User talk:Yamla/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Fan Sites

Okay well never knew fan sites couldnt be added,dont own any here by the way.

Atul83 05:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Links

I am well aware of what the content of the external links section should contain, having read WP:EL already. Under WP:EL it states: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. All of the articles I added such links to are articles with many fansites. I added a link to one major fansite and marked it as one.

Oh, and I'm not a newbie. 70.48.166.140 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My IP has changed but this is the same person as above. I thought I'd let you know that I re-added the fansites to those articles (Shakira, Kirsten Dunst, Beyoncé and Rihanna) as it is well within the guidelines of WP:EL. 67.68.139.179 16:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletes

A better reason for speedys (like the one you had on Don kretch) is WP:CSD#A7 (what I deleted it under). Just thought you might want to know for future reference). —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sara Evans image

As you said in your message to me regarding this topic, the image does not appear on the site, this is not entirely true, yes it does not appear on www.dancingwithsara.com but it does appear on a subpage:

http://www.dancingwithsara.com/MeetSara/tabid/57/Default.aspx

I have changed the image information to reflect that, is it now settled?

Faris b 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you also need to prove that this is a promotional image. The terms of use (http://www.dancingwithsara.com/MeetSara/tabid/57/ctl/Terms/Default.aspx) state that all contents are copyrighted and all rights are reserved. This implies that this image is not part of a promotional kit, as you have been claiming, and that we cannot use the image on the Wikipedia. Additionally, the license requires that you provide a detailed fair-use rationale which you have not yet done (though as noted, I do not believe we can use this image). --Yamla 23:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not up on all these terms and such, if it's not promotional, what would you call it then? Can you at least try to work with me on this instead of poo pooing everything when I try to help? No offense intended. What would you call it? Music sample or something rather? Sara Evans doesn't have any photo gallery on any of her sites, so I figured that was a promo image in a way.

Faris b 23:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the license, we are not permitted to use the image at all. I cannot see any license that would be appropriate for this image. As a general rule, Wikipedia tries to avoid copyrighted images, preferring free images instead. I'm sorry I can't be more help but I cannot see any license that would be appropriate for this image. --Yamla 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I understand your're angle now, but I'm sure your familiar with the user Ebegoun, he's been blocked at least twice for uploading images all the time, I've had talks with him and he won't listen, personally, I was fine with the old, old image that's been on the page forever but he keeps putting current ones that he's finding on google and listing several sites as the copyright holders when they aren't, I did this in an attempt to at least find one correct image and have it stay that way, as he keeps doing this and I'm tired of seeing the page with 1 pic for a few days then it's gone the next, I did this in an attempt to stop all these deletes from happening.

Yes, I'm monitoring Ebegoun's actions. --Yamla 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, why do we even need to fuss with all these liscensings? It's for an encyclopedia so why do we need it? It's not like we're priting out the images and selling them so why does it affect that site?

Well, copyright law doesn't permit the use of copyrighted images except under fair-use, even for non-commercial sites. But note that Wikipedia actually is (at least planning to) burn DVD's with the images and distribute them, possibly technically for profit. --Yamla 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I though so, so why not block Ebegoun permanently? He doesn't strike me as the type to learn from past mistakes.

We are assuming good faith (see WP:AGF) and dealing with the matter using escalating blocks. --Yamla 23:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well, that's complicated I'm sure, but why does Wiki want to burn DVD's with images and sell them? That sounds kind of odd to me.

Faris b 23:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Many people do not have access to the Internet. A complete snapshot of the Wikipedia along with (perhaps a subset of) the images could be quite useful. The DVDs would likely be distributed at a very low cost, only enough to cover distribution costs or perhaps to help support Wikipedia generally. However, either would likely fall into the legal definition of "distribution for profit". --Yamla 23:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well, how many more blocks does he have left before the last one? Just wondering.

Really? Just about everyone has internet these days it seems, who are these who don't have it? So, is it a DVD of just images or complete off line web pages?

Faris b 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia. With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you. (Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 01:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I know I like chimps :) (oh wait...) alphaChimp ^laudare 01:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

How was that image unacceptable? It was tagged as a publicity photo. Nqnpipnr 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You provided no evidence that the image was released for promotional purposes. It came from a site that explicitly does not release their images freely, and you presented no evidence that this image was an exception or that you had paid the mandatory $225 fee for this image. Finally, even with these issues aside, you forgot the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale explicitly required by the license you chose. --Yamla 04:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't notice that on the photo's source site. My mistake. I'll look into it more clearly next time. Nqnpipnr 20:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Flops

Well, Poseidon cost $160 million and made $60 million[1]...so that would be considered a flop, no? Ohyeahmormons 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, by what standards does something need to be categorized as a flop? The Island was one of the biggest flops of last year, and that was movie news. Ohyeahmormons 20:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Schoolgirl.jpg reply

Thanks for bringing that to my attention Yamla, but I must admit I don't quite understand the reason why the "promo" tag doesn't cover this image. Yes, it isn't in a press kit, but it is used to promote the sale of the costume on probably a dozen or more websites, and therefore seems to conform to "advertising" in my opinion. I did provide a link to one of these websites, which I think does qualify as providing evidence of its source. I would appreciate it if you could clarify this issue. Thanks again. -- Grandpafootsoldier 17:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Corbin Bleu.jpg

I don't have time to provide a fair use rationale for the image, school keeps me way to busy, so I just deleted it. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 18:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sailor Merkur 01.jpg

There was no reason to revert my edit to this image. It didn't have a fair use rational, and was flagged as such, so I added part of the equation using the character-artwork template. Just because someone edits Wikipedia sans username does not mean they are not familiar with its policies, are "testing", or vandalizing. 71.240.9.37 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Viogfernos user conduct RFC

Hi, I notice you have had recent difficulty with Viogfernos blanking warnings. I've opened an RFC regarding him here which you may wish to comment on. It deals mainly with incivility and mislabelling others' edits as vandalism. I don't know exactly how this works, whether I'm supposed to contact everyone who might have a problem with him... but I figured you might be interested. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 01:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jennifer Aniston Pic.jpg

Hey Yamla! Thanxs for the heads-up. I added an additional source for the image, along with a small rational. I do not have the official copyright information, but I believe that the image is a promotional image. If you need me to add anything else, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Have fun editing! =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It does look like a promotional image. However, you are going to need a detailed fair-use rationale. See Help:Image page for information on detailed fair-use rationales. Thanks! --Yamla 22:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll get right on it! ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Contact 22:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How am I meant to source an Image that I don't know or can't remember where I got it from

And that is my question, And what about pictures from your own computer like pictures you edit how can you source them seeing as they come from you computer and all, and same goes for your camera how can you source pictures you take??? Eemo crash

If you cannot remember where you got the picture from, you cannot upload the image to the Wikipedia. Or more accurately, the Wikipedia cannot use those images. Images that you edit on your computer (say, for example, you use an image showing several people and cut out all but one person) would still remain copyrighted by the person who originally took the picture. As to images you took with your own camera, those WOULD be owned by you. In that case, you'd have to release the image under the GFDL and simply stating what camera you used and where you were when you took the picture should be sufficient. Note that some people have been caught doing this to images they did not themselves take. Such users are blocked because Wikipedia must take copyright violations very seriously. I'm not at all trying to imply that you have or would do this, though. --Yamla 14:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding TV Squad link on House (TV Series)

TV Squad is no more commercial of a website than several other links listed in the 'External links' section of the House (TV Series) page. TV Squad provides detailed reviews of every episode of House, so I truly believe this to be a service to fans of the show. I'll bring it up in the Talk page for House.

I don't think TV Squad is a website run by you (or otherwise directly associated with you). If it is, however, then you must not add any links to it to the Wikipedia regardless of any other rationale. See WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. Assuming it isn't, though, then you should read WP:EL for guidelines. Wikipedia generally does not want external links (again, see WP:NOT) but in very rare cases, an external link may be acceptable. In my opinion, TV Squad is not sufficiently valuable to merit an exception to this but I am not the only person you need to convince. Add a note about this link to the talk page for House and if the consensus is that it would be a valuable addition, I will fully support your addition of the link to that article. --Yamla 14:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I only ask that other links on the same page be given the same consideration for removal as those I've added, as several there seem to be of commercial quality as well, yet they haven't been removed by you or any other admin. Gudlyf 15:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Blanking pages

I did not blank the image from the Shakira page, someone entered a dead link to an image that does not exist, I simply removed the dead link from that page. Should I refrain from removing dead links from now on? Also, you could go about it a different way of informing me that I made a mistake than a threatening post, it was a simple mistake that I deleted the second image, I am EXTREMLY sorry for ANY inconvenience that I may have POSSIBLY caused ANYONE in the world that used Wikipedia from my menial trivial mistakeEjfetters 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no problem with the image. I wonder if it was a temporary problem with the image server. I'm sorry if you thought the warning went overboard. It was the standard "blanking2" warning and I gave it to you because you (or at least, the IP address you were editing from) had already received the "blanking1" warning. --Yamla 01:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton

Meh. Don't sweat it. Some of my edits stay... some of my edits go. Such is Wiki. :-) Fracture^Talk   02:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Exit To Eden (film)

Would you prefer I post a screen capture within the article? I know they say "wikipedia is not censored", but I don't think it's right to assault the casual user with adult imagery, without some warning first. Wahkeenah 08:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason whatsoever to include screen captures in the article about the book. For the article about the movie, there's already some images so I don't think it is necessary there. --Yamla 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting it in the book article was an error on my part. As for the rest of it... you win, as usual. Wahkeenah 03:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

reese witherspoon pic

My thinking in adding that pic to her page is that, since we do not have any other pics to show for, why not just display that one for the time being? It's a full body shot and gives the page some color, looks nice and it was her signature movie. LG-犬夜叉 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't use it that way. The license for DVD images permits their use only to illustrate the DVD in question, not to depict the person. --Yamla 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Change of Name

Hi, I'm User: Thamizhan but I'm not happy with my current user name - how can I change it without deleting my contributions? Thamizhan 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Changing username for information on how to change your username. Do not create a new account yet.  :) --Yamla 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Too lazy to check my mail, so I'll thank you here Mad Jack 00:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

?????

Did you block me last 24 hours?? I didn´t see this message in this period. What are you talking about? There are zillions of images here without any sources or copyrights or fair use racionales, zillions. Why me? Mine have the proper tags. In some of it there isn't fair use rationales because its use are obvious. (Well, more than a half images I see here don´t have a fair use rationale too, and that images ARE there) You asked me before about information of two images, I responded what you asked me, you said nothing about it, I thought it was satisfactory. What´s the problem now?

As I rode about the proceeding ways for administrators here, you can't block users this way, wasn´t it an abuse? (did you read it?)You just blocked me but said nothing before it and said nothing after my last message to you. Could you please be more specific and less harsh?? What images are you talking about? Thank you. Machocarioca 07:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Fair Use Image

File:Jayne mansfield fuzzy bikini.jpg

The picture on Jayne Mansfield talk page

Help needed, plenty: I need help in identifying a proper image tag for this image, so that I can keep it on the talk page, but I can also describe the copyright status properly. Aditya Kabir 08:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation offered, humbly: I have also noticed that you have been tracking some of the images I uploaded. All I can request is - please, show me the way to put proper tags to images, and put images at proper places. Understand that my only objective is to put more image contents to some of the stuff I know about. There is not intention to clutter WP with uselessness. Aditya Kabir 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:KristannaLoken2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KristannaLoken2.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

I'm sorry but I haven't uploaded any image by that name User:0111 did -SOADLuver 01:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, you are right, I made a mistake. I thought I removed the warning from your talk page. If I didn't, I apologise. --Yamla 01:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

yes you removed it.It's ok.simple mistake =) SOADLuver 01:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:KristannaLoken2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KristannaLoken2.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 01:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry for the mistake I added the correct template 0111 01:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How about now? 0111 02:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost at 3RR

Hi, Yamla. I noticed you're aware of User:Machocarioca's behaviour lately. I have been removing screenshots he adds to movies articles to (according to him) make them look better. But he keeps reverting it. I'm at one reversion to violate the three reversion rule in the articles Shakespeare in Love, As Good as It Gets and Good Will Hunting. Currently, only Shakespeare in Love needs a reversion as it has two random screenshots floating around the text. If it's not ask you too much, I'd like you to turn your attention to these articles (and, of course, apply your own judgement and not mine on them).

I regret having accepted to chat in Portugues with this user's as it's now hader to my to quote his ideas about unfree image use.

Thanks in advance for your attention, and soory if I disturbing you too much. Best regards, --Abu Badali 03:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jennifer Aniston Pic.jpg

Since I couldn't find the copyright holder, I added fair use rationales to the image. Are these acceptable? =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the copyright holder still needs to be identified. Sorry. --Yamla 14:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

Can you plase upload this image. I got it from google which was from this Site. Please respond. --TV Lover 21:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This image is copyrighted. What license and fair-use rationale are you planning on using? --Yamla 21:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. It's a screenshot and I was going to put it on the Growing Up Creepie article.I'm kind of new so I don't know where the image tags are and stuff. --TV Lover 21:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the image can only be used to provide critical commentary on the particular episode of the television show. I advise that you stay away from images for a while. Copyright policies are fraught with difficulty. --Yamla 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

TV Lover

Whoa, major reverting going on there. Would it be okay if I asked why? _{J Di}^talk 14:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The content was created by an abusive sockpuppet created to avoid an indefinite block. Wikipedia policy is to block such an abusive sockpuppet and revert all the changes. The goal is to discourage users from creating further abusive sockpuppets because any edits they make are pointless. And thanks for asking about this; if my reverts were not justified, it would show probable abuse on my part. --Yamla 14:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

That's that we have a policy against picture gallery links. But could you tell me where that is? PedanticallySpeaking 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL doesn't specifically forbid it but picture galleries tend to fall into the list of sites not to add. It's easy enough to find pictures of Holmes just by doing a google image search (which returns about 66,300, though many are duplicates). So the site doesn't add anything of value (and hence, WP:EL says it probably shouldn't be added). Additionally, picture galleries in general tend to play fast and loose with copyright and so we try to avoid such sites so we can't be blamed for contributionary copyright infringement or whatever it is called. It's not absolutely clear, mind you, which is why I mentioned to you that I was removing the link rather than just rolling it back as vandalism or something (note: your addition of the link clearly was not vandalism). --Yamla 17:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

3LW

Hmmm. Im guessing you are new to this.

The source: from their music video. Which is fairplay. Rationale: most artists featured on this site have a photo. so i added a fair use image.

Please refrain from vandalising further sites, as this causes problems for other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soladee (talk • contribs)

The image in question, Image:Kna.jpg, may be used only "for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question", as is clearly stated in the license text. Using it solely to depict the band is a violation of copyright. --Yamla 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

image help

I need help with the tag/copyright of this image. 0111 21:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC) right|200px

Please stop uploading these images. This one is another scan of an image from a magazine and we cannot use it on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 21:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

this is not a scan from a magazine 0111 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that? As a general rule, copyrighted images cannot be used on the Wikipedia. Please do not upload any more copyrighted images unless you have all the information on hand necessary to justify their use. Thanks. --Yamla 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

well you have no source saying it is a magazine article 0111 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the person who uploaded the image, you are the one who needs to provide the necessary information. And please be absolutely sure that Image:Me244.jpg really is an image of you. If it is not, I strongly suggest you remove it from your user page and mark the image for deletion. If I find you are lying about that, your account will be blocked indefinitely if it is still on your user page. --Yamla 21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

unblock thanks

I agree.....but what about the pictures of me i had on my user page?

Look, you have had your second chance. Those were not pictures of you. You are walking a thin line here, if I catch you lying any more, you will be blocked indefinitely and you won't be given any more chances. --Yamla 22:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

actually they were..... 0111 22:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As you are unable or unwilling to stop lying about image sources, you have been reblocked indefinitely. --Yamla 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Any Point in bothering to provide input here

I've posted input on many diverse issues and my input was mostly good, but sometimes bad..For bad input I expect to be penalised.. fair one.

It annoys me however to see the good input from many users deleted and to be replaced by the most biased unqualified cant...Which is allowed to stand, even though it is against the guidelines that you purport to uphold here.

If you want examples you can have them.

Should it be your intention to alienate users here, who are capable and willing to provide valuable input, simply on the basis of the fact that they may not be be familar - down to the last details, with the "rules and regulations"- Then I must take this opportunity to congratulate you.

You will also forgive me for saying that your moderation Yamla, seems to have more to do with your own desire to express your personal self importance, than to address the relevant issues in hand.

You may now use your considerable powers to punish me for expressing my opinion on the failure of the moderation here to either have a clear consistent procedural concept, or to be capable of following and implementing their own rules and regulations.--Nighthawkx15 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Nighthawk

??????

What vandalism are you referencing, I don't understand? JohnnyBravo If you were refering to the talk page on elephants, it is a discussion page, and I do know that the elephant poplulation has trippled. I did not post it in the article, I posted it on the discussion page. How is that vandalism? JohnnyBravo 18:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mila Kunis

Why did you delete the picture from Mila Kunis? There was an image in there a few days ago that got deleted for copyright violation. However, I found a new image that was a studio-supplied screenshot from a film which the copyright information said was OK for use. I uploaded it and selected the right copyright license. Touchdown Turnaround 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No. The license clearly stated that the image could be used to provide critical commentary on the film and that any other use (such as using it solely to depict Kunis) was a violation of copyright. Furthermore, the license noted that you have to supply a detailed fair-use rationale for each use, which you did not do. Sorry. --Yamla 21:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're referring to the inherent copyright license or the drop-down that I selected when I upload the image. Are you an attorney? I'm new to Wikipedia and either you're misunderstanding the concept of "fair use" or I'm misunderstanding how to properly document the image that I've contributed. Either way, using a frame ("screen shot") from a copyrighted film, movie, video game, etc, is considered to be fair use of the image (the 9th circuit US appeals court has ruled on several recent cases that come to mind) as long as the screenshot isn't misleading, inaccurate, or misrepresentative of the content, even in the case of commercial use of the supplied content. As far as the license displayed on the image, as I said -- either it's the wrong one or you're misinterpreting it or it's poorly written. If it defines use as "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents," that can be interepreted as "for identification . . . [of] . . . its contents."

Using the image of Mila Kunis as an image on a commercial site because her clothing matched your advertising campaign would not be protected by fair use because it would be misrepresentative of the content and be exploiting unrelated commercial value from copyrighted work. However, identifying an actor with a frame from a movie (especially when attributed to the content owner) certainly is fair use.

I respectfully ask that you correct the image (or show me how) to properly demonstrate the appropriate license and/or modify the license I selected to be more clear so that people can understand what they're selecting and what is being enforced. Thanks. Touchdown Turnaround 22:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are making a natural and entirely understandable mistake that Wikipedia follows U.S. fair-use. In fact, Wikipedia's policies are more restrictive than is strictly required by U.S. law. For example, we require an explicit fair-use rationale while magazines, for example, may be able to get away with an implied fair-use rationale (or can satisfy themselves with a justification if they are sued). Similarly, Wikipedia restricts use of a film screenshot so that it may only be used for identification and critical commentary on the film (and its contents) and not solely to depict the person illustrated. This particular image cannot be used except in the context of providing critical commentary on the film, so cannot be used in the article on Mila Kunis as that article currently sits. --Yamla 22:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page again. Also I find Wikipedia Talks very confusing because I'm not sure if I'm supposed to reply on mine or yours or both. Touchdown Turnaround 23:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging content

Hello again. These two articles are the same thing, can you please select it for merging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Richese

I'll try. --Adam Wang 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Block

You've blocked me for 48 hours?? Why? Machocarioca 06:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

You were blocked, as I noted, for continuing to upload images without providing the mandatory information. Once again, please refrain from uploading any more images until you have gone back and provided all the necessary information for the images you have already uploaded. --Yamla 14:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

But I'm providing all necessary information for the images I upload, so I can´t understand why I was blocked. Machocarioca 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Now it has. It didn't have because there are zillion of images here without that, as I saw before my first contribution, than I did the same. And never an administrator before you talked to me about that fair use rationale. There just a few fanatics here. Cheers. Machocarioca 08:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

watch list

i want my name remove from your watch list asap, i removed it then someone has the cheek to say it was vandalism, i do not want or accept my name on there, i'm not having all my edits watched by all so i want it removed. Lil crazy thing 09:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. Your name is not on my watchlist. Note, though, that this does not excuse you from adhering from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Yamla 14:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Galciv2

About Galactic Civilizations 2 and your erasing my improvements

Dear Yamla: I'm sure I'm not doing this in the proper format but just wanted to leave you a note about your reversal of my additions to the Galactic Civilizations 2 page. What happened to the 'Good Faith' revision policy I keep seeing? I revised the page in good faith and made TWO changes.

The first was to link to a website (civfantics.com, which is NOT mine as you incorrectly assumed and has a wiki page of its own) that has a good forum where gamers discuss gameplay issues, strategy, problems, and similar topics. I was trying to help. If this is against policy, I understand, but maybe you could have actually followed the link and seen it led to a legitimately helpful site. The site I linked to is also a link from the galciv.com homepage as linked on the wiki page too.

My second change was deleted, unfairly, without reason except apparently guilt by association. Can you tell me why you deleted it? The criticisms section referenced problems with the original game issue and talked them being fixed in the beta 1.1 bug fix. The game is currently two fixes past that, on the 1.3 version. I didn't erase the criticism, just mentioned the newer update. WHY DID YOU ERASE THIS CHANGE???

I'm going to re-change my second modification back. Please either leave it alone or give me a reason I shouldn't mention the most current bug fix that is available.

Remember 'Good Faith'? That's me, and I hope you show it too. :)

I'm not at all sure what this has to do with the user, 7g7em7ini. I'm thinking you maybe put this in the wrong section and used an incorrect edit summary. Looking at your edits, the addition of the link to civfanatics (while a great site) are inappropriate. Please reread WP:EL. However, your other edit seems to be entirely appropriate and of good quality. I regret reverting that edit. I suspect I only meant to revert the addition of the external link and accidentally reverted more than I should. My apologies. --Yamla 22:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

User: 71.82.13.210 deleted, as in the contents, of Footmen Frenzy. See if you can block him. I've already asked you once, but I think I have the so called "duty" just to report again for the hell of it. Thanks --Adam Wang 21:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this was essentially a "first offence" so I have warned the user appropriately. Thanks. --Yamla 22:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert and Elephants

My edits to the Elephant page have been repeatedly reverted, even though they are important. Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report has tried to get users to make false statements on the Elephant page, and it is important that others are aware of this so they can correct vandelism. People interested in the worldwide status of Elephants want to know whether their population has increased or decreased and whether certain individauls are spreading rumors about them

Yes, but that has nothing to do with elephants. This is related to the Colbert Report or, perhaps, the Wikipedia. But it really has nothing to do with elephants. This has been discussed to death on the discussion page for that article and the consensus is not to add it to the article and to aggressively ban anyone who tries to do so. --Yamla 02:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You blocked 206.172.38.200?

206.172.38.200 is the IP for the Lambton-Kent District School board, or at least I think it is. It might only be for a certain part of the area or only for St. Clair Secondary School. I know this because all of the computers in the school have the same IP, and are all blocked from editing, unless I'm logged on. I, personally, am not sure whether Schools should actually be allowed to ever edit Wikipedia, as they are full of jerks who think this is just some site. I just wanted to let you know. XD375 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Free use

i'm getting seriously sick of you. I gave a reason why its free use thats because its a promtional picture all promotional pictures are allowed to be used!. What do you want me to explain to you what a promotional picture is anybody with common sense knows what it is. Bloody hell no wonder people are leaving this site like anything cos of how pathetic users and this site is getting.Lil crazy thing 15:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, please reread Help:Image page (specifically, the section on fair-use rationales. What you added was entirely insufficient. You are putting Wikipedia at direct risk of litigation due to your continued unwillingness to adhere to the image copyright and fair-use policies. --Yamla 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I used to think Yamla was a little *#($#, but then I realized, HEY! I wouldn't like it if somebody took my image. So now I agree with him. ALL YOU NEED IS LOVe. Calm down Crazy Thing. Uselesss blurb I know, now for my main request--Adam Wang 00:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Footmen Frenzy

Could you please review the article on Footmen Frenzy and through your two cents in. I think it's a notable article and its sourced and etc. Thanks. --Adam Wang 00:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problems.

Yamla, I recently visited the Image:Asinac.JPG page and I've noticed that someone has replaced it back in the article. Does this mean it will still be deleted? And regarding Image:Aishwaryarai-promoshot.jpg, the webmaster has granted me full permission to use the image in anyway I want as long as I provide a link linking back to the page I found it on. I'm not sure about the copyright status, but looking at the information I've given you, what do you think? Thanks alot! Polo246 02:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

As I stated in my edit. If i am required to name sources, I will and shall include the statement "all sources referenced are at the request of Wikipedia and the user requesting". This will establish that I am only responding to the request of others. Indrat 19:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. --Yamla 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

what vandalism are you talking about anyways?

Cholga 19:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This blatant vandalism, though this is not the only example. --Yamla 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about a warning

I noticed that you left a final warning on User talk:Cholga. I'm curious as to why you left so severe a warning when this was a user's first vandalism warning. While the edits were certainly unconstructive, I don't know that they warranted a {{test4}}, especially given that the edits were to an article's talk page and he/she had no previous vandalism warnings. The user has made a few mistakes (posting a message on a user page instead of a talk page; bordering on violating WP:CIVIL in an AFD discussion) but those shouldn't affect the vandalism warning process. Could you enlighten me, please? -- Merope ^Talk 19:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The account was created only a little over two hours ago and is rife with dubious edits. I strongly suspect this is a troll account. That's why the test4 warning. Please feel free to check out the contribution log for this editor. If you disagree, please let me know. --Yamla 19:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubious edits are not the same thing as vandalism, though. I suspect that the account was created to participate in the AFD discussion for James Barnett, and the user's edits do seem motivated by a particular agenda. But I don't know that using a vandalism warning was the best way to address the issue. Assume good faith and all that jazz. I don't think a templated message would have worked, so maybe some links to WP policies? (Like WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:VAND, etc.) I could leave a message saying such, if you'd like. You don't have to copy your response to my talk page, I'll watch this one. -- Merope ^Talk 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What dubious edits would those be?Cholga 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

I think you are being anal retentive and a hardass, i see how the comments on the talk page of that are unconstrucitve but it was a joke and i thought that it would be okay on the talk page. regarding

+ Did anyone else think that this is some funny shit!?Cholga 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

that is not vandalism it was a legitimate question about what people thought about the colbert report thing. WHAT OTHER VANDALISM ARE YOPU TALKING ABOUT, YOU SAID YOU COULD COME UP WITH ANOTHER EXAMPLE I AM FURIOUS I AM USING BOLD I AM A SUPERSTAR SHOW ME THE MONEY? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE SUPPOSED OTHER EXAMPLESChola outCholga 19:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm complaining about your claim that you have elephants in your back yard, that elephants live in Antarctica, and that they are overpopulating the world. Article discussion pages are to be used for improving the quality of the article and this is noted at the top of that particular article. Unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. --Yamla 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well. Disregard my previous comments, Yamla. Fire away.  :) -- Merope ^Talk 19:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's still possible this person is not a troll and I'd normally start with a t1 or a t2, but I think this was an exceptional case. --Yamla 19:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

what about your socalled further examples of vandalism?Cholga 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your entire category of Gay unfriendly companies is a good example. It is uncited original research that opens up the Wikipedia to suits for libel. Your comment below about being a superstar is another example. This is a third example, an addition that makes no sense. --Yamla 19:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

why thank you yamla

i like your user name yamla, so cool. i am a superstar by the way, you can be one two! Cholga y Yamla las superestrellas de la wikipedia, ¡Órale güey! why did u remove my edits to Meijer, Perot Systems, and ExxonMobile? I cited them and you didnt even use edit summaries, now thats vandalism.Cholga 19:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

regarding a block

Mr Yamala, kindly take note of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:218.186.8.11

Your particular blocking of 218.186.8.11, without taking note of the fact that all singaporeans who use the service Starhub cable like myself are on the same ip is extremely annoying, if not even callous. I've never edited an article whatsnots, but signed on this account just to be able to point out this to you.

thanks for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liptonslug (talk • contribs)

No such notice was visible on that page when I blocked it. Check the history, you will see that I am telling the truth. If an IP address is not marked as shared, there's simply no reason to believe that it is shared. I am sorry that I ended up blocking many more than just the vandal I meant to block but this won't happen again now that the IP address is marked appropriately. --Yamla 15:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

regarding a block

With regards to Terminatrix.jpg image, I never uploaded it. It was uploaded by User:Iam. I simply just used the picture on Kristanna Loken's profile.

Yes, and you are not permitted to add a copyrighted image to an article unless that image has all the necessary information. --Yamla 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is unfair considering i never upload the image, surely shouldn't the person who uploaded the picture be blocked, not myself. If I knew there was problems i wouldn't have used it. I was only trying to update a page.

No, it's your responsibility when adding the image to the page. Additionally, you have been pointed to Wikipedia's image use policy several times in warnings on your page already. In any case, your block expired already so it's all a moot point now. --Yamla 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I just have you discussed the copyright situation with User:Iam who originally uploaded the image or is it only me who was punished for using a picture that I had no idea of the copyright issues as I never uploaded to Wikipedia?

There's not much point, that user has left the Wikipedia and no longer edits here. Also, you did or at least should have known about the image issues as you have been informed about Wikipedia's image use policy several times before. --Yamla 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

File:Evelina Papantoniou4.jpg

I did not see your responds to me at Abu Badali talk page[2] before changing the copyright, if I did I would have known that was not the correct copyright and would have removed it. Regards Mallaccaos 20 September 2006

Thanks for letting me know! No harm done, I hope. Have a good day. --Yamla 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

None at all and thank you. Same to you. :) ~ Mallaccaos 20 September 2006

original template?

You added a fair-use questionability template to Image:VanessaV.jpg. You subst'd the template, and I was just wondering what the original template is. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The one I added on 2006-09-02 was {{fairusedisputed}}. On 2006-09-20, {{orfud}}. These aren't my templates, I'm not sure who created them. Let me know, by the way, if these should not be subst'ed. It's never clear to me which templates should be and which should not. --Yamla 22:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Help to communicate with User:Dionyseus (again)

Hi, Yamla. I'm here again to ask for your help in communicating to User:Dionyseus (remember the last time?). He have been for some reverting, withouth much discussion, my editions to:

• Image:Kerry_Lennon.jpg (history) where I ask for a good licensing info;

• Ginuwine (history) where I contest the use of an album cover on the infobox for an artist;

• Notable citizens of Chicago (history) where I believe no unfree image can be justified, and

• Beyoncé Knowles (history) where I contest the use of a image tagged as {{tv-screenshot}} as the main portrait for the artist.

After noticing that communication through edit summaries was not taking us anywhere, I've left him some messages, explaining my views on the issues. But he prefered to blank my messages from his talk page with the Edit Summary: "rv to last version by Ivan. Abu's messages aren't welcomed in my talk page.". And after that, went on to rv my editions to these four articles.

Now I noticed he has also reverted my (image related) editions to Johnny Depp [3] (use of screenshot to illustrate actor), Hudson Leick [4] (use of image with a long history of improper licensing) and even Wikipedia:Fair use [5] (reverting my reversion).

Maybe a message from you would be more "welcomed" on his talk page. And of course, as the other times, I understand you will use your own judgment in each of the cases, and I'll not simply expect you to agree with me in all my opinions. What's really important here is to stop the edit war.

Thanks in advance for your help. Best regards, --Abu Badali 13:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you are asking for help from your buddy Yamla, again. I'm sick and tired of Abu's mission to remove all unfree images from Wikipedia, and I am especially irritated by his insistance on orphaning images (and thus resulting in getting the image deleted) by removing main images from articles. [6] I want it stopped and I think mediation or an RfC may help. Dionyseus 21:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Shermer image

I uploaded a new image of Shermer from his latest newsletter, which is obviously a promo headshot, available on his website. Are you sure you're not confusing the new image MichaelShermer1.jpg with the previously deleted older image MichaelShermer02.jpg? Of course, I could be doing the wrong thing here. — Loadmaster 16:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It does indeed look like a promotional image but if you read the license text on the image page, you'll see that it still requires a detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 16:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have sent an email to Mr. Shermer for permission to use the image. Pending his reply, this image remains in limbo. — Loadmaster 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Image:MichaelShermer1.jpg image I uploaded now had full GFDL licensing from Michael Shermer himself, who owns the copyrights to the image. — Loadmaster 16:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is awesome news! Way to go, Loadmaster. Your effort is much appreciated. --Yamla 16:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Debate

Could you please help me in this debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footmen Wars, thanks alot. --Adam Wang 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Shakim67

Hi Yamla, I just caught Thelilkimzone (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) trying to get the autoblock on 69.137.209.216 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) lifted by deceiving unblock review. I've just reset the 3 month block on the IP. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Heights

I only actually wrote in 1 height recently, but I've added a source for that, and a couple of others. I've read the articles you gave me, but could you please tell me why celebheights doesn't count as reliable, even if is simply repeating a quote? Cheers. CelebHeights 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that there's nothing wrong with celebheights.com, by the way. It serves an important niche. My only claim is that it is not a reliable source. In many cases, the site cites a reliable source such as a newspaper article. In this case, though, Wikipedia should use the actual newspaper article itself. In other cases, the website lists several contradictory heights (such as for Brad Pitt). In any case, the web site does not seem to be carefully vetted for quality control (this, indeed, is not its intention) and does not rely on primary sources. I'm happy to go into more detail if you wish but I would advise that you take a read of WP:RS and let me know why you think the website may be suitable as a reliable source if this is still your contention. --Yamla 16:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Paris Hilton edit

Oops... Sorry. That wasn't meant to be vandalism, it was just that "don'ts" just didn't look like it was spelt right, and I wasn't really thinking when I changed it. Ariasne 17:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Requesting page protection

Hello Yamla. Recently, the Dhoom 2 page has been constantly vandalized by unregistered users. They have been adding false information and many more other unsourced information on the page. Could you please protect the page from unregistered users? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Hariharan91 18:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection to that page which I hope will resolve the problem. Have a good day! --Yamla 18:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your assumption is wrong

Nice job being totally wrong about my edit to House, MD -- It's not my Web site I linked to, and it's not spam. That Web site is useful as an external link, cataloguing all the music used on the series by episode and scene. And by the way, I am one of the original editors to that article, and have probably added more text to that article than anyone on Wikipedia. So looks like you were wrong on all counts. 69.142.21.24 19:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: It seems other editors disagree with you as well since that link has reappeared in the external links section. 69.142.21.24 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Under what criteria established by WP:EL do you contend that the link is appropriate? Also, you seem to be mistaken. As of right now, the link has not reappeared in the external links section, though it is possible the database is lagging as happens sometimes. If you feel the link is appropriate, please justify it on that page's discussion page. You may be able to achieve a consensus there. Thanks. --19:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Jenny Schecter Pic

What exactly do you want to see in the Jenny Picture? Every instance where the image has been publicly shown? --TLW 20:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well

As I see it you are adding the nonsense. I'm using reliable sources when I'm adding a height, and mr Pitt has self told to be 5 ft 11 which is what I'm going to re add on his profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Del-Mar (talk • contribs)

Why bother talking to the man. He is not prepared to face or address criticism regardless of how educated the input may be placed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nighthawkx15 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:V and WP:CITE. The sources must be cited. --Yamla 15:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:CITE and WP:RS, along with WP:V, to learn how to cite this sort of information. Thanks. --21:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Images incorrectly described as GFDL

Hi Yamla, I've noticed that you've been asking for sources and fair use rationales etc, so I'm thinking if you can't answer my question..... I don't know who can. There are several images in Nelson Eddy that are down as being GFDL but very obviously are promophotos/music sheets. Whatever they are, I'm sure they're not GFDL. What would be the correct tag to put on them to get them reviewed and/or deleted? I've looked everywhere I can think of but can't find anything I could use, and I'm sure I've seen such a tag used somewhere in the past. Thanks for any help you can give me. Cheers Rossrs 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, probably none of those images should be licensed thus. Please excuse me if you already know most of what I'm about to say. First, they all seem to be missing the source. So add {{subst:nsd}} to each image (and copy the notification to the uploader's talk page). Now, I'm assuming the uploader believed that because he or she scanned in the images, the uploader could release the image under any license they chose. This is incorrect. Simply scanning in an image does not transfer ownership of that image to the scanner. Really, only the uploader is likely to know where the images came from and so what license can be used. Maybe {{tl:film-screenshot}}. Maybe {{tl:promotional}}. But these would require justifications (an image should not be tagged promotional unless evidence is provided that it came from a promotional kit, for example). In any case, these images should either have an accurate license specified or should be deleted within a week. You can mark an image as missing a license by using {{subst:nld}}. --Yamla 16:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly. I really had no idea what to do. I know to tag images without source etc, but I didn't realize that an incorrect tag should be handled in the same manner. I learn something every day :-) Appreciate your advice! Rossrs 16:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Image problems

(In response to comment on my talk page)

Might I ask what images have been problematic -- and moreover, what recent addition triggered this?? I know of only one instance (Image:WCCO Logo (2006).gif) where I was the original uploader and lacked essential information. In other instances, the images would have been deleted anyway, (e.g., Image:Marybell.gif). The only reason I was editing them was to remove things such as excessive borders, drop shadows or paddding -- I can't add source information if I am not the user who provided the image. Thank you. Sean Hayford O'Leary 20:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a look through some of your image uploads and couldn't find a single instance of an image with the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale, as required by the license for any copyrighted images. It is entirely possible that you haven't added any of these images to any articles on the Wikipedia, in which case please accept my apologies. If you have, though, then you seem to have been forgetting about the hand-written fair-use rationales. --Yamla 21:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of what I upload are logos, in which case there is virtually no source information to give. The fair use tag specifies that the image must "illustrate the organization, item, or event in question" -- by being part of the article on the organization or company, it inherently meets that requirement -- which is the only purpose of logos I upload. The image that seems to have triggered your examination is a TV screenshot -- Image:Casey_Novak.png -- I've responded to the fair use tagging on the talk page. Sean Hayford O'Leary 21:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Vanessa Anne Hudgens

Hi, I noticed you removed the image of Hudgens' new album from the article. It was used down below under "Career" and placed by the paragraph that talked about the album. I thought that covered fair use? Since it was used directly in the paragraph where it was talked about? Mad Jack 22:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall which specific edit you are referring to, but I'm guessing I removed it either because it wasn't being used solely to depict the album (perhaps it was being used to show what Hudgens looks like?) or the image was not provided with a hand-written detailed fair-use rationale justifying its use on that page. --Yamla 22:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, of course it depicted what she looked like, but it was used in the section that provided information on and discussed the album. I'll add (i.e. copy and paste from elsewhere) a fair use rational and re-add it and I guess we'll see. Mad Jack 22:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Message Board

I do not know where the message board is since im a new user.Please tell me where it is on my discusion page.Thanx--Cutie 4 life 01:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no such message board on the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a chat site. --Yamla 01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not Cutie 1 4 u

I am not cutie 1 4 u but i read her user page and i felt like we had a lot in coommon so i edited her talk page and said i think we have a lot in common please reply but she never did.--Cutie 4 life 01:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

You seem to have a lot about barnstar on your user page and im wondering what is Barnstar please reply on my talk page.Thanks!--Cutie 4 life 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Jazmin DVD Covers

I appreciate the herculian effort you put into keeping the WP nice, clean and fair, as is probaly amply rewarded by the many citations and awards you have recieved, not to mention the thank you notes. But, it would be more appreciable, I think, if this effort was nice, clean and fair on the people submits stuff (in this case I'm talking about myself).

I have noticed that you have removed all of the Jazmin pictures, got the all of the portraits deleted (not knowing the WP policies clearly I couldn't do much about it, but I'd still say that sometimes the policies may require a bti of explanation, not just pointing to a labyrinthyne policy page). And, now same has happened to the DVD covers, under the rationale you have provided ("License requires detailed fair-use rationale, not provided.").

Now, I would like to forward a few words on that:

• I'd definitely love to incorporate a fair-use rationale on the image pages. But, where do I find a template for providing the appropriate information? As for why I didn't see the the existing template of image description given on the Wikipedia:Image use policy page (Description, Source, Date, Location, Author, Permission, Other versions of this file) I can give two reasons:

1. It is not, by any means, recommended for a DVD cover.
2. No DVD cover submitter (at least none that I checked at random, quite a few) has used it (for further argument, see below).

• The accompanying template says - Further information may be available below or on the image's talk page. Please provide a rationale as to why this image qualifies as fair use. If no acceptable rationale can be provided, this image may be nominated for deletion in the future. But, I found no such thing at those places.
• I would like to draw your attention to the following chapter from the Wikipedia:Fair use page:

There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis. Such general approval must be seen in the light of whether a free image could replace the copyright image instead. ... Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary). ... Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary. ... Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. ... Publicity photos: For identification and critical commentary.

• The Help:Image page page gives some general examples of what kind of explanation may accompany a fair use image. I think I can just incorporate the information on why I need to use the image as part of the article, and that should work fine. But, without your advise, I can't be too sure on that. You have given me no warning, and that isn't very confidence inspiring. Please, do tell what needs to be done, don't just put on a template and not support it with further information that's promised on that very template.

• Should I tell that the picture illustrates the text appropriately, or should I tell that is is provided on educational purpose to support the text with appropriate visual material, or something of that kind?
• The Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars page says, Covers (such as magazine and video box covers) can only be used if giving critical commentary to the movie itself, and not the performer. I must say, at least one of the pictures - the one featuring Bangladesh Booty DVD cover is associated with much critical commentary on the movie, while the others are associated with some amount of critical commentary as well.

• I have already asked for your advise before (featured on the User talk:Yamla/Archive6 page, and recieved none. I am quoting myself for reference:

Help needed, plenty: I need help in identifying a proper image tag for this image, so that I can keep it on the talk page, but I can also describe the copyright status properly. Aditya Kabir 08:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation offered, humbly: I have also noticed that you have been tracking some of the images I uploaded. All I can request is - please, show me the way to put proper tags to images, and put images at proper places. Understand that my only objective is to put more image contents to some of the stuff I know about. There is not intention to clutter WP with uselessness. Aditya Kabir 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• On top of all that, the amount of information that accompanied has been deemed as information enough for many DVD covers. A random search through featured DVD covers, I think, is proof enough for this statement. I am providing examples some of the covers I checked:

1. NonFreeImageRemoved.svg hosted on 30 December 2005
2. File:6th Day DVD.jpg 6th Day DVD.jpg hosted on 17 September 2004
3. NonFreeImageRemoved.svg hosted on 10 December 2005
4. NonFreeImageRemoved.svg hosted on 29 August 2006

• I'd really like to draw your attention to the Avoid copyright paranoia page on meta wiki (included in the [Wikipedia:Image use policy] page), which would probably explain a few things.
• You are, after all, an administrator, and, I am pretty confident that the policy for administrators matters much you, as proven by the awards and citations. I am appealing, definitely, to those policies.
• Finally, If I sound harsh/ quarrelsome/ nagging/ rude/ whatever, I assure you that it is not intended. I am only following your advise - If you feel I am biting the newbies (or I am coming down too hard on you), please just mention it - taken from the User:Yamla page.

Yours sincerely - Aditya Kabir 14:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC) - please, reply on my talk page.

Thanks for your comments. I need some time to respond.  :) --Yamla 16:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Take all the time, my friend, but, please, see to it that the images don't get deleted before you reach a verdict. - Aditya Kabir 12:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry, I actually didn't mean to delete the warnings. I wasn't trying to be mean, and I'm sorry if I came off as rude.

I was actually wondering how I could delete files I uploaded without proper copyrights? (I'm referring to the two I was warned about - Aishwarya Rai) Sinbihaeyo 16:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Just add {{db-author|reason here}} and they'll be taken care of by someone in a few minutes or hours. --Yamla 16:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Done for both images, Thank you so much :) 12.219.77.168 04:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Link spam from 207.16.198.77

Can you please explain to me why you continue to give me warnings? Your threats are unwarranted. I have never spammed, nor would I ever. If you check my user contributions, you would see that I do indeed contribute and do infact help prevent spam. User talk:207.16.198.77

As you are editing from an IP address, it is entirely possible that the warnings are not targeted at you. However, inappropriate external links most certainly have been added from that address. For example, here and here. The second of these showed that the editor adding the link was clearly already informed of WP:EL and was blatantly violating those guidelines, hence the warning for spam. --Yamla 16:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Altering signed comments

Thanks for your input; please read my reply on my talk page when you have time. 24.6.66.193 12:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

204.108.195.15

I agree with your block of 204.108.195.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but I think you should probably put a block message on the IP's talk page. Just a thought. --Nlu (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I did! Right at the bottom. Do you think it isn't detailed enough? Note that I restricted anonymous edits but did not restrict the ability to create new accounts. Minimal impact, hopefully. --Yamla 18:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Get Up

Why was the image removed from Ciara's [[Get Up (Ciara song) article? Charmed36 22:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Which image? Image:Ciaragetupvid.jpg? As stated on the image page, it was not being used to provide critical commentary on the music video, nor was there a mandatory detailed fair-use rationale justifying its use. --Yamla 22:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Yamla

I am King Dracula I am pleased to finally meet you....

Let us be friends

Yipeeee

King Dracula 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Js2Jo

• Js2Jo(Autoblocks • block log) Collateral damage from AOL user block, please help clear --172.165.189.41 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

fan sites

Allrite well last time i added some fansites to the article Jennifer Love Hewitt you had pmed me about not adding them to the wiki,but ive been finding many articles as far as i remember having these fan sites listed one such article is Ellen Page.

Atul83 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many sites violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would much appreciate it if you could help fix articles such as that one. --Yamla 14:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger that sir :) Atul83 15:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Igbogirl

Test Yamla, I notice that you have problems with a couple of my recent edits. In fact, I'm beginning to think you have some kind of personal problem with me. Firstly, I edited the Thandie Newton article to include the FACT that her mother is a princess. This does not come from my original research. It is a widely reported fact. I am happy to provide a citation, in fact citations are all over the internet and in pretty much every interview she has ever done. But why are you acting like this is some kind of obscure item that I made up? Also, regarding Precious Williams, this woman is one of the best known journalists in England - as I said in my edit, far more noteable than Baz Bamigboye and others you have chosen not to delete! The book that she contributed a short story IS on Amazon and if you had really done a search on Amazon, you would have seen it. Here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Sensibility-Romances-Lives-Single/dp/0743483030/sr=8-3/qid=1159311819/ref=sr_1_3/102-3202160-7576906?ie=UTF8&s=books

And here is just one of the articles that cites Thandie being the daughter of a Zimbabwean Shona Princess http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2005/08/05/bfthandie05.xml Igbogirl 23:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well that explains why I could not find the book. You claimed the book was published in 2004 while Amazon claims February 2005. Also, you claimed the book was called "Sex and Sensibility" when in fact it is called "Sex and Sensibility: 28 True Romances from the Lives of Single Women". Anyway, please see WP:V. It is your responsibility to ensure the information you add is verifiable and properly cited. I'm sure you are right about Thandie Newton but you did not cite your information which means you should not have added the information. I'm not saying you are making things up, only that you are not citing the things you are adding. Comparing these articles to others is irrelevant. I monitor less than 5000 pages out of well over a million pages on the Wikipedia. I have no idea if the article on Baz Bamigboye is worth keeping or not. I have not chosen not to delete that page. I have never been to that page. As to Precious Williams, you say she is one of the best known journalists in England. That's great! It will be very easy for you to find a reliable citation indicating that. With her notability properly asserted, that article will easily survive the AfD and the article will have been improved as a result. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). I'm not aware of her receiving multiple independent reviews and/or awards for her work and she does not seem to have made a lasting impact to the enduring historical record of journalism, but then I had never heard of her before. It is entirely likely that she has, or otherwise qualifies as particularly notable regardless. --Yamla 14:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Can you provide some citations for us, confirming that Baz Bamigboye has "received multiple independent reviews of or awards." I have searched everywhere and could find none. I asked around, nobody I know has even heard of him apart from one journalist friend in England who says she once read an article he wrote for the Daily Mail and that it was "drivel". So, please provide citations. Ciao —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igbogirl (talk • contribs)

Stop trolling. You are well aware that I had nothing to do with that article and you can see that I voted the article should be deleted. --Yamla 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

3AM girls

Yes, what else needs to be done to get this substandard page deleted?  Igbogirl 17:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at Template:AfD footer, you can see that you missed the third step. You got the other two steps properly. --Yamla 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks on my userpage

Thanks for removing this[7] persoanl attack from my user talk page. HighInBC 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I should probably have left a message for you about it but it really wasn't a particularly good troll. --Yamla 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

broke up?

what's your source for saying that they broke up? you seem to be a serious person why you don't check your information?

I didn't add that information. Feel free to add a {{fact}} tag to that if you wish. However, your new claims also need citing. --Yamla 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A question

Hey Yamla. You see, there was this article named Bala (director) previously. But the article is currently missing? I think it was deleted or something? Could you check it out? Thanks! Hariharan91 16:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That article was deleted because it was a violation of copyright. Please feel free to recreate the article, avoiding copying text from any other source, of course. If you do so, please make your very first edit summary say something like, "Deleted due to copyvio, recreating without violation". This will reduce the chances of it being speedily deleted in the future as a recreation of previously deleted content. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to imply that you committed any copyright infringement, only that the page itself contained a violation and that is why some other admin deleted the page. --Yamla 17:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no. I didn't create that page nor edit it. I noticed it was missing, so I just asked. Hehe. Thanks for replying so fast. Hariharan91 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Yamala,

I am unclear why it is not okay to post links to my video websites, blastro, yallwire, and roxwel, on music artist pages. All my sites have quality news and videos regarding these artists. MTV runs ads on their site, yet their links don't seem to be "SPAM". Can you please explain how my site is not a valid resource for information/video for these artists. I have read wikipedia's guidelines and I am still unclear. I appreciate your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.44.118.175 (talk • contribs)

It's not clear to me which websites you are talking about here. It's not appropriate to link to music videos at all. This is because of copyright violations and because in almost all cases, the video does not add anything of encyclopedic quality to the article. This specifically includes sites such as MySpace. Note, though, that a large number of articles do currently link to music videos on, say, MySpace and YouTube. This does not make this acceptable. Such links should be found and removed. Additionally, even if the sites themselves were appropriate, it is inappropriate for you to link to a site you run. Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM, also WP:NOT. --Yamla 18:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for adding external links

Hi Yamla,

I am sorry for adding external links. I didn't know it was against Wikipedia's policy.

Three cheers for doing your work right.

I would like to continue using Wikipedia because I want to publish some articles.

Thanks,

Joe (Joe21)

Absolutely, you are welcome to continue using Wikipedia. The only goal of the warnings was to have you stop adding inappropriate external links to the Wikipedia. We do encourage and look forward to your contributions. --Yamla 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for the reverts to my usertalk. I appreciate it. Regards, alphaChimp^(talk) 18:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Fray

I wondered why you removed these links as "Spam" from The Fray page:

• The Fray's MySpace
• Fray Away The Edges fan site

The First one is The Fray's Official Myspace which people can hear music from. The second is a very imfomative fansite, from which a lot of the original artical information came from (including the information on Movement and Reason) as well as the webmaster (me...which is why I am asking) checks all the information on The Fray articles to make sure they are completly accurate. So I'm wonering why it was labeled Spam.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frayawaytheedges (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:EL. Thanks. --Yamla 20:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't known that. I'll make sure that if I edit the article and that information can be found at the website that I put it as a refernce then.

Also could you tell me how do I reference to a webpage?

And how does one cite primary information? I know the guys of The Fray, so all the information I have to add is what they have told me directly and I don't know how to cite that to prove it's authenticity.

Reese Witherspoon

I wasn't reverting you. I started editing the old version before and I guess the software merged it together oddly. I was fixing the way the ip had added the picture (with the frame). Sorry about that. The picture should go and I should have checked the history. BrokenSegue 20:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I Don't Like You Either

I love helping to contribute to revolutionary Country singers who have become very famous in their lifetimes. All I did was add a new album picure to Sara Evans' background information. What is wrong with that and how is that vandalism. Leave me alone and find somebody else to bother. Don't bother me again, please! (LovePatsyCline 22:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Please use the preview next time before submitting your changes so you can verify if what you did worked (or not, as in this case). --Yamla 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Leave me alone!!!! (LovePatsyCline 23:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Images on episode lists

Are fair-use images allowed on episode list pages?? (Yugigx60 13:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

No, not in my opinion, not unless they are being used to provide critical commentary on the specific episodes. They may not be used solely to illustrate an episode list. --Yamla 13:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I asked that because, I am having problems with some users with images on the Pokmeon episode list, like I wrote images idenitfy episodes visually and identify key moments. But this Pokémon Collaborative Project voted on not having images which I wasn't imformed with.

I got a commit from a two users liking the idea of images:

Well I personally think they improve the article, and I've followed certain Featured List Candidates involving fair use images, and opposers have always stated that images should be in relation to the text, much like any other image, and not there for decorative purposes. Highway ^Daytrippers 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I really like the images, and so many articles have it, I think it's accepted. —Mets501 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The users that are causing this problem is A Man in Black and Ryulong. Some of the iamges have the Fair Use Rationale for the images. Please help me (Yugigx60 14:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Images on user page

Yamla, I am sorry for being rude to you yesterday. I will try to be nicer and will not put a image on my user page if it wasn't created by me. I am terribly sorry. (LovePatsyCline 00:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

You are welcome to put images on your user page if you wish. However, Wikipedia does not allow copyrighted images. It's only copyrighted images that are a problem. Unfortunately, that means most images aren't permitted on user pages. --Yamla 00:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much! (LovePatsyCline 01:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

Citation

Hi, I recent add a contribuition to Vanessa Annne Hudgens but I dont know how to add a reliable citation , here is where i found the sales http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/sales/salescht.cgi Thanks . (Fewonka)

I can't get that site to work for me. In general, you provide a direct link to the specific URL containing your information, such as like this[http://page-that-cites-it./]. Please see WP:CITE and WP:RS. That particular site may be acceptable if they source their information, but I cannot tell because the site is poorly designed and requires proprietary browser plugins and registration. --Yamla 18:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

SPAM???

Can you please explain how changing a fansite link to an OFFICIAL myspace page link is spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.70 (talk • contribs)

Already did on the article's talk page. It would perhaps be more technically accurate to describe it as an "inappropriate external link", I suppose. Also, please sign your posts. --Yamla 20:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

STOP IT

Hi, for some of the images ive uploaded i might have provided incorrect copyright information thats because i was trying to help the community and thereby ending up incorrect info unwittingly and ya checking them is ok. But when i add copy right info to some images as my own one, i MEAN IT. Look, iam not a kid of not knowing which one are my own pics. Iam talking about the images Image:Bulidingnew11.JPG Image:Libraryimg.JPG Image:Digilib.JPG Image:Libraryimg2.JPG Image:Hostelinnerview.JPG Image:Canteenimg.JPG So here after stop BOTHERING me and try on someone else. Thats it. Bye.
Thank you Gapsinger

Please let me know if it is really your contention that you took these photographs. I see that those images appear on http://www.vlbjcet.ac.in/aboutus.htm and other associated pages. If this is your contention, I will contact the school for verification. Please note that deliberately lying about the source of the images will be sufficient for you to be banned from the Wikipedia. I'm not saying that you are lying, but I will be checking on your claims. --Yamla 21:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey iam an alumini of that college and helped with some pics for the creation of the website. Dont write anything as u like because you have the freedom. I dont know whats wrong with you and stop threatening me. I dont like talking to a guy repeatedly whom i dont know. .If banning me is your aim, go ahead with it and i least care about it. Also delete all of my contributions to wikipedia and i dont care. Its ultimately the community which is going to lose. I have lots of other work than replying for you.
Bye Gapsinger

Okay, thanks for your confirmation that you, not the college, own these pictures. I will verify this with the college and assuming they back you up, you will have my apologies. --Yamla 21:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi even the college doesnt have the proper copyright for those pictures and its a collective effort from us. Its not like a georgetown university or a cambridge university where the college has everything copyrighted. I have a question: why are you so concerned about me uploading my college pictures ? Iam sure there are lots of other people duplicating. Go and correct them. And iam writing this once again, dont bother me. If this goes on, iam going to say bye to wikipedia and you know thats it is a loss to the community. This is the last reply for you.. Bye wikipedia .
Good Bye and good luck Gapsinger

Wikipedia takes all potential issues of copyright violations seriously. Your case is not being treated any differently than any other image I find that is suspect. Now, to be clear, it is entirely possible that you do own the copyright. However, this is such a big issue that Wikipedia requires confirmation. If we don't treat the matter seriously, the entire project could be shut down! That's why we need to be absolutely sure. I know some local colleges will place images taken by students on the web site and this could be similar to this particular case. However, a lot of people don't realise that every work is protected by copyright and so would claim that any image posted on a public web site is not protected by copyright. That's not what you are claiming, mind you. You state that you yourself took these pictures. I just need to confirm this with the college. Hopefully they will respond to my email in the next few days. Thanks for your time. --Yamla 22:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Zoey 101 Article

I had them up before, but someone took them off. So I added them back. The article is constantly being vandalized and being edited poorly by unregistered users. If I did the wrong tag, then could you put the correct ones on?-Frank- 21:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But the article isn't protected. Just putting the tag there doesn't make it protected. If you want it to be protected, please request protection on the article's talk page or the admin noticeboard. Note that protection is only short-term, however. I agree that the page is fairly frequently vandalised. --Yamla 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Thank you for the help. -Frank- 21:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

IP Vandal 64.14.194.26 has returned

You previously blocked this user on Sept 27th for 48 hours. Since he has returned on Sept 29th he has made several nonsense edits and some blankings I am in the course of reverting. Perhaps you would consider re-blocking him for a longer period. --Rrburke 23:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Yamla 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jazmin DVD Covers Again

In a previous discussion on your page, I was looking for directions on what to do about the Jazmin picture that got removed from the article page. If they remain orphaned for a long time, they'll get removed from WP altogether. I still think we can put them back to the page, and remove the complains against them. And, I am still waiting for your answer. Currently I am under the impression that you are not as quick in providing directions as you are in removing pictures. Please, let's start talking reasons now. - Aditya Kabir 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC) - please, reply on my talk page.

Earlier you wrote that you need some more time to respond to my questions and arguments (see previous discussion). But, since then 10 days have passed, and you have answered to 24 other talks. I posted again, and you prefer to ignore it again, and move on to other talks. How much longer would it take for you to come up with an answer? Please, let me know at least that.

Obviously I can put the pictures back and put the argument I forwarded on the discussion pages for the images. But, I am afraid some ruthless and insensitive editor may again put them out.

Do I do what I think is best?
And, may be put the images back where they were?
Or, do I wait endlessly for you to respond?
And, may be get the orphaned images deleted?

You flaunt complex policies at my face and I ask for directions. You keep silent and I do my own research through the policies and precedence on WP, and you again keep silent. Just because you have been here longer, is more active and have won stars and a management position you can't do this to people. Democracy doesn't work that way. I am really frustrated now. Yours sincerely Aditya Kabir 07:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC) - please, reply on my talk page.

As for, someone else's argument that DVD covers should only feature in an article on that specific film (I got images removed and eventually deleted on that account as well), I invite you to check at least one example (I am sure there are more) - Felicity Kendal. Aditya Kabir 12:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So, finally the images got deleted.
And, you still haven't answered.
I have nothing to say to you.
I hope your attitude doesn't go universal.

Your sincerely Aditya Kabir 16:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC) (I'm not asking again to reply on my talk page, I know for sure you'll never reply.)

P.S. Please, try going through the Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes pages. It might do you some good.

P.P.S. Sorry, I was rude. But, well, it really hurt me to see that I recieved no advise and eventually the pictures got deleted. I have uploaded new pictures in their place now. Please, take a look at them, and let me know - on my talk page - if they are alright. If not, what should I do. And, please, let me make ammends to my mistakes first, before anyone takes a drastic action. - Aditya Kabir 14:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

One more P.S. Man, you make me feel like a fool. I wish I haven't lost a congenial tone of voice before. But, well, working 16 hours a day and using the little time I have to contribute to WP is a taxing task. And, sometimes I really wish that my attempts to contribute are appreciated in some way. I have no intention of challeging the standards, but am yet to work through the policies (there are quite a few). Trust me, I really don't ask for advise just for the sake of it. I know I have a lot to learn from you. - Aditya Kabir 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC) - please, reply on my talk page. The DVD discussion is still pending, though I think I have added better rationales and attribution to the images now. And, by the way, I myself am not happy with the Bangladesh Booty cover. I may yet change it.

Editing of links

Yamla, Recently we have moved our site to a new domain and so I have been going through the Wiki pages that either cite our page or have links and updating it. In doing so I have changed the URL. In most if not all of the cases this has caused you to completely remove these as spam. Example would be the FLAC page. The site I run is informational and no $ is made from the site and so I dont understand why it is being viewed as spam after being on these Wiki pages for anywhere from 6 monthes to a year without any problems. Becuase the goal of our site is to inform existing and new users to lossless audio Wiki is a great place for the site to be linked. Just trying to understand. ThanksWindmiller 16:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL. Blog and news sites are generally not considered appropriate. Your site is of a much higher quality than most, though, so the best way to get your site added back would be to ask on each article's discussion page if anyone has any objection. If nobody speaks up within a week, go ahead and add the link back, noting that this was discussed on the talk page. You are free to ignore this advice, mind you, but I am concerned that, while a high-quality site, the links really aren't appropriate on the Wikipedia (as all blog and news sites are not, though you'll often find articles violating this). --Yamla 16:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yamla, Right after I posted this I noticed your post on my page. Thanks for taking the time to explain, much appreciated! Its good to know that people like you are fighting splogs, spam, etc. on Wiki. I will certainly take your advice we well as being more selective about which pages I attempt to be linked from. I will try with only the ones where I have seen alot of users benefit from the link like the FLAC page. Again thanks for the clarification!! Brennan (windmiller)Windmiller 16:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jennifer Aniston

You should probably ask that to the person who actually uploaded and added the image. - Dudesleeper 17:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Modifications to Neve Campbell

Some minor edits were made to correct factual inaccuracies.--Lance6968 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. And thank you so much for your support throughout the entire process. I really do appreciate it. Cheers. -- Merope Talk 12:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the unblock. Looks like the cause is the Google Web Accelerator and I guess I am not the only one in this boat.

Off-topic: Is there any special reason I see you so often around my edits? just curious :-) --Stellatomailing 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

help

Please do not place the {{helpme}} tag in articles. If you need help, place it here on your own talk page with a brief description of what you need help with. Thanks. --pgk^(talk) 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. (Aditya Kabir 15:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Article on Bangladesh Booty, a porn movie, selected as AfD

And what help do you need with it? --pgk^(talk) 15:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It needs a cleanup, and some verification too, but I don't know exactly what type of verification and how. (Aditya Kabir 15:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

This is really beyond the scope of the helpme system, which is primarily aimed at simple editing questions. Verification means it needs to meet the standards of no original research, we do this be making sure the material is fully cited from reliable sources (verifiability). --pgk^(talk) 16:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a hand at cleanup? (Aditya Kabir 16:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

There is quite a few spelling/typing errors in the entry Bangladesh Booty. My MS Word Dictionary is gone, and I have generally difficulty proof reading anything. Please, please, if anyone can help with that it would be of great use. (Aditya Kabir 17:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Helpme is not for help editing articles, but rather for simple editing questions. If you need help cleaning up and article, place {{cleanup}} at the top of the article. —Mets501 (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I did some grammar and spelling cleanup on Bangladesh Booty. The big problem with the article is still a lack of verfiable sources, but IMO you have fixed the original problem of inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. It definitely needs those sources adding, but I think you may be able to convince some people to switch from Delete to Keep based on the fact it needs time to expand and for the references to be tracked down and added in. If you cannot manage to save the article from deletion, perhaps consider incorporating this material into the article about Jazmin as a sub-section, and maybe then recreate this article at a later date, when all the correct reliable sources are in place. Hope this helps. --DaveG12345 17:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Do I put blog links and quotes from the DVD cover as evidence on the discussion page for Bangladesh Booty, and make a reference of them at the AfD discussion page? Will that help? (Aditya Kabir 17:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Can't get the "ref" template on the article Bangladesh Booty. Please lend me a hand. Point to note - it has no URL to quote.

see WP:REF.-- 9cds^(talk) 15:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Jayne mansfield fuzzy bikini.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jayne mansfield fuzzy bikini.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman, Aussie or American?

Your further input at the "American born" section of Talk:Nicole Kidman would be appreciated. A revert war needs to be averted.Amerindianarts 17:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You may want to reply in the discussion section at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-08_Nicole_Kidman), a page created for mediation to end the revert war. Amerindianarts 01:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

yoko suzuki=

"Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others."

Due to her timid nature and lack of experience with firearms, Kevin Ryman taught Yoko how to use a handgun. Such evidence can be spotted in Resident Evil Outbreak File #2, during the zombie raid outside the Raccoon police station. Press the ad-lib button while reloading beside Kevin. She will ask him if she is preforming the process correctly. I WROTE THIS.

excuse me? I WROTE THAT PARAGRAPH, word for word. and someone changed "transaction" to "process". i had enough this crap. whatever, you cant block me because i give up writting here. wiki is a buch of lies since any asshole can change things here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.56.156 (talk • contribs)

Actually, in this edit, you changed her race from Japanese to American. --Yamla 02:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Chadbryant

I'm getting sick of this user, his is doing the exact same thing that you felt the need to block me for twice! yet nothing is ever done to him. This picture [8] does not include all the stuff you demarded i put on it, i have even put a tag on it saying and he reverts it and doesnt add nothing, and no-one says anything yet when i done it i got blocked. This user was blocked because of breaking the 3RR and yet the second it ended his back to making the same edits. His saying this picture isn't allowed [9] yet you said it was competely fine now, so this user is basically saying his right and your wrong. If he gets away with this then its obvious what he does doesnt matter. Lil crazy thing 07:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

well look at that what i thought the whole time is true, you single out the people you want to and when your told about someone doing the exact samething that you have blocked other editers for you doing, you do nothing. This is a bloody joke no wonder the user thinks he can get away with everything, thats cos he can and most admins will turn a blind eye. Lil crazy thing 15:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

NOR

What are you talking about, NOR? And kindly don't "welcome" me to the project, I've been here for almost three years. ... aa:talk 18:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I've been here longer than you have. ... aa:talk 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It looked like you were drawing an original conclusion as to the similarity of one comic to another, which is a violation of WP:NOR. I used the standard warning template. No offense was meant. --Yamla 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Sorry for getting irritated. I've been inundated lately with these automated messages, and they drive me crazy. You are correct that a hand-delivered message is very different from an automatic one. So, I understand the need to have them (I in fact used one today, myself), but I think a little more care should be used. In this case, simply seeing if it appeared that I had malicious intent would have cleared it up. Also, in the interest of AGF, it might be worthwhile to send me a question, saying "did you mean to say something that looks like OR" rather than "what you said was OR". My response would have been very different. No harm done. ... aa:talk 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?

SORRY I IDDINT UNDERSTAND WAT YOU WERE SAYING WAT VANDALISM WITH HSMSIAOR DID I DO? AND ALSO PLEASE LEEV ME ALONE why r u bothering me (i dont care about warnings please continue to do those!) but i have had some mean ppl edit my page b4 not to sound rude i think u r one of those editing ppl which is fine but just dont leev mean comments. or pre warn me b4 u do something else on my account if u can and also cant we delte some we dont like?probably not dont answer that if it is a no.

Thanks Again!

I refer to this edit. --Yamla 21:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?

SORRY I IDDINT UNDERSTAND WAT YOU WERE SAYING WAT VANDALISM WITH HSMSIAOR DID I DO? AND ALSO PLEASE LEEV ME ALONE why r u bothering me (i dont care about warnings please continue to do those!) but i have had some mean ppl edit my page b4 not to sound rude i think u r one of those editing ppl which is fine but just dont leev mean comments. or pre warn me b4 u do something else on my account if u can and also cant we delte some we dont like?probably not dont answer that if it is a no.

Thanks Again!

I refer to this edit. --Yamla 21:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User still uploading images with problems

Hi, Yamla. I wanted you to know that a user that have been previously adviced by you about image uploading, is still uploading unfree images with incomplete source info.

Could you convince him to avoid doing that? Thanks! --Abu Badali 14:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Trent Reznor

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/e/jes25/jreznor.html trent reznor's sister birthdate and father's middle name does NOT begin with a J, if it were so, then Trent would NOT be a Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.216.147 (talk • contribs)

Great. Please cite your changes in the article. --Yamla 15:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Copyvio

I didnn't create that image. It was a cd cover image so i added it to the infomation. --Pumpkin Pie 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, in violation of the image's license. Please don't violate image licenses again. Thanks. --Yamla 20:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't know. Also, all I added to The Cheetah Girls (girl group) was that raven symone was a former member. --Pumpkin Pie 20:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it copyrighted? I got it from wikipedia. And it's a "screenshot" image. It has a tag/lincense on it. --Pumpkin Pie 00:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Check the license, the license specifically states that it is copyrighted. And your use was in violation of that license. You can't just use any image for any purpose, only for the purposes permitted. --Yamla 00:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie page

Hi, AnthBat here. I had no intention of promoting the website as I have no puniary financial affiliation with it. I simply put Soulie Jolie down as another external link as it is the largest Angelina Jolie website and therefore should be there.

Sorry for the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthBat (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Fansites are generally not considered appropriate on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 02:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you lend a hande?

Hi, I saw you recently had a run in with User:Chadbryant. I had been having problems with a new editor, Twentyboy, who was filling article talk pages with chiy-chat. Looking through his contributions, I came across a link between these users:

• Chadbryant (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 65.31.99.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Twentyboy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I have a suspicion that after being blocked for a week for repeated violation of 3RR, Chad continued editing under the name twentyboy. My reasoning:

• IP 65.31.99.71's first edit to WP was to make a small stylistic change to one of Chad's talk page edits, and he made this edit just after Chad was blocked.
• Twentyboy started editing just after Chad was blocked, and his first action as a Wikipedian was to post a message on the talk page of Chad's favourite article, the "Randy Orton" talk.
• After being warned by me for posting inappropriate content on article talk pages, Twentyboy started getting annoyed at me at User_talk:Yandman#Twentyboy, but forgot to log in for his last message, signed IP 65.31.99.71 .

Now if you look at their contribs, you'll see that they're both editing the same articles, but never at the same time.

I went to ANI, and they told me to go to checkuser. So I did. I was told that this wasn't worthy of a checkuser, because 3RR blocks are not "community based blocks", whatever that means. This means I can't really prove they're the same, but the evidence seems pretty overwhelming.

Do you have any ideas as to what I should do? I agree that I'm reacting rather strongly, but I don't like to think that someone could get away with this, and I can't find the right place to report it. Being an admin, maybe you know of another place to report this. Thanks. yandman 07:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. I would normally simply reset the block counter in this case, but this particular user has committed repeated 3RR violations before and has been caught several times using sockpuppets to avoid blocks. I have now blocked this user indefinitely. --Yamla 15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough. After pestering the clerk for the past 3 days trying to get a coherent reply, I was beginning to think that you're all bots in some machiavellic scheme from Jimbo. Glad to find someone willing to help. Merci yandman 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just unblocked Twentyboy and the associated IP address. The user claims to have nothing to do with Chadbryant and WP:AGF requires that without more specific evidence, we assume good faith. I'm going to continue monitoring the situation. Chadbryant remains indefinitely blocked (for now, at least) due to a large amount of abusive edits from that user. --Yamla 18:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's cool. Thank you! I didn't even know you could make a sockpuppet until you told me about it. LoL! I certainly wouldn't ever try it. I don't even know how. Watch it though, you may tell someone with bad character about sockpuppets and he may learn how to do it. I certainly won't. I hope you don't mind if I erase my ranting as I don't want to make anyone look bad. :) 65.31.99.71 18:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you are formally asking for a checkuser in order to prove your innocence? yandman 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but would you mind keeping an eye on Twentyboy? He seems upset that I told him that his comment on The Undertaker's talk page was irrelevant, and that I told him ignoring critics isn't wise. You reverted all of the attacks that he made, but I would like to keep him from vandalizing some of the pages I'm working on. If you can it would be much appreciated. Cheers THL 19:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to get into further argument with Yandman. I thought Yamla, that you said he had said thank you or something but he is still harassing me. Not only has he got me blocked, but now he refuses to quit harassing me. Anyway, I'd much appreciate it if you would get the user to leave me alone. And the user TH has accused me of being upset with him for correcting him on a spelling error he made. I suggest to the two of you to leave it alone, leave me alone, and go about your business. Thankyou! Twentyboy 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done nothing to you. Yamla's talk page isn't the place to solve our problems. Lets keep this between our talk pages. There is a comment on your page. Yamla, if you feel the need to join in, you will be accepted with open arms. THL 20:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I had never accused Twentyboy of being a sockpuppet, and he started getting really defensive about it. In my last edit on his talk page, I told him what I think. Could you please deal with him? I'm willing to drop it if he is, but he doesn't seem willing. Please help. Cheers. THL 09:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

False Image license?

Hi, you claimed that I gave false image licenses, but this is not the case. I went to creative commons and did a search, first for Tara Reid: http://search.creativecommons.org/?q=Tara+Reid&engine=flickr

and then for Haylie Duff: http://search.creativecommons.org/?q=Haylie+Duff&engine=flickr

So if you could please inform me of how this would improper use it would be appreciated. Also is Wikipedia classified as commercial use? Valoem ^talk 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The actual licenses for those images prohibited commercial use. The license you used when you uploaded the image here made no mention of this. Wikipedia itself is not classed as commercial use but Wikipedia allows the entire contents to be redistributed by someone else for commercial use. As a result, Wikipedia does not allow images licensed only for non-commercial use, as was the case for those two images. --Yamla 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I still dont understand how these images are prohibited. I mean it doesnt say on the page and I did get these images off of Creative Commons. Isn't Creative Common free fair use images? Valoem ^talk 20:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The specific license attached to that image prohibited commercial use. That's fine, it's still a free image, but it's under a license Wikipedia has chosen not to use. The license was not the default Creative Commons license, it was not the one you selected when you uploaded the image. Essentially, the license imposes terms on the image which are unacceptable for the Wikipedia. --Yamla 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me what to look for on Creative Commons so next time I take an image it will be WP acceptable? Because I was under the impression that all images on Creative Commons were acceptable. EDIT: Also I added Fair use to the image Boom PSX N64 USB Adapter. Sorry this will probably be my last edit in a while as I am taking a Wikibreak till exams are over next week. Cheers :) Valoem ^talk 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of you "Yamla"

You're becoming a serious pest when it comes to these images. Back the fuck off. (64.12.116.70 19:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

I have never had any dealings with a person from 64.12.116.70. Additionally, personal attacks are not tolerated here. --Yamla 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion

Some of the images you have tagged for deletion have not necessarily needed to be tagged as such. I'm not saying all of them, but some of them have a clear fair-use rationale on them. Take Image:SpongeSeason 1.jpg for example: it is clearly a DVD cover, and it is marked as such, but you put a {{no rationale}} tag on it. I'm just asking you to be careful, as taking out fair-use images won't help anything. I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to point something out. -Patstuart 20:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, but in order for us to use a copyrighted image, we must have a "detailed fair-use rationale for each use", as the license points out. The image does not have one so I tagged it with the no-rationale tag. --Yamla 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that is provided very clearly provided with the tags. That's the reason the tags exist. If it is not provided with a tag, or the tag is clearly wrong, then it may be deleted. But if the tag is clear, and the image fits the description, that is enough. Trust me on this one. -Patstuart 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So, it is your claim that even though the license explicitly states that a detailed fair-use rationale must be provided for each use, this is not actually a requirement and that such images should not be tagged with the no-rationale tag? I'll grant that you may be right but I'd like to see some evidence of this. It directly contradicts the license text and the fair-use section of the Image copyright tags page, which specifically includes {{DVDcover}} as a license that must include a reason for fair use. Just to be clear, I accept the possibility that you are right, but I would like to see some evidence of this. --Yamla 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the best I can do: I'll first mention anecdotal evidence. I think anecdotal is important, because of the policy leaves any gray room, it's important to look at how it's been done in the past: Anecodotal:

• Other admins have uploaded images, and provided the fair use tag, but nothing else. They think that's enough, when it's obvious what the file is.
  • An example: Image:Going_straight_dvd.jpg was uploaded by an admin, given a DVD cover, and left at that, because it's clear what the license is. Nothing else needs to be said; everyone knows it's a DVD cover, and no-copyright holder is going to be able to claim "that isn't correct."

Policy:

• I don't see the policy saying that a fair-use image is not acceptable if it doesn't have an in-depth description under Fair_use#Images: it's not in the instructions either, which only say: "Labeling images as fair use can be done with the fair use copyright tags. If you have found a file that appears to be fair use, you can add a tag corresponding to the type of material to the image description page:" These words definitely make it sound like labeling is enough to make it fair-use.
• Here's a clear policy stating that common sense should be used in terms of if it's fair-use: "Reviewers are urged to consider that some discretion and personal judgement is required in assessing whether certain of these requirements are met..." This seems to be saying: if discretion and personal judgment clearly show that it meets the rationale (e.g., magazine covers, DVD covers, even headshots), then it need not be disputed.
• If there's a question as to the fair use rationale, the policy advocates this: "For example rewording an inadequately written Fair Use rationale, or deleting unnecessary information, is a far more constructive action than simply deeming that a criterion has not been met." Granted, it does say inadequately written rationale, but that could just as easily mean only for ambiguous images, or perhaps ones with poor rationale tagged (e.g., Image:DSC02293.jpg, which only says "it's copyrighted" and nothing more).
• "If you believe an image that is tagged as fair use is definitely not fair use, you can add {{fair use disputed}}". It seems that the standard way of handling a poorly rationaled image is to tag it for disputed, not deletion.
• Finally, the {no use rationale} tag says the image "has no explanation as to why it is permitted under Wikipedia's rules for fair use." But many of these do provide a rationale, and it's in the individual tags given (e.g., {dvdcover}). For example- "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos..." This rationale is quite clear, especially if it's obvious what the image is for.

I'm not saying that if it's not obvious, or if there appears to be a bad tag, then not to provide the no rationale tag. But some of these are obvious, and I hope some of the policy and reasoning I've provided can help us agree on the issue. -Patstuart 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank you for discussing this issue with me. You could just have told me to take a hike or something. Anyway, let's take a look at Image:Esquire Jennifer Connelly 1991 8.jpg, the Jennifer Connelly picture that I tagged today. The image was moved to the infobox this morning which means that it was not being used according to the license. It was instead being used specifically to depict Connelly, not in context of discussing that particular issue of the magazine. That's why I tagged that image. With the image moved back to the paragraph concerning the issue of the magazine, a compelling argument could be made that the image is now being used in accord with the license. This seems to be the consensus of the people on the discussion page as well, though the discussion just started. So, whether or not this image is fair-use depends on how it is used in the article. I am much happier if this is spelled out in a rationale on the image page. That the license specifically states that a detailed fair-use rationale should be added seems, to me, to support this contention. In this case, the rationale would be simple, something along the lines of, "used to depict issue of magazine in question in paragraph which discusses this issue, not solely to depict Connelly." Now, I previously mentioned that the image description page specifically mentions that the dvdcover requires a detailed rationale. In many cases, the fair-use case is obvious. It's a DVD cover used to illustrate the particular DVD in question. But the image description page and the license text both still indicate that the rationale is required. Also, what often ends up happening is that the DVD image then gets used to depict something outside of the license. A DVD of a movie starring Connelly, for example, used solely to illustrate what Connelly looks like.

Now, I've been using the fair-use-disputed tag for quite some time but recently, people have been correcting that to the missing-rationale tag, so I just started using that. This has the added advantage of requiring that the issue be resolved in short order and providing a simple copy-and-paste official warning template which can be used (and is specifically designed) to warn the person who uploaded the image.

I am concerned that a great number of images on Wikipedia are used in blatant violation of copyright. This is clear and I doubt anyone would debate it. As a result, I personally do request that people who upload copyrighted images provide an accurate source, an accurate license, and a detailed fair-use rationale. In all honesty, I'm quite happy with any reasonable attempt at a fair-use rationale and accept many that I believe fall far short of what Wikipedia officially requests. I believe it is important to deal with images without sufficient information because continuing to accept images which may violate copyright put us at direct risk. It may be obvious to the uploader why an image is fair-use but we may not be able to contact the uploader when we are sued. And as I mentioned before, I believe both the license and image description help page specifically require this.

Now that I have stated my point and you have stated your point, there's a very good chance that we aren't going to agree. I'm happy to request additional help, perhaps from the admin noticeboard policies page, if you think this would be productive. --Yamla 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer_Connelly

There is a discussion of the fair use assertment of an image going on for this page. Your comments on the talk page would be much appreciated. note:This message has been sent to all recent registered editors of the article, less vandal fighters — xaosflux ^Talk 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversions

Hey, every place I've contributed, everything reverted. I spent a lot of time making contributions and you went and reverted everything. A whole bunch of stuff. It looks like you may have just pressed an undo button of everything I did because there's no basis of reverting it. This stuff I'm looking at is not vandalism at all. Without getting all the information to figure out if I was a sockpuppet, you not only blocked me but reverted all of my edits to? I can't even go back and change it because I would be changing a lot of work other writers have done here at wikipedia too. And it would be like doing what you did to me, to others. No offense or anything, but a good administrator looks into a situation without taking sides. I've basically wasted a lot of time here because of all the reversions on top of being accused of being a sockpuppet. Still and all, nothing was done to the people who erroneously accused me of being a sockpuppet. I really wish there was a bit more justice here at wikipedia! 65.31.99.71 22:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nexopia.

My last two entries were both relevent and not considered vandalism in any sense. I would like an explaination on just how you thought they were vandalism. --JawKneeMusic 01:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. And please don't change other people's comments on discussion pages. --Yamla 01:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I'll change them if they're a personal attack, which it was. --JawKneeMusic 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use attack

After you abruptly ended our last discussion on the legitimacy of my logo uploads, I see you've now gone after more recent uploads on the accusation that I'm still violating fair use policies.

You'll find the precedent is clear. On many popular articles, you'll find logos with the same or less source information provided:

• Image:Microsoft logotype.png
• Image:Macys redstar.gif
• Image:Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 logo.png
• Image:Apple-logo.png
• Image:DaimlerChrysler.png
• Image:Google logo transparent.png
• Image:Time Warner.svg

And many, many more. Here's my issue:

1. Our last conversation never received an affirmative response from you. This lead me to the reasonable belief that you had not opposed my final arguments.
2. Logos, unlike other fair use images, are more comfortably nestled in fair use as they are blatently representative of the organization or product.
3. There is a clear precedent (listed above) of logos -- even in popular articles -- being used with limited source information. This is legitimate because, again, the logo is clearly representative of the content of the article and used by the organization or product to promote itself. Unlike other fair use images, it has no risk of damaging the organization.

Sean Hayford O'Leary 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Aishwarya Rai CC.jpg, please delete, it is now a duplicate

Ok, thats cool (in regards to Jennifer Aniston pic) anyways could you please delete this image: Image:Aishwarya Rai CC.jpg. It is a duplicate image I uploaded. I orginally upload the image Image:Aishwarya Rai.jpg however there was a copyright vio image there and my image did not overwrite it even though it says it did. So then I uploaded the image Image:Aishwarya Rai CC.jpg to replace the copyright vio image on the Aishwarya Rai page. However the image Image:Aishwarya Rai.jpg is now replaced with the original one I uploaded, so Image:Aishwarya Rai CC.jpg is now obsolete. Thanks. Valoem ^talk 17:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh! thats how you do it, sorry about that, I didnt think it was going to do that. Valoem ^talk 17:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and I removed the image you asked me to delete. --Yamla 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) once again my apologies for that inconvenience. Valoem ^talk 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism help

Hello..! There's an annoying user who has recently persisted in making vandalizing edits to Illinois Math and Science Academy. Can this be stopped? Thanks. aruffo 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello lol

Hey man, could you please help me on my templates? Something's wrong with my DX template & my userboxes. Could you please help me tidy them up? Also, I'm trying to show everybody the image that I've created.User:Pic Business

I'll take a look. You can't put copyrighted images on your user page, though. This is not permitted. --Yamla 02:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Chad again

Chad Bryant has posted a personal attack on his user page. He refuses to remove it and when another editor removes it, Chad reverts and declares it 'vandalism' in his edit summary. here is the edit: [10] advise please. TruthCrusader 08:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Support the above. Please also see the message he left on my talk page [11] DXRAW 08:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Hello there, I would just like to inform you that I have added the fair use rationales for the respective images that you mentioned. If there is anything wrong, please reply on my talk page. However, there is user named Zany zacky that I would like to report about. He is repeatedly using wikipedia as an advertising service to create SpongeBob DVD articles and he's directly copying text from websites where the DVD is sold. You're an admin, so you deal with these matters, because he is really confusing the members of the SpongeBob WikiProject of which I am as well, so please help us out here. Thanks! ЅυđÜѕєя85 Talk to me 14:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you do, Suduser85. Thank you very much, your efforts are much appreciated. I'm sorry I didn't respond to your email, life has been rather hectic recently. Anyway, I'll take a look at the user you mention. --Yamla 14:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vanessa Anne Hudgens

Why did you remove the image put in by LBM? Didn't they put in a fair use rationale? bibliomaniac15 01:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that it is a copyrighted image. Recent changes to fair-use policies mean that we can't use this copyrighted image. --Yamla 01:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant

Can you please protect his talk page so he can not remove current warnings and incorrectly label them as harassment. DXRAW 06:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair-use

Hey, thanks for the note. Part of the reason for the dispute with this particular image is that it quite clearly is promotional in nature. For the discussion, see here. Thanks again. :)

Because it is possible to take a photo of someone, promotional photos are not allowed? Re: Image:Saraevans38-426x135.jpg. - Peregrinefisher 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's essentially currently the case. See WP:FUC. --Yamla 22:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Violation

What violation? It's fair use, is a promo photo. Caravaggio31 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Caravaggio31

Fair-use images cannot be used to depict living people. Please see WP:FUC. --Yamla 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I was reverting Vandalism, not vandalzing. get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The exclusive bad apple (talk • contribs)

No, you removed a signed comment from the image page. --Yamla 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That signed comment was unncessary and was an attempt to silence the efforts of the original poster of that image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The exclusive bad apple (talk • contribs)

It was not. If I was attempting to silence the original poster, I'd have removed the original comment. Like you did to mine. --Yamla 01:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you were actually silencing him, your comment was still unnecessary, leave him alone.

your opinion?

[12]: A "detailed" fair-use rationale? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added my input to that image page. --Yamla 02:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I always appreciate your input and willingness to back me up on these subjects. Thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

0111 unblock?

Hey Yamla, 0111 (talk • e-mail • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is asking for a second chance, and now that he's a bit more repentant after being blocked for over a month, I'm inclined to give him that second chance. What do you say? --  Netsnipe  ►  07:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the user appears repentant and so I've unblocked him. Thanks for pointing this out to me. --Yamla 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

images

Since when has this been about. Now i think this is a stupid thing to do. There is no free images of randy orton or many people. How are people going to know what people look like now if no picture is allow. Seriously wikipedia is starting to become a joke. Lil crazy thing 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure when this change was made. You are wrong, though. Plenty of people have taken photographs of Randy Orton and could do so in the future, releasing them under a free license. As to how one would know what a person looked like, there's always Google. It's not an excuse to violate fair-use, though I agree that this policy is going further than legally required. Note that it was not my idea to change this policy; I had nothing to do with it. --Yamla 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But no-one has released any iamges to use, so untill someone uploads one of there pictures personally to use then there isn't none. I know theres google but when you come to a page and see information on there you dont want to have to go throught google and search them just to see a picture. This policy is going over the top, if all these policies are coming to light then i think wikipedia should stop all uploading of images. I know you have nothing to do with it but i really feel wikipedia is starting to go to far, if this policy is going to be used then about 80% of pictures on wikipedia will go un-needingly. I have replace the tag on that picture to the one the other tag has said to put. Lil crazy thing 17:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has specifically stated, from what I understand, that we are better off with no images than with images that have any possibility of being declared to infringe. Additionally, the criteria isn't whether or not we currently know of any free images but rather, whether one could be created. This would be easy to do in this case. --Yamla 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Images break up pages and i find it so horrible to just look at a page full of text without nothign breaking it up. It maybe easy to do for someone who has personally taken a picture of him to upload, i have plenty of pictures from friends they have taken but they can't be used if i upload them as there not mine. Whoever owns wikipedia should suspend all uploading of images at this rate, cos that what this tag basically is, if it isnt free it wont be allowed and most pictures on here aren't free, go to all wrestlers pages and actors and singers etc etc and nearly all pictures arent free. i really think this is getting silly now with all these policies. Lil crazy thing 18:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i have told you and told you and told you, there is NO free images of him on the internet UNTIL someone actually uploads one of there images they took then there is no free images, also please do not go around the pages and add this tag to just the pictures i've uploaded on the wrestlers pages. i have put the other tag on the page which it states to do when i believe a free iamge cannot be found and reading the other tag i think its very reasonable. Just because his a sort of public person doesnt mean its easy to get a free picture of him, because it isn't unless someone actually uplaods a picture and no one has so it isn't possible Lil crazy thing 14:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. It would be more accurate to argue from the other side. We assume a free use image of a living person can be created and it is the uploader's responsibility to provide evidence that this is not the case. This is in fact what WP:FUC requires. I can certainly imagine some cases where a free-use image could not reasonably be created of a living person. But the fact that nobody has yet uploaded a free image does not imply that it would be impossible to create one. --Yamla 14:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So wikiepdia basically expects people to stalk famous people to get a free image. No where do it say what your saying, what your saying is your thoughts on it. There is no free images of Randy Orton therefore no free iamges can be uploaded or created at the moment because there is none, when a free image comes avalible then it gets change but there IS NONE. I'm also getting sick of you just adding this tag only to the wrestling images ive uploaded, you always do this, do you get some kick out of singling people out yet again cos that what your doing on the wrestling pages, just singling me out and my images and no one elses. I stick by what i say and i will continue to change that tag because that tag is to be put there when there is a dispute over an image, so i'm actually following what the tag says Lil crazy thing 15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Already responded on user's page. Not singling out this user, I have tagged many other images and now, also other wrestling images. As to claims that Wikipedia is expecting people to stalk famous people, etc., that does not even merit a response. --Yamla 15:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

image

Well, I think that assertion is your POV, not a rule. This WP:FUC says clearly: Also, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken, even though it may be difficult. This is a recomendation, it´s not forbidden. There's no free image for Eva Green. And there's not a rule: "Upload image of living people under fair use is forbbiden". Right?

No, WP:FUC is a policy. This bit is also providing additional information to clarify the earlier bit, "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." So, this is asking whether the subject of the photograph still exists. If it does, a free image could be created and so the image would violate this part of the policy. --Yamla 14:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use rules are clear, as I know: Promotional material - for an image freely provided to promote an item. Well, the image is promoting Casino Royale and the character Vesper Lynd, performed by Eva Green, as in the caption. Otherwise, I couldn't understand your point. Before upload that image of Eva Green, I saw many (most) images of living people under fair use tag here, specially actors and actresses, some of them uploaded by administrators. Why aren't deleted? Could I say what you have done reverting the image was vandalism based in POV? Caravaggio31 07:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Caravaggio31

The problem here is that the policy has recently changed. It's hard for Wikipedia to keep on top of all the images that have been uploaded at the best of times but given this fairly recent change, it's especially difficult. Users who aren't aware of the policy at all need it pointed out to them. Users used to the old policy requirements are going to be confused. --Yamla 14:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungrygirl.. Twentyboy..

Would a check user be in order to establish if there are any "sleeper" accounts in waiting? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree this would be useful but I'm not sure if this is actually possible. I know for sure I can't do it.  :( --Yamla 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well i'll wait and see if he/she returns, if so ill just report them and reqiest a check user. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Torrie Wilson

Yeah, but do you think that wwe.com always tells the truth??? They list Hulk Hogan as 6' 7", but in fact Hulk Hogan is 6' 4" or 6' 5" and they also say that The Big Show is over 7' 3" tall. That's nonsense. Look at Torrie Wilson and you will notice that she is 2 or 3 inches smaller than Stacy Keibler but not 4 inches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieutenant Dol Grenn (talk • contribs)

No, my claim is that wwe.com is a more reliable source than your source. Remember, WP:V. The criteria isn't truth but verifiability. I fully admit they may have the wrong information here but given we are using her official profile as the source, we need an extremely reliable countersource, much more reliable than the wwe official profile, to counter it. --Yamla 18:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but one moment Torrie Wilson was listed as 5' 9". And also other sources still say that she is that big. So that wasn't a vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieutenant Dol Grenn (talk • contribs)

But the official source says she is 5' 7". And note that I never accused you of vandalism. --Yamla 19:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Melissamilano2.jpg

This is where you're mistaken. There is no free image to replace it. Replace it with a free image and I will accept your vandalising as valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The exclusive bad apple (talk • contribs)

The criteria isn't whether a free image currently exists but whether one could be created. Given that she's still alive, this is certainly the case. Also, we can't use a film screenshot solely to depict a person. Please reread WP:FUC. Please do not accuse me of vandalism for using standard warning templates appropriately. --Yamla 02:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a whole lot about image policy here, but I'm pretty sure "so people can see what she looks like" is not a valid fair use rationale. Am I right about that? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. In any case, we couldn't use a film screenshot solely to depict what she looks like. Additionaly, the image could be replaced with a free image (as she is still alive), so under WP:FUC, we also can't use the image. --Yamla 02:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious. So replace it with a free one, or it stays. Until you can cite the exact part of the FUC article instead of just arbitrarily pointing at it, the image stays.

Sure thing. "1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Point one. Clear as day. --Yamla 02:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Um you realize all that does is support my argument. The fact that no free equivalent is available furthers my point that the image could be used. You seem to like avoiding finding the alternative free use image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The exclusive bad apple (talk • contribs)

Wait, are you seriously trying to argue that no free use image of Melissa Milano could be created? --Yamla 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And yet you still fail to provide a free use alternative. Sorry, but your argument is looking very weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The exclusive bad apple (talk • contribs)

You are confused. The existence of a free alternative is irrelevant to WP:FUC. The only important thing is whether one could be created and given that this person is alive, this is certainly the case. Anyway, it is most certainly not my responsibility to produce such an image. --Yamla 18:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your reference

About that thing you put on my page. You and Nicloe Kidman are not that same cases. Nicole's parents and whole family are Australian. She does not have any American ancestory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs)

Except, of course, she was born in the U.S.A. which makes her American. --Yamla 17:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

no-rationale tag Image:Torrie Facial2.jpg

Is this enough now?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallie787 (talk • contribs)

You didn't add any detailed fair-use rationale. You added a fairuse tag. But that's not necessary because you already had a license tag. You need a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale explaining why this particular copyrighted image is appropriate for use in the article. Please see the links in the license text which give some examples of what would be suitable. --Yamla 03:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

TorrieFacial2 i've given it a lot of fair use though is it enough now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wally787 (talk • contribs)

Well, your rationales are shorter than normal, but they are looking pretty decent. You have mentioned exactly which articles they are being used in and why. It's not clear that the images couldn't be replaced with free versions, but hey. One other thing, you can't have copyrighted images on your user page. Thanks, Wally! --Yamla 03:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sushmita.jpg

Hello, I uploaded the image ages ago so to be honest and don't know where I got it from. I can add the fair use rationale but yes the source is required. If it needs to be deleated asap then that's fine. Im more careful when uploading images now, to specify the source and write a detailed fair use rationale. Thanks for letting me know. Pa7 21:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't give a flying fuck. block me I Don't care. kiss my goddamn ass. DUSTIN Motherfucking D

rollback

Hi Yamla, would you mind rolling back [13]? I've reverted today's with popups, but it's rather slow, and from what I gather, you have a faster tool. Is there a way we can automatically remove any links to that site? User is a serial linkspammer, but was not given a final warning until today, so I've not listed him at wp:vandal. Yet. yandman 09:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, do special tools that I'm aware of, but I've taken care of the situation.  :) --Yamla 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Requesting help

Dear Yamla, you see, I've been editing this page for a film called Sainikudu. User:Thamizhan keeps reverting my edits without giving reasons. He removed them at first claiming POV but there was no POV at all. He then said the info there was unsourced. I've already provided citations, but he keeps doing it. Plus, his language during his edit summaries are really rude. Here are examples : [14] [15]. I'm really trying to avoid an edit war here so I'd really appreciate if you could have a word with him. Thanking you in advance. Hariharan91 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!

And, thank you! It's four years old and other people had to be cropped out, but it's my image to give up ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems With Wikipedia

He Yamla, I was wondering if you can tell me, I want to upload some screenshots from some films and place them on here, but I am afraid they will get pulled off and I will get banned... can you advise me a way to stop this from happening? Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.121.103 (talk • contribs)

Well, the main issue is what you are going to use the images for. You can only use them to illustrate the film itself and even then, you can only really have one fair-use screenshot per article. You cannot use a film screenshot solely to depict a person, for example. But a good use would be, say, a film screenshot showing really cheesy fake blood, attached to a paragraph discussing the cheesy fake blood. Anyway, for all copyrighted images, you need a source identifying the copyright holder, a license and justification for that license (generally, film-screenshot would be appropriate here), and a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale for each use of the image. And of course, you need to adhere to the license text. Please let me know if you have any more specific questions. --Yamla 22:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but I would be using the screenshots for profile pictures of Characters for films like Scream Trilogy, Terminator Trilogy, etc... Would this be ok just to get pictures of said character not in a pose, but acting so to speak... then capture it and use it as the profile picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.121.103 (talk • contribs)

This is certainly not permitted if you are using the images to illustrate a person. But whether such could be used to depict a character (note the important difference, please ask if you don't see the difference) is less certain. Until recently, I'd have said absolutely yes, this is allowable. There have been some changes to WP:FUC, however, that make this less clear but my opinion is that it would still be an appropriate fair-use. One thing people sometimes mess up on, though, is claiming that images are promotional (thus, using the promotional tag) without providing any evidence the image came from a press kit. Doesn't sound like it'll be a problem for you, though, given that you are using film screenshots. Note that each use of a copyrighted image must have a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale justifying its use, explaining why only a copyrighted image is appropriate in this case and why the use does not infringe on the copyright holder's rights. --Yamla 22:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is going to be a problem then, as long as the pictures are used for a character profile, not an actors, and i give full details of copyright then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.121.103 (talk • contribs)

And a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale for each use of the image on the Wikipedia, yes.  :) --Yamla 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ciara

But Ciara is known by only her first name! There are also other persons (like Madonna, Prince...) in the category "People known by single-name pseudonyms". Well, maybe there should be a category for the people known by only their first name like Ciara?

I am not a vandal, but thank you for your warnings. {{Subst:unsigned|83.145.228.222}

Yes, but "Ciara" is not a pseudonym. Just because other inappropriate articles also belong to that category does not mean that we should continue adding more inappropriate articles. I agree that if there was a category for people known only by their first name, it would be appropriate to add Ciara then. You were warned because you were adding articles to incorrect categories after specifically being warned not to do so. You may not have acting so deliberately, but your edits were clear vandalism. --Yamla 15:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Eve Miles

Image does not violate fair use policy. Please cite the policy. The actress is the actress, regardless of roles. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use means that an image, one image, may be used to illustrate an article in question. In the case of an actress, portrayal of a character if another, more free image is not available. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, recent change instigated by Jimbo Wales. We are no longer permitted to use a copyrighted image under fair-use solely to depict a living person. See WP:FUC. --Yamla 18:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you have your work cut out for you. Why don't you go through all actors and actresses rather than stalking a single one. It looks bad for Wikipedia for you to do so when so many others are remaining untouched. Anyway, don't list this as an orphaned image. There is some discussion going on about its appropriateness to illustrate the episode, as it was the first image added to the episode guide. That was the reason I added it to the actress article in the first place. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree I have my work cut out for me, but please note that the policy came down from Jimbo Wales, not from me. I've changed the image now to no-rationale as it is currently missing a detailed fair-use rationale, but obviously it is no longer orphaned. Note that I am not singling this image out. I must have tagged roughly one hundred such images in the past week or so. Certainly well more than twenty, at least. I hope you don't take offence. It looks to be a good image to depict that episode (though I haven't seen the other), it just can't be used to depict a living person. --Yamla 18:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Accepted Original Motion Picture Soundtrack.jpg

Hi. I noticed you tagged Image:Accepted Original Motion Picture Soundtrack.jpg with {{nrd}}. Is there a specific concern that you had? It is tagged with {{cdcover}}, which itself contains a fair use rationale, namely, that the image is used "soley to illustrate the audio recording in question". With DVD covers, CD covers, etc, the rationale is usually considered to be obvious and the vast majority don't have anything above and beyond the tag. I looked at the page where this image is used and didn't see a problem with it. Is there a specific concern that you had? BigDT 21:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the criteria has been tightened up recently. All fair-use images have required a rationale, but this is more widely enforced now. My specific complaint with this image is that the article it is used on already has a lot of copyrighted images... six, by my count. This is really too many for an article without much length (though the length is just fine, my complaint is with the image count). This was the first image I found, though, so was the one I tagged as missing the rationale. --Yamla 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sara Evans

The edit that you flagged me for is valid. Sara Evans is the spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson lotion. Please revisit the site to see. She receives payment to be on that site and her name is tied to the brand. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.2.91 (talk • contribs)

I don't doubt that, but it just isn't appropriate to link in to an advertising campaign in that article. --Yamla 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

NLT

You did a great job of properly responding to a user with a legal threat. Thanks for handling the matter. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost

If you've got time, could you have a look at User:Cerebral Warrior and the resulting discussions at User talk:Cerebral Warrior#Your userpage and User talk:Yandman#Cerebral Warrior? Is it appropriate for me to insist he removes this? I don't know of any specific policies concerning user pages, though. What do you think? yandman 13:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

V (Vanessa Hudgens album)

You have got to be kidding me. Image:VanessaV.jpg is a copyrighted image, it is also, however, the cover art for V (Vanessa Hudgens album), where it was used explicitly for purposes of identification. The fair use rationale for cover albums - all cover albums - is spelled out in Template:Albumcover, the improper usage of this image would be to illustrate the artist Vanessa Hudgens on her article. Now I understand that you may be trying to impose a draconian standard of redundant rationales in album cover art images, but posting a warning that accuses me of violating Wikipedia policy on copyrights is a bit less polite than asking me to provide a more detailed rationale. It is also plain incorrect as Wikipedia fair use policy allows for the use of cover art images to identify and illustrate music albums. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took offence at the warning. I know you were acting in good faith and my warning should have been tailored appropriately. The problem is that this image has a fair-use rationale for one use but not for the other and has been used in the past in blatant violation of the license, solely to depict Hudgens. As such, the fair-use for this particular image has been a big problem and has been disputed many times. As such, we really require even a brief mention for each particular use of this image, as required by the license itself. --Yamla 16:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry as well for the brusque response. I've duplicated the rationale for usage at V (Vanessa Hudgens album), all current usage of that image appears to conform to Wikipedia policy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. --Yamla 16:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Canada Page

I am new to this, so hold on. I am just trying to understand why blocked from the Canada page by you for "long term vandalism". I was not vandalising is was trying to update. Sorry if I messed that up. My intentions are not bad. Changes to US border policies mean that the Canada-US border is no longer undefended. I put links, but I obviously did something wrong. Sorry again. Longbranch 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. As near as I can tell, and I did check, I have never blocked you. Probably you are hitting an autoblock. Someone who shares (or shared) your IP address was blocked for vandalism and you were accidentally blocked as collateral damage (that is, you were not blocked deliberately). If you are still unable to edit, please let me know. The fact that you are able to edit my talk page indicates that you are no longer blocked, however. --Yamla 17:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you.65.95.151.70 20:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For Image:MileyCyrus Grani 9189349 400-1-.jpg

Is the fair use rationale ok now? It WAS a Photo shoot, so I used the appropriate template. Is it acceptable? --AOL Alex 20:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Near as I can see, all you did was change the license, not provide a detailed fair-use rationale. There's no explanation why this particular copyrighted image is required and appropriate in the articles it is used in. Detailed fair-use rationales are hand-written explanations. However, it's really not worth worrying about. This is a copyrighted image and recent changes to WP:FUC mean that non-free images cannot be used to depict living people. --Yamla 20:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What about now? --AOL Alex 21:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Two problems. First, wireimage images aren't promotional, they are commercial. Wikipedia is not permitted to use them. Second, even if we were, we can't use it under the terms listed. For example, we require that images may be modified. Third, you don't mention the specific article this rationale is for. In the end, though, it doesn't matter. This image can be replaced by a free image, thus it will always fail WP:FUC. Anyway, as you identified this as a wireimage picture, I will delete it. I appreciate your effort, though. Copyrighted images are a huge pain in the behind and often are inappropriate for the Wikipedia. --Yamla 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, I tried, thanks for your help. --AOL Alex 21:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fasilrox14

HEYY! my bad im new at this! im srry i guess..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasilrox14 (talk • contribs)

Please note that vandalism is not tolerated here. You are welcome to contribute productively if that is what you decide, however. --Yamla 22:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

Yamla, would you mind re-deleting and protecting Phil of the Future movie, which was already AFD'd [16], as well as remove Halloweentown V: She's A Witch, Twitches 2 and Zenon 4, none of which appear to exist, from List of Disney Channel films? I'm eding to 3rr there or I would have done so myself. Thanks and cheers Mad Jack 23:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just did already.  :) --Yamla 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

But what about The Phil of the Future Movie :-))) ? Also, I just AFD'd a bunch of similar stuff, but feel free to speedy delete it if you can. Cheers, Mad Jack 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And reverts of uncited content would especially be nice here Mad Jack 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind on that last one, User:Sblngpedia11 seems to have reverted himself and removed the challenged films. The Phil of the Future Movie and the others still need deletion, though. Cheers, Mad Jack 00:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Are Fair use rational and False image licensing considered warnings?

Hi, I initailly posted the images of Tara Ried and Haylie Duff, if you remember, under good faith because I was unaware that not all images found on Creative Commons are acceptable for Wikipedia (which is where I found those images). I think we resolved these issues and has not happened again. However, are these considered warnings? Valoem ^talk 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that what is acceptable has recently changed, though it would not affect images legitimately licensed under the creative commons license. See WP:FUC. I can explain in more detail if you wish. Now, as to your question, these do count as warnings but the goal of warnings is to have you stop doing whatever actions are against policy. There's no scorecard kept, for example. People aren't permitted to blank current warnings from their page because until the matter is resolved, the warnings indicate what is going on. Anyway, I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Are you wondering if you can blank the warnings? You certainly could archive the image warnings to an archive page (I can help you with this if you like). At this point, I think it would be reasonable to simply remove those warnings from your page, though I personally don't care for simply removing warnings. All of mine are archived, for example. Does this answer your questions? --Yamla 23:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess the most direct way to ask this is: Is this going to harm me in anyways if I try to run for adminship in the future?

and could you please archive them? Thanks a lot :) Valoem ^talk 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It may affect some people's vote. It would not affect mine and it would surprise me if it affected many. You are asked when running for admin whether you've had any conflicts and how you resolved them. In my opinion, this would be a good thing to bring up. You had a conflict, you worked hard to understand what was going on, where the problem was, and resolved the problem. You are obviously too new at the moment to get my vote (but you aren't running yet), but the conflict you and I had would not cause me to vote against you. Archiving the page just involves creating a new subpage (for example, at User talk:Valoem/Archive1) and copy the content in there. If you still want me to do it, let me know. I can't do it right now because I'm on my laptop and it makes it harder to type. --Yamla 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! I'll get right to it when I get the chance. Thanks for your help! :) Valoem ^talk 06:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture for T.I.

Where can I find a picture of T.I. without being deleted for copyright?? Georgia Bird

You need to find a free image. That is, one that is not copyrighted or that is released under an open license such as the Creative Commons license or the GFDL. Alternatively, you yourself could take a picture. Almost all the images you find online will be inappropriate. --Yamla 00:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding..quickly! Georgia Bird 03:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually...

The P!nk album HAS been certified Gold. Sorry I didn't state the issue of Billboard magazine I got the information from, but I have seen two articles about 'I'm Not Dead' going Gold. so instead of jumping the gun like that, you should do your research and not send rude messages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovely Head (talk • contribs)

This is incorrect. Please see the RIAA certification database. And as near as I can tell, I haven't ever sent any messages to you. --Yamla 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Urgent

Could you block 65.31.99.71 (Twentyboy's IP)? The admin who blocked Twentyboy/HungryGirl etc... indef forgot to, and now he/she's vandalising. Thanks... (yet again) yandman 09:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

He's now vandalising my talk page. yandman 10:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And yours. yandman 10:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Death threats and blanking other people's signed comments are inappropriate. The block is for a month and even that is on the extreme edge of how long we normally block an IP address for. Hopefully the user will take this time to calm down, but further blocks may possibly be necessary. --Yamla 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. yandman 07:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Courtney Love

Hi Yamla, just wondering why all of the pictures on this page were deleted? I didn't put them there, and I saw someone asked for a different picture of her on the talk page....was just curious what happened. Thanks. NickBurns 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, none of them had detailed fair-use rationales and all had been marked as such. But about the main image depicting Love, WP:FUC recently changed. We are no longer permitted to use copyrighted non-free images to depict living people (or generally where a free image could reasonably be created). As such, although that image used to be just fine (as it had a fair-use rationale), it is no longer appropriate under WP:FUC. Please feel free to ask for a greater explanation if this does not answer your questions. --Yamla 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - that clears it up. If I could make a suggestion (and you're welcome to tell me to take a leap) can you maybe note something about that on the Talk page? I think it would be helpful to explain why, plus it's an opportunity to educate more editors about the revised policy points of WP:FUC. Thanks for the clarification! NickBurns 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Garibaldi

Ahh yes i see it was being used on the actor page as well, well a free image of him could possibly be obtained . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Yamla, I read your messages you leave on peoples talk page and I also read your user page. I sound like a great person. If you could just show me a few pointers, that would be appreciated. Thanks.Tennislover 02:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming template changes

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai

Hi. Just got your message, I don't understand what the problem is. I specified the copyright holders, provided the source and a descriptive fair use rationale. Isn't that what was required? Pa7 19:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:FUC. We are not permitted to use a non-free image solely to depict Rai. In addition, as this was a film screenshot, it could only have been used to illustrate and provide critical commentary on the film. --Yamla 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh right. Sorry did not know. I just had a look at WP:FUC. In that case then yes delete the image. Sorry again. Pa7 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, no problem. Warnings exist to point out where people are going wrong and I seriously doubt that anyone knows all the policies on the Wikipedia. No harm done, have a happy day! --Yamla 18:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

no rationale tags

Hi Yamla. I noticed you tagged some images with the no rationale tag. This one only applies if the image was uploaded after May 4, 2006. So just check the upload date next time you're tagging stuff. Thanks. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed you removing them. Thanks very much, I hadn't realised. I'll try to be more careful in the future. --Yamla 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Stacy Ferguson Default Picture

Hello Yamla, I know I havent been the best wiki editor, since I've been banned twice by you for image licensing, well that isnt intentional for I'm still trying to learn how to license, the wikipedia articles are helpful but confusing.It seems tho that you have a problem with the Stacy Ferguson page having a better, more recent default.We all know Fergie is known for her looks and how she doesn't care to mention that in her songs, My Humps and Fergalicious. So the picture for her page is very bad example of what many people know her for and just a old picture. I understand it cant be copyrighted and all but if you go to other peoples pages as for example, Danity Kane, and Kevin Federline, their pictures are either promotional or an album cover, when fans of fergie try to upload those, its reverted or changed, if they license it wrong i understand, but i put a promotional pic of her up and licened it under fair use images, just as the danity kane pic, mine was rev and i was banned for another day.it seems as if you either are hard on people trying to put a new pic up of her on there or just hard on newcomers period, you've discouaraged people to edit on here and i just think you need a better apporach, i mean come on, its a online encyclopedia, you have to shun people if they accidently put the wrong license under a picture, "OH HEAVENS!". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregxscene (talk • contribs)

I understand that you may not like the image and I agree we could maybe find a more recent and better picture. But we are not permitted to replace an existing free image with a copyrighted image (see WP:FUC). You were told about this but continued doing this. You were blocked because your actions put Wikipedia at direct risk for a copyright infringement lawsuit. Wikipedia has to take violations of its copyright and fair-use policies very seriously. Now, you raise a good point that other articles also have images that violate this policy. This is undoubtedly true. However, the best approach would be for you to mark those images appropriately. It is not an excuse for you to ignore the policy yourself. Now, this message sounds harsher than I intended. I understand that you are trying to improve the Wikipedia and I (and Wikipedia generally) thanks you for doing so. I hope you understand that the reason you were blocked (not banned) is that your actions after you had been warned were exposing the Wikipedia to danger of lawsuits. The real problem here is that copyright is a very tricky issue to really understand and furthermore, Wikipedia really doesn't like copyrighted images. I wish there was a good way to warn new editors, "stay away from copyrighted images, there are rabbits with big nasty pointed teeth lurking there!". --Yamla 14:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image

Yes, I took this image with my own camera on RAW in 2004. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  15:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry to be even more pedantic, but you took this image at a live event, not in a movie theatre or something, right? I understand that sometimes these events are shown as pay-per-view in a movie theatre. --Yamla 16:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I took it at a live event. The event was RAW. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  16:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am sorry for being so pedantic but image copyright requirements are a big pain in the ass. Please accept my sincere thanks for your contribution of that image, and once again, I'm sorry to bother you. I hope you have a great weekend. --Yamla 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  17:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image

Jesus, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Just get rid of it if it's that much of a problem - who the hell cares? Cardinal Wurzel 16:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ciara image

how do i delete the ciara image i uploaded? can u just delete it for me and add 1 then cuz i really have no idea wat im doing all i was tryna do was update her info and put a pic cuzshe doesnt have 1 there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciarafan738 (talk • contribs)

I will delete the image. I can't add one, though, because I don't have any free images of Ciara. --Yamla 19:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yamla u need 2check up on Georgia Bird. she aktn dumb

Not my images

Hi Yamla, I noticed you contribute to wrestling articles and images and wondered if you could help me. I have plenty of pictures that friends in the US have taken at various live wrestling events which they are quite happy for me to use, but as they're clearly not mine, I'm unsure whether I'd be able to upload them? Cheers, SteveLamacq43 23:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lita pic

What is wrong with a Lita picture. What is inappropriate about the picture?? --Fr3nZi3 01:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Which image? --Yamla 01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Ok I used personal attacks but only because some scumbags continue vandalising pages! I might just leave Wikipedia if it continues, because I have had enough! --Fr3nZi3 05:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand how frustrating that can be. I've reverted approximately 15,000 instances of vandalism, and I know it can be hard to keep your cool. But it is important. --Yamla 05:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Vanessa Hudgens

Hi there. Regarding the redirecting to Vanessa Anne Hudgens from Vannessa Hudgens, you'll have to delete the Vanessa Hudgens Redirect Page for us to move it there. Thanks. (SUDUSER)⁸⁵ 07:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

railroads

Hi,

I can understand you removing the link to the Railroads! forums but you are doing the viewers a disservice. These forums are one of the very few places where people can discuss the game and it is the only place where people can discuss it in a 'Sid Meier's Railroads! theme'. There is no official forum for the game and this forum is a source for technical help (the game has quite a few problems) and user created content. Firaxis themselves are -active- participants here too, helping with tracking down bugs. This forum is needed because there is no other place where they can get direct customer support. Please consider leaving the link in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.207.66 (talk • contribs)

Hhhmmm. Forums are generally inappropriate under WP:EL but I'm tempted to give a pass to this particular one. If you add it back, I won't remove it. But you may want to add a comment such as <!-- Firaxis employees post here, making it a semi-official forum--> and/or discussing it on the article's talk page. --Yamla 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

account closure

Okay, if everybody is leaving comments on "my" discussion page, how come each person's "own" page says they're on profile or vacation? That's not the point though. Suppose I'm tired of Wikipedia in general. Is there a procedure by which my account (assuming at least that much is "mine" since it's the login and username assigned to me) can be removed, and "my" discussion page wiped and closed? I'm pretty much fed up with inaccuracies, BS, spurious warnings, edit reverts, biased entry deletions, and the general malady of believing that maintaining a user edited website results in a better encyclopedia when in fact any fact that changes on a day to day basis isn't much of a fact at all. BronzeWarrior 22:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you wish, I can blank your user and discussion pages and block that account indefinitely. Is this sufficient? --Yamla 22:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

See "my" talk page for my response on this point. BronzeWarrior 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - per your suggestion I will blank both my user and discussion pages. I'll check back to make sure they haven't been reverted but other than that I'm done. The login won't be necessary from here-on. And yes I won't leave a vindictive "going away" message, no problem there. BronzeWarrior 23:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

(Responding only here, as you plan to blank your pages) I will monitor your pages and ensure that they are not recreated without your consent. Please do leave a brief message, however, stating that you are no longer using this account. This will help other people realise that the blanking wasn't accidental. --Yamla 23:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Macaulayculkin2.jpg

I replied in my user talk page, but just in case, I wanted to let you know that a fair use rationale was added to the image. I apologise for the inconvinience. Nat91 01:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that this is insufficient. Please see WP:FUC. No fair-use rationale is sufficient for this image, at least not in its use to depict the living person, Macaulay Culkin. --Yamla 03:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand. The screencapture would be alright to depict the film but not the person in question? Nat91 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to use the screen capture to provide critical commentary on the film (in an article about the film, or in a section in the Culkin article specifically talking about the film), yes. However, we are not permitted to use non-free images to depict living people. --Yamla 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. Feel free to delete the Culkin image then. Nat91 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Adrienne Barbeau

Why is the image from the cover of her book no longer fair use? The image and its location on the page have been contested several times, but its fair use status was upheld. Have WP policies changed? Ghosts&empties 02:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry to say, they have. Recently, it was decided that we may no longer use copyrighted non-free images to depict living people except in extraordinary conditions. We may only use free images. Please see WP:FUC. While I would not blame you for not assuming good faith on my behalf, please understand that I did not instigate this policy change. --Yamla 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Cardinal Wurzel

Noticed you just blocked this user for an apparent WP:FU violation. I just left them a message as well. If they reply that they get it now or something to that affect I'd support reducing the block lenght, they appear to have been making useful contributions as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I monitor these (and all blocks) and if a user seems to realise what they did wrong, I immediately unblock them. Well, once at least, sometimes twice.  :) The block is not punitive, it's simply to try to reform the behaviour. --Yamla 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, once is usualy my limit ;) except for vandals I get so many from WP:AIV they usually have to just wait it out. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to register some sort of formal complaint against you. How do I do this? Your behaviour today has been utterly over the top and a complete abuse of your position as an administrator. Blocking me was an explicitily punitive measure, undertaken in an extremely high-handed manner after only three good-faith attempts at an edit by me. Repeatedly, pre-emptively saying "this is not punitive" doesn't cut the mustard. Who watches the watchers? I'd like a word with them. Cardinal Wurzel 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. This should provide all the answers you desire but if you would like additional help on getting any part of this initiated, I am happy to help. Alternatively, I'm sure you could find other editors or administrators who would be happy to help you start the process. --Yamla 23:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I replied to this user at User_talk:Cardinal_Wurzel#Your_BlockUser_talk:Cardinal_Wurzel#Your_Block. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate you offering to help this user out. --Yamla 04:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Got your note, I just left another lenghty reply for that user, maybe it will be the end of things. IMHO there have been no breaches of WP:BITE or WP:BLOCK. If you end up with an RFC open on you, please let me know, though it doesn't feel like its going to go there. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree

And I will try my best to keep my cool! --Fr3nZi3 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing Talk Page Messages

Mate, could you please tell CelebHeights that he is not allowed to remove Talk Page Messages. Thanks DXRAW 19:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Yamla 19:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please look at Chad Bryant's user page. He reverted your edits again. TruthCrusader 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

I marked it as coming from WWE.com. Clay4president 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you did now, but not when I left the warning. In any case, we can't use that image as it violates the first criteria on WP:FUC. It's a copyrighted image of a living person and we are only permitted to use free images in that case. --Yamla 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use question

Hi Yamla, I was wondering if I could ask you about the new rules regarding images... I've read some of the pages regarding fair use, but I don't quite get it--what's up now sounds really flexible to me, and doesn't make sense. Is it legal to use screen captures from video? Is it legal to use an image that was used in promotion, i.e. an image used on a promotional poster for a record that was displayed in record stores? Thanks in advance for any tips! Mistertruffles 04:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming you are asking in the context of finding an image to depict a living person. In this case, you can check WP:FUC for the details, but in summary, you may only use free images. So, an image you have taken and released under a free license. One from the person's agent if and only if it has been released under a free image. Something from flickr but again, only if under a free license. We have never been permitted to use film screenshots solely to depict a person, though these may be acceptable to provide critical commentary on the film. A promotional movie poster may be used to illustrate the movie or to provide critical commentary on the poster itself, but not solely to depict a person. Similarly, an album cover may be used solely to illustrate the album. In all cases, copyrighted images require detailed hand-written fair-use rationales. In summary, if you are looking for an image to depict a living person, it must be a free image. Essentially (though not exactly), this means that regular copyrighted images are right out. This is a new change, though, so many of the images on the Wikipedia are in violation at the moment. --Yamla 04:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your prompt and extremely clear response. Big props to you. Mistertruffles 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of Lost screenshot on the Elizabeth Mitchell article

Can you please clarify why the image can be used on other pages of Wikipedia but not on her page? I'm confused because I do not normally edit biography articles. Is there some restrictions which are different to regular Wikipedia articles? Thanks. --Lakeyboy 05:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-free images may not be used to depict living people. See WP:FUC. However, a screenshot of a t.v. show which depicts a character could possibly be used to illustrate that character. Similarly, a copyrighted promotional image of a fictional character may be used to depict that character. In the first place, a free image could reasonably be created. In the second, the character itself is owned by the appropriate people so no free image could reasonably be created. The rule is basically, "only free images for living people". Characters, however, are not living people. --Yamla 05:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On my page i've asked: Hang on, so you are saying that promotional images are not allowed full stop but screenshots from TV shows may be allowed. Can you please clarify further. --Lakeyboy 05:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-free images may not be used to depict a living person. That means no non-free promotional images. No screenshots from tv shows. Full stop. However, we may use promotional images or screenshots from tv shows to depict fictional characters, with an appropriate fair-use rationale. --Yamla 14:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson images

How about finding a legal image yourself instead of just deleting copyrighted ones? Getting a bit tired of the back and forths here. - Dudesleeper 14:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any free images of Johansson. This doesn't mean we are permitted to violate WP:FUC, however. --Yamla 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:

I removed them because I'm going to put rationales on them, and I dont want my talk page cluttered with annoying fair use tags. Thans. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  01:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments go on my talk page, please. And you are not to remove current warnings from your talk page. These serve as a record of other users' interactions with you. --Yamla 01:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Blanking

I don't think anything I removed was a warning,either here, or here. I was going on this advice from an administrator saying I could remove anything I want. You say if I feel I am the victim of a personal attack, I should request an administrator's attention; I'd appreciate it if you looked into my case; it is incredibly clear from my talk page history, that DXRAW has been getting at me without reason ever since I joined. Please see the multitude of templates he posted here only days after I joined, and then his complete refusal to explain them here or here. Since our paths have not crossed on any article since, there is no reason that, over a month later, that he would be reading my talk page in the first place unless he just wanted to cause trouble. Thankyou, CelebHeights 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamla, I wondered if you could get back to me about this when you're not busy? Cheers, CelebHeights 15:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Msg

if you going to remove the not "fair use image you keep posting" just remove that thing not the other thing I added like the in Alicia Silverstone article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)

Sorry, that was an accident. --Yamla 17:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

STOP!

Please stop uploading images unless you are able to provide all the mandatory information required. Thanks. --Yamla 18:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You said: "I am doing my best to acquiese to your wishes. Please give me time in this matter. Please take a more polite attitude towards me, I am hurt by your brusque tack. I wish to have a more warm relationship here on Wikipedia. Now, how can I further provide more "mandatory inforamtion"?"

All copyrighted images must have the following:

• Image source, identifying the copyright holder,
• License, including sufficient evidence (for example, proof that the image came from a promotional or press kit if marked as promotional),
• Detailed hand-written fair-use rationale for each use on the Wikipedia.

Additionally, we are not permitted to use a non-free image (that is, basically any copyrighted image) solely to depict a living person. See WP:FUC. --Yamla 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You said: "I still do not appreciate your harsh tone and the use of the all caps STOP to form your subject heading. A simple, FYI would have done, or something more circumspect. Please try to assume good faith here. Now, can you help me obtain the things you talked about above to satisfy your requirements to post a picture? Thank you in advance for acknowledging that you will curb your brusque behaviour in the future and adopt a warmer attitude and assume good faith."

I'm sorry, it was not my intention to offend you and I can understand why you would have been. My intention was to have you stop uploading images in violation of Wikipedia policies. I will try to be more friendly in the future. If you have a specific image you'd like to work with me about, I'm happy to do so. Point me to an image and give me all the information you have about it and I'll try to help fill in the gaps. --Yamla 19:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that you refrain from adding images to articles such as Christian Clemenson for the moment. I'm happy to point out specifically what you are doing incorrectly or to fill in the gaps, but you are still violating fair-use policies. I know you aren't trying to, but given that you are, please don't add any more images to articles. Thanks. --Yamla 19:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. You just said that you wanted to help me out on the Christian Clemenson article. How about instead of reverting my changes instantaneously, you give me some leeway, say, leave up my edits for at least 48 hours? And give me the help you said you would provide. Now, I am going to revert in expectation that you will do this, assume good faith, help me out, and not ban me. Please. Thank you. Joe1141 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

You know you are violating Wikipedia policy. You are also in danger of violating WP:3RR. You may not know the specifics but it is inappropriate for you to continue knowingly violating policy. There's also no reason to do so. Point me to a picture, give me the information you have and where you want to use it, and I'll help you out. --Yamla 20:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for offering to help me out. Thank you for not reverting again. The information and rationale is already provided in much more detail about the 2 images in question. If you would be so kind as to satisfy the image rationale to your satisfaction, that would be most appreciated. Please note that both of these images are both already widely available from multiple locations on the internet. And, no, I do not know that I am violating Wikipedia policy, but thank you for offering to help out, and thank you for not reverting again. Joe1141 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

You do know because you have been told. The one image is fair-use as it is being used in a paragraph talking about that specific role. The other is not because it is a non-free image being used solely to depict a living person, in violation of WP:FUC. No possible fair-use rationale is appropriate for that image because it fundamentally does not satisfy WP:FUC. That is, it is a non-free image used to depict a living person. That it is available on multiple locations on the Internet is unimportant. We are only permitted to use free images to depict living people. --Yamla 20:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still do not completely understand, and I may have mistakenly put the image back in, but can you help with the rationale for this? Thank you for being more kind. Joe1141 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

No. No fair-use rationale can possibly be acceptable. We cannot use non-free images to depict living people. You are trying to use a non-free image to depict a living person. This is unacceptable as it violates WP:FUC. I don't know how to say that any more clearly. I'm wondering, are you perhaps thinking that this is a free image? Or are you thinking that Christian Clemenson is not a living person? I could see how if you thought either of these things, our conversation would be at this point. Also, a disclaimer. I blocked you for continuing to violate WP:3RR and WP:FUC but then saw this message and so immediately unblocked you. Please do refrain from editing that article for the next 24 hours, however, as required under WP:3RR. --Yamla 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can you help out with the rationale for this image or with finding a similar image to put in the infobox? I do not understand how the image is not free if it is already available in multiple other locations on the internet. Joe1141 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Ahhh. Your problem seems to be in thinking that this is a free image. Now I think I understand. A free image in this context is not one that is available for no money, but one that may be used without restriction. Free as in "free man", not free as in "someone gave me a free beer". This is not a free image because the copyright is owned and may be enforced by another party. It is not available to us under an acceptable free license such as the GFDL. For example, if someone were to package up the entire contents of the Wikipedia and sell it on DVD for $5, that person could be sued for copyright infringement of this image, and this is something that happens. --Yamla 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Easier to continue discussion here, yes. Okay, still not 100% sure of what you are saying, but whatever. Thank you for acting with a warmer attitude. Can you help to find an appropriate image for the infobox that is "free" ? Also, can you explain why you removed the other image from the Eva Green infobox, if the image itself is already okay on Wikipedia as free? Thanks. Joe1141 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

The Eva Green issue is a bit more confusing. The image itself is not free. That means it cannot be used to depict Eva Green. But, you've asked, why then can it be used elsewhere? The answer is that elsewhere, it is being used to depict a character. This is a key difference. It may be used to illustrate the character or the movie because it is unlikely that free (that is, non-restricted) images could be created that would serve to replace it. Any screenshot from a film is copyrighted. The character itself is copyrighted. That implies that any image created to depict these would similarly necessarily be non-free. This is tricky to understand, given what I've said about using free images for living people. The key point here, though, is that neither the film nor the character are living people. I can give you some more examples if you wish. --Yamla 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth checking out the license text attached to the image. The text says, in part, "to illustrate the work or product being discussed; where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it;". Now, the work or product being discussed is the character of Vesper Lynd in the movie, Casino Royale. So, the license text itself says it may be used to illustrate Vesper Lynd or Casino Royale (with an appropriate detailed fair-use rationale). No part of that says that it is appropriate to illustrate Eva Green, however, as that is not the work or product being discussed. Also, a free image could be created to depict Eva Green, so it fails that part as well. --Yamla 20:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sergeant Gerzi

Can you do something about this user please? After a long argument, I tried to ignore him, now he is blanking my talk page, and has removed an official warning I gave him. Thanks a lot, HamishMacBeth 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to block 207.70.141.45 again?

I saw from this user talk page that you had blocked this address from editing Wikipedia in the past. I just reverted vandalism to the article on Abel Talamantez that occurred on October 19, just three days after another user (admin?) had posted a final warning about other vandalism. It sounds as if it may be time to block this one again. Lawikitejana 04:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Tips

Thanks for the tips on how to add citations to the edit. I was never able to get that to work before. Thanks again and have a good day! Homagetocatalonia 18:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well...

Then the image needs to be removed from her charcter Juliet, which is where I copied the image from, and have since removed it from.Ganfon 21:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ed Helms image

I took the screenshot myself from the Daily Show website using the Print Scrn feature and then cropping the image. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Block This User

Since your the only administrator I know I need to alert to a vandal, he has been warned to stop vandalizing and did not, this is his talk page User talk:82.27.16.111, please block him. Thanks. 75pickup (talk · contribs)

It's a little early for the block. The user has only made two edits and been warned once. --Yamla 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Trisha 23.JPG

• Dear Yamla, I've provided a reason on the image's talk page as to why I dispute that a replacable fair use for Image:Trisha 23.JPG can be found. Regards. -- Maddy20 11:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've sent a reply to your message on Image talk:Trisha 23.JPG. Best wishes. -- Hariharan91 16:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Myspace.com links

What is the official rule of thumb for an official myspace.com link on a bio of a person? In the past I put a link to Torrie Wilson's official myspace.com page on Torrie Wilson and you reverted it citing "Removed myspace link as per WP:EL". I finally accepted that and have in fact removed several myspace.com links myself citing the same reference from other pages.

Yesterday I removed one from Jenna Jameson and I got a message from Wikipedia user, AnonEMouse, stating, "Wikipedia:External links, it writes "Except where noted, this list does not override the list of what should be linked. For example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked even if it contains factually inaccurate material." Therefore, the official Myspace site of the person the article is about should be linked."

Who is right? Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.16.198.77 (talk • contribs)

This is a good question, what is Wikipedia's official stance towards myspace links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laetnej (talk • contribs)

My reading of the policy has always been that MySpace links are inappropriate unless the article specifically mentions the MySpace page itself. Even if they are official links. Rereading WP:EL, however, I'm not sure this is what is intended. There are really three possibilities. The first, I've already mentioned. The second would be that if the only official page about a person (or band) was the MySpace page, it may be acceptable then. The third would be that a MySpace link is appropriate whenever it is an official page. I'll try to see what the consensus is on the discussion page for WP:EL. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and I'm sorry if I caused either of you any troubles. --Yamla 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Steward School Edit

Please do not send user talks to this IP, as it is a public wirless server and anyone who uses wikipedia while on this server gets your user talke messages. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.192.137 (talk • contribs)

This is irrelevant. If vandalism is committed by users at this IP address, it will be warned. --Yamla 16:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Yamla! Looks like your back from your wikibreak. I hope you enjoyed your time off and I look forward to seeing you be a great wikipedian. Bye.Tennislover 04:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ciara

About the tracklisting that i put on her evolution page. I found it on the Walmart site where the album can be pre-ordered, and i did put the link(source)

Once again, please see WP:CITE on how to include your citation. Thanks. --Yamla 19:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Trisha Krishnan

I've acquired permission to use this image [17] of Trisha Krishnan from Idlebrain.com during a press meet with her and Idlebrain taken by Idlebrain's photographer, G. Narasaiah. Will this image do? Regards. -- Maddy20 17:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Under what license? If you have acquired this under a public-domain license or under the GFDL or Creative Commons license, yes. That would be ideal. However, if it is under virtually any other license, we still can't use it. Please let me know about the licensing terms. --Yamla 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license. Regards. -- Maddy20 14:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would most definitely be suitable. Thank you for the effort you must have put in on this one. --Yamla 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha, no big. Thanks for all your help! Regards -- Maddy20 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for calling you numskull (you owe me one too)

Hi Yamla, we owe each other apolgies for last night. I admit I over reacted over this issue, but if you would've seen from my talk page, I had a banning dispute with Zoe earlier, and got really cheesed off. However, admittedly, you were trying to do your job, so you have my apologies for the abuses last night. But I think you owe me too for assuming I acted in bad faith, which I most sincerely didn't, neither did I see the messages you left in my talk page before you blocked me, so I was doubly annoyed.Rueben lys 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Rueben, I too am sorry for the conflict we experienced and for my part in the fault. If you say that you were not acting in bad faith then I accept that. I can see that you have made many productive edits to the Wikipedia so I apologise for claiming otherwise. I have unprotected your talk page on the assumption that you perhaps do not want to leave Wikipedia. If there is anything I can do to help you out, please give me a shout. --Yamla 16:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamla - Rueben 1ys brought this issue to my attention on my talkpage. I responded that it was clearly wrong for him to make personal attacks, but I hope you'll make sure that Rueben's block and suspected sockpuppetry is according to policy and procedure. Rueben has been a positive and valuable editor, so I hope you can work this out with him. I'm not familiar with what happened so I won't suggest anything else. Rama's arrow 22:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Monica

how did you find the photo so quickly?--Gubbio 18:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I monitor all changes to Monica Bellucci (and about 6000 other pages) and so saw that the page had changed. I went to the image page to ensure that an accurate license was placed there, saw that you were a new user, and decided to thank you.  :) --Yamla 18:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow 6000, that's a lot to keep up with, are you an admin?--Gubbio 19:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, and probably one of the top two hundred most active Wikipedians.  :) --Yamla 21:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

RE:Image:Scarfacepic.jpg

Replaceable? That's some fuckin' stupid shit man, get a job.

Delete it. I'll upload another one.

--PDTantisocial 20:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Twista

Casn you please fix the infobox on this article? --Pumpkin Pie 22:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Abi Titmuss

Yamla, I'm Anna, one of Abi's assistants - totallytitmuss.com IS her official website. Why do you keep removing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.177.232 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, my understanding was that this web site was a well-established fake. However, taking a look at the site, it seems reasonable to believe that it is the real official site. In that case, you have my apologies. I was acting in good faith to ensure that the page was only linking to official sites. While I have you on the line, is there any way we could get a freely-licensed (different from no-cost) image to use to depict Titmuss? I think this would improve the article. I can explain the requirements if you think you may be able to help out. --Yamla 15:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. I still have more images to upload, as I've got a whole folder full of free use images. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Pete.k

Hi - Curious why in Revision as of 15:10, 23 October 2006 of the Saturday Night Live page, you deleted the external link to SNL Database. It's a valid link to a useful page about the cast and writers of the show. Pete.k 07:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Lalalulu

The above user was previously banned by you for one week. Though they have taken some months off, they are back and vandalizing again. It's just one article and one image thus far. I just thought I'd call your attention to them since they may need to be banned again. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a new username.

ok, 44.5 hours are already over. Get ready, Yamla I have changed my username and please delete my old one [18], thanks. Sergeant Gerzi 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue?

The issue is resolved thank you very much :) MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find where you showed that it would be impossible to create a free image of this living person. Can you please point this out to me? --Yamla 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything is impossible until done. talk page of KB. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not a sufficient grounds to claim an image is not replaceable and is not grounds for removing the replaceable tag. Please reread WP:FUC. --Yamla 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken."

• "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious."

Read and heed. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence that a free equivalent could be created. Given that this is a living person, a free equivalent could easily be created. An image of a living person only meets the first criteria if the person is in hiding or has changed markedly from an earlier picture and it is important to show the person as they appeared in the earlier picture. Such is not the case here. --Yamla 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've provided plenty of evidence to you before.. the only way you could "easily" get a picture is if you where to "stalk" the person.. that is not easy and is also agaisnt the law. Again.. read and heed to what i ahve bolded. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh come off it. This person is regularly in the public eye. Wikipedia is not permitted to use copyrighted non-free images solely to depict living people unless there are special circumstances. This was decided by Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia Foundation. Claiming that you have to stalk a living person who is in the public eye to get a freely licensed photograph is simply false and will not fly here. Please refrain from removing this tag from any further images unless you provide reason to believe the person is dead or in hiding, or that otherwise it is not possible to create a free image of that person. --Yamla 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide eveidence otherwise? I've provided plenty showing its not so easy. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference if it is easy or not. The criteria is whether or not it is possible. Given that a freely-licensed image of Kristen Bell "could be created that would adequately give the same information", it fails WP:FUC. --Yamla 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the first criteria specifically states, "if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." Given that Kristen Bell is still alive, any images not freely licensed explicitly and clearly fail WP:FUC. --Yamla 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Madhavan article.

Greetings Yamla. The reason I am writing to you is to notify you regarding film articles User:Thamizhan has created regarding the actor Madhavan. I've searched and searched the whole net but I've yet to find a single article which mentions these films. Also, I am an avid followers of websites regarding Hindi language films and Tamil language films and I have not seen an article on these websites which gives mention to these films. Examples of these articles are : Yaaravan Nalam, Hello Zindagi, Aaval and Ivan Yaaro. Also note that all these articles provide the same trivia, that is that these so called "films" are being shot at a budget of Rs. 30 million and these articles have been created on the same day. These articles have also been created in a mere gap of 13 minutes, which is bound to raise suspicion.

Also, the entire article regarding the actor in question, Madhavan, has not been written in a neutral point of view. All the images on this article shouldn't even be there as they infringe on copyrights. I implore you to look into this matter. Thank you. -- Visual planet 17:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

I assumed that since it was used at http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Seven_of_Nine, it was legitimate fair use. Mnpeter 20:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. Wikipedia is much stricter on fair-use images than most other sites. See WP:FUC for some more information. --Yamla 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tag

Hey, sorry I removed it. I honestly don't remember tagging it fair use and don't know why I did... I thought there weren't problems with uploading album covers...? Camcallister 00:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We've recently seen that many album covers are used in violation of the license solely to depict the artist. The license itself requires a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale anyway, so the simplest thing is just to enforce that. --Yamla 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I did it right, could you let me know if I did or didn't? Also, if this is ok, would it then be alright to use it in his music artist template? Camcallister 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. As to the template, the problem is that each article that uses the image needs to have a fair-use rationale. You couldn't just justify it for the template, for example. It's unlikely that it would be fair-use for much more; you are permitted to use it solely to illustrate the audio recording, but not for any other uses. --Yamla 01:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Ghilli Image

I uploaded the Ghilli image because it was a promotional image by the movie makers, and no other suitable image was availble in the public domain. If you see the images files of many other movies, only this rationality is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balajiviswanathan (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure which image you are talking about, but this rationale is unsuitable for an image of a living person. It fails WP:FUC. --Yamla 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about the image on Ghilli, it is tagged with a no-rationale tag because you have not yet provided a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale justifying its use on that page. --Yamla 01:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Before uploading, I researched a few other images in Wikipedia and came to a conclusion that it constitutes fair use due to the three rules stated in a much older Wikipedia page in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:007Moore.jpg

Rationale for "fair use" :

No free or public domain images have been located for this film.

Image is a promotional photograph, intended for wide distribution as publicity for the film.

Image is of considerably lower resolution than the original, and is used for informational purposes only. Its use does not detract from either the original photograph, or from the film itself.

Those aren't the rules. The rules are at WP:FU. However, you have now added the missing fair-use rationale and so I have removed my objection. Thanks. --Yamla 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the Ghilli image is a valid one, why not this be used in Trisha's page? If we get a better image or a licenced once, then we can remove this image. The rationale: Pages relating to media persons, should not be left without image as it might reduce the popularity of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balajiviswanathan (talk • contribs)

Please reread WP:FUC. We are only permitted to use a freely-licensed image to depict a person. In the article on Ghilli, you are using it to depict a movie. On Trisha's page, you are using it to depict a living person. Two different uses, one of which violates WP:FUC. It has been decided that the choice is between freely-licensed images (essentially, non-copyrighted images, though this is not quite true) or nothing when it comes to depicting a living person, not between a freely-licensed image or a fair-use image. --Yamla 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I read and re-read the FUC, but couldnt find a clause that would prevent a promotional material from being used for a living person's article. By your reasoning, there wont be any actor page with a photo and this is not what Wikipedian users want. I browsed through dozens of actor images in Wikipedia and they are all promotional images (for eg: Nagesh pic from Server Sundaram). I dont see how these promotional images constitute a violation of Wikipedia's principles, as the picture's original purpose is for extensive spread among the public. By your actions, the only thing that was done was to make the pages totally dull and unattractive. -- Balaji

"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information[...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." If the person is still alive, a freely licensed image could be created. That is, a photograph could be taken of them and released under a free license. Please note that many articles on living people incorrectly use replaceable images. Please tag these images with {{subst:rfu}}. We are working hard to fix these violations but it's going to take time. For example, I monitor about 6000 pages but this is not even one percent of the Wikipedia. --Yamla 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant

Mate, He is at it again. [19] Is it possible to for some sort of block with his history [20] DXRAW 02:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

After being rebuffed for his false claims of "vandilism" (sic), this user is not only claiming that I am "blanking" articles by removing non-notable content, he is also proposing Rollen Stewart for deletion (only after I edited it, of course), despite his own admission that the subject of the article has nearly 200k Google hits. This is a clear example of Wikistalking, and I have grown tired of this user's harassment. - Chadbryant 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to take any direct action on this one. I think what's happening here is that DXDRAW is no longer assuming good faith. This is happening because Chadbryant has had a number of run-ins before, being blocked multiple times, and is blanking warnings from DXDRAW. Accusations of wikistalking don't help matters; leaving template warnings is not considered wikistalking. What I'd like to see is for both of you to ignore each other completely for 24 hours. Then for the next twenty four hours, the following: No template warnings from DXDRAW to Chadbryant but instead, if DXDRAW wants to leave a warning, leave a hand-written warning explaining what was done incorrectly and what you'd do differently in order not to get a warning. And Chadbryant to leave the message in tact, not blanked, and to assume that DXDRAW is correct and try to understand what he is saying. After that 24 hours are up, you are free to go about your business. What I hope this accomplishes is to sort of hit the reset button here. I'm not investigating further at this point because really, the best way to resolve conflicts like this is not to determine who is right, it's to step back a bit. I know in my experience, I've sometimes had to step back for a bit even though I knew I was in the right, and I've found it really does help matters. If you two would be willing to try something like this, please respond on my talk page indicating your agreement. This isn't something I'm going to enforce so please feel free to tell me to bug off. But I think it is worth a shot. --Yamla 03:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

DXRAW needs to be informed that non-notable (and obscure) pro wrestling references are not encyclopedic, and that he can not intentionally mislead others by labeling their removal as "vandalism" or "blanking". - Chadbryant 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, I don't care about that. Only whether you are willing to follow the suggestion I outlined above. --Yamla 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider this harassment? [21] DXRAW 07:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganguly family (films): Copyvio Gallery

Boss, these pix were already uploaded on WP. What made them copyvio? Please, advise. - Aditya Kabir 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - please, answer to my talk page.

Please, answer. I am afraid of what you might do to me if I revert your last edit to the article. But, since the images on the gallery have a wide variety of licensing, I think you could remove some of the images, and let alone the gallery itself. Instead you used a blanket edit. Besides, I wonder - if there's something like a "copyvio gallery"? I have heard only of copyvio images. Please, answer. Your not answering has already been reaseon for much heartache for me (check foryour silence and my inquiry and your silence and my heartache if you want). Please. Or, do I revert your edit in good faith? - Aditya Kabir 18:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - please, answer to my talk page.

Every image I checked (and I'll freely admit that I did not check every single one) was licensed as a film screenshot. That means that the image may be used "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents", not solely to identify and depict a person. The gallery was not even identifying the films, let alone using the images to provide critical commentary on them. It was solely a gallery of people, thus was violating the image licenses. If you haven't been able to follow what I've just said, please let me know. --Yamla 18:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged. But, I think there are many screenshots on the articles in Category:Indian actors used beyond the scope of "identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". That led me to believe that those can be used to "identify and depict a person". Sorry for the misunderstanding. But, a more stringent standard may be required to keep keep copyright violation (as well as misunderstanding) at bay. - Aditya Kabir 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - please, answer to my talk page, but please do not quote me whole.

Absolutely. It seems to be a bigger problem amongst the articles on Indian actors compared to Hollywood actors and I'm not sure why, though it's a big problem throughout the Wikipedia. Thank you for your calm inquiry on my discussion page. --Yamla 18:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, dear. I think people like you and the other defenders of WP makes it even more worthwhile to be a part of the community. - Aditya Kabir 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive-nav template

The Archive 2 link is not working on User talk:Aditya Kabir/Archive 1, but the Archive 1 link is working fine on User talk:Aditya Kabir/Archive 2. Very srange. - Aditya Kabir 18:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - please, answer to my talk page

Okay, I've fixed it (I think). Yell and scream if you think it still isn't working properly. --Yamla 19:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanx again. Just one more request, would you check the Jazmin entry once more? Check validity of images uploaded (this is a request I made earlier), and besides, please, tell me what I can do to get a better copywriter to edit the article? - Aditya Kabir 19:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC) -- please, answer to my talk page, and thanx for bearing with my typos galore.

I've got serious problems!

Please give me your e-mail address, I've got serious problems. I need to contact you privatly. XXMad99ManXx 19:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You can contact me by going to my user page or user talk page and hitting "E-mail this user" on the toolbox on the left side of your browser. --Yamla 19:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield image

I just got on to help you with these images, so that at least pictures I uploaded would not become bothers. But, it seems you have again quickly deleted one more of the pictures I uploaded without even nofitying me. What went wrong? - Aditya Kabir 20:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - -- please, answer to my talk page

I thought I did notify you about that one! Sorry. The problem is, fair-use images must be used in an article. If they aren't used in any article, they are to be deleted. That one wasn't. Please feel free to reupload it, though, if it is going to be used in an article. --Yamla 20:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hey, since your good on talk pages I have a question. If a user has comments on his/her talk page and they decide to delete them because their conversations are "finished", does that give them the right to delete all the comments? Or if a user who left comments previously, has now been blocked, can they delete those comments? I thought you could only archive comments not delete them, because just deleting them is page blanking. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy is open to interpretation. What I believe is reasonable is to archive or delete old comments that have been dealt with. I think it is perfectly reasonable to archive or remove comments that are more than a month old. And I don't complain if people archive or delete comments that are only a week old, if they've been dealt with. Really, what it comes down to is this... your discussion page is a record of your interactions with other people. If you are constantly calling people names, for example, and are being warned about this, it is unreasonable to blank those warnings. If you continue your behaviour, others may think you have not yet had any warnings. If you leave the warnings in place, people will see what's going on. On the other hand, if you had a bad day and were warned about this but then refrained from any more of that behaviour, there's no good reason for the warnings to remain on your page after, say, a month. Personally, I never delete anything apart from personal attacks (and often, not even those), but it is up to each person. Personal attacks (see WP:NPA... standard template warnings are not personal attacks) are blankable immediately if you wish. This response is meant to give you a "spirit of the issue" rather than the "letter of the law". If you still aren't sure what's reasonable and what is not, please ask for a clarification. --Yamla 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm cool now. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My Talk Page

The edit summary for my removal of a comment left by "CraigMonroe" mentioned absolutely nothing about "vandalism" (see [22]). This user account is relatively new, yet is well-versed in Wikipedia, which combined with the account's claims and stance on editing issues is a clear sign that it is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet being employed by the camp of wrestling marks who have been Wikistalking me for much of the last two months. Please take the time to read what I have actually written before you pass judgement. - Chadbryant 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about this edit with the edit summary, "r/v". --Yamla 02:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always understood "r/v" to signify a "revert" - if I revert for vandalism, I put "r/v - vandalism" as my edit summary. - Chadbryant 02:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then I apologise for my comments. "rv" normally signifies "revert", while "r/v" tends to signify "revert/vandalism". Similarly, "rvv" is revert-vandalism. If you could switch to using "rv" instead of "r/v", or just typing in "revert", it would help prevent confusion. --Yamla 02:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image: Kate Austen Lost.jpg

I have the Promotional image tags in there, is that what you meant? I don't understand what other tags I'm supposed to add on it. Thanks. (Bishusui 04:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

WP:FUC states that you cannot use a non-free image (such as this) to depict a living person, as you were doing. Additionally, we need the copyright holder identified and a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale for each use of the image on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 04:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't contact you privately

I cannot contact you privately because there is a problem, you see. Here, I gave you a link [23] and please give me advices. There has to be another way to contact you privately. XXMad99ManXx 10:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. You can email me through the link you gave above. Does this not work for you? --Yamla 15:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

I saw you reverted an edit to my talk page. Why can't I remove it? I didn't think it was a warning. Is there a rule against removing anything from a talk page? Thanks. CraigMonroe 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That counted as a warning for 3RR.  :) I think you are outside of the scope of a 3RR violation now, so please feel free to remove it. The best way to indicate that you are doing so in good faith is to remove it and in your edit summary, say something like, "Removing 3RR warning, thanks". I'm not trying to imply that you aren't editing in good faith, though. --Yamla 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. CraigMonroe 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think I've found a solution

Well, thanks for your comprehension. If there are any further problems, I'll log myself in again. XXMad99ManXx 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Uploading images

Do you think you can tell me how to upload images such as album covers, photos, etc.? I read the instructions and they are confusing. Thanks. Admc2006 19:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to know how to upload an image or do you want to know what information must be included with any uploaded image? Have you read WP:FUC? --Yamla 19:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Entry Deletion

Why did you delete the Just Another Rich Kid page? I'm a New York artist who should be included on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwcourtney (talk • contribs)

The entry was blatant advertising. Please see WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and WP:NOTABLE. There was no evidence this company was notable as per WP:COMPANY and given that it had previously been speedily deleted and that it was blatant advertising, I deleted the article again. --Yamla 01:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

I was wondering, as you seem to be experienced at Wiking. How is someone blocked. There is a specific page that is close to me that is being constanly vandalised, and I feel certain people should not be able to access th page. Can you help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longbranch (talk • contribs)

Only administrators can block people from editing. Please see WP:VAND which contains links to places you can report ongoing vandalism. Thanks! --Yamla 01:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to edit at my hom because it says my ip adress is blocked, please reply back soon. DustinWayne

You need to request an unblock. On your talk page, add {{unblock-auto|Reason for unblock here}}. --Yamla 04:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks DustinWayne

Please explain

How is this page not advertising? I dont see the distinction here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Words —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwcourtney (talk • contribs)

Please don't compare one page to another. There are many pages on the Wikipedia that violate policy. In this page, though, you don't see any comments such as, "Ju$t Another Rich Kid, is more than a clothing concept it is a hot bed of ideas that take design led products full circle into the worlk of art and back again." Nor, "bringing Ju$t Another Rich Kid's culture statement to the masses." Additionally, you need to justify the page under WP:COMPANY. If you can do so, we would be more than happy to undelete it. --Yamla 04:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)