User talk:Yamla/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy

Hi, you issued a long-term block to User:Samurai_Kung_fu_Cowboy a while back and made it crystal clear that he/she was on thin ice upon returning. Well, this editor re-appeared today and the disruption has already started. Notice the editor seems intent on picking a fight with me rather than contributing anything constructive. Can you take a look and intervene if need be? Thanks. SolarFlash^Discussion 18:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that this user does not (as of yet) appear to have reverted content. At the moment, you are both (vigourously) disagreeing on whether content should appear in the article. I'd rather not get involved in content disputes (partly because it involves me, and means I then can't act with my administrative powers if things go off the rails, and partly because I simply lack the skills to determine whether or not that particular content should be included). I'm glad to see you both discussing this on the article's talk page. I suggest both of you should back off and see what other editors on the page have to say. I understand and appreciate your frustration here and no part of this statement is meant to imply that I think your frustration is misguided, only to try to provide a path forward whereby the other editors on that article can weigh in and consensus can form. --Yamla (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand, I was hoping other editors would chime in over time but he's just arguing over me rather than waiting for other opinions in the discussion. Virtually every one of his edits now is attacking me personally. I personally seem to have become his sole target here rather than constructive editing. This is just one example [1]. At what point does he cross the line? SolarFlash^Discussion 18:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Jpgordon is taking a harder line, which may (frankly) be really helpful here. --Yamla (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Never a dull moment. SolarFlash^Discussion 19:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Jain Irrigation Systems

Hi, This is Deepak Mahajan, hope you are well in this pandemic, I think you marked the page Jain Irrigation Systems in December that, This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments.

Hope now after more than 7 months you may get satisfy that there is no paid edits I have done in that page and may like to revert the tag. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.100.212.2 (talk • contribs)

Oh come off it. I know who you work for. This is a clear WP:COI. Additionally, you are evading the block on Mahajandeepakv. --Yamla (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Re:Edit Block - no VPN or proxy used, but the arbitrary edit block seems to have ended / mysteriously resolved itself. Many thanks for your prompt attention. Aw1805 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Can you block Robloxlover69? He's abusing his user page. --ILoveCocomelon (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That was a different account, Hotcacafromtheoven, now blocked. --Yamla (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla! --ILoveCocomelon (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Re:

[2]
Hello. Thanks for your assistance, it seems I can edit now somehow. Best wishes, Yurek88 (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Question

Is there any chance or circumstances that LTA case pages are eligible for deletion. --77.123.102.47 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. If the LTA has obviously reformed, that'd be an argument in favour of deleting the case page. I can imagine other causes, too. But I'd imagine it is rare. If someone is so actively set on harming Wikipedia over a prolonged period of time, it'd be a huge lift to demonstrate they had reformed. --Yamla (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Vandal

Spanish wiki:

• 13:16 17 jul 2020 Yamla discusión contribs. bloquear renombró al usuario Entretenimiento-RevBOT (78 ediciones) como Pasapitrita (Per user request). this was an extremely vandalism and (and persistent puppet) account. Please do not agree to such requests.--Antur (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate? The user was blocked here, solely for their username. You can see that at User talk:Pasapitrita. The user name change did not appear to be inappropriate and we are therefore obligated to unblock the user (here on en.wiki) once the rename has happened. You may very well have a point, I just don't immediately see it. --Yamla (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afshaarn (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Samurai Kung Fu Cowboy

This guy's edit-warring again [3]. He's re-adding the same material after being told the source is on the unreliable list. You placed him on 0RR after his last block and he's been at war ever since he returned. SolarFlash^Discussion 19:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not mean to edit war. He deleted a cast member I added to film's page saying it needed to be sourced. So I re added the name with three sources. He deleted it again and I haven't done anything since. I think it's also important to point out that the two of us are currently involved in a conflict dispute being addressed by an appropriate editor who had informed Solar Flash not to have any contact with me because he has been reverting my edits on multiple pages he has never edited before and appears to be attempting to draw me into an edit war. If what I did by re adding the name with references was in fact edit warring I will make sure not to do so moving forward. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Also I have not reverted a single edit since I have returned. Thank you. However, as I said I am involved in a conflict with Solar Flash who has been reverting most of my edits. I have not had any conflicts with other editors since my return. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

IMDB is not a valid citation (it's explicitly excluded under WP:RS), so that would practically count as a revert because it is readding the same uncited content. However, it's quite likely you didn't realise imdb is unacceptable. Now you do. Even with a reliable citation, please refrain from readding that content, but please bring it up on the article's talk page (along with a citation from a source meeting WP:RS). --Yamla (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

He was absolutely made aware of the source being on the unreliable list, thus it is technically a revert and technically edit warring. I'm not violating any guidelines, I'm simply trying to help build an encyclopedia. Kung Fu Cowboy was informed in the initial edit summary that there was a sourcing issue [4]. He then stated on the talk page that he intended to source the edit using IMDB, and was subsequently informed by someone other than me that that particular source was on the unreliable list and couldn’t be used. He re-added the material with the unreliable source anyway, even after being advised (not be me) not to use it [5]. Then, he was informed yet again on another talk page of the same thing, yet I believe he still tried to use the unreliable source again. SolarFlash^Discussion 20:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Note, both of you agreed to avoid "interacting with or commenting about" each other. Both of you have violated that agreement with the above discussion. You must both immediately cease. --Yamla (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I had also added another source that's already used on film's page. Also El C is the name of the editor in charge of our conflict resolution. He stated to both of us not to have any direct contact or edit each other's contributions. We both agreed. However, not only has Solar Flash started to revert my edits again less then 24 hours to agreeing to this, he has also directly addressed me on El C's talk page before he has had a chance to contribute. As well as the film's talk page. Honestly, this guy is targeting me and I would appreciate if you could do something to further state that the two of us should not be interacting with each other or our contributions. If, as he states, there are any credible reasons to revert my edits, I'm sure plenty of other editors can do so. Seriously, since when have you seen a cast member require a reference on a film page? Literally no other cast member on that page has one. But I add one and minutes later he deletes it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I started to write that last comment before I saw your last one Yamla. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If you find that editor is still targeting you, please contact El C to enforce the restriction. --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Well this is interesting. Please clearly define "targeting", Yamla. Are you saying an edit that doesn't violate any policies/guidelines can still result in sanctions? SolarFlash^Discussion 23:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You both agreed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other. You both agreed. You are expected to uphold that agreement. Any edit that adheres to the agreement and to the policies and guidelines is, of course, perfectly fine and I'm not meaning to imply otherwise. --Yamla (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yambla, this is an instance in which you need to make yourself perfectly clear. If I don't violate any policies/guidelines and revert something he did in violation of a guideline, will you try to block me? Yes or no will suffice. Your last statement is clear as mud. SolarFlash^Discussion 23:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not if you were clearly reverting straight-forward violations of policy. I would block you (or at least, consider blocking you or referring the matter to El C) if either of you interact with or comment about each other, outside of purely the clarifying discussion happening here. Note that I am absolutely, categorically not the person you need to clarify this with, though. How the hell I got dragged into this is beyond me, I didn't even see the WP:ANI discussion until after it was closed. Please get your specific clarifications from El C. --Yamla (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't know how you got involved? You were the blocking admin last time this kid got out of hand [6], and I'm quite certain you knew that. Thanks for being so utterly ineffectual here. Next time I need an admin I'll find someone who's give-a-crap meter goes a bit higher. You said "I would block you if either of you interact with or comment about each other" and moments later he does this [7] and the vow again rings hollow. What am I supposed to think? Oh and look, [8], he's still going at it and defying your warning. Notice I've disengaged and he has not. SolarFlash^Discussion 02:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Yamla. Enjoy you weekend. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you were dragged into it either. I just wish this was over with. Thank you for your time. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

We are also discussing this on El C's page. Although we are waiting for El C to respond. I have made El C aware of the discussion on here or at least El C will be when the comments are read. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a grown man but you see how he refers to me as a kid, tells you your useless, and constantly berates you. He constantly uses this bullying and condescending tone with everyone. This is part of the problem. This attitude as well as my mistakes and me not leaving it alone is what led to our edit wars that got me blocked. It's also why we haven't been able to have a logical mature conversation. I have asked him to communicate with me instead of just deleting all my stuff attempting to instigate an edit war. But he won't. Then he messaged me ordering me around and when I messaged him back he accused me of randomly messaging him and being paranoid even though he literally is going to pages I've edited that he's never edited just to revert my comments. Unfortunately El C hasn't gotten back to us today but he made it clear on a message thread I didn't even read until it was closed out that we were not to have any interactions or contact. Any logical adult would see that and common sense would tell them not to revert the first edit I make when it is in the same format as everything else on that section on the page and every other page like that. But he did not. And when he's not getting his way with you or El C and was called out by the only other editor on the dispute resolution page he talks down to all of us in an abusive tone, takes no responsibility, and acts like all of us are the problem. I'm sorry you were dragged into this from the beginning but here we are now. Obviously I have made mistakes and I wish to be productive moving forward but this editor is doing his best to make that impossible. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me. I meant to revert my edits. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02

27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I realize that still sounds confusing. To clarify. His sole purpose for visiting those pages was to revert my edits. I accidentally said revert my comments. I also didn't mean for that to be in bold. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

He just did something extremely disturbing and what I perceive as a potential threat. If you look at his recent edits on here he changed a possible typo that said "dies" to "does." He typed that it was a subconscious slip, implying he wants me dead. Even if sarcastic I find this troubling on a whole other level. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Special:Nuke

Can you suggest what deletion summary should be used, for whoever does run Special:Nuke? Should a CSD criterion be used? Deletion (ahem) comes with many disputes, so any objections should be anticipated. As an alternative to a speedy nuke, a thread could be opened at WP:RFD. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, WP:G5 would apply, pretty unambiguously. WP:R3 might apply; I'm thinking misnomers rather than typos, but I'm probably wrong on this one. WP:G1 would apply in many cases, but unfortunately not all. Note that I have never used Special:Nuke so I'm not familiar with the process. Given the sheer number of garbage redirects created, I think speedy nuke is the most sensible approach, though. What do you think? --Yamla (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Oooh, looks like Tavix is taking care of it. --Yamla (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The deletion summary was "Mass deletion of pages created by User:Afshaarn". Why couldn't I think of something so appropriate? EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary "Mass deletion of pages added by (user)" mean?

What exactly does "Mass deletion of pages added by (user)" mean? I don't know and interested in knowing. --77.123.102.47 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what you are confused by? --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly does the deletion summary "Mass deletion of pages added by..." mean; for example "Mass deletion of pages added by Ppged55567855jd"? --77.123.102.47 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume you are trolling (I know you've trolled this talk page before). Please don't. --Yamla (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

How did I troll this talk page before? I don't really get this at all and don't know what exact page are you talking about. Also, why don't you answer my question about the mass deletion of pages question? --77.123.102.47 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Aledownload

Just as information, I've just blocked another obvious sock of User:Aledownload, the user User:Mod Terrik. Again very loud quacking. I had suspected for a time, but it's pretty blatantly the same person. Both Italian on their userpages. Both interested in Star Wars, Doctor Who, Cars (film and TV show), computer languages, Italian film characters, don't use edit summaries, keep adding unsourced items, often fixate on minor picky tweaking that ends up getting reverted by other users, it goes on. Only real thing of interest is that I believe that this is now 2 socks off the original account (assuming Aledownload was actually the original.) Does this now fall afoul of WP:3X? Canterbury Tail talk 15:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:3X only applies if the socks are checkuser-confirmed, unfortunately. Still, even without checkuser confirmation, there comes a point where no administrator is likely to unilaterally unblock, at which point they are de-facto banned anyway. :( --Yamla (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Had a feeling that was the case. Canterbury Tail talk 17:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking the people who harass other users! ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Previously blocked user continuing to vandalize pages

A user that was previously subject to a 36 hour edit block is continuing to vandalize pages, with the latest example being a section blank of a BLP page (diff is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julie_Payette&type=revision&diff=969058133&oldid=968994590).

Would you please review whether further sanctions are necessary for this user? 1of42 (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This user refers to themselves as "King of vandal" or some such. This is clearly deliberate vandalism so I blocked the IP address. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Objections?

Hey Yamla, do you have any objections if I were to unblock Diya.diya23? I think they actually did a decent job of explaining that they weren't trying to promote the writer that I blocked them for promoting. It would be fairly easy for me to keep an eye on this, as that writer only has two references at one article, and I've already added it to my spam search queue here. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No objections from me! --Yamla (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing threat of indefinite blocking

Hi Yamla, to solve our dispute in good faith, with regard to your threat on my talk page to block me indefinitely, please can you make clear the position here. As I understand, you are neutral on the content of Peter's page (which I, Davey2010 and Darren-M all observed is not an exemplary Wikipedia page). Can you confirm that you are comfortable that my edits (each of which had supporting rationale) were made in good faith? If so, my understanding is that you only take issue with the way we complained about the blocking. Is this correct? If you are interested in seeing the situation from my perspective, what we have been struggling with is multiple admins using their powers to undo changes without even any explanation (let alone detailed discussion or consensus). Respectfully, this would seem to me to epitomise 'edit war', rather than my behaviour, which was always accompanied by explanation. To avoid a repeat, we have set up topics on Peter's talk page. Men2ge4zhong3 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I want to make clear here that this editor is not speaking for me. I am unclear who the 'we' is that they are referring to, but please do not count me among it. I have no concerns about the block or appeal. Darren-M talk 16:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Men2ge4zhong3, I understand and accept that you are asking your questions here in good faith. :) As to your edits, my concerns were not so much with your edits to the article. Moreso claiming that people who opposed you were either part of Hitchens's team or were Hitchens himself. Additionally, I object to you characterising people who oppose you as authoritarian. It's hard to deal with conflicts here on Wikipedia. I mean that sincerely, it is legitimately hard. You started off taking the wrong approach, launching personal attacks on others. See WP:NPA. But since the short block, you have taken your discussion to the article's talk page. That shows you are trying to follow WP:CONSENSUS. Remember, when your edits are removed, you should stop and seek out consensus. Sometimes that means you won't be able to make your edits because people disagree. That's okay, frustrating but okay. I'm not going to weigh in on the changes themselves; I don't edit that article, so it's better that you work out a consensus and an endorsement of your changes with the regular editors on that page. Thank you for reaching out to me, and I sincerely wish you good luck with your future edits. Wikipedia is a difficult place to understand. --Yamla (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Sampraday

Hello I would like to get some help to make the following edit to the Swaminarayan Sampraday article.

Currently the section in dispute reads as follows:

Gunatit Samaj

The Yogi Divine Society was established in 1966, by Dadubhai Patel and his brother, Babubhai after they were excommunicated from BAPS by Yogiji Maharaj. The brothers were expelled after it was discovered that Dadubhai illicitly collected and misappropriated funds and, falsely claiming that he was acting on the organization’s behalf, led a number of young women to renounce their families and join his ashram under his leadership. After Dadubhai’s death in 1986, an ascetic named Hariprasad Swami became the leader of the Yogi Divine Society. The Yogi Divine Society became known as the Gunatit Samaj and consists of several wings: namely, Yogi Divine Society, The Anoopam Mission, and The Gunatit Jyot.

There is a proposal to change it to this based on the following sources:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Acts_of_Faith/Sgs9BAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22dadubhai+patel%22&pg=PT170&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Introduction_to_Swaminarayan_Hinduism/tPkexi2EhAIC?gbpv=1&bsq=dadubhai%20patel%20was

The Change (Update Section):

The Yogi Divine Society was established in 1966, by Dadubhai Patel and his brother, Babubhai after they were excommunicated from BAPS by Yogiji Maharaj. The brothers were expelled after it was discovered that Dadubhai illicitly collected and misappropriated funds and, falsely claiming that he was acting on the organization’s behalf, led a number of young women to renounce their families and join his ashram under his leadership. Dadubhai believed Narayanswarupdas Swami, also known as Pramukh Swami, was against him and persuaded the BAPS trustees to remove him. After Dadubhai’s death in 1986, an ascetic named Hariprasad Swami became the leader of the Yogi Divine Society. The Yogi Divine Society became known as the Gunatit Samaj and consists of several wings: namely, Yogi Divine Society, The Anoopam Mission, and The Gunatit Jyot. Yogiji Maharaj's images and prior gurus are displayed at all Gunatit Samaj temples.

Is this something that is allowed or not?

Applebutter221 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not the right person to weigh in on this. Please discuss it on the article's talk page. I mean no offence, it's just that I'm not familiar with the subject matter and I'm rather sleepy today. :) --Yamla (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

References

i made a edit on accident on religion in morocco but reverted it as forgot I had a topic ban

Just wanted to notify you that I made a mistake Arsi786 (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You corrected your mistake and owned up to it. Please be more careful in the future, but no harm done here. --Yamla (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it turns out they were violating WP:SOCK to continue violating their topic ban. That's the end of Arsi786, then. --Yamla (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Hi sir I have request to you for deletion of 2020-21 Bangladesh Women's Football League.Thanks.

For deletion

@Yamla: Hi sir I have request to you for deletion of 2021 Bangladesh Women's League plz?Thanks. Rehana Hawladar (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

On what basis? --Yamla (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Krys38

Hi Yamla, Apologies for sending you several content changes that apparently all violated the Wiki guidelines. Are there any other ways you can declare I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike". on your website? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krys3838 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. On the original source, modify the copyright notification to indicate this. This must be done on the original source. Note, though, that you've taken content written by different authors. --Yamla (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Tagging of Wode Maya

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Wode Maya. I do not think that Wode Maya fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because "some of his videos went viral gaining an international audience" is a claim of significance and is supported by a cited source. If you wish, you may try using the simple proposed deletion (PROD) process, or the full articles for deletion (AfD) process, instead, if this was an article, or another process such as MfD or XfD as appropriate. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I'm unsure if I want to proceed with that route as you have pointed out a pretty compelling counter-argument to my concern. :) --Yamla (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Mind you, notability is not exactly well-established, and an AfD might delete this unless additional sources were found -- I have no idea what a WP:BEFORE search would reveal. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

unblock requests

Seems to me that responses like this are telling CU-blocked users not to even bother requesting unblock at all. Is that our policy now? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was trying to communicate. The user claimed they were blocked with no reason. There was a reason; sockpuppetry was established by an admin with checkuser access. As you were confused, I clearly failed to communicate that. I will work harder on the communication of my point. In addition to my failure to communicate my point, do you have additional concerns? I mean that sincerely; you may see my more fully explained response as still inappropriate and I'm happy to discuss that with you. --Yamla (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the hell out of what you do; that's why this one surprised me a bit. Thanks! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

RollerCoaster Tycoon 3

I never made an edit to that page. You have the wrong user.

This edit was made from that IP address. Please consider creating an account so your contributions are solely your own. --Yamla (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

A question about citation

Thanks for messaging me and I have a question, I've used source as a wikipedia page for List of national animals, so why has that content removed? Also I'd so pleased to feedback. Turkeditor71 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Turkeditor71: Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; see WP:RS. So, you can't use one article to cite another here. --Yamla (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible impersonation

Hello. An account, m:Special:CentralAuth/YamlaBot, was created yesterday. If this isn't your account, kindly request for a lock at m:SRG. Thanks. --Minorax (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not my account. I have no alts and do not run bots. I will request that it be locked. Thanks for letting me know! --Yamla (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Found another one and requested for a lock. --Minorax (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That one is also not me. Thanks for requesting the block! I put in a request for the YamlaBot. Someone has too much time on their hands. --Yamla (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Added your username to a filter on meta and should probably flag any future accounts. --Minorax (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know that was possible! Thanks, these accounts crop up from time to time as I review a lot of unblock requests. Thanks, Minorax! --Yamla (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Your block of Zscaler proxy

Hi. Your 24 August block of Special:Contributions/165.225.192.0/18 seems to have produced a lot of collateral, just based on good-faith anonymous contribs, let alone registered users. Including myself. That range belongs to Zscaler which provides security and cloud services to several major companies, including, apparently, mine. This is a closed proxy that requires authentication and should not have been blocked.

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies#165.225.197.20, where zzuuzz commented: This is a Zscaler IP. These are typically shared and dynamic, and used by large major corporations (for example AstraZeneca and Carlsberg Group), with lots of potential collateral. They aren't generally regarded as 'open'. ... but I'm not seeing a pressing need to block the rest of it. See also similar conclusions at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Archives/Closed/2011/July and Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies/Archives/2011/October#70.42.29.3.

Please lift this block. I feel like talking to a brick wall lately, with nobody responding to e-mails or pings. No such user (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Mind if I take that to WP:ANI? I was following the lead of other admins in blocking zscaler, and it's unclear to me that en.wiki's policy says the block should be lifted. Your request is clearly in good faith, my question is solely around en.wiki's policy in this case. --Yamla (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course not (although AN seems like a better venue). I'm not into the technical matters, but I don't think this qualifies as an "open" proxy. It's an anonymizing service indeed, but one purchased by corporations; from the Wikipedia (and my own) standpoint, it's no different than a dynamic IP from a regular ISP. I didn't even know about Zscaler until yesterday, when the block forced me to research. No such user (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, WP:AN I think. I'll start a thread and notify you. Again, your concern is appropriate and valid, what I'm looking for is en.wiki's policy on zscaler here. I appreciate you raising the concern! --Yamla (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleting a duplicate page

Please delete the page Liberal Privilege, as there is already another page with the full book name Liberal Privilege Joe Biden and the Democrats’ Defense of the Indefensible. Youhunt (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Youhunt, (talk page stalker) Since you created both pages why don't you just change it to #REDIRECT [[Liberal Privilege Joe Biden and the Democrats’ Defense of the Indefensible]] Glen (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not know how to do that. I am sorry for creating a duplicate, as I did not realize at first the title was short (Liberal Privilege). Please help me, thanks. Youhunt (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC) In the future, if I create a page(s), I will learn from my mistake this time and check carefully before publishing, to avoid all this trouble. Again, I'm sorry. Youhunt (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Youhunt, no issues I've done it. It just redirects to the other page now. Glen (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much!Youhunt (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Youhunt, just as an aside are you sure the title Liberal Privilege: Joe Biden and the Democrats’ Defense of the Indefensible isn't correct? The colon seems to be part of the title. It all redirects to same article either way but be good to have it as published. Glen (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Glen, I figured out how to change the wiki page title. Youhunt (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Stoker, Funny Games (2007) and Se7en.

They are not horrors, so can I remove horror from them?81.101.15.25 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with me. Discuss it on the articles' talk pages. You'll want reliable sources to cite your claim. --Yamla (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent events relating to Derek Sloan

Would the recent calls for Derek Sloan to be removed from the Conservative caucus as well as the recent petitions by the Campaign Life Coalition and the Liberal Party be notable for inclusion in Sloan's article? Username⁶⁸⁹² 19:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References

In my opinion, yes. However, I incredibly strongly advise you to take it to the article's talk page. It's challenging to walk the line correctly with regard to Sloan and WP:BLP and there should be a consensus on the article's talk page before introducing material of this nature, even well-cited material. :) --Yamla (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Offwiki abuse on users

What exactly happens when one user abuses another off wiki? Come on, answer the question.--94.73.34.131 (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop being rude. WP:OWH answers your question. --Yamla (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I told you "Come on, answer the question" because you have not responded earlier. --94.73.34.131 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

What about memes out of wikipedia editors, is this off wiki abuse? I am not sure. --94.73.34.131 (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

In my timezone, it's not even 6:30 AM. It is inappropriate of you to act like this. As to off-wiki abuse, you have all the same information I have. Everything you need is covered in the policy I have linked you to. --Yamla (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Unblocking

How have I violated anything? Not being harsh or something.. 07wickedwizard (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but couldn't find a way to text you privately.. 07wickedwizard (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You are confused, I didn't block you. --Yamla (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I know, had requested for unblocking 07wickedwizard (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You should discuss your block with the blocking administrator. --Yamla (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Decline stale

Template:Decline stale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GZWDer (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Commented there. --Yamla (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Late apologies!

Hello Yamla! I just wanted to issue a formal apology for the trouble you had to go through after I was blocked for promotional content. While the content itself was misunderstood, my username did violate policy. While it’s behind us, I thought it’s never too late to apologize! Happy editing!Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the apologies. I look forward to many productive edits from you, going forward! --Yamla (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Heh

ICYMI --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Plausible. They normally use different images, but it's the same general approach! --Yamla (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Citation Format

Hello Yamala. I am trying to cite the following article in wiki html, but have not been able to find how to cite. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations to cite the following? I am trying to help find references for the Movado article. Thank you. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Here is the citation information: Chabbott, Sophia. "Gedalio Grinberg, Founder Of Movado." WWD, vol. 197, no. 2, 6 Jan. 2009, p. 6. Gale Academic OneFile, https://link-gale-com.libraryproxy.tulsacc.edu/apps/doc/A191798608/AONE?u=odl_tcc&sid=AONE&xid=cd8469d9. Accessed 17 Sept. 2020.

WP:CITE explains how to properly cite. --Yamla (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked user

Please delete all pages created by sock puppet account User: Bex Plex Killer Shamim (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Note that you can tag for deletion. See WP:SPEEDY; in this case, WP:G5 applies. --Yamla (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

IP block

It's hard to know what my thinking was a decade ago, but it most likely is that I intended to block for a short term but either forgot to change the block period or had a technical hiccup where I did change the block period but it didn't save that way. Thanks for the catch, I've unblocked it. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bearcat! 2011 was a whole different world. --Yamla (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Yamla. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Scott Davis ^Talk 14:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

AustrianFreedom

Hi Yamla, AustrianFreedom appears to be making edits as the IP 84.114.224.212 which geolocates to Austria and has been hitting the familiar AustrianFreedom pages regarding Serbia. Also note the very nonsensical AustrianFreedom-like posts he's made on his talk page. Can he be blocked as a wp:DUCK or does this need to go to SPI?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Also I think the IP can probably be blocked for these insults at least [9] (AF also had bad feelings with that same user). Edit: only just noticed that that is fairly old - but the same IP has been banned as AF before.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Tony Balloni has already taken care of it.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Jniccum self promotion

Jniccum, who you warned to stop self promoting two and a half years ago, has spent the past few months adding his own work to articles again. [10] [11] [12].

There seems to be a second account, Clarion444, that is making the same contributions. [13] [14] [15]. They even seem to take turns editing the same articles [16]

I've spent the morning trying to clean it up but I have only made it through to early August with their edits and I'm not sure what to do now. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

LoganBlade

LoganBlade (talk · contribs) is requesting unblock at UTRS appeal #34747. I'd like to carry to WP:AN and restore TPA --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I oppose the unblock but have no objections to you reinstating talk page access and taking it to WP:AN. I hope they are able to refrain from further NSFW content, of course. --Yamla (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think she learned her lesson. Most responsive request I've seen lately. I get tired of being the enforcer. It would be refreshing to see someone unblocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I hear you. :) --Yamla (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Yamla. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the email. Meh, I don't think it's worth any additional action. Just common-or-garden vandalism with no private information or anything. I mean, it's not even good vandalism. --Yamla (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it's not even good vandalism. Dang I wish you could've pinged said vandal so he could see that. Priceless. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Holmes edit

Hi Yamla,

The article itself shows that Elizabeth Holmes has been charged by the SEC for "Massive fraud" and settled those charges. Further, she has been indicted for wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. I did do a bit of background research in that I compared her article to Bernie Madoff's page, who is still living and referred to as a "fraudster" in the introduction. I believe that this qualifies the inclusion of the phrase "con artist" in the intro, but if you are happier with "fraudster" (which I think is a less descriptive term) then I am copacetic.

Cheers for looking out! Bigtrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigtrick (talk • contribs) 21:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No, neither term is acceptable at this time. See WP:BLP. This is serious business. Once she is criminally convicted for fraud, you can update the page to reflect her criminal conviction. Madoff was convicted, Holmes has not (yet) been convicted. That's a critical difference. WP:BLP is very important, we must be very careful here. Please take the time to read BLP and if you believe there are specific grounds in BLP that would let you apply this terminology, you are welcome to make your case on the article's talk page, citing the specific parts of BLP that apply. Otherwise, please do not introduce wording like this, as you'd be in violation of that policy. --Yamla (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bigtrick: As you reintroduced the terminology, I have referred the matter to the noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Elizabeth_Holmes. Someone there will decide whether or not the terminology is permitted by WP:BLP. --Yamla (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yamla,

Noted. GreenC also reverted my edit with a single citation, so I've gone ahead and added four citations total. Cheers for looking out. Bigtrick (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)