruise ship line for whom she occasionally works as a yoga instructor describes her at http://www.cruisemates.com/articles/news/march2002.cfm as having two degrees, one of which is in "counselling psychology", n.b. not psychiatry, and whether this is actually a degree (as opposed to a diploma or certificate) from an accredited institution is not stated. Although she resides in British Columbia, Canada she is not registered as a psychogist with that province's College of Psychologists (http://www.collegeofpsychologists.bc.ca/registrants/find.cfm), nor with the College of Physicians and Surgeons (as would be the case were she a qualified psychiatrist)

Ok....

If you say so....I do't know why you're on the case of this particular picture......but ohh well.--Toosmart215 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Unblocking Me

Thanks. I was definitely not trying to vandalize Wikipedia or intentionally break the policies... in a way, if you understand what I mean. I did, but didn't mean to in the way a vandal does. But, nevertheless, just to clarify: I promise to refrain from vandalization in the future. Thanks again for unblocking me. aido2002 23:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Help

Hi, once again, I just created Template:User encyclopedia-dictionary, but no longer need it. Could you please delete it? Thanks a lot. aido2002 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I thoguht that went through, but apparently not.aido2002 23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Mana.ustad

I asked you this above after you blocked Lesliephung (talk · contribs), but you didn't reply. At WP:BP#Expiry_times_and_application "For static IPs, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, and should increase gradually upon resumption of vandalism; eventually repeat violators may be blocked indefinitely, but such blocks should be issued with discretion. Logged-in users that repeatedly vandalise may also be blocked for the same time periods." I think it's rather excessive to jump from 24 hours to a week, particularly as uploading images without the necessary copyright info isn't blatant vandalism in most cases. Enforcing longer blocks straight away increases the possibility of the editor not returning than if the second block had been for 48 hours. Would you mind if I changed the block on Mana.ustad (talk · contribs) to 48 hours? (Or you can do it yourself, if you'd prefer.) Extraordinary Machine 14:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the user had been uploading images stating that they were licensed under the GFDL. This was after numerous warnings. It seems that the user decided that the best approach was to falsely license the images rather than just leave the information blank. However, it could have been a mistake. I have shortened the block to 48 hours. Thank you for calling me on this. I don't always respond to your comments on my discussion page but I always take them into serious consideration. --Yamla 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, and thank you too. Also, I meant what I said previously about how cleaning up after image copyright violations can be such a thankless task; that's part of the reason why I don't do so much of it. So, here's a token of appreciation for all the work that you've been doing. Extraordinary Machine 14:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiwikiwhack

Just thought I'd let you know that Colbert-troll Wikiwikiwhack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is back as Wikiwillywoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), his IP is 70.246.148.150 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Buster Keaton Image

What was the problem with the rationale that I added, it was detailed, it gave proper reasons why the image should be able to be used. It is clearly used to promote the navigator, he's wearing the same navy uniform that he wears in the film. I'm reverting your changes until you give me a good reason why it's wrong. 75pickup (talk · contribs)

Your fair-use rationale did nothing of the sort. The image isn't even being used in an article about the film. It looked like you just copied the fair-use rationale from an unrelated image. --Yamla 01:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Than what would be an appropriate fair-use rationale, because what's in there seems to cover it. 75pickup (talk · contribs)

For the Buster Keaton image, Image:BusterKeaton.jpg, the license requires that you establish the image came from a press kit (or similar). It is not at all clear that this is the case, in which case the license would be incorrect. But once you've established that, you then would point out that there are no free images available as far as you know (if there are, we can't use a copyrighted image) and as the subject is dead (I think), none are likely to be forthcoming. Then note that you are using the image in the article on Buster Keaton solely to depict what he looked like. The license text itself has some links which provide additional information. Quite frankly, copyrighted images are a pain in the behind for the uploader to justify. --Yamla 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cream Image

I saw that you removed it from the Cream page. What should I write in the rationale that will make it available for use?75pickup (talk · contribs)

Please see my previous comments and the license text to understand fair-use rationales. --Yamla 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Copyvio

Hello.

I was trying to assist in the image issue with the Shannen Doherty article. I thought correcting the link and fair use tag would have indicated better rationale.

Obviously the rationale for the image is to to illustrate the object in question, namely Shannen Doherty. As to whom the Copyright holder is, that I don't know. Hopefully the Image uploader can respond, and correct that.

Thanks --Joe Christl 21:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Unfortunately, it is not enough. We can't use the image without a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale and we can't provide that without knowing who owns the copyright. For example, if the image is from the inside of a magazine, it would be strictly against Wikipedia's policies to use the image at all. --Yamla 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I contacted the uploader, but felt that they wouldn't react swiftly enough. I have located the copyright information regarding the Image:Shannendoherty.JPG file:

2001 Copyright "Yariv Milchan" OR
Shannen Doherty during a photoshoot with Yariv Milchan in 2001

I feel one of these tags may suffice, but would like to run this by you first.

{{Promotional}}
{{Promophoto}}

Thanks

Unfortunately, we also need evidence that this was specifically released as part of a promotional (or press) kit. Otherwise, it could, for example, just be part of a photoshoot used for a magazine and then we wouldn't be able to use the image. --Yamla 22:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You Said: "Unfortunately, we also need evidence that this was specifically released as part of a promotional (or press) kit. Otherwise, it could, for example, just be part of a photoshoot used for a magazine and then we wouldn't be able to use the image."

It looks like it was for 'In Style' Magazine, back in 2001. It's therefore no good. BTW, where's the information regarding 'No Magazine Usage'? Anyway, I guess it should be nominated for 'deletion' --Joe Christl 01:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you deleted it already. I had added an entry to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#August_5 asking for it to be deleted. Should I leave that there, or remove it? What about the Image_talk:Shannendoherty.JPG page? --Joe Christl 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"current" warning

wtf makes a warning "current"? And if I've blanked it, can't you realize I've read it? Who else is it here for? Should I show it to my mom? Relax, dude. I'd think your warning me for chiding a vandal was dick enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.133.90 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:NPA. The warnings are there for other users who may have to revert further vandalism from your IP as well as for you as a note that your behaviour is unacceptable. --Yamla 22:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Upload 4 me

Dear Yamla,

Could you please upload a picture for a picture to be on Amanda Michalka's article? It would

majorly increase it's quality. --User:Lindsay1980 02:06 August 4 2006 (UTC)

If you can find an image which is not copyrighted, I would be happy to do so. This is going to be very difficult, though, as almost all images will be copyrighted. --Yamla 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eating Manatess

Eating Manatees on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eating Manatees. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. I can remake. Tell me if i copy vio. --Adam Wang 03:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarah McLachlan site

The site isn't mine, it is one I found. I wanted to prove where I had gotten information on the topic's discussion page so no one thought I was posting something false. I added the site to the external links because it had detail some viewers would like to read. If there's a better way to add the site please tell me...thank you.

I did not close the discussion or speedy-delete that article. I strongly advise not recreating the article, though, unless you can provide specific citations for each part (see WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:V). Note that it will be your responsibility to prove that it is not a joke article. --Yamla 13:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pickup75/Registered user 92 & image problems

You know much more than me about images and have had previous dealings with this person. Please check out the history of Dennis Wilson with regards to the image there. Thanks—WAvegetarian•(talk) 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

WestJet sent me a personal attack (I think).It's on his talkpage.--Raven Symone 03:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that. I thought that selecting the magazine cover option would suffice. My bad. Yrymar 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations. You've recently marked a possibly good faith edit as vandalism, and, moreover, used level 4 template instead of level one, which was the only one appropriate. This was done based on the pattern of the previous edits rather than the edit itself, which means acting before thinking. Just a thing to think about, and thanks for participation. However, if there are other reasons, please respond here. 72.29.100.10 16:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Allison_cameron.jpg

I changed the licensing tag and added a fair use rationale for Image:Allison cameron.jpg, as requested. The metadata for the image indicates that the photo was taken by NBC Universal Studio (owners of USA Network) for the express purpose of displaying the actress as the character, which is the intended use of the picture. --Mongoose22 18:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Did I do it right?

I know it did ;)Dam!ta 19:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[7]

Uploading

Can you upload the images on this site (scroll down to see the images) ? I want to put it on the [[Dav Pilkey article.. I know it's copyrighted but if you can find a legal way to get them, I'll be happier.----Always Gotta Keep It Real, Cute 1 4 u 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Can you find a picture for T.I.?? 68.154.17.39 17:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sailor Moon 01.jpg

Excuse me, but you need to provide justification for your belief that this image is not fair use. Besides, this image is part of a larger set, and it's bad form to delete an image from a larger set. --  Denelson83  20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I did. Noted on the image page is the fact that the image is missing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale. Please feel free to remove other images from the set that are similarly being used in violation of Wikipedia's fair-use policy. Thanks. --Yamla 20:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Copyvio image

Oh, okay. That's alright. I'll check the copyright next time. I forget that often. I'll replace with an already uploaded, uncopyrighted picture or upload one of my own. Thank you for removing it, happy reverting and editing. Good day. --Lindsay1980 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Yamla

I have a picture you can upload for my userpage. Look up Destiny Cyrus @ google.com, then go to images. CLick on the image and please upload it for me so I can put it on my userpage with out it being removed, and this is no threat to me or you I hope. --Lindsay1980 03:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, all of those images are copyrighted. --Yamla 03:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. Could you upload any picture with Miley Cyrus as a teenager with straight or wavy hair? AT least try and titl it: "Lindsay1980" and if you can thanks a bunch. I will remove the chats if requested to be private. —User:Lindsay1980 04:15 7, August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't do that. Virtually all images on the Internet are copyrighted and I'm not in a position to be taking my own pictures of these people.  :( --Yamla 04:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pleiotropy article

Can you please link the word 'pleiotrophy' to 'pleiotropy'? The word 'pleiotrophy' does not exist, but it is a common misspelling. Thanks. --Delos 06:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, sorry for the delay. --Yamla 14:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

RFA for Abu badali

Hi, Yamla. I would greatly appreciate to hear your input on my my RFA. As we seem to have a common interest on image use policy, I think may have an insightful opinion on either I could become an helpful Admin. Thanks in advance, --Abu Badali 04:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

leave me alone

what you are saying is dangerous i take it as an insult to all young people of marginal lifestyles. Why can't they talk about sex and pornography; dont you know all young women these days love to act like trashy sluts? And I like it too~!Brohanska 05:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolling?

What is? Why do you enjoy poking fun at me its because i stand up for peoples human rights, derechos humanos!Brohanska 05:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Request action to be taken

Hi. Yamla. This user 203.14.53.15 (Josh Taylor) has been originally comming to Wikipedia to vandal under the IP address (203.14.53.15) and also 203.14.53.15 (a college subnet) and has constantly accused me for being an invidivual I'm not. I have never met Josh in person, nor have I ever spoken to him before and I only wish for peace here at Wikipedia and for this person to stop vandelising my pages and falsely accusing me. I please ask that you please take this further. --Redkane 11:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Deception?

Hi, Yamla, I seek your advise concerning User:Raspratheepraj. Besides having uploaded various pictures without correct copyright status, he also added URLs to actor pages. These pages claim to be the actor's "Official Fan Websites" and all of them are designed by the same company, VGOnline. I went to this website, clicked on portfolio and stumbled over a website for actor Surya - this site claims it's his "Official Fan Website", but I know for sure that this is Suryas official website. I strongly suspect that all the other "Official Fan Websites" are not affiliated with the corresponding actors and actresses in any way and that User:Raspratheepraj is affiliated with VGOnline and tries to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote his company. However, the only proof I have is Surya and his "real" website and the fact that whenever an actor opens a Official Site about him/herself, you can usually read about in the net or on B/T/Kollywood-themed newsites. I don't know what to do now, since I have never dealt with anything similar. Can you help? Best regards, --Plumcouch 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Upload

I have an Image but I am not sure if it is copyrighted. It is for Alyson Michalka. this is the image{Lindsay1980. 19:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)}

All images are copyrighted except in very rare cases. While I cannot say for sure that that image is copyrighted, this is almost certainly the case. In other words, if you find an image on the Internet, please assume it is copyrighted and cannot be used on the Wikipedia unless you have specific reason to believe otherwise. --Yamla 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Aw. I can't find any images otherwise. I guess I'll just ask someone who knows Alyson. And maybe they'll take a picture of her for the article and submit it. I guess I'll keep searching for that one thing. --Lindsay 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Tool(band)

Regarding your recent comment about linking:

"So, you think linking to toolarmy is OK, even though, without registration, there is NO content whatsoever? But toolnavy, which allows anonymous access and has TONS of content (user opinions/interpretations of the albums, lyrics, tour reviews, etc), is inappropriate for linking?

Sure dude. Whatever works for you."

Just thought I'd drop this comment here in case you didn't check my anonymous user profile again.

Carrie-Anne Moss

Sorry! I didn't know that. I found it on the Trinity page so I thought it was fine. loulou 02:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Image: Dennypic

I'm sorry I wasn't very specific on the copyright status but I just uploaded it with the status the image had when it was uploaded under another name. Like I said it just find it easier to upload a different file. The name of the original file is Image:Dennis Wilson.jpg. 75pickup (talk · contribs)

Tried adding fair use rationale, if it's not alright try and fix it please, I really think that it is a very good image and it is required for the page. 75pickup (talk · contribs)

Question

I have a question is any image from the library of congress free? 75pickup (talk · contribs)

Add orfud tag

When removing images from pages because their fair-use status is disputed, could you also add the {{orfud}} tag to the image page? That would help a great deal, I think. If you respond to this, please do so on my talk page or leave a short note on my talk page indicating that you have responded here. Thanks. --Yamla 13:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have FairuseBot do that starting the next time it runs. It used to be that Gmaxwell's Roomba would handle the tagging, so FairuseBot didn't need to. --Carnildo 03:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

aaah

ca va? what you mean mang?FrenchDude 01:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC) merci

Sorry, what? What are you talking about? --Yamla 01:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean your base accusations. and ca va means whats up.FrenchDude 01:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula Fatic? If so, everything I noted can be verified by any admin just by looking at your contribution log. Additionally, we can easily check to see if you are User:Brohanska and if so, you are blatantly abusing Wikipedia and this current account would be blocked indefinitely. I'd rather not check, though, and am willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt. --Yamla 01:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

DO NOT remove the images I uploaded. The images that I uploded from WWE ARE from WWE. They have they correct copyright and they all are from WWE.com. Stop tracking all of my uploaded images and telling me they are either the wrong copyright or telling me to stop doing this and that. I have rights, you know. There are things I can do on this site that you're stopping me from doing. (SKITTLES 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Please reread the license of every image you are adding. The license specifically states, "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page as well as the exact source or URL of the work." You are doing neither of these things and have been warned several times about this. I welcome your contributions but you must follow Wikipedia's copyright and fair-use guidelines if you wish to upload images. --Yamla 01:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you even looking?! I've added a link from where I found those images. Seriously, you need to get your facts straight before you even post it to users. (SKITTLES 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Please reread. You need an exact source. That is, the exact page the image appears on. Additionally, you need a detailed fair-use rationale. It is entirely possible that some of your images have an exact source but all the ones I have checked just state www.wwe.com (or whereever) which is a link to the site, not to a specific page. And none of the images I've seen you upload have a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale, only the license. --Yamla 02:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

ok..then..you tell me.. what is a "detailed fair-use rationale"? (SKITTLES 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

And by the way...if you take a good look at all the wwe superstars photos such as maria kanellis, ashley massaro, they don't have a "detailed fair-use rationale" and they don't get messages or has the photos been deleted. you're the only one picking on me. (SKITTLES 02:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Please see WP:IDP for information on detailed fair-use rationales, as noted in the image license. I'm sorry you are feeling persecuted but I assure you I am not just picking on you. There are very many images on the Wikipedia that are not being used correctly. I currently have 3,432 pages on my watchlist and try to make sure the images are appropriate for each and every one of those pages. But that's only about one tenth of a percent of Wikipedia articles. --Yamla 02:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand it. I think the rules here are very hard you know. i don't think i can do it. (SKITTLES 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

It is indeed a pain in the behind. Wikipedia discourages copyrighted images. Take a look at Image:Knightley - Johansson - Vanity Fair.jpg for an example. Note that each detailed fair-use rationale must be hand-written, though (but in all honesty, what's good for one wrestling character would likely work for the rest of them, provided you note the specific article each is being used in). If instead you don't want to be bothered, please add {{db-author|Please delete, no detailed fair-use rationale forthcoming}} to each of the images you have uploaded. --Yamla 03:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But I don't want my images to be deleted. I have no idea how to do the hand written thing. how come other wrestling images aren't warned about it? (SKITTLES 23:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

For the images not to be deleted, they must have accurate source, license, and detailed fair-use rationales. Any other copyrighted images missing this information also need to be deleted. As I have previously mentioned, though, I monitor less than 1/10th of a percent of the Wikipedia pages. --Yamla 23:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Look at this JD_UK is accusing me of a personal attack what did I do? Need Your Help immediately --BeenInDaGhettoForYears 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You clearly did leave a personal attack. I suggest you leave JD alone. --Yamla 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what I did I'll apologize to him, I know sexuality can be a very touchy subject. Sorry. --BeenInDaGhettoForYears 18:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

RCU

A good idea. I'd be in favour of an indef block as I see almost nothing constructive out of this editor -- just a whole lot of baiting and trolling -- Samir धर्म 19:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh

Oh. That's a copyvio image to. I have a picture of myself I can upload, but it has to many bites. oh, even though it's two days late, can you say happy-bday to my sister here? $$$=Lindsay1980 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have a picture of yourself, I'm happy to help out by shrinking it appropriately. Please have a parent (or step parent) email it to me and I'll upload it for you. Please do not send it to me from your email account, though, because there are significant privacy issues and I'd like to discuss that (and only that) with a parent or guardian before placing it on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 19:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

How was the Carrie-Anne Moss picture a copy violation? It was already posted on another page, so why do I have to write a detailed fair-use rationale? Sorry, I was just wondering. loulou 01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You must have a detailed fair use rationale for each use of a copyrighted image on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 02:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Well, thanks for informing me! loulou 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User 195.93.21.106.

Inform me when the block is lifted on the above IP address (I'm one of the unfortunate AOL users). LuciferMorgan 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Spamlinks

I saw you'd reverted some spamlinks [8] (and blocked the user). I checked some out, which were sets of photos, and thought they were rather a good selection of unique images, not the run of the mill stuff. I wonder if you think some might be worth reinstating? Tyrenius 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a little more complex than that. I agree that the images are of fairly high quality. The problem is that the person adding the external links is almost certainly Adam Bielawski himself. The user has been warned several times about this behaviour but is continuing. As a general rule, adding a link to your own site is inappropriate. Adding a link to the same site to many articles is inappropriate. And image galleries are generally not considered acceptable for external links. It appears to me that the user is simply using Wikipedia for advertising. Now, I could well be wrong but I thought you might want to know why the block was issued. --Yamla 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't querying the block, because I understand he can't be allowed to run rampant. My concern was that we may, in the process, be losing good links which would be of value to readers. I'm not even interested in the musicians, but I found myself fascinated by the sequence of poses he had captured. I wasn't aware of the aversion to image galleries (it's not prohibited in WP:EL, but I guess it could be one of those things "in the air" as it were). However, it seems to me we could be cutting off the nose to spite the face here, especially with Wiki's current problems of having on-site images. I would have thought this made a stronger reason for external links to good images. Most photographers with unique images of that kind would be seeking to restrict their use, so I'm thinking maybe we should be working with Bielawski (assuming its him) so that a neutral editor could decide on inclusion or not in each case. Put it this way, if I'd seen the gallery myself first, I would have chosen to link to it. Tyrenius 19:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Responding on your discussion page. --Yamla 19:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock?

As blocks are preventative, and it doesn't look like Adam's going to spam, it might be easier if he were unblocked (on promise of good behaviour) so we could continue the conversation on wiki. Tyrenius 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice move there. Tyrenius 20:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Can you halp me make archives on my talk page?I want to have monthly archives please.--Always Gotta Keep It Real, Cute 1 4 u 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete

Can you delete User:S-man/Status and User:S-man/StatusTemplate? I no longer need them. --S-man 20:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

--PEAR 21:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT and my userpage

Yamla,

The articles I have edited and the order in which I edited them is purely coincidental. I think alot of coincidences happen, and too many people try to use them to justify false accusations instead of just reckognizing them as what they are, coincidences.

Like for example, the coincidences of New York World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 all being the first large buildings ever to collapse due to fire, and all on the same day. Some people have used this fact as "proof" that "bombs" were planted in the buildings, by the Bush administration, Israeli Mossad, or other scapegoats.

My point is that seemingly impossible coincidences happen everyday, and it's important that we all just ignore them, turn on Fox news or Rush Limbaugh and try to relax.

Also I'm unsure of how I have gamed the system. Could you be more descriptive?

PS. I did read the section on "Gaming the system", but it didn't answer my question.

--PEAR 21:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed we're both from Canada =) (I'm in Vancouver). It's quite difficult to listen to Rush Limbaugh here =(.

--PEAR 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I feel I do deserve a reply, and the internet has made me very impatient.

--PEAR 22:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have just proved here that you are trying to use Wikipedia to prove a point about coincidences. I must say, I think the way you did it was quite clever and definitely amusing. But still, WP:POINT. I'm quite happy for you to claim you don't know what you were doing. Doesn't make much difference to me. Just so long as you've seen WP:POINT. --Yamla 23:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still rather confused, but I think that means everything is cleared up. Anyway, since you're an admin I figured I'd ask you about this to. Whenever I try to move an article it says I am not logged in, but I am. I want to move The technology of study to The Technology of Study, and there was something else, but I forgot.

Thanks for respoding to my message. The people here seem very friendly. --PEAR 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Eating Manatees

Hi. I remade Eating Manatees, could you please check it over, to see if I have screwed up. If I have, please please please, give me a chance to fix it. Thank you. --Adam Wang 03:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but can you point me to the undelete vote? I can't find it anywhere and without that, the page must be speedily deleted. --Yamla 04:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Here it is. Here Number 44. I wasn't done the article, i was fixing it. Is there a way for me to fix copy vio, go to sleep, and continue the next day? Can I do that on notepad, when i'm done, upload it? Thank you. --Adam Wang 16:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies then. However, you can't really fix the copyright violations. You really need to start from scratch. Otherwise, it is just too hard to avoid using the same wording and even the same order of information. For example, rewriting every single word but keeping the content in the same order may be considered plagiarism. You certainly could write the article in notepad or in a word processor, it should be fairly easy to copy over to a new article. --Yamla 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Eating Manatees IS this better? --Adam Wang 01:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Interview

The images for interview magazine did not violate the copyright tags in any way. There was no need for removing them. -- Bang Bang you're Dead 03:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please include some more context? Thanks. --Yamla 04:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Monkeys

Good point. The trouble is that they're a little too busy with all their typewriters. If you could only see what they're doing...oh wait...it's here. alphaChimp ^laudare 05:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I love Paris in the springtime

Well, anytime really... I think I am really NPOV. I have read all the Wiki rules, and it says if you tell the truth, that is NPOV. Everything I say about Paris is true... in my own mind anyway. My mate at work gave me a copy of her latest CD. I listen to it all the time. Bet you do too! She has a real talent, doesn't she? By the way, I have done a complete overhaul of the introduction of the World War 2 article, and this did not receive the same attention. So, there you go. Paris Hilton is more important than World War 2. ...in Canada anyway. I like Wikipedia. Puts things into perspective. Wallie 20:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Administration

How do I become a Wikipedia admin? There are a lot of vandals that are on the loose and no one is bothering to block them. $$$=Lindsay1980 01:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:ADMIN. Note that you'll want many more months of experience before putting your name up for nomination. --Yamla 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bots

Can i get my own bot that does stuff? I would like to call it Mu-Bot. hehe. It could check stuff for me that I usually mess up. Thanks Please read my addition to the above post on eating manatees --Adam Wang 01:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You can get your own bot but you would have to write it yourself. This is not an insignificant task and is one I don't know anything about. --Yamla 01:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Magazine Covers and Stuff

As you know better than anyone, an image of a magazine cover is fair use for an article about that magazine. So why did you delete the cover images for Stuff (magazine) and Blender (magazine) despite our previous dialogue? If there's an arcane problem in the background information, fix that if you like, but don't destroy the article because the image is obviously not a copyright violation. I find you very exasperating. Ghosts&empties 07:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Keira Knightley

Regarding Keiraknightley.jpg image I was unaware that movie posters could only be used to depict the movie, as I don't think this is neccessary I personally see no resason to keep the image so i leave its fate in your hands Basement12 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Track Of Tyler Hilton

Um. Excuse me, but why was the image for tracks of tyler hilton deleted? I thought we already discussed this? --DieHard2k5 | Talk 17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I an abusive sockpuppet now? --DieHard2k5 | Talk 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that comment wasn't directed at you at all. SKITTLES is an abusive sockpuppet. Standard policy when one of these is discovered is to undo all edits by the abusive account. --Yamla 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh.. Okay. So If I were to reupload the image and place it in the same location, that would be okay? --DieHard2k5 | Talk 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so long as the license and fair-use is in tact. If you are at all unclear about that, upload it and send me the link and I'll make sure it is good to go. I'm sorry, I can see why you thought this action may have been targeted at you but nothing could be further from the truth. --Yamla 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Private Website?

It's not a private website. It's Rate Your Music. Tcatron565 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, it's still not appropriate to add it to Aly & AJ (or wherever). See WP:EL. --Yamla 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

HSM 2

On the High School Musical 2 page, I noticed that something was missing. Corbin Bleu is signed on to star in the movie along with the rest of the cast, as the character Chad Danforth. He was there about a week or two weeks ago, I'm sure, but it's been deleted. I tried to fix this by adding it, but you deleted it saying i have to cite it. another person tried to add it but you've again deleted it, calling it "vandalism" (The user HAD inserted two actors but Bleu should definitely be on the cast). Furthermore, there should be no need to cite it for him because on the exact same page ( High School Musical 2 ), it says that all the stars are set to return (in the "Trivia" section). Therefore, the logical conclusion would be to add corbin bleu to the cast, as all the others had been added. Please give me a reply on my user talk page. Strongy820 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was vandalism. Looks like Corbin Bleu is a reasonable addition, please go ahead and fix it. --Yamla 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Eating manatees again

I thought you told me i was fixing the copy vio properly! Please don't delete, i'm still working on it. Please . Thank you. --Adam Wang 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one saying it should be deleted. You are free to cast your vote in the AfD and note that you are working on fixing the copyvios. --Yamla 20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User Box

Hi. I'm not trying to bother u or anything, but could you please put my userboxes on my user page in a row on the right side of the screen? I've been trying forever, but i don't get it. THanks you. --Adam Wang 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Christmas album

Thank you for unblocking me, now I want to add something else to the Alyson Michalka page but thought it would be better to ask first how to go about it. I want to add that Aly and AJ recently completed recording a christmas album, but the place I got this is on their Official Myspace bulletin which is only accessible to their friends so if I copied a link to that not everyone would be able to view it, so I wanted to find out how to do it before I do something wrong.

Well, in that case you will unfortunately need a different source, one that other people can verify. That's the best approach, anyway. --Yamla 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Conflict"

Thanks for noticing - though I am at a loss about this whole thing. What this really stems from is my account being constantly autoblocked, from January onwards till now, first because of anon vandals on the shared Cogeco IP, and most recently because of a user who was banned, also on this IP. After the autoblock returned yesterday, I posted an "Unblock" message on User talk:Acadamenorth's talk page, which Redvers removed. So, I told Redvers that, because he is an Admin, he would be the user whom I would, repeatedly, ask to unblock Academnorth if the autoblock should re-occur. That's about it. At the moment, I'm not autoblocked and haven't been for hours, though the autoblock is re-occuring so I don't really know. I don't see this as a "conflict", it's really either A or B. A - I am able to edit. B - I am unable to edit, unfairly, for whatever reason, in which case I take any steps necessary to insure that I am able to edit... :) Since it's "A" at the moment, everyone's happy. Mad Jack 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not currently "investigating" the problem so my comments are about a related issue, not the matter at hand. But please consider emailing me if you are unable to edit because of an autoblock. I can remove blocks as I am an admin and would do so for collateral damage (assuming I'm not violating policy). Additionally, have you considered adding a comment at the top of the IP address discussion page indicating that you, a legitimate editor, share this IP address with vandals and so any blocks should be applied only to the anonymous IP and/or only for a short time? I don't know what IP address it is so I don't know if there's a prominent comment there. If you let me know aobut the IP, I'll monitor it. You may not want to do that, however, for privacy reasons. Also, despite how annoying this is, I implore you to remain civil and assume good faith. I will do what I can to help limit the collateral damage from this in the future. You are a valuable editor and I'd hate to lose you over this. Redvers is also a valuable editor, mind you; I'm not taking sides here. --Yamla 22:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Thanks for your offer to mediate. I was being asked to act out of process under threat of being disrupted if I did not do so, and despite repeated suggestions [9] [10] of better places to complain to. This wasn't a dispute, this was an ordinary day in the life of an active admin! These things are generally like water off a duck's back (he'll be something like the 30th user to have threatened me in the past seven days) and must be ignored if one is to sleep at night.

Thanks for the offer to mediate, but I think you're probably out of your depth here. I'm not stressed, put it that way :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock

User:RadioKirk has been helping me out and clearing the IP for the past two months or so. When the autoblock for Academenorth (spelling?) returned yesterday I asked him to unblock the IP itself again, which he did and I thanked him for it - but it didn't work - I.e. the autoblock stemming for Academnorth remained regardless. I did put up a message at the top of the IP page that I also share the IP (and there are several more such messages placed throughout the page itself, mostly responses to warning messages to the IP). So, the only solution, anyway, seemed to be the unblockage of Academnorth "it"self, which is why I placed the template on that page. I don't see this is as a "sides" issue though - I'm either able to edit, or I'm not - that's all it really comes down to. At the moment, I am able to - so that's good. Mad Jack 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale on my images

Having read what you said about the Keira Knightley image, and agreed with you, I now find that you have put various warnings and requests for fair use rationales on all images I(Basement12) have uploaded, even when it is clear that the image is allowed (such as album covers). To be honest I don't agree with the fact you have done this without offering any help to an inexperienced user who has simply been trying to improve the quality of these articles, many of which I have started. Although a few of the images may not be allowed I suspect the majority are, however because of the way this has been done (it seems you have a track record for this kind of thing)I have lost any intrest in fixing the problems and therefore will allow you to either sort it or delete them as I no longer care Basement12 23:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am truly sorry you feel that way. I suspect it is probably too late now but I'm more than happy to help you out with the image copyright and fair-use issues. I didn't want to add any more warnings to your page for fear of you thinking I was targeting you. But I understand how you could get that impression anyway. --Yamla 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not too late, if you could explain what I need to do, particularly for cd covers as despite looking at many such images I've seen none of what you ask for, it would help both for these and any future uploads. I did make an attempt for Branches Untangle which hopefully you could find in the history, is this the kind of thing? Basement12 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to this edit. That's very close. Album covers are almost given a free pass on fair-use rationales. You have identified the specific article the image is being used in. The only thing I'd add is, "It is being used to illustrate the cover of the album in question." Then, make sure you've identified which album you are talking about (this is often already given by which article you are linking in). One key point, though, which I don't think you've done; you cannot use an album cover to depict the person. For example, an album cover showing Hilary Duff's face can only be used to depict the album, not to illustrate what Hilary Duff looks like. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. --Yamla 03:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Add me!

Please add me to the Adminstrators voters list! I've had experience on Croatian Wiki and I'm pretty sure there is no difference. Please. I'm intellegent, fast learner, helper, reverter and happy wikipedian! Please add me! Thanks (I am asking you to add me to the list cause I don't know how to!) Lindsay1980 02:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally, we don't nominate someone for adminship (which we call "giving them the mop" because it's really just janitorial duties) until they have a few thousand edits and have been around for a few months. But keep at it, keep making those productive edits and it could happen in the future! By the way, I'm only speaking about the English Wikipedia, I have no experience outside of that. The Croatian one may work differently. --Yamla 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope

The Croatianwiki is not that different. All they do is speak more Croatian then English and they have different users really. --Lindsay1980 02:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)