User talk:Yamla/Archive 8

Doctor Who

{{speedy-image-c|[[2006-11-22]]}}<br />{{replacethisimage}}
I have found that it stimulates quick action in finding replacements. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Will do! It looks like someone made the effort to add a refu-c to the templated warning so this should basically just be a matter of copying and pasting. Thank you for the excellent suggestion. --Yamla 15:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me about the new {{refu-c}} template. I just thanked Sherool for creating it. -Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect 3RR warning given
Hello. I see you gave 4.191.245.163 (talk · contribs) a WP:3RR warning over War Eagle. However, I had looked into the article issue from the AN thread and the anon was removing uncited negative information about a living person (which was being re-inserted by other editors). As you know, WP:BLP requires the removal of such uncited negative info, and such removals are not subject to the 3RR rule. (I have just noticed that a source has been found for this, so it's somwwhat a moot issue now, but thought I should remind you of this anyway) Regards, MartinRe 00:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. It was always my intention that the editor understand that no 3RR violation had yet taken place, but I'll point out that no 3RR violation was about to take place either. --Yamla 01:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Abbie Cornish
I understand why you took down the picture there, but did you mean to take out the information regarding her affair with Ryan Phillipe? If so, why? This seems like legitimate information. If you did not intend to delete this, is it acceptable that I put it back up there?
Jinxy
It is acceptable if you can find a reliable citation (not just the gossip magazines). Please see WP:RS and WP:CITE before adding it back. If you can find a reliable citation, I'd love to have the information there. --Yamla 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

uploaded image
I uploaded an image and im not sure if it is uploaded with the correct information needed. I dont know how to put the link to the photo in here. It is the image for this article, The Runners. If it is not correct please go ahead and delete it. Thanks. —Darkneonflame 01:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the image. WP:FUC requires that we use freely-licensed images to depict living people, so we can't use this one because it is copyrighted and not freely-licensed. In general, when adding a copyrighted image to an article, you need to explain why it is fair to use it in that article. Why is it necessary to use an image at all? Why this particular image? Why not a free image? Why is it particularly unlikely that the copyright owner would take offense? You also stated that this was a promotional photo from an issue of XXL Magazine. We cannot use photos from inside a magazine, and promotional photos must come from a press kit. That is, you need to provide evidence that this came from a press kit (or promotional kit). Certainly, XXL Magazine would not be the copyright holder in that case. This is a lot of information to take in in one paragraph. If you'd like me to clarify any bit, please feel free to ask. As you can see, there's a lot of requirements. If it strikes you that Wikipedia seems to actively discourage copyrighted images with lots of policies and requirements, you are most certainly correct. We much prefer free images. --Yamla 01:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What are some sources for "free images", is myspace considered as one? –-Darkneonflame 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of the images on myspace may be released under a free license, most aren't however. If you find an image which states it is released under most Creative Commons licenses or the GFDL or is public domain and the source of the image is reliable (so, fan sites claiming that images are public domain are not reliable, see WP:RS), you have found a freely-licensed image. I estimate probably 99.5% of the images on the Internet are not licensed under a free license, however. The Creative Commons article has some links to a way to find freely-licensed content. Flikr can also be a source, though again most of the images there are not freely licensed. --Yamla 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What info would I need to upload a cd cover from amazon.com? I've seen many album cover images with nothing but the link for the source. --Darkneonflame 02:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a copyrighted image, so source (in this case, the name of the album), license, and detailed hand-written fair-use rationale justifying each use. Plus, it may only be used to depict the album. You can't use it, for example, to show what the singer looks like. --Yamla 02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible sock of c14u
After comments left on my talk page [1] from Tennislover, I checked out User:Pumpkin Pie. It does seem like there's a similarity to c14u's original writing style. The user has transcluded a status template much like mine.... I'm also going to have someone from a Japanese Wikiproject check out here Japanese userpage.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeap, this was a confirmed sockpuppet of the banned user. The account has been shut down and the contributions (mostly) deleted. I took a look at the Japanese user page but unfortunately, I cannot read Japanese. --Yamla 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was a good hypothisis from me. I didn't know for sure.Tennislover 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeap, sure was. Please let me know if you find any others. --Yamla 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I sure will. She doesn't really do a good job hiding herself.Tennislover 03:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
responding to the most recent messege: AMEN!Tennislover 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I asked someone from WikiProject Japan to translate the userpage. Check out my talk page for details.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to be against the user's block or anything, but what exactly was the evidence against PPie?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In order not to give anything away, I'd rather discuss this via email. Please send me an email and I'll let you know. Not until tomorrow, though, as I'm signing off for the evening now.  :) --Yamla 04:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I sent the Japs an alert on [2].--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes
Hi. I was just looking over your revert on A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes, and followed the link to User talk:Pumpkin Pie for the reason why. Do you mind if I reimplement that edit? It corrects the Orlando Brown wikilink, and rightly removes the extra listing for an actor who guest starred on one episode of a series. I don't have to call it a revert, if that's helpful to you. (In fact, I really should work on fleshing out the substantive part of the article, but that's not a task for tonight.) I just thought I'd check with you first - don't want to get in the middle of a mess! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. The key point, though, is that you would then be taking responsibility for the edit. So if for example redoing the edit introduced some slander or something, you would now be responsible. Not a problem here, of course, but I'm just letting you know. We don't let the edits from banned users remain but there's no problem having someone redo them. --Yamla 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 05:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lieutenant Dol Grenn/Gerzi
I've removed all his comments from my talk page if it'll put an end to this nonsense. Cheers, HamishMacBeth 12:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I very much appreciate it. --Yamla 15:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use
Could you explain to me what is this fair use? I am sorry for that, but I really cannot understand what it means. You see, I am from Poland and English is not my native language, so I sometimes can't understand what you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varda (talk • contribs)
Please see WP:FU. Thanks. --Yamla 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Riya Sen Image
Hey dude, I have added a fair use rationale for the biopic on the article Riya Sen. Please take a look at it. And, oh, since I have removed the deletion tage from the image as advised on the tags (i.e. the tags mat be removed if provided with a fair use rational), I also have removed the line from the article page that says the image is scheduled for deletion. I also have changed the licensing information from screenshot to fair use in Riya Sen and Style (film). I also have looked for another image to be used (yes, using google), and have done so. Well I admit that it didn't vary much, if any, in source and copyright status from the earlier one. But, I think before there is a replacable picture available it may stand. Please, check and advise. - Aditya Kabir 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I already responded prior to this message, but just to be clear... WP:FUC prohibits the use of a fair-use image to depict a living person, so this still fails the criteria. We can't wait until a replacement image is provided, that's not sufficient grounds under WP:FUC. Additionally, this is a film screenshot so we cannot use a different license. And given that, we are not using the image to provide critical commentary on the film but rather, just to illustrate an actress. It still violates the license. I know you are working hard here and you definitely are editing in good faith, but the image still violates WP:FUC. Please feel free to ask for more detailed explanations. --Yamla 18:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
While I was checking for the proper rationale I came upon Rglovejoy's image contributions] - all copyright images from Playboy, all depicting living persons, and all uploaded without a fair use rationale (well, alomost all). Either they have not been noticed or I am failing to see the point here. I thought, if the article expounds heavily upon one aspect of the subject matter then in case of a living person that particular aspect may be illustrated to enrich the informaiton further. Was I wrong? And, yes, I would like to take the opportunity and ask about the replacebility thing. What should I understand by that term? - Aditya Kabir 18:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) - (p.s. please don't quote me verbatim on my talk page, it looks a bit silly (hahaha), I know what wrote to you)
They have not been noticed. There are in fact a large number of similar images currently in violation. It takes time to track them all down and tag them. WP:FUC was tightened up recently. It used to be permitted to use a fair-use (non-freely licensed) image to depict a living person (with appropriate rationale). This is no longer the case. As to what "replaceable" means, it really comes down to whether it would be reasonable for someone (not necessarily you) to create a free image. For example, you may not own a particular car but if this car is or was sold, someone else may and could take an image. You may not be able to take a free image of a living person but someone else certainly could. In both cases, the fair-use image is replaceable. --Yamla 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
(In response to you comments) I think I met the WP:FUC on 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 (1 and 9 not being applicable in this instance). I have found nothing on living persons on the page. And, I don't see how the iamge may be replaced wthin the give time. If you check history of the article you will find that at list 3 contributors, including myself, have taken an attempt to provide a biopic for the subject (all revolving around Style the movie) and failed. Please, advise. - Aditya Kabir 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does 1 not apply? Is the person dead? If so, I apologise. But if the person is still alive, criteria 1 most definitely applies. "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. [...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." If the person is still alive, the subject of the photograph still exists and a free equivalent "could be created that would adequately give the same information" (in this case, what the person looks like) simply by having someone take a picture of her, or having her agent release a promotional image under a free license. As to having the image replaced within the time, this follows from the current image violating WP:FUC so therefore, see the non-compliance section in WP:FUC. Images that fail WP:FUC must be deleted within 48 hours or 7 days, depending. --Yamla 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
But, FUC #1' says nothing about if the person is dead or alive. If it does, I apologise. I have already stated in the rationale that it may be replaced if a free image is available, which may not be coming soon. Besides, according to the Policy Page - "Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use... (8) An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." I did not do that, rather I uploaded an image that describes a significant event in the subject's life/career. - Aditya Kabir 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does. "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." A living person is a subject of the photograph that still exists. A dead person would be a subject of a photograph that no longer exists. I agree that it is not spelled out explicitly but I assure you this is how it is meant to be understood. As to your other point, that you are not using the image merely to show what she looks like, I disagree. The image is in the page's infobox and thus is definitely showing only what she looks like. If it was not in the infobox but instead was attached to a paragraph discussing that particular movie and that paragraph made specific note of what the character looked like, then it would be an example of an image not being used solely to depict the person. As of now, though, it is not attached to any such paragraph and in fact the article makes only passing reference to that movie. --Yamla 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm here again
Is it possible to restore my user page and your comments on my discussion page again? XXMad99ManXx 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You asked to disappear. Why did you recreate this user account? If you plan to keep editing from this account (and no other), I can reverse the deletion but this is not something we generally do. --Yamla 19:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Yamla for hard work on anti-vandalism that makes Wikipedia better for everyone
Thanks for the recent rvv! I appreciated it. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A little help, please?
If it's okay, I'm requesting assistance in dealing with the user Jinxy. He continues to blatantly disregard civility and edit warring rules, despite warnings. Not only did he attack edits to the Abbie Cornish article (see page history) - but take a look at my talkpage, his talkpage (which he's been generously deleting things from against Wiki policy, I might add) and both the talkpage and user page for 124.177.248.52. Perhaps the voice of authority from an admin he's listened to before might calm him down a little? Cheers. misanthrope 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! misanthrope 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. He's done it again. Take a look at his talkpage, calling me a "kid", saying I'm being " being impudent to my betters", don't know "smack about smack", etc... this flame-baiting is getting ridiculous. He really needs another warning, or something, because he's not going to cease of his own accord, be it hostility directed towards me or anyone else. misanthrope 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice cupcake, thanks
Yeah, sure. Nice cake. Loved the taste. I really appreciate what you admins are doing here. Great job. Sorry about the "existing" thing, my page search with strings - "living" and "dead" overlooked it. Not a right procedure, I guess. But, I still have points of disagreement, if you are no already tired of arguing over one little picture of one indian starlet. They are:
"...if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken", along with "...having her agent release a promotional image under a free license". Hahaha, you ever tried taking a picture of or talking to the agent of Bollywood people? I did. It's far from "simple" as you said.
"The image is in the page's infobox and thus is definitely showing only what she looks like." Well, the caption said it showed the subject of the article featured in line with the subject of the image (i.e. Riya Sen in Style). That "definitely" doesn't count as a depiction of merely how she looks like.
Anyways, I have removed the offending image, and hoping for either a better rationale or freer image to appear. I intend to take this article as a case of becoming encyclopedic for myself. It still needs a lot of work.
And, oh, here are a few more fair use images you may like to take a look at. They fail more miserably than Image:Riya Style1.jpg on the rationale for deletion you provided to me. It is only fair, otherwise, another poor soul may be misled by their existence and do the same mistake as I did.
Image:3180834 Bernardo Bertolucci.jpg
Image:ALFRobinWebbSHAC.jpg
Image:ALI IBN RABBAN AL-TABARI.jpg
Image:Aarti Chhabria.jpg
Image:Abdul Hamid.jpg
Image:Abdul Rahman(convert).jpg
Image:Ahmed Makarfi.png
Image:AdamRyland.jpg
Image:Akhatova.jpg
Any picture uploaded by Scorpio80 with a name that begins with ac
Any picture uploaded by Rglovejoy with a name that begins with 19
Thanks again. - Aditya Kabir 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I have not tried taking a picture of any celebrity, actually, but I have worked with some celebrities and non-celebrities to get a freely-licensed image for use on the Wikipedia. None of them were Bollywood actors or actresses, however. As to the infobox, these are used to provide basic information and to depict what the person looks like. If an image is to be used to provide critical commentary on a film, it needs to be attached to a paragraph providing that critical commentary. Often, an image which was attached to a paragraph and was fair-use there is moved up to the infobox but then must subsequently be removed for exactly this reason. Some of this stuff, unfortunately, is not explicitly spelled out. Other times, we try to spell something out (criteria #1 of WP:FUC) but people understandably read it differently than was intended. And then what about a situation where, say, the person is still alive but is in hiding? They still exist so a strict reading of #1 says we cannot use a fair-use image of them. But it's not reasonable to create a replacement. Now, try to write out a clear policy that will take all of these crazy situations into account, and you can see the problems. In the end, the only way to really go about things is with discussions like this, even though they take time. And thanks for noting the other image problems. I'll try to mark at least some of them when I have a moment.--Yamla 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to know that
OK, I just wanted to know that because I'm a curious man. Ciao XXMad99ManXx 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

SJ revert
I think it comes off as a little elitist, and a tad creepy, that you immediately jump on this and throw it out citing the lack of a wikipedia article, as if that makes or breaks someone's notability. The band in question is internationally touring and signed. So to some extent they are artists with influence in pop culture. I understand you don't want vandalism, but what's the point of information exchange if interesting tidbits are left out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachelor Steak (talk • contribs)
Do they meet the notability criteria guidelines outlined in WP:MUSIC? --Yamla 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive page and re to email
I added an archive link because the bot was archiving to archive 8, which didn't have a link on this page.
Also, thanks for the reply to the email I sent you. I realize that Wikipedia doesn't have the regular complicated justice system, but it's always good to verify my facts. =)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For the advice and the response. I responded as well. I look forward to communicating with you in the future under more pleasant circumstances.
J. 

User:Chadbryant
I apologize for bothering you about this but I noticed you have dealt with Chadbryant previously. I posted a warning on his talk page so that he will perform proper reversions, while also asking him to stop claiming that I am a sock puppet. He has refused to abide by either. Instead of a polite response he made this edit: [3]. To make the story short, I am not a sock puppet. I came across what I thought was a questionable edit by a poster on the recent changes page. I reverted and looked at the poster's history and saw other questionable edits. I reverted them and asked him to use the talk page. I haven't reverted since, meanwhile he refuses to use the talk page (he used it until I oointed out the application of WP:Notability) Chadbryant has somehow confused this with sock puppetry. I don’t know what else I can do? I have asked him to use talk pages. He refuses. I have asked him to explain him stating how I have supposedly harassed him. He refuses. I have asked him to abide by basic wikipedia policy. He refuses. I am trying to abide by the rules. Is there anything you can do?
Again, I apologize for bringing this minor issue to your attention. I simply find it annoying. I didn’t know what else to do. Thanks. CraigMonroe 03:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
From WP:SOCK:
Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits.
And from the same policy, under "meatpuppets":
A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate.
The "CraigMonroe" account first edited on 12 October 2006, and almost immediately jumped into several AfD discussions (see [4]; this account was being used to comment/vote on AfD discussions before its 20th edit). Interestingly, this account (as of this writing) does not even have a userpage set up by the user in question. The majority of this account's recent edits are reverts to my deletion of non-notable content in several sports facility articles. This account is at the very least clearly exhibiting the characteristics of a meatpuppet, and quite possibly is a sockpuppet of another user who also continues to Wikistalk me and revert/delete my contributions in bad faith.
If the continual (and obvious, at this point) harassment from "CraigMonroe" does not cease, I will file a RFCU on the account. - Chadbryant 01:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
""I would like to encourage Chadbryant to file a RFCU so he can be proven wrong. The Wikistalk guideline says "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information. I have not made any threats, I have not nitpicked any good faith edits, I have not made personal attacks or posted personal infomation. Both CraigMonroe and i have been WP:CIVIL as seen here [[5]] he makes it impossible to communicate with him as he removes items from his talk page with no reply. So also i have no idea what to do. DXRAW 05:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Please request a checkuser. I hope you do. By chance, who am I a sock puppet of? DXRaw? Again, I am not a sock puppet. Please stop calling me that. You have no proof other than your personal opinion. I have been nothing but polite to you. I have not harassed you. In fact,when I asked you to provide an example of the claim of harassment. You refused, and called me a sock puppet. Will you provide an example now? As far as knowing the "rules," I am a law student. The rules interest me. I like to help make decisions. Is this wrong? Apparently it is to you, as you equate knowing the simple rules wikipedia has with being a sock puppet? I spent a few days looking the rules over while attempting to figure out how to edit. Are the rules that complicated to you? As a question, if I am a sock puppet, why don't I revert your posts? Why don’t I vandalize? Why do I act polite even when you make baseless accusations against me? I have tried repeatedly to get you to use a talk page. You refuse, and continue to refuse. Instead you violate numerous wikipedia policies, including WP:Point, WP:Edit War, and WP:AGF (or is claiming I am a sock puppet, and harassing you by begging you to follow the rules an example of acting in good faith?). I am not the only person that pointed this out to you. Even the admin posted on your talk page mentioning the issue. So please request a checkuser. I beg</> you. If you think I am DXRaw, ask for what ever they do to check the identities. I am tired of the baseless accusations. However, until you do, stop calling me a sock puppet. I do not call you names. I have been respectful. Can’t you do the same? Isn’t that one of the primary principles of wikipedia? Maybe your mother never taught you to treat others the way you want to be treated. However, my mother did. I have treated you kindly.
As for the admin, is there anything you can do to stop this? I am trying to be cordial, and follow the rules. It is tough when an individual is making libelous statements. Is this the type of behavior wikipedia condones? I sure hope not. If it is, I won’t be posting for much longer. Not that it really matters. Thank you. CraigMonroe 05:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I also want to point out that accusatory comments such as claiming I am a sock puppet, or harassing you are a violation of WP:No Personal Attacks. Not to mention the numerous parts of WP:Sockpuppet not cited. Specifically:
If it appears that sock puppets are being used as part of an edit war or to distort the outcome of a vote or survey, one possible rule of thumb is the so-called 100-edit rule. This suggests that any account which already has more than 100 edits across a range of other articles, or has been active more generally on Wikipedia, can often be presumed not to be a sock puppet. If there are unusually many accounts with few edits participating, you may want to check if they are sock puppets, by looking at IP addresses or times that edits were made. However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sock puppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sock puppet without justification, he or she will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia.
I easily pass the 100 edit test. I ask to be treated with the respect anyone else deserves. A differing opinion is not a basis for accusation.
CraigMonroe 05:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
64.131.196.204 05:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)ChadBryant has had very little success enforcing his version of Wikipedia. In fact, his efforts to harass and accuse and multi-revert others have recently resulted in a few forcible vacations. He's also decided that I'm a "sock puppet" and an "anonymous vandal" this week, and I'm neither. Some users are more excitable than others.
All I'll say is don't worry, CraigMonroe, and don't leave. Squabbling is a feature of the site. When people wonder why I don't just register a Wiki ID, I can point them to certain User Contributions pages out there (no names) whose long histories of pettiness or obstinance explain precisely why I've chosen to remain a step outside of the "Wikipedia community." Somehow, I doubt that if I registered some Wikiname, my edits would instantly become more acceptable or reliable in the eyes of some. Again, I direct this observation at no one in particular.

User:Mines45
I hope it's alright posting this; I wasn't sure whether it'd fit on any of the noticeboards. Could you do something about User:Mines45 please? He adds incorrect information to articles, and has removed the warnings from his talk page to stop. He then posted this on my talk page, which, according to my Googling [6], is quite offensive. Thanks a lot, SteveLamacq43 15:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This user has been blocked for a month. He was previously blocked for one week for similar behaviour and his continued blanking of his discussion page showed bad faith. --Yamla 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Cheers, SteveLamacq43 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kate Beckinsale link
Hi, thanks for your comment on my talk page about adding an external link to the Kate Beckinsale page. I am aware of the policies and did think carefully before adding one - however, I think you may be over-interpreting the rigidity with which this rule should be applied. I do very much agree that commercial links should not be added willy-nilly, but that was not my intent. If you look at my contribs record, I carefully defend quite a number of pages against exactly that. However, I do think that surely on a star page, at least one prominent fansite should be referenced. This also happens to be the case at a casual browse with the following randomly selected star pages - Sean Connery, Kirsten Dunst, Helena Bonham Carter, Scarlett Johansson (Yahoo Movies), Jenna Elfman - I could go on! In each, just one typical example of a good-quality fansite is shown, and that is what I was trying to show on the Kate Beckinsale page, about which, I assure you, I care a good deal on both quality and accuracy issues. Thanks for your time and attention. Best regards, Mark. MarkThomas 16:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ted Hughes
Hmmm. I see that you also deleted a perfectly good academic site link from another page I pay a lot of tlc to, Ted Hughes - can you justify please? MarkThomas 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Are you acting as an editor or administrator when you reverted Jennifer Morrison three times between 15:47 and 18:56 on 17 November 2006? --Oden 19:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I was reverting a simple case of an image which violated policy and so had to be removed. It is not considered a 3RR violation to enforce policy. --Yamla 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kristen Bell
Whatever you say Template:Emot... MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A vandal to keep an eye on
I'm not particularly interested in hunting down vandals, and you seem to be willing, so I thought I'd let you know that 66.64.223.2 seems to be capable nothing but vandalism. Perhaps you can take care of it. Just a thought. Gamiar 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Images
On another talk page, you wrote
Wikipedia has decided the choice is between a free image or no image at all
That is simply not true. In fact, Wikipedia:Copyrights clearly says All original Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL. Occasionally, Wikipedia articles may include images, sounds, or text quotes used under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine. It is preferred that these be obtained under the most free (libre) license (such as the GFDL or public domain) practical. In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available). Please don't mis-state the facts. Jenolen 23:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The full quote is "It may not always be feasible to find free images all of the time but for subjects where it is possible, Wikipedia has decided the choice is between a free image or no image at all". This is indeed the case, please see WP:FUC, first criteria. --Yamla 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that quote in the article. Dionyseus 01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The quote isn't in WP:FUC, it is in what I wrote. Jenolen was quoting only part of what I wrote. As to the truth of my statement, I urge you to reread WP:FUC. The first criteria of WP:FUC makes this statement in different words. --Yamla 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Drdanmcd
Hi Yamla, I saw that you had blocked Murphscout not long ago. I think he's back as User:Drdanmcd -- this account was created right around the time of your block and has produced pretty much nothing but vandalism, much of it (such as his edits to Talk:Steven Weinberg) identical to that done by Murphscout. Just thought I'd give you a heads-up. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's a pretty clear-cut case, so I went ahead and blocked the user. Don't people have better things to do with their time? --Yamla 04:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Yamla!
Thanks for reverting my user page.I don't know why he couldn't go to my discussion page and state his issues there. Georgia Peachez 06:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 

Homeward Bound II
Can I ask why you took down the link to Jinxy? After all, the cat in the movie was portrayed by the same cat who played Jinxy in Meet The Parents. This wasn't me trying to be cute about my namesake. It's actual information. Seems kind of petty to take it down, especially since it was simply a "See Also". I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Jinxy (talk • contribs)
If that is the case, my apologies. On one of the pages, I saw that you had a link to your own user page so I did indeed think this was you "trying to be cute". I appreciate that you pointed out my error and did so in a civil manner. Please feel free to readd the removed information if it is valid. --Yamla 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute 14u(again)
I think pumpkin pie(cute 1 4 u) will be trolling her user page. She's all ready left a messege on User talk: pumkin pie. Check it out.Tennislover 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Collumns?
Hey, I was wondering, How do put lists of things into collumns? --Darkneonflame 18:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please
Yamla,
We do not get along. I would prefer that you refrained from discussions on my Talk page, and would rather we both stayed away from each other overall. Please respect my feelings on this.
FYI, while there was no Copyright Law specifically, there was likewise no Public Domain, which is also an aspect of law. Nevertheless, there were aspects of Common Law, and before that people just knew that if it wasn't the fruit of their efforts, it amounted to Usery and was wrong to take it. This entire discussion all along has been about ethics, not the rules lawyers and judges play by.
Again, probably best we just leave each other alone.
Sincerely,
JT --JT 04:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry yamla dude
forgot to put up the ext. links and i dunno how do do all this image tagging shiz wb chris and btw i cbf reading those shitful paghes u give me about image tagging can u jst tell me in english instead ChrisMHMChris 

2nd pair of eyes needed
Take a look at the photo gallery on the M. G. Ramachandran article. The editor who uploaded all those images was born in 1978, which means that he was only nine years old when the subject died. Yet all the photos are tagged as being his creations. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it seems rather curious. I left a note for the user so I will see what he says, but I wanted to get your thoughts on the matter. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is pretty clear that the uploader did not take the images. If I was you, I'd tag them all with nsd/nld (or perhaps in a day or two, if you can remember). I think the user is confused as to what license to select and so decided on one that seemed to allow the images to exist. There's no way that the uploader took the photos, however. --Yamla 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it is possible that his father took them, but how would he go about proving that? I suppose if he actually owns the originals he could take a picture of them and post that somewhere. Otherwise, I'm not sure what he could do. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
He now wants to know which license he should use to indicate that they are his father's pics, and are being released into PD. I'm not sure which one he should use. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 00:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Quit the abuse of [rollback]..
Hello. Please do not abuse the [rollback] button. Furthermore the image you removed is allowed per the FUC as it is providing critical commentary within a body of text, is unrepeatable, and an un-free picture of Jeri Ryan as Seven of Nine would be unobtainable. I advise you to self revert.
See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo#ChrisO edit wars and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco,_MarkSweep,_et_al#MarkSweep_misuses_rollback MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 17:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
(
|
|
|
|
|
)
(
|
|
|
|
|
)
(
|
|
|
|
|
)
Basinger19 22:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)contribs) 22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

My own two eyes saw it they gave it two her as a birthday present i dont even care bye dumb ass

RadioKirk (u|t|c)
(
|
|
|
|
|
)
(
|
|
|
|
|
)
(
|
|
|
|
|
)
(
|
|
|
|
|
)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This is for being such a great editor. Keep up the good work with your editing! Tennislover 18:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Purple Barnstar
		For putting up with it all, and not letting it get to you. Oden 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Yamla is a dedicated user who spends more time on Wikipedia than many could imagine, and he's been here that long as well. For that, and much, much more, I award him this barnstar. Alex43223 ^{Talk \| Contribs \| E-mail \| C} 05:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Yamla/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

c14u

Congrats and thanks for the cupcake

Jennifer Hawkins

Please warn the users of the images

Incorrect 3RR warning given

Abbie Cornish

uploaded image

Possible sock of c14u

A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes

Lieutenant Dol Grenn/Gerzi

Fair Use

Riya Sen Image

I'm here again

Thanks!

A little help, please?

Nice cupcake, thanks

OK, I just wanted to know that

SJ revert

Archive page and re to email

Thanks

User:Chadbryant

User:Mines45

Kate Beckinsale link

Ted Hughes

3RR

Kristen Bell

A vandal to keep an eye on

Images

Hey Yamla!

Cute 14u(again)

Collumns?

Please

sorry yamla dude

2nd pair of eyes needed

Quit the abuse of [rollback]..

Fair use disputed

Yamla

194.80.32.8

Another possible sock of Cute 1 4 u?

Tom Cruise Research

Hey

Thanks!

Sob Sob Cry Cry

Vandalism???

Image:ALFRobinWebbSHAC.jpg

More vandelism on blue moon

Information Request

"totallytitmuss.com"

Jinxy

Fair Use Rationale

Nore the godfather

Eva Green Picture

Image:Veronica Mars.jpg

IDIOT - DEFINITION - YAMLA

Ummm

842.gif-rohun

Question

What!? Blocked!?!?

c14u

Remember Twentyboy/Hungrygirl?

U and ur fair use rationale on pictures i contribute

Picture

Image

RE: Image:Furtado02.jpg

JonBenet

Advertisments accusation

image deletion

What are you talking about?

User IAF

Help mold a newbie

Fair Use

Woody Allen image

Image:LonelyGirlWiredCover.jpg

c14u sockpuppet (13th time???)

Vandalism by User IAF

Sugababes image

Re: Jen.jpg

`Incorrect 3RR warning given`

`Abbie Cornish`

`uploaded image`

`Possible sock of c14u`

`A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes`

`Lieutenant Dol Grenn/Gerzi`

`Fair Use`

`Riya Sen Image`

`I'm here again`

`Thanks!`

`A little help, please?`

`Nice cupcake, thanks`

`OK, I just wanted to know that`

`SJ revert`

`Archive page and re to email`

`Thanks`

`User:Chadbryant`

`User:Mines45`

`Kate Beckinsale link`

`Ted Hughes`

`3RR`

`Kristen Bell`

`A vandal to keep an eye on`

`Images`

`Hey Yamla!`

`Cute 14u(again)`

`Collumns?`

`Please`

`sorry yamla dude`

`2nd pair of eyes needed`

`Quit the abuse of [rollback]..`