User talk:Yamla/Archive 16
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Yamla, thanks for verifying this person's image uploads. When I see a new user upload pics with metadata and whose name is connected to a site, I usually email the site for confirmation, but I see you've already done so. One of his pics, Image:Plies.jpg, doesn't have a license tag. Should we just presume it's GDFL-granted like his other pics or does he have to explicitly add a license tag himself? Spellcast (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- He really does need to explicitly add the license himself. If it is his image, it'd be reasonable to assume it's under the GFDL as all editor contributions are. However, it is possible that he doesn't actually own the copyright on that particular image. Also, of course, it's best to explicitly check. :) --Yamla (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Aw come on
aw come on fool 70.53.147.250 (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I need your help Yamla.
124.125.208.23 (talk · contribs) keeps on reverting the above-mentioned article to his very version. His version means -- some unreferenced claims, reviews from unreliable sites and above all -- the full history of the name "Jodhaa Bai" (and what historians think about it) which he thinks belongs to this article, while it is irrelevant here because it is an article about a recently released film, and the history of this name belongs to another article called Akbar. In this article it's irrelevant. I was reverting his edits, warning him, discussed the issue on the talk page, and even another editor told him that this info was more relevant to the page of Akbar, but he keep reverting. That's how the page looked in his version. Total violations of WP:LEAD, WP:N and WP:UNDUE
Not only that, he also reverted all the edits by all editors, while there were numerous constructive edits in between, like formats etc. I turned to User:Riana yesterday but she seems to be busy. During the night, he took my request to stop adding it and moved the so called info (which is referenced, but irrelevant) to the synopsis section... Imagine to yourself, the history of the name Jodhaa Bai and what historians have to say about it in a synopsis section! See the version after his night edits - [1]
Today I requested for page protection because of heavy vandalism, and was sure that he would stop with that, but now I see another editor, Itihaaskar (talk · contribs) who is a clear sock puppet of this IP, reverting the page to this IP's version! Again, reverting altogether, with no consideration of the in-between edits, even the protection template was removed -- see that comparison.
Please do something, I'm losing my temper. This info clearly belongs to the Akbar aticle, and he still keeps doing the same. My best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
sceeuk1 unblock request
I understand your rationales against self-promotion in that editor's talk page. I don't want to meddle in the issue, but I doubt if he really understands what WP is all about. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. However, he also refused to read the policies and guidelines I pointed him to. --Yamla (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, that guy has no place here in this community AT ALL. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Kollywood Today
Yes, sorry for the late reply, they claimed that there images are all theirs and they once again readily accepted to let Wikipedia use their images. Universal Hero (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, just to be clear, they are claiming that all images on Kollywoodtoday belong to them? If so, I will quickly grab a counterexample to prove that this is not the case. --Yamla (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Please note, that photogrpahers work for several companies. A friend of my father's has sold images to more than three sites previously, giving them total rights. But here, I'm not totally sure. Universal Hero (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- This, this, this, and this are either screenshots or promotional material from Mistress of Spices, and clearly not owned by Kollywoodtoday. See here for evidence. I believe this is more than sufficient to show that Kollywoodtoday is pulling our leg when it comes to their ownership. --Yamla (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. However despite these links, I don't think these are the greatest of sources. Film production works differently. For publicity purposes (to advertise) film companies release stills of the film for usage. That's whats been done here. The images, as they ares tills, are free. Maybe another photo of maybe an actor or etc could have been forged. I'll write again to them. Universal Hero (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, free, but not freely licensed, an absolutely critical difference. Unless Kollywoodtoday owns the copyrights to all the images on their site, as you are claiming, they cannot release them to us under the CC license. And they clearly do not own the copyrights to at least a number of the images, being that these are film screenshots. --Yamla (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not yet, they usually respond within a week. Universal Hero (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, free, but not freely licensed, an absolutely critical difference. Unless Kollywoodtoday owns the copyrights to all the images on their site, as you are claiming, they cannot release them to us under the CC license. And they clearly do not own the copyrights to at least a number of the images, being that these are film screenshots. --Yamla (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. However despite these links, I don't think these are the greatest of sources. Film production works differently. For publicity purposes (to advertise) film companies release stills of the film for usage. That's whats been done here. The images, as they ares tills, are free. Maybe another photo of maybe an actor or etc could have been forged. I'll write again to them. Universal Hero (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- This, this, this, and this are either screenshots or promotional material from Mistress of Spices, and clearly not owned by Kollywoodtoday. See here for evidence. I believe this is more than sufficient to show that Kollywoodtoday is pulling our leg when it comes to their ownership. --Yamla (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Please note, that photogrpahers work for several companies. A friend of my father's has sold images to more than three sites previously, giving them total rights. But here, I'm not totally sure. Universal Hero (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was engaged in discussion with Hammerandclaw, with a view to his acculturation, when he was blocked. I would like you to unblock him on the understanding that I stand surety for him on my belief that he does not intend to offend our community. You don't have to do anything right now but I just want to start a dialog. --TS 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- If he unconditionally withdraws any legal threat and if you believe it would be appropriate to unblock him, I would absolutely not consider it wheel-warring for you to lift the block. I see there's been extensive discussions on WP:ANI and so I would expect any unblock would be done after a consensus has been reached there, but once again, if you believe it appropriate, I would not consider it wheel-warring for you to unblock Hammerandclaw. I don't personally believe the user's claim that there's some problem with his broadband connection but perhaps he will withdraw that. Regardless, if you are free to unblock if you are satisfied. --Yamla (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Meanie
Yamla is mean! You cant threaten to never let me edit again just because I messed up on Miranda Cosgrove page when I was trying to add a picture of her! Meanie (Jonapello22 (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC))
- Not only did you mess it up but you apparently still have not read and understood our image use policy, as you have already been asked to do. --Yamla (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well i am sorry but youre the one who is supposed to help me, im the noob! Help is not threatening to ban me from editing wikipedia Jonapello22 (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your comment there. See the diff immediately before yours for the comment in question. - Revolving Bugbear 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seems from comments (including yours) that consensus is to replace Hammerandclaw's indef block with the shorter block originally applied by Black Kite. Would you have any objection if I went ahead and removed your indef and went back to the 48 hour BK applied, less "time served"? Naturally I'll keep an eye on H&C's contributions , as will quite a few people following his outburst on AN/I! Tonywalton Talk 21:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- While I still absolutely do not buy his claim that his router was broken and therefore somehow causing vandalism, I will absolutely not object if you unblock him immediately, as I think we are outside the 48 hour original block window now. Enough people will watch his contributions that I think this is probably the right course of action at this point. --Yamla (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, I don't buy that explanation either. Router broken, possible. Poor/slow broadband, possible. I've used this ^%*^%% thing over dialup and it's not obliged me to blank things. The time it took for him to come up with the "explanation" was IMV rather odd as well. However, a new consignment of AGF pills just arrived...
- While I still absolutely do not buy his claim that his router was broken and therefore somehow causing vandalism, I will absolutely not object if you unblock him immediately, as I think we are outside the 48 hour original block window now. Enough people will watch his contributions that I think this is probably the right course of action at this point. --Yamla (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- BK's original block was for 48 hours, which expires at about 2:35PM UK time tomorrow - I've set a block expiry of 16 hours 40 minutes, whch is about the same time (give or take a few minutes). Anal retentive? Possibly! Tonywalton Talk 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Serisously you can,t block someone if they stop what there doing
Read subject/headline this is on behalf of boblo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.219.75 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't block Boblo. But as I mentioned, Boblo didn't stop what he was doing. And I see he has now resorted to violating WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hammerandclaw
Hi Yamla,
Just a quick note that I appreciate you, and several other admins, stepping in on this. It kind of resolved itself more messily than perhaps necessary, and might have been a little less so if I had known exactly what I was doing from the very beginning. But I did learn alot about how this kind of thing works, and feel much more confident in being able to handle the next one more smoothly. --barneca (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I failed the prod, as I think the "distribution" section establishes minimal notability. AfD may be in order, however, as there are no references (WP:V/WP:RS) and I agree that WP:COI may be in play. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks for letting me know. --Yamla (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- See Ladirectmag, too. Several image uploads that met CSD and most certainly COI. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Specific versus general uses of magazine covers
Following on from the earlier discussion at WP:MCQ, please seee Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Wording of Template:Non-free magazine cover for a discussion of specific versus general uses of magazine covers. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've contested the prod on this article. Feel free, obviously, to open an AFD discussion. Best, Dppowell (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I see you around reviewing a lot of unblock requests, and you recently reviewed my block of the above. I'm a fairly new admin here, but it really is heartwarming and confidence-building when your decline reason is to refer the editor to my reasons for blocking, without any qualification. This makes me think I'm getting it right so far, and I appreciate it greatly. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. It certainly happens that some blocks are invalid but most of the time, it's fairly straight forward. Autoblocks are another story, of course. Most of those that I see, I lift. --Yamla (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I wonder if you noticed the entered-and-quickly-erased defense of his presumed other self [2] which is typical sockpuppet behavior. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't see that. I did, however, raise with Overjoyed's blocking admin the strong possibility that these were sockpuppet accounts. --Yamla (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think there are 3 or 4 admins watching this guy now, and I think I've said all I need to say to or about him. Thank you for your help. P.S. I have to give him some credit for the old folks' home story. It's usually a brother or a roommate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism on Chiranjeevi page
I've been warding off vandals as and when I notice them. But, I was wondering if the article can be locked for unregistered users? Thoughts? Mspraveen (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
C0wb0yz
Please, you cowboy, calm down, and think with your head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.239.162 (talk • contribs)
account
I am really confused as to why my account has been blocked. I am now unable to log in so have to do all my edits without logging in. If I register another account then this is a sockpuppet or what ever you call it. This seems crazy just because a couple of times I edited and didn't log in. Also my wife has now registered an account- she has some similar interests and some different- is she going to get accussed of being a sockpuppet- this is all very, very wierd.
88.108.51.97 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)alpinist
- You are well aware that the use of alternate accounts or IP addresses to continue editing is not permitted. --Yamla (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Resilient Barnstar | |
| You haven't gotten a barnstar for some time, so here's one you rightfully deserve. Even though you're almost continually besieged by vandals and the uninitiated, you manage to rise above it and continue editing. So good job, and keep up the good work. bibliomaniac15 23:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |
I was about to give you a barnstar, but I'll just second Bibliomaniac's above. I don't want to sound like i am gushing, but you have got to SERIOUSLY be my favorite fellow admin, if only because you take absolutely no bullshit. Your unblock denials are straight, to the point, at leave no room for arguement. You do a great job, and I ALWAYS enjoy when I come across your work. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Signature copyrights
I saw your deletion of the signature image from the Miley Cyrus article, and couldn't find the answer to the question it raised: if a celebrity signs something for you, and you scan the signature, does the celebrity own the copyright, or do you? That's how I assume that signature image was made.Kww (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a lawyer. However, I'll note that I don't see this as being any different from promotional photographs of a celeb. A celeb may give you a photograph of themselves and you would own the photograph itself (or the signed piece of paper) while the celeb (or their agency) would own the copyrights to the photograph (or signature). It's also possible for two or more people to own copyright at the same time. If a friend takes a photograph and I substantially alter that, both my friend and I would own copyright to the resulting work and, in most cases, neither of us could republish that derived work without the consent of the other party. It all gets a bit tricky (and believe me, I've been in a similar situation before). --Yamla (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Drive-by response: I am a copyright lawyer, but this is not legal advice. What is the copyright that you imagine to be on the signature? A copyright is "original expression" fixed in a tangible means of expression. The expression is usually taken to be the information content; the name itself is clearly not copyrightable. So we're talking about whatever unique attributes the person has in writing the English language. This is a very, very, thin copyright in my view. Have you heard somewhere that there is a copyright on a signature? --Lquilter (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly haven't. On a "better safe than sorry" basis, I think Yamla did the right thing by removing the image from the article, but I would like to know what the best place to discuss it is. Is there an appropriate noticeboard?Kww (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Media copyright questions might be the right place; I'm not that familiar with WP's copyright discussions. There are a lot, it seems to me. I'd be more concerned with other issues than copyright: I can see potential BLP issues from living people's signatures, since it could assist identity theft. (Although less likely in case of celebrity, I imagine.) --Lquilter (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly haven't. On a "better safe than sorry" basis, I think Yamla did the right thing by removing the image from the article, but I would like to know what the best place to discuss it is. Is there an appropriate noticeboard?Kww (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Drive-by response: I am a copyright lawyer, but this is not legal advice. What is the copyright that you imagine to be on the signature? A copyright is "original expression" fixed in a tangible means of expression. The expression is usually taken to be the information content; the name itself is clearly not copyrightable. So we're talking about whatever unique attributes the person has in writing the English language. This is a very, very, thin copyright in my view. Have you heard somewhere that there is a copyright on a signature? --Lquilter (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Question from a sophomore on the subject of WP:RFP
I see a minor edit you made very recently to this timestamp (reverting to last version by Rudget) at WP:RFP. I've been watching admins at their tasks in the last few weeks and Page Protection is up very soon in my self-selected study; watching and participating in AfD process this week. Is the edit you reverted the kind of thing which needs WP:OVERSIGHT? Is this more of a Right to Vanish thing? I'm aware that in the latter case, usually application must be made directly, but does oversight require direct application from the (perhaps) at-risk party? BusterD (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- This user has already been told to contact WP:OTRS. He has also had his edit request declined on RFP. That's why I reverted. --Yamla (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not give me nonsense warnings in the future. First of all it is not "potentially controversial" to call someone German-American. Secondly most of the article is unsourced, there is no reason to target this specific fact. Thirdly - give a guy some time to find a good enough source, will ya! There's no need to kick in open doors. -Duribald (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- This information was disputed. As per WP:V, it requires a citation before you can add it to the article. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Would you please READ WP:V before you refer to it:
- "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag a sentence by adding the //fact// template, a section with //unreferencedsection//, or the article with //refimprove// or //unreferenced//. Use the edit summary to give an explanation of your edit. You may also leave a note on the talk page or an invisible HTML comment on the article page."
- You should have ASKED for for a source to be provided, in the manner prescribed by WP:V, if your removal was contested. Instead you revert the info and slap me with a nuisance warning. -Duribald (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't a nuisance warning, it was the bog-standard warning given to people adding unsourced information to articles. --Yamla (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Read the quote from WP:V above. You referred to WP:V yourself. You don't use warning templates when there is a prescribed procedure in WP policy. -Duribald (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". WP:V. --Yamla (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which is why you have a right to ask for a citation - not a right to throw warnings around like wet trout. You should watch out. There is such a thing as trout slapping, and I'm not afraid to stoop to that level, you know. -Duribald (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". WP:V. --Yamla (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Read the quote from WP:V above. You referred to WP:V yourself. You don't use warning templates when there is a prescribed procedure in WP policy. -Duribald (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't a nuisance warning, it was the bog-standard warning given to people adding unsourced information to articles. --Yamla (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Would you please READ WP:V before you refer to it:
Thanks for being a hawk on the FU guidelines. I forgot to properly tag all the images for this new article. I would have appreciated a heads up though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi
How long have you been on wikipedia for? Why do you enjoy editing here so much? I'm considering doing it myself, but all my friends have told me I'm really sad for doing so and shouldn't waste my time. I live in England btw. Are you an american? If so do people have the same attitude over there? I'd really love to know that I'm not alone and I'd love to start editing constructively. If you convince me I might make an account and join. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.23.174 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
When you get a sec
Thegoodgirl01 needs her edits reverted. I put the sock tag on her user page but would rather an admin did the reverts. I hope the winter's been treating you well. Precious Roy (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Winter is good now that it isn't so darn cold outside. :) --Yamla (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Spore Edit War on Again
You may need to look at Spore again. There seems to be a minor edit war going on, again. JAF1970 removed all references talking about the Wii version, trimming it down to a single unsourced line where he forgot to remove the "Wiiwii" reference. Sillygostly then merged the Spore Creatures and Spore Mobile articles into the Spore article, which will no doubt be a controversial edit.
There has been no consensus and really no discussion about what direction to take the article in. I'm not sure if it needs outright protection again, but it may need watching by someone wiser than I. KiTA (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, let me change my request. There is an active edit war going on on Spore (video game) now. I believe it may need dispute protection again. KiTA (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Images
Hello Yamla!
This one was recently added by Shashankmittal (talk · contribs), and I don't know if it is free. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 22:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- This image is all over the Internet and without evidence to back up this extraordinary claim, no. We have no reason to believe it is free; the claimed source does not appear to be correct. --Yamla (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Spore Creatures
I did not blank the article. I merged it with the main Spore article. The separate articles are unnecessary as the subject matter is lack the notability to warrant their own separate articles (as dozens of video games are redesigned in order to tailor to the limitations of other platforms). Sillygostly (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please discuss this first, and reach a consensus. --Yamla (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have tried. Really, I have, but JAF1970 absolutely refuses to reach a consensus (or better yet a compromise) and disregards every edit that I make. Sillygostly (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, then, see WP:DISPUTE. Please refrain from any further edit warring. --Yamla (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have tried. Really, I have, but JAF1970 absolutely refuses to reach a consensus (or better yet a compromise) and disregards every edit that I make. Sillygostly (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Kollywood today images.
Hey, I'm quite upset to see that the images have been deleted, considering I think I've got fair reply. The letter.
Dear Universal Hero,
Thank you for your reply.
Once again we assure you that our photographers have taken the images supplied from our website, which you have been using on your Wikipedia site.
In your request for confirmation, we have attached photos of our photographer at the events, to show that we are not using "second hand" images. Furthermore, pictures of stills as you had enquired, are given free to us from the various free companies. As you suggested your displeasure at those images, we recommend you not to use them for your copyright purposes.
Finally, please can you quote that Kollywoodtoday.com have provided the images you have taken.
Thanking you,
editor Kollywoodtoday.com 2008
Do we need futher information?
Universal Hero (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of having deleted the Kollywoodtoday images, though I did delete the Caledonian (?) Publishing images. However, the letter you received back does not address the fact that they have been using film screenshots, as I pointed out. I'm going to bring this up on WP:ANI. --Yamla (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
may i thank you for unblocking me! thanks! Najafhaider (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)najafhaider
Riya Sen spam
Was it necessary to remove the fansite addresses from the Riya Sen article? I see many celebrity sites featuring a few fansites (quite flattering to their notability). But, well, I sure don't know the policy/guideline on this. Can you help? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Fansites are inappropriate. See WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Please remove unofficial fansites from other articles where you see them. --Yamla (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is there any way to recognize official fanclubs? Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Official fanclubs, recognised by the person themselves (that is, not just a fan site that claims to be official, so you'll either need to find an official reference on the official page or some other reliable source) can generally be added to an article without problems. Just note that this is the official fanclub. --Yamla (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is there any way to recognize official fanclubs? Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This user has made some proposed edits after you left him {{2nd chance}}. I figure it's up to you to determine if the edits are good enough. I never have any idea with 2nd chance what the blocking administrator is really thinking. Mangojuicetalk 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. For what it is worth, I just want to see something more significant than a single unsourced sentence, or something more than someone's opinion. It doesn't have to be a major rework but it should show more effort than simply adding an unblock template to a talk page. :) --Yamla (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Stopping use of Unblock template on certain user pages (E.G. User talk:Chris6730)
As far as I am aware, technically, by blocking someone's user account and then not letting them delete it is illegal as it has personal information about that person on their account details. Surely this must be changed? Fr4zer 21:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- What on earth makes you think this is illegal? Please be careful about WP:NLT. This user was clearly blatantly violating acceptable use of the unblock template and was just shopping around for a sympathetic admin. And in any case, the user still has other recourse. Through WP:ARBCOM or WP:Contact Us, for example. Not that it particularly matters, the user has already agreed to license all of their contributions under the terms of the GFDL. --Yamla (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks so much for unblocking me. Me and my brother apparently share the same IP address, and he obviously can't handle being a "big boy". ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 20:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, but you may want to talk to your parents. It's most likely that you'll continue ending up blocked. :( --Yamla (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the unblock! As you may be aware the whole IP block was kinda unfair on all users of this IP especially when it belongs to an institution. Is it possible that these complications can be avoided in the future? Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Only four hours to go now.
You'll have to have this page protected. The vandalism will be swift and merciless. Just a heads up by a concerned citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.135 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Joebob898989
Mind declining his newest unblock request? -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 19:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Crystalclearchanges
Do you think it might be courteous to remove the user's BDD reference from his last post on his talk page? It bears no relevance to the discussion, and the user can't remove it himself if he changes his mind. Ayla (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Probably reasonable, I'll go do that now. --Yamla (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Ayla (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since I'm the blocking admin and it was challenged and I'm new to this whole thing, is there anything I'm supposed to do (respond, justify, etc)? Also, please look at User:71.63.91.68's contribution history. Popped up on my watchlist as editting several articles I had to move around following block. MBisanz talk 05:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Ayla (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I know it is a bit after the even, but on the blocked user's talk page I am accused of acting in a bad way by Jeffpw just for trying to enforce policy - ie that a banned user should never be allowed to edit. Could that be removed, now that the user making the comment has appeared to have retired from Wiki? Thanks Whitstable 02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:2746big.jpg
Re Image:2746big.jpg. I'm obviously being particularly dense this evening, because I don't understand your insistence on what you call "critical commentary" - this isn't mentioned in WP:RAT. Is it that you think this is just a photo taken from an unrelated website? If you look at the website, you'll see that this is an official publicity photo for the series. Or is it that you don't think that my wording is equivalent to the examples in WP:FURE? Please explain. —SMALLJIM 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is your concern that you simply do not understand what is meant by "critical commentary"? --Yamla (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well I thought I knew what was meant by "a critical commentary", but having just found Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images, I'm not now sure of its meaning here. It seems to me as if most of the examples at WP:FURE that use "The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic." wouldn't meet that critical commentary criterion. Are there ongoing arguments about this of which I'm unaware? What would the rationale for this photo look like if you wrote it? —SMALLJIM 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- That image is serving no purpose other than illustration, so no rationale I came up with for the image as it is currently being used would be sufficient. A good hypothetical example of critical commentary for a film screenshot would be, say, if one of the lead actors had to add 60 lb to his weight in order to land the role. If the article then had a paragraph explaining this, including perhaps how the actor was able to gain so much weight and exactly why this was necessary for the movie, the screenshot could be added to the article and the paragraph would be the critical commentary. On the other hand, if you include an image simply to show the actor in the context of the movie, there's no critical commentary. It's just serving as illustration. Do you see the difference between the two examples? If not, let me know and I'll try to come up with a better example. There's no ongoing arguments about this that I am aware; illustration is always accepted not to constitute critical commentary (because there's no commentary at all, let alone critical commentary). --Yamla (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've just skimmed Wikipedia talk:Non-free content which indicates that there is ongoing "heated debate" about this issue, though, as you say, it does seem to be generally accepted that use "for illustration only" is not sufficient. Thanks for those two examples which do clearly point up a difference in usage. Based on what you say, however, I'm interested to know what you think of the use of images of CD covers etc. here - aren't they purely used for illustration? I can't see any "critical commentary" there unless use as "primary means of visual identification" counts. —SMALLJIM 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, but there's no debate about whether illustration is critical commentary. But as you indicate, there's some debate on whether critical commentary should be required for Wikipedia. I was not trying to mislead you here. Album covers are currently, if I remember correctly, permitted solely for illustration. That is, their license does not require that they be used for critical commentary. Some other image types are similarly permitted solely for illustration. Film screenshots are not, nor are many other image types. And there's some question as to whether the Wikimedia Foundation actually permits album covers, etc. solely for illustration. That is, there's question; the Foundation has not clarified their policy yet. Fair-use is a confusing section of law at the best of times, and Wikipedia's take on things is significantly more confusing as we are trying to build a free encyclopedia. Some language versions of Wikipedia simply say "no fair use at all". The English Wikipedia isn't there yet. It would make things much easier. But that's not to say it is the correct approach. It would make things easier if nobody was allowed to edit any article, either, and that's clearly not something I support. --Yamla (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the discussion - it's been an interesting foray into a new area for me. As far as this particular image is concerned, I have no affinity for it and I'd be unconcerned if it was to go. Actually, the fact that some time ago I edited it to remove its blue cast (which is the only reason it was on my watchlist) probably means that I've violated its copyright and it ought to be deleted immediately! Please do so if that's the case. The only point I think I should reiterate is that this isn't a still shot from a film, it's a publicity photo put out by an agency – see the link on the image page – even though it doesn't show the title of the documentary on it; so it may be allowable on those shaky grounds, akin to those examples you provided. Overall, it would clearly be a shame if fair use was prohibited because such images do add a lot of value to the encyclopedia and I don't get the impression that they cause the Foundation any particular legal problems. Anyway, thanks again for the help. Best, —SMALLJIM 00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Update: new day, fresher brain… I see now that the reason for your complaint was the {{Non-free film screenshot}} licence that was used for the image. I'd fixated on the rationale and failed to consider the implication of the licence wording. That's why we were talking at cross purposes. What I hadn't grasped was the obvious (to you) point that different licences require different fair-use rationales, and that the wrong licence was being used. I've changed the licence to what seems to be the correct one ({{Non-free promotional}}). Hope you agree that it's OK now (later edit aside). —SMALLJIM 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We Have A Problem...
I was browsing Wikipedia while not logged in and I tried visiting the talk page of the article "We Ride" and a message popped up saying that My I.P. address has been block for some abuse of a sock puppet:
Editing from 76.69.0.0/16 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Yamla for the following reason(s): Abusing sock puppet accounts: Randy Jaiyan. Your IP address is 76.69.165.83, and the block has been set to expire: 06:18, 5 March 2008.
I don't understand why that would happen since I am the only one that has been using my computer for the pass four months. I am not even Randy Jaiyan. I am Michael Perry. I only have one account and this is it. I have an account with Uncyclopedia but that's as far as it goes. Plus, my user name there is 'Mikeytas'. Can you please get back to me as soon as possible? Thank you. DUDE, I Think YOU Have Blocked The Wrong Person.--Mikéylicious & Really, Really Hot!!! (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Calm down, are you familiar with the concept of a dynamic IP? sometimes inocent users that are sharing the IP address of a disruptive user get involved in the block, this is usually collateral damage and the effect should wear off when the address changes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- But My I.P address isn't gonna change any time soon and I can't have a block that is undeserved on my record. All I do is help Wikipedia and my cousin has been doing such wrongs that defame me. How can I change my I.P. address while still using the same router?.--Mikéylicious & Really, Really Hot!!! (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm bored yamla
VERY VERY BORED. And my shoes haven't arrived yet. Can we play? Not in the sun (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not vandelize Brenda Song
Excuse me hello i have noticed your accusations of me vandelizing Brenda Song's artice well for your iformation i did not do anything except for add an image from wikipedia commons which has the author and source though no confirmation from the author so it is currently set for speedy deletion in 7 days so you have no right to delete until the 9th of March 2008.So i did not vandelize the page and if you have not noticed many other pages on wikipedia have images which have no sources or fake information like Raven Symone's page though no users are doing anything about it.The image has the right to stay on wikipedia until 9 march 2008 or until the author confronts everyting.Thank You.= User talk:78.150.12.118 18:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are required to abide by WP:IUP when adding images to articles. That means you must ensure the image has an accurate source and license and otherwise abides by the requirements. --Yamla (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Question re: Image:Brenda Song.jpg
I think the uploader is trying to game the system on commons and on flickr. The image didn't show up on flickr until he got challenged on commons so he obviously, to me at least, just uploaded it to flickr. I looked for the image on the web and couldn't find it so can't prove anything, I'm just suspicious. No EXIF and small looks cropped. If he changes the permissions on his flickr image does the copyright issue become flickr's problem and do we just accept it? Do you known if flickr cares about this? --NrDg 22:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say so too. It's very fishy. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Another fishy item. On his flickr page is another photo with this info showing him claiming ownership of a "Photo by Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images". --NrDg 23:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- The lack of an EXIF on the first is a real omen of copyvio. Both pictures are from the same event, but one has no information and the other does, attributed to someone who could be another person. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- We seem to accept flickr with no question. What do we do when we KNOW flickr has a copyvio? Just ignore it? We want our photos to be properly licensed. Doesn't knowingly using a copyvio from flickr put wikipedia at risk? (BTW - I reported the known copyvio to flickr - it will be interesting to see what they do about it. --NrDg 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK. That's sound. So flickr is presumed correct, if validated by a trusted user, unless proven otherwise. I guess that is good enough for me to go with. The Raven Symone image is a definite copyvio of a Getty image on flickr but he is not trying to use it on wiki yet. The Brenda Song image hasn't been proven a copyvio yet. --NrDg 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Dido
Hi! This is Edgy88, I would to let you know that Dido's real name is Dido (Florian Cloud De Bounevialle O'Mallery Armstrong), I don't really know why you always change it, just watch this video from the Sharon Osbourne Show, October 16th in 2003, Dido talking about her real name [3]
By the way Conspiracy are: 1 a: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement <accused of conspiring to overthrow the government> b: scheme2: to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts>
the keyword is illegal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.158.192 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Image fair use claim
Dear Yamla, if you remember, you had blocked me once for a image fair use violation on Chiranjeevi article. While I'm still a bit stodgy about adding images for living people, I noticed the addition on Image:Chiranjeevi from 'indra'.jpg and after my adding the {{pui}} template, it was removed and a fair-use claim was used, which I don't seem to be convinced of. I wasn't sure of this and so, I thought I could reach out to you. Thoughts please..Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- We are not permitted to use fair-use images solely to depict living people, as is the case here. I'll tag the image. --Yamla (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Inappropriate Block
This user has made an inappropriate block citing "personal attacks." A look at the comments reveals that this was not a personal attack. No administrator should have the authority to block for personal attacks which he alleges is made on him or herself. This is a serious ethical issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.155.58 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- What block are you talking about? --Yamla (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's Randy who thinks he's blocked for the comments he made to me a while back. He doesn't understand creating account after account and uploading illegal pictures and moving articles is what he's actually blocked for. But that's just a thought, I'm not positive.KellyAna (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi i like to report an user
User:Naruto134 for a person attack on my wiki talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patmar15 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot find a personal attack. Which are you talking about? --Yamla (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Patmar15 is in dispute with Naruto and apparantly has been WikiStalking him at {{Destroy All Humans!}}. -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 09:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Jaiyan Randy Roberts
Jaiyan Randy Roberts (talk · contribs) violating his block. KellyAna (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, that was pretty blatant. --Yamla (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, he should be a sneaky as Grant Chuggle. He's (Grant) got a new one: Beaverlac (talk · contribs). Took me a while but all his times are the same as Grant's always were, the articles the same, and we've found a few new Grant ID's lately too making the same edits. Grant just has patterns, Days of our Lives, the Brady Family, John Black, and Tony DiMera plus Bold and the Beautiful characters on occasion. His problem is he removes the same things as Grant does which is how he's so easily caught. KellyAna (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked. --Yamla (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it took a while to "prove" but User:Carson IY is also Randy. They both play with the same pages Carly Corinthos and multiple incarnations of Claudia Zacchara (an article deleted but recreated in various forms by Randy); Carson IY just plays with other pages too. Oh, and did I mention they both upload illegal pictures? The same illegal pictures. KellyAna (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked. --Yamla (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, he should be a sneaky as Grant Chuggle. He's (Grant) got a new one: Beaverlac (talk · contribs). Took me a while but all his times are the same as Grant's always were, the articles the same, and we've found a few new Grant ID's lately too making the same edits. Grant just has patterns, Days of our Lives, the Brady Family, John Black, and Tony DiMera plus Bold and the Beautiful characters on occasion. His problem is he removes the same things as Grant does which is how he's so easily caught. KellyAna (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk in Jimbo's page regarding your block [4]just to let you know.Please check whether this is vandlaism or a geniune complaint.Just to let you know.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is this him again Carly Fan 12 (talk · contribs)? Same patterns, lots of unnecessary uploaded pictures. KellyAna (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Government of Kerala
Government of Kerala. I'd to revert your changes since the image is back with proper licence (Resolved). --Avinesh Jose T 08:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I see you are no longer falsely claiming ownership of the image. --Yamla (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. it wasn’t any false claim. The reason why I added PD-self since I edited the image in photoshop (coz I was unaware of it). The rest all that you’ve deleted was added with proper source & description. --Avinesh Jose T 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- That does not transfer ownership to you. The original photographer or owner of the image still maintains copyrights. Your claim of PD-self was not accurate. --Yamla (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- May be, but there are many images I can show you in WP that the author itself edited by adding additional stuffs (Note that in Photoshop we can do whatever circus we want & take the claim). If I was making false claim, I could have even smudge all background of that image & other things which you (or author) may not even make out at all. Anyway coming to the point, I added source of all other images, apart from Secretariat of Kerala. --Avinesh Jose T 05:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- That does not transfer ownership to you. The original photographer or owner of the image still maintains copyrights. Your claim of PD-self was not accurate. --Yamla (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. it wasn’t any false claim. The reason why I added PD-self since I edited the image in photoshop (coz I was unaware of it). The rest all that you’ve deleted was added with proper source & description. --Avinesh Jose T 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yo!
84.9.125.170 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
or maybe it was just a personal attack in disguise... 84.9.125.170 (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Wiki Edit
I only corrected it!! What's the problem?!! What is a sandbox??? Look at yourself before you start to nag... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.195.148 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sugababes
You remved Ugly as I was fixing their Number 1 single section. So I'm going to add it back, but only while I fix this section. Once I finish ycan you delete it without messing the whole chart up please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy2 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasnt finished yet but this is to much work trying to fix stuff that other people messed up so go ahead and just delete everything from Cro over and I'll just put the numbers back in their right position for each country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy2 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- You still aren't permitted to violate WP:MOS or WP:V. I'll leave it alone for half an hour, though. --Yamla (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008
You stepped in to block me from the site yesterday, clearly not fully understanding the situation that was unfolding. Not all of us are wiki experts and although I have tried to learn the rules, mistakes happen. Your very heavy handed action and claims of abuse were in themselves abusive. But it seems those that have risen to the rank of "administrator" and "mediator" have little regard for anything on this site but their own power and importance and certainly do nothing to help the regular contributors/editors who this site was set up to involve.
As a professional journalist and author who has written extensively on the subject of Celine Dion and Eurovision, I thought it would be appropriate to add one line of information to the profile on Celine on this site. The creator of that page, himself an administrator and mediator, reacted quite strongly, refusing to allow the contribution, because he thought it was "dull". This administrator often likes to quote the following: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." A tenant of wikipedia that is accepted by all, but apparently not by him. I tried to reinstate the line in the article, but he kept deleting it. Others then tried, as they appeared to agree it was relevant. He deleted their contribution too. Eventually, he locked the page. Is that the point of this site? To lock out anybody because you have the power to do so, just because you personally find something "dull"? Once this page was locked and thus knowing there could be no further breach of his precious article, he then turned his attention to a page that was set up about me personally. Probably a page that he has never seen before, or had any interest in, but has existed quite happily, with few edits, since the summer of 2007. First he set about editing it. Then he started tagging the associated photograph. The photograph in question is owned by me. When I first uploaded it, I didn't fully understand all the rules, so I appreciated it when someone tagged it and told me how to load it correctly. I followed their instruction TO THE LETTER and having done so, removed the tag. The page was never tagged again, and everyone seemed happy. Until this administrator started out on his revenge kick. I tried to change the copyright again, but he didn't like what I did, so he locked me from the page. My own page. My own photograph. Locked out. Then he threatened deletion unless I changed the data, but of course, being locked out, I could not change it. Even if I knew how. I did what I was asked to do, if that is wrong, guidance would be appreciated, not blocking and deleting. Knowing that this would continue, I tagged the entire profile to be deleted and put in the reason why. He deleted that tag. I tried reinstating it. He deleted it again and locked the page. I then tried to request to be unblocked. You deleted that. I tried again, so you blocked me from the site completely. If I misunderstood the difference between blocking and locking, then I apologize. But perhaps you could have contacted me to ascertain the problem before being so high and mighty.
As an administrator, he now appears to hold power over an online biography of myself, with nobody, especially me, with any chance of making alterations. You yourself have tagged it as an issue, but the issue cannot be corrected. I wish the entire page to be deleted, as this administrator clearly is determined to carry on a spiteful and malicious campaign against me personally. I cannot request a deletion because he has locked the page, you have banned me, and no other administrator gets the chance to make a decision, because he simply deletes the tags or reinstates the page seconds after any action is taken.
I consider this person to be extremely disturbed and dangerous. As long as he has the power to freely edit in any way he chooses, but prevents others from doing the same, he will be allowed to carry out a war of revenge against anything he considers "dull". The irony of course is that he has now put in the change I originally inserted into the Celine Dion page himself. Only under his terms. It's ridiculous.
Since you have tagged the page and do not like it. Perhaps you will now delete it. Particularly as nobody else will be able to make the changes you are rrequesting thanks to this administrators actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKMMOC (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I told you to stop abusing the unblock template. You continued. I have pointed you to WP:AFD where you can nominate that article for deletion. If you can't follow that page, please ask a specific question about it. You have also been pointed to WP:COI and WP:VANDAL. Please ensure you read these before making any further edits, they may help explain why, for example, we don't generally want you editing an article about yourself. Finally, please refrain from any further personal attacks. See WP:NPA. --Yamla (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I should also note that you were never banned, you were temporarily blocked. And this block has since expired. --Yamla (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that you ignore all the points about abuse from the relevant administrator. I am genuinely curious to know how one can join this exclusive club and become so all powerful and mighty.
I had been blocked from a page. I asked to be unblocked. This was ignored and deleted. I tried again. You then blocked me completely. As I have stated, and perhaps you could address this, not all of us understand the full intricacies and rules of wikipedia. Help rather than punishment is sometimes the answer. I believed I had been blocked, so I used the unblock template. That was not an abuse. It was at worst a misunderstanding.
I have made several requests for the page to be deleted. The offending administrator keeps deleting those requests.
Perhaps you can address that last point and come back down to Earth with the rest of us mere mortals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKMMOC (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you please provide evidence that you have followed WP:AFD to nominate that page for deletion? If the other admin has been deleting the nomination, this would indeed be abuse. However, note that I cannot find any evidence that you have done this; doesn't mean you haven't, just that I couldn't find it. As to how to become an admin, this is covered at WP:ADMIN, I believe. --Yamla (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I give up. I placed request for delete tags on the article. This offending administrator deleted them and locked the page. You have since tagged the page in a different manner. The corrections you are requesting thus cannot be made because of the lock. I would have thought the delete requests etc would be in the page history. If they are not, I don't know what else to tell you. You clearly aren't interested in this issue. Only interested in protecting your fellow administrator. You refuse to address the relevant issue of his abuse by locking pages and then maliciously editing work by those he's locked out. That is psychotic behavior. I wish you every success in your career as an Internet moderator. I hope it makes you happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKMMOC (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have examined the article, John Kennedy O'Connor. Your claim that I protected the page is false. It was protected by Journalist (talk · contribs) on 2008-03-10. Additionally, despite your claim that you placed request-for-delete tags on that article, I examined every edit made with your account to that article and can find no evidence of this. It is possible that you placed these tags via an IP address instead of via your account as I did not check every single edit made to that page. I did find two examples of Journalist removing a speedy delete notice from the page (here and here) but that notice did not adhere to WP:SD and was clearly inappropriate. "malicious harrassment and vengeance from an abusive wikipedia administrator" is not one of the criteria outlined in WP:SD but instead, is a personal attack. --Yamla (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I never stated that you protected the page. Not once. I will expect an apology for that slur. It is the administrator called "Journalist" who has been harrassing me. I gave a full and detailed description of his/her behavior in my above response to you. One that you clearly either didn't read fully or chose to ignore. I do not intend to go over it again. He/She is locking pages and using his/her authority in an abusive manner. You yourself HAVE tagged the page, saying something about it not being appropriate. I can't recall exactly what you said. But you put that there. Since the page is locked, the article cannot be corrected. Journalist locked it. Since you are unhappy about the article, why are you not prepared to delete it? As the subject of the page, I should have some ability to make such a request. I did put in delete tags and JOURNALIST keeps removing them and locking the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.137.51 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I apologise for the confusion. I am running a fever today and when you said, "The corrections you are requesting thus cannot be made because of the lock", I mistook that for you claiming that I locked the page. You made no such assertion. However, I still cannot find any evidence that you have nominated the page for deletion review as per here, and indeed I have verified that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kennedy O'Connor does not and never has existed, so if you did follow those instructions, there must have been some mistake. Can you please show when you placed the deletion tag? You can get the history of the page here. As I noted, the only thing I can see are blatantly inappropriate edits such as this which clearly don't adhere to WP:SD (let alone WP:AFD), though as far as I am aware, there's no evidence that you made those edits. As to the tag I placed on the page, it was that you, the subject of the article, had been editing it and so the article may require cleanup to insure there are no more conflicts of interest. By definition, you cannot do this. --Yamla (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I have just "stubbed" and left an OTRS notification on a page in which you have been peripherally (though clearly not heavily) involved, John Kennedy O'Connor. I have not changed the associated page protection. While I sort through what's going on with that page and an associated OTRS case, I'd appreciate your cooperation in keeping the article fairly "stub"-ish. Thanks! - Philippe | Talk 06:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandeepriya (talk · contribs)
Hiys, just a quick heads up: A user you blocked, Sandeepriya (talk · contribs), is saying he/she completed your unblock assignment and is requesting to be unblocked. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 13:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I declined the unblock, the user's contribution still consists entirely of original research. --Yamla (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)