Jump to content

User talk:Yamla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TruthCrusader (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 7 January 2007 (Chadbryant sockpuppet?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Yamla/Archive 8. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archive

67.163.235.67

All I did was an a link to a couple fansites I found, I don't see the problem. It says on that page you linked that fansites are okay, so I think you are really over reacting. It's certainly not innapropritate, and I don't have anything to do with them so take a chill pill. Don't be a link nazi just because you don't like them, it's perfectly valid to link sites that offer additional information on the subject. - 67.163.235.67

image

you can just delete this image Image:Famous logo.jpg, unless you could tell me what it needs. Sry for the inconvinence.

Please Block

This moron vandalized the Rolling Stones page. Please block him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75pickup (talkcontribs)

Vandalism

You said that, "Deleting well-sourced information is vandalism". No matter how well-sourced, if the information is unrelated to the article and counts as propaganda (not accepted globally) then that is cleaning up the article not vandalism. If I include literature sourced from Taliban in the 9/11 article and you delete it, that won't be vandalism. Indian Air Force(IAF)

I did not vandalize Omarions page, I corrected an error. please check yourself before threatening.--198.110.72.130 14:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CITE to learn how you can cite your information. Also, read WP:RS and WP:V. Thanks. --Yamla 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Yamla, seeing as you've had contact with the first user above I thought it would be good for you to know about this user's sockpuppetry/block evasion. User:Pschemp indefinitely blocked Mactabbed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as well as Exclusive bad apple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) a result of these ANI threads. Now this user is puppeting again as User:Juror 8 and has again been blocked by User:Pschemp. Given your negative interactions and prior blockings of this user I thought you should be aware of his continued disruption. Thanks. (Netscott) 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen_Feiss.jpg

I'm hesitant to believe that this image is "replaceable". To begin with, I've yet to see an image of the girl that was not derived from one of the two advertising videos. This article is not really an "actress bio" of Ellen Feiss, it's more an article about an advertising character played by Ellen Feiss, as Ellen Feiss isn't notable for any other achievement, and wouldn't be notable for this one either if not for her cute, goofy, and slightly doped-up appearance in the TV commercials for Apple Computer. Even if she got cornered by paparazzi next week (not likely), she's like age 20 now and likely no longer resembles the girl in the video. —freak(talk) 23:54, Dec. 9, 2006 (UTC)

Hello Yamla, I noticed your block review message and just wanted to let you know that you originally repeatedly blocked that user (under another sock) for fair usage violations. User:Pschemp eventually permablocked for the same reasons, etc. under another sockpuppet →User:Mactabbed. Hope that helps to jog your memory. Thanks. (Netscott) 05:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy vio image

There's a copy violating image on the Ajithkumar page from the film Aalwar. Just thought you should know.


Hilary Duff's album covers

I added the Fair Use rationales for Image:Hilary Duff - Metamorphosis.jpg and Image:Hilary Duff Most Wanted.jpg is it okay to take off the No Fair Use templates now. Quasyboy 15:20 2 January 2007 (UTC)

IP User

An IP user 84.69.113.78 keeps changing Ciara's genre on albums, singles, and main article. Is there something you can do? Could you tell JJH1992 not to change Justin Timberlake's genre of music. Someone add blue-eyed soul to his genre. We know he is, but it is not needed in his genre. Charmed36 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki

Help me I am only a newbie to wikipedIA!!!! Lord Lubbuka Das 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblock denial on User:nobs02

Re. [1]: Unless there are facts about this case of which I'm unaware, your comment "abusive sockpuppet" doesn't apply. Alternatively, there may be facts about the case of which you're unaware (earlier facts that aren't included in Nobs' summation link; see [2] for those facts). I've pestered another admin about this block, not because I'm a friend of Nobs, but because I believe this block-renewal was deeply unjust. Because of Nobs' political stance, I fully expect to be caught up in some unpleasant edit disagreements with him when he's unblocked. But fair is fair, and I'm darned if I can see anything fair about this current block. KarlBunker 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared that this user created the account, nobs02, while nobs01 was blocked. This seemed clear to me. Is this not the case? If this is the case, the account is an abusive sockpuppet. If not, my denial of the unblock needs further review. --Yamla 20:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, it looks like the user used this account to edit articles on the Wikipedia rather than just to engage in the dispute resolution. As such, the sockpuppet is abusive as it was not adhering to the conditions set down. --Yamla 20:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobs was given permission to use the nobs02 account to present an appeal about the conditions of his arbcom ruling before the nob01 block ran out (I don't understand why the admin who gave him this permission did so, but whatever). Then, he carelessly used his nobs02 account for a couple (literally 2, I believe) of trivial edits outside of the pages where he had permission to use it. Because of this, his one-year nobs01 block was reset so that it will run for another year. There was clearly no malice in those two trivial edits. KarlBunker 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My involvement is with the sockpuppet account, nobs02. I would not object to shortening the block extension on nobs01 but it is clear to me that the block should be extended somewhat and it is also clear to me that nobs02 knew the limitations placed on that account and deliberately violated them. Clearly malice aforethought. --Yamla 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It must be cool to be a telepath. KarlBunker 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It must be cool to be a telepath. But I must tell you, it is very cool to have common sense as well. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone who had a lapse in common sense while editing was punished with a 1-year block, there would be NO ONE editing Wikipedia. KarlBunker 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the common sense Yamla used to determine the person had knowingly violated the terms of using a new user after being blocked. Yamla's unblock refusal of the second account is not related to the block of the first. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HighInBC -- Ah, gotcha. However, the "Clearly malice aforethought" analysis indicates not only telepathic abilities, but pan-temporal telepathy--the ability to read minds in the past. Mightily impressive! KarlBunker 12:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can take the known facts and come to that conclusion without paranormal ability. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo

lol Is he an admin or something? Because he keeps adding source tags and whatnot on T.I.'s page, and T.I. mentioned all this stuff already. Why couldnt he do a search on this stuff himself for proof? Georgia Peachez 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind..Georgia Peachez 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.231.130.56 hacked into my account (see my talk page history). Could you leave him/her/it a message to not hack? I will change my password, as I think I should. By the way, please sign the name game thingy. Cheerio. --Shaericell Talker to Name Game 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, can I upload images from IMDB if they are copyright safe? Thank you. --Shaericell Talker to Name Game 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above subpage is on MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yamla/Awards. Please share your opinion. MER-C 13:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Invite

P.S. We could really use an admin to go through this backlog too, thanks! Diez2 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for not putting the appropriate information on the uploaded images. I have sorted out (I hope) the RAF 19 Squadron crest image, and am currently sorting the one for the Sopwith Dolphin. I'm not sure what to do with the Dolphin as I have lost the site where I got it. It is one of only a couple images of the Dolphin I can find on the internet though, so I thought it would be covered by Fair Usage. Please help. Thanks. Admiralross2400 18:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ric.mc

About Nicole's image.I want that you he helps me in a photo for the page of the Nicole because when I you place the image in the same page of it strap with copyright certain.

Award

This Wikidefender Barnstar is awarded to Yamla for tireless efforts to defend Wikipedia from all the evil people and maladroits. Well done!! Lord Lubbuka Das 14:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Barnstar

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

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking, but how long do i have to wait for the rename? Daisuke-Matsuzaka 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I honestly do not know. I don't have the necessary permissions to rename a user. Sorry I don't have more information for you. --Yamla 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for doing my unblock... Had me worried there for a second. I thought I did something wrong! Thanks again. smileydude66 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblocking me!

Thank you! I will prevent my friend from logging on to Wikipedia. Oh, and the accounts Dorky1, Dorky2, Dorky3, Dorky4, Dorky5, Dorky6, and Dorky7 should be blocked before any edits are made from them. They are all sockpuppet accounts of my friend and will all be used for vandalizing articles if not blocked immidiately. Once again, Thanks. Nacho Dork 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for removing inappropriate ink from this article. this blocked website http://www.hotelheiress.com/?i=13139 is now tryibg to get around the spam block by using http://yep.it/ for redirection. if it persists, we will have to block this website also. 68.61.233.160 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Reznor

I noticed you removed the image that was on the Trent Reznor article, and I wanted to ask why. It's free, doesn't that mean that it fair use does not apply to it and it can be used freely for any purpose? 75pickup (talk · contribs) 04:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to be mistaken, sorry for the inconvenience, I was thinking of another image. 75pickup (talk · contribs) Alex Defalco 04:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-Block Lift

Thanks for lifting the auto-block. I noticed it while I was at work earlier this evening as I occassionally do some wikipedia contributions when there is a lull at work. The company I work for has a huge campus, so apparently some other employee was not being a good wikipedia contributor and hosed our servers IP range as a result. Thanks for the timely life, as I was worried I would not be able to pass idle time at work (on breaks) helping out. Thanks again. Lestatdelc 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chadbryant sockpuppet?

The Mob Rules could be Chadbryant. His first userpage [3] consisted of the phrase "When you listen to fools...the mob rules.", something Chadbryant himself used on your talk page in October [4]. Both editors seem to share common interests, namely Black Sabbath articles and wrestling. Furthermore The Mob Rules has nominated rec.sport.pro-wrestling for deletion, an article which Chadbryant has a significant history with. Regards. One Night In Hackney 16:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is WAY too obvious a Chad comeback attempt. TruthCrusader 22:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]