User talk:Yamla: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:43, 18 September 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Yamla/Archive 12. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Article for Mr. Yamla

Mr Yamla I say only the Truth!' You cannot hide the truth on these firms, I will keep on publishing the incorrectness of ASUS Italy SRL. To hide the truth goes against the principles of Wikipedia. Shame! Mafiosi! Bye Bye User talk:80.116.207.79

== Customer Care == Stings weak of this Firm that rather appears disinterested in to assist his/her own clients, in case of malfunction on an any product Asus, this happens in particolar way in Italy to work of the ASUS Italy S.r.L. of Milan, as they attest the conspicuous complaints published in internet. In such sense the notebook ones seem where the products they are found the greatest number of malfunctions.It is indeed finally incomprehensible as a Firm of such course, can invest huge resources in the quality of his/her own products, and at the same time I handed in spiteful way toward her own clients. In Italy the Asus represents one of the so many firms it is ashamed for the technical support.

This is incoherent. Furthermore, it blatantly violates WP:V and WP:RS. And you have been repeatedly violating WP:3RR. You are welcome to add a section on criticism if it can be understood and if it is properly cited. At the moment, though, your addition is none of these things. --Yamla 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Yamla This will be also "incoherent" but You show to have been paid from ASUS Italy not to make to appear the pure truth. This is a criminal thing! Shame MAFIOSO! User talk:80.116.207.79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.4.73 (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not paid by ASUS Italy or by ASUS at all. Please refrain from any further personal attacks as per WP:NPA. --Yamla 17:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will stay me,don't worry yourself, but you must explain me a thing: IT IS NOT' A PERSONAL ATTACK.

If Wikipedia is free, whether not to be able to also write this kind of things on a firm that seriously offends his clients?? I attend her news mr Yamla...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.4.73 (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:V. Also, WP:RS and WP:CITE. Calling me a criminal and saying "Shame MAFIOSO" is a personal attack. --Yamla 17:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I go away for a couple of hours and all hell breaks loose in ASUSLand. It appears you have a fan club in Italy now :-D Spryde 17:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You potentially shows "mafioso". However where this fan is club? Link? :-) Asus Italy is a shame! I will keep on also writing it without her support! Bye

Blocked. You were warned about personal attacks. --Yamla 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa

Well, there is some idiot pretending to be her on Staroll! If she was a member it would say it along with her MySpace page and what not! -Bronzeshurtugal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bronzeshurtugal (talk • contribs) 00:15, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

PONDHEEPANKAR

Hello, Looks like this user has not listened to your final warning. He has continued to evade block, by editing in Kongu Nadu. - KNM ^Talk 03:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has continued to use Wikipedia as a battleground. You can see his typical signature in this diff. - KNM ^Talk 06:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. --Yamla 00:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question to ask.

Apperntly you left a message on my ip adress saying i wrote something on the articles on jibbs. I dont recall even seeing that article and if i were to make an edit i would be in my account.65.10.141.55 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson

Well, whilst I am personally able to confirm it, I relise public information is needed ot confirm. Does this ([1] Daily Mail link) suffice? Fuzzybuddy 20:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not state that they are dating, it only speculates. --Yamla 00:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but does that speculation, which is obviously founded on something, not deserve at least a mention, as a stated speculation? Fuzzybuddy 18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Bollywood

Great news - Bollywoodblog has agreed to share images under 3.0 which allows for commerical distribution and adaption providing it is used under the specific terms and they are attributed . You may want to confirm this to refrain from retagging it for deletion, but I believe Devendra is pleased with the licensing template I created as it covers all the terms under the agreement. It shoul dbe now clear to upload any images from the site. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 09:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please study the terms of what the license 3.0 entails. This license providing the attributor is given means that wikipedia can use the images from the site for other purposes meaning all people can use them as long as they are sourced from the original site and wikipedia. Whilst the images are permitted exclusively for wikipedia we are granted the right to use the images for all purposes to copy to distribute or modify them under the terms of the agreement. The Creative Commons 3.0. I've looked into this heavily the last few days. Please don't do your best to ruin this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLease see:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

This licensing automatically grants the right to use the image outside of wikipedia by distribution but in a way designated by the terms of the agreement. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under this we are free to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit and to adapt the work for othe purposes. As Tim the image guy said 3.0 is a licensing for more specific agreements such as these ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really really not trying to ruin this. I am concerned that the website believes they are offering an exclusive license to Wikipedia only and are unaware that this means it applies to all sites automatically. You state, "the images are permitted exclusively for wikipedia" but this is not what the license itself states and not what we require. WP:COPYREQ states, "it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone". What I'm trying to say here is that I am profoundly uncomfortable with any mention of the word, "exclusive". If you like, we could raise this on WP:ANI. --Yamla 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please trust me on this. The people who I have spoken to at that site are actually heavy users of wikipedia and have been for some time and I received a full email saying that they are fully aware that wikipedia has an obligation for commercial use which is why they amended the agreement. I was told that sourced from wikipedia the image is available freely for commercial use. All the people on that site are fully aware the images will be made readily available commercially by allowing wikipedia usage. They know that wikipedia is used by milions of people and that pages may be printed off and reused. This was stated clearly. What is the problem? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically under the agreement if images are obtained from wikipedia via that site they are actually being made available for people on other sites through distribution. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then please modify the Bollywoodblog template so that instead of stating, "for use on wikipedia, permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify these images for encyclopedic use on wikipedia only", it states something along the lines of, "for use on Wikipedia and downstream users for any purpose, under the terms of the Creative Commons 3.0 attribution/commercial license" or some such. That is, remove any indication that this is for Wikipedia only and that it is for encyclopedic use only. Basically, make it clear that the only license that applies is the CC "Attribution 3.0 Unported" license and that no other restrictions (apart from attribution, obviously) are applied. --Yamla 15:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I adapted the template earlier and recieved approval with Bollywood blog -they were 100% happy with it. I removed the section that it implied for wikipedia only as the bollywood site are fully aware how major wikipedia is as a source for media on other sites and elesewhere. The thing is if many of the images have light marking on them I seriously doubt somebody would try to profit from it anyway but it is clearly available to distribute under the licensing terms of 3.0 as long as it is attributed to Bollywoodblog and sourced from wikipedia. Its a tricky business this free encyclopedia thing but I am trying really hard here ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Your modifications to the template have clarified all of the issues I have. I thank you very much for all the effort you put in to this and I thank you for remaining calm when I was worried that the license was inappropriate. --Yamla 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thankyou!!!! Sorry I barked at you I know you wanted it clarified and fully respect you for this. I certainly don't think all the images are suitable for wikipedia anyway, I think we need to be selective . But as I said the site are as much acquainted with wikipedia as you or I and are fully aware of the implications in permitting wikipedia the use. One of the basic agreements of 3.0 is being made avaiable commericially via wikipedia, of which they 100% were willing to accept. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. I already awarded you a barnstar. :) Copyright and fair-use and freely-licensed images are one of the most difficult things to get right here on the Wikipedia. Looks like you managed, though. --Yamla 16:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed very difficult particularly over images which are intimately associated with corporate gain and profit such as the entertainment industry. I fully agree that with millions of our pages entitled "form wikipedia, the free encycloepdia" we have an obligation to ensure it is a free encycloepdia otherwise we look like hypocrites right? All the best -it was only the Zinta image you tagged anyway -I deleted the Mallika one until the licensnign cleared ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sugababes

Please look at the Sugababes homepage and album page for Change and u will realise there are two separate images for the album cover. If you believe i am vandalising-can u please confirm which is correct? Lionel patrick 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IUP. Fair-use images cannot be used without detailed fair-use rationales. --Yamla 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request on one of your blocks

Please see and comment on the request from unblock pending at User talk:Daddy Kindsoul. Please see my comments in the ANI thread on the matter as well. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 12:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I commented on WP:ANI. --Yamla 13:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~Bonk!~

You've got mail! ^Ariel♥Gold 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP block extensions

While I completely agree that 81.151.85.109's edits were horrid, I gave a short block specifically to avoid collateral damage with someone else that may inherit the IP. 48 hours is a very, very long time for an editor who has shown a pattern of editing from multiple IP addresses. I won't reverse it, but I urge you to reconsider it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll undo it. Thanks for contacting me. I wasn't aware that this editor had been IP hopping, I was just monitoring the unblock category. --Yamla 18:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 Well, whilst I am personally able to confirm it, I relise public information is needed ot confirm.  Does this ([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=473224&in_page_id=1773] Daily Mail link) suffice? [[User:Fuzzybuddy|Fuzzybuddy]] 20:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 :This does not state that they are dating, it only speculates.  --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 00:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
+::Yes, but does that speculation, which is obviously founded on something, not deserve at least a mention, as a stated speculation? [[User:Fuzzybuddy|Fuzzybuddy]] 18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 ==More Bollywood==