Revision as of 22:22, 27 February 2007

Please hep me make an archive

Hi Yamla. Pls could you help me to make an archive. I did try by using the archive format but nothing happened. Thx.written by208.58.196.156 13:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive

• Archive 1 (from Dec 16, 2004 - April 17, 2006)
• Archive 2 (from April 17, 2006 to May 31, 2006)
• Archive 3 (from June 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006)
• Archive 4 (from July 1, 2006 to August 14, 2006)
• Archive 5 (from August 14, 2006 to September 2, 2006)
• Archive 6
• Archive 7
• Archive 8

i'm not asking you to accept me as a source. i added a link to verify information i corrected regarding the bodies. what i removed was editorial style comment. i did not edit the story based on my opinion or on my experience.

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 (talk • contribs)

User:The exclusive bad apple=User:Mactabbed

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)

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)

User:Made of people=User:The exclusive bad apple

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)

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)

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.

PSP Protected

i think Playstation Portable should be protected...

Image:8a457c0b.jpg

if u want to then delete it but as i said earlier its only for illustrative and informational purpose - i have given two sources links - if that is wrong please then tell me step by step what to do, thanks cusulli

User talk: Sasquatchjon

You recently gave this account a vandalism warning. I would like to know what he (he being my brother) posted so I can put an immediate stop to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasquatchjon (talk • contribs)

RE: image:Pacsnoopsuge.jpg

The only tag I removed was the one indicating it was cited for no fair use rationale and would be deleted. A fair use rationale for Tupac Shakur was already provided on that page so the tag was unnecessary, and had indication to be removed under the circumstances.

Now this is silly

User:Big_Kid89 --- Paulley 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I started a checkuser so we can catch and ban all the other accounts. Also, hopefully the IP address. --Yamla 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, i will just revert him til then (he's now also lying in edit summary's about what he's changing) -- Paulley

Lol, Big_Kid88 looks familiar. Now before we go do are usual cycle of delete account/revert everything/he remakes acount/readds everything, can you just keep an eye on him and the Brock Lesnar page i think he has a day left before he's not a "new user" but as long as he keeps from reverting the Lesnar page he should be alright.. what do you think? --- Paulley 11:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

He appears to be doin ok edits but he has appeared to be preparing replacement Brock Lesnar pages () --- Paulley

He's still violating our fair-use policy along with WP:SOCK. I'm going to go ahead and block this one as well. --Yamla 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling pictures

Hey, I try to put what the licensing tells me to put!!! Give me some tips!!!! Batmanrules677

Okay, give me an example image that you have uploaded and I'll tell you what information is missing or why the image cannot be used. --Yamla 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Orton-rko.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmanrules667 (talk • contribs)

Okay, that image cannot be used at all. It is a copyrighted promotional image which could theoretically be replaced by someone taking a picture. That is, by a freely-licensed image. See WP:FU. Specifically, the bit that says we may only use freely-licensed images to depict subjects which still exist. This is not freely-licensed. A freely-licensed image would be one released to the public domain (i.e. no copyright), or licensed with the GFDL or some CC licenses. The image itself cannot be used by the Misplaced Pages. No extra information that you add will be sufficient for this image. --Yamla 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Is that the same with Image:Shane-dance.jpg? Batmanrules677

Exactly the same thing. It's a copyrighted promotional image which could be replaced by a free image. --Yamla 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Last question! What about Image:Hbk-scm4.jpg Batmanrules677

Exactly the same thing. See how it is depicting a living person doing something the person continues to do. See how it would be possible for someone to take a photograph. See how this is not freely-licensed. --Yamla 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. So, are you gonna delete it? Batmanrules677

You can mark it for deletion by adding {{db-author|Not freely-licensed}} to the images. --Yamla 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, so if I go to a live wrestling event, and take pictures, would I be able to put these photos on wikipedia? --Batmanrules66

Yes, so long as you license the image under the terms of the GFDL or other such license. --Yamla 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:NBBimg.jpg

This image is specifically used to display for The Naked Brothers Band film, and TV series. I know it's a fair use image, but its a promotional image for the NBB project. It is only used for those said pages and not for the people in picture. Is a freely licensced image really necessary if it being used for those pages and with those reasons that I just mentioned. QuasyBoy 24:02 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy 03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

BS

Hope you didn't think it meant something else... Anyway, perusing through your history, I don't think you have enough awards. So here's one of the original, because you've sure been here long enough!

		The Original Barnstar
		Yamla is a dedicated user who spends more time on Misplaced Pages than many could imagine, and he's been here that long as well. For that, and much, much more, I award him this barnstar. Alex43223 05:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tamla, from Lee Nysted

I recently came across a whole list of "puppets" of me, which are "verified" using "Checkuser." The only one that might make sense is my girlfriend, CH (Huntress 829.) I request that she be unblocked and unprotected for reasons listed on her talk page.

The balance of the list are unfortunates or IP addresses/users that must have been linked to me, and / or CH, during our travels.

I have boldly edited and written to each user and asked for clarification on their position, here. I have looked at their history, and there is no similar edits or data that would link me to them, albeit, one user seems to be a friend of Huntress829, living in Colorado. We have residences in several geographic areas around the world. It appears that there is collateral damage from my article. I pray I am not overstepping my reach? Please advise? Because you were the Admin. person that unblocked me, I trust your wisdom.

Thank you, Lee Nysted 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• See Lee Nysted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Nysted Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), The Lee Nysted Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
• Nyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was major editor of Lee Nysted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), proven by CheckUser plus the obvious name. Nysted added his comment to that user page as well, so that's pretty much holed his argument below the waterline.
• Huntress829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is stated to be Nysted's girlfriend, editing from the same IP. We don't make a distinction between sockpuppets and "friends" (aka meatpuppets, to use our rather unattractive term of art) when they have no other contributions.
• somelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a "friend" who happens to edit from the same IP address as Nysted and Huntstress, this is available in the undeleted histories.
• Symphonic Flight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no edits remaining undeleted, posted the contents of the former Lee Nysted article at talk:Lee Nysted after the former was protected from re-creation.
• Billybobsteak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a CheckUser block, no edits to Nysted articles, but has not attempted to edit since - this may have been a sleeper caught before use, or it may be that one day the user will come back and ask to be unblocked.
• Smdewart (talk · contribs) is known to Nysted and was not blocked, because this is a provably different account.
• Nysted's claim is baseless. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You might note as well that Huntress829, on her talk page, at one point claims to be unrelated to Nysted, while in other places Nysted says she's his girlfriend - but further down on her page, he says she's a dear friend. Nysted is also going around and removing the sockpuppet tags from the CU-confirmed accounts, and says on his user page he's "investigating" Checkuser (or Checkloser, as he's referred to it in a couple of places). A quiet word might be in order. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by the accused, Lee Nysted:

First, please remember that I have been unblocked and "good faith" is one of the issues at the heart of this whole Nysted mess, for me, and my loved ones.

I suggest this whole issue will end up in arbitration. It might be wise to go there sooner, rather than later. Either way, I suspect I will be under the microscope for some long time to come. That is fine with me and my family. I intend to stay here and learn, and I am acting in good faith. I have placed comments at each site in question, and I surely will see to it that any family related, or significant other accounts, are fully transparent, for all the world to see. I have chosen to use my own name; that could eventually be an issue, but it is not now. I see we have a policy re: related accounts and even have reason to use "puppet" accounts from time to time, provided we vote with only one account at a time. I pray my contribution here will be a good thing and that I can add value.

All of the "puppet" accounts above, have nothing to do with me, save for the Nyslee account and Huntress829. Huntress829 is my girlfriend, living separate and apart. Nyslee was a family related account that I agreed to not use when I admitted to the rules violations. The poor people that got sucked into this, including the IP address, are not going to be an issue with me.

I will strive to make the "Checkuser" system either a "different animal" than it is today, or at the very least, I will try to assist in making "collateral damage" a meaningful issue at our arbitration. I have watched in awe at the numbers of articles and accounts being deleted here, with virtually no thought as to the "human element" of this encyclopedia. That is very sad, indeed; it is wrong. My own daughters and some of their friends have been victims of some of the above absurd and wreckless behavior. A Steak house in Colorado blocked? Who is kidding who? People staying at the Hyatt, where we were staying in Beaver Creek?

Thank you for your time, and thank you JzG and Peter, for compilation of all the data in one place. I could not have done that so soon. Lee Nysted 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lee, when you were initially unblocked, it was with the strict understanding that you would not violate WP:SOCK. This includes having your friends edit content which would be a violation of WP:COI for you to edit directly, or to participate in "vote stacking" of any sort. It appears to me that in at least some of the cases given above, you are violating this. That is, you are having your friends edit for you. In some cases, checkuser confirms that these accounts are editing from the same IP address as you. Now, I don't have all the information available to me. For example, I do not have access to the checkuser information. And I could be mistaken; it may be that none of your friends have been attempting to add information about you or your band to the Misplaced Pages. As this dispute is spread among a number of articles, I find it difficult to track down the edits. But just in case, I remind you that you specifically promised not to violate WP:SOCK and WP:COI, and having your friends edit for you would be a blatant violation of this. Assuming this is not happening, I am afraid that I cannot override the blocks that have been handed out as I do not have checkuser access. I refer you to WP:DISPUTE if you have reason to believe that none of these accounts are friends of yours and that none of them have edited from the same address that you have, etc. --Yamla 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S.

JzG is intent on not allowing The Rambling Man edit of Matt Walker to stand, due to what he calls "Nysted SPAM." Please correct same. I will not do it, do to obvious conflict, but I suspect that someone will, eventually. It is not seemly for JzG to play edit wars, when the AMG site is left there with the album giving credit to Matt Walker's work. Matt did, in fact, play on the SHOOT FROM THE HIP album of Lee Nysted. Matt is notable. Thanking you in advance, for your help, Lee Nysted 14:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you,Yamla

I appreciate your help. I have not violated anything since my unblock. Please know this and use good faith. I do not have any friends that are editing for me. As a matter of fact, none of the above accounts have even re-appeared on the encyclopedia. Go figure. I must assure you that IP address detection is not a good means of determining anything, however, if I am in a hotel or using a public access sytem. This, I believe happened, before the unblock, in Colorado. In any event, the issue is not unusual at Misplaced Pages and I am convinced it will be resolved. Thank you so much for your input. Cheers!Lee Nysted 15:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not overturn checkuser blocks without consulting with the checkuser that conducted the investigation beforehand. These blocks are made due to information the administration in general is not privy to and as such should not be overturned without discussion. In fact, I'm rather of the opinion that no block should be overturned without discussion with the blocking admin, but that's tangential. I would kindly ask that you please reinstate the block pending discussion with jpgordon. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image uploads

Seeing as you seem to be experienced with images, could you take a look at the image contributions of Littledaniel 93 (talk · contribs) who appears to have taken ss's of the episodes and uploaded them under {{pd-self}}. Thanks, RHB 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

?

Is it bad to have sock puppets, not for evasion or etc.?Trampton 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Wes Freed

I've sent you two e-mails regarding him giving me persmission to use information from his website. In addition, he has e-mailed Misplaced Pages and given me permission to post the information in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policy. Please advise.

Mister Jinxy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.4.21 (talk • contribs)

I moved it from userpage to talk page--Cometstyles 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

Just wanted to know. So, I wouldn't get a warning. Sorry to bother you. Have a nice DAY. --Batmanrules677

Lee's Comment to JzG:

The issue is now cleared up and JzG reverted the sock tags. Yamla explained what I must do and I am fine with that. I have done nothing wrong since my unblocking.

There is no question, to me, that Checkuser can be destructive toward (collateral damage) users with common IP addresses. It has changed the way I will work here. I have places to go, all over the world and that means I will be at different IP addresses. I have 4 places in Illinois, alone. I use Comcast wireless, quite frequently. I use Starbucks WiFi. I am also looking at the policy in SOCK about editors using multiple accounts.

Thank you for your concern; cheers!Lee Nysted 19:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Lee Nysted's unblock at AN/I

Yamla, your unblock of Lee Nysted was reversed by Shadow1. Please join the discussion over the matter in this AN/I thread. Thanks, A Train 20:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not an open proxy

Hi, Yamla. The IP from my home is *not* an open proxy - it's an apartment building. If you run it through Whois, you would see that it's from a Florida apartment complex. You would think that every apartment building would have a different IP address, but all 18 buildings have the same - which means that everyone who lives here can't edit Misplaced Pages unless they hop on AOL, which I hate. Nor can anyone edit at my university, because someone mass blocked that as well. So I hope you reconsider one day. StopSQLiquor 14:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

nag nag nag

Herostratus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been removing {{no source}} and {{no rationale}} tags from images (some I tagged, but not exclusively) with edit summaries like "it's a logo, that is sufficient fair use rationale", "This is a movie poster, conforms to the movie poster rules, and therefore is allowable under fair use, if any movie posters still are. Source is immaterial.", and "this is obviously a logo, the source is obviously the owner of the logo (the university), so source info may be inferred"; there are many such examples found under his contributions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these actions of his are at the least mistakes and easily construed as detrimental. Your thoughts? — pd_THOR | 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails

About the "vandalism" on the Nine Inch Nails page, please tell me how my contribution was vandalism. Nine Inch Nails is often abbreviated with an inverted N (I got three of their albums right under my nose). Tell me it's not "appropriate" if it's already been ruled that the inverted N is only a logo and not official in any way or any other reason but don't treat that as "vandalism" please. We're all humans entitled to make mistakes and if everyone trying to help a little bit mistakes himself and is accused to vandalize, then I guess we ain't going nowhere... Thanks for your attention =) Reznor Arnaud 17:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the letter you added is not an inverted N, it's a specific character from the cyrillic (?) alphabet which is not the same thing. Note that the very paragraph you made this change in specifically warns you not to do so. --Yamla 17:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Effectively, I didn't saw the comment the first time :s Thanks for your indications =) Reznor Arnaud 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This does not seem right to me

Then why have the {{tl:logo}} template? The {{tl:logo}} template contains all the fair use rationale required. Why require the editor to, basically, retype the text from the {{tl:logo}} template into the image page.

If logos are to be disallowed, then the {{tl:logo}} template should be deleted. If logos are to be allowed, placing the {{tl:logo}} logo template on them (assuming its accurate, and provided that the image is used properly in its article(s) and not for some other purpose) is sufficient rationale. Herostratus 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the logo does not mention why it is important to use a particular fair-use image in a particular article. That is, it provides no SPECIFIC fair-use rationale. I'm not trying to say that logos are unacceptable (though rumour has it that the Wikimedia Foundation may soon do so), only that we need to add the detailed rationale required both by the logo license text itself and by WP:FU. All fair-use images require a detailed rationale to be added, the license text is never sufficient. --Yamla 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems madness. What is there to say about each particular logo? There is nothing. Logos are used in the articles of the entities they represent to say "hey, here it the logo of this entity". What more is there to add? Requiring one the editors to type in "Logo, used per normal logo usage" or whatever seems like pettifogging obstructionism to me.

If {{tl:logo}} is to be done away with, fine. But unless and until this occurs, the template should be respected. I do not make my edits based on rumors. Herostratus 17:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. We currently must provide a detailed fair-use rationale as specifically mentioned in the license text for {{tl:logo}} and as spelled out in WP:FU. That the fair-use criteria may be tightened up in the near future is interesting but not particularly relevant. As to why the rationale is required, this is to prevent, say, someone putting up a gallery of NHL team logos which does not serve to illustrate the organisation but rather solely to provide a gallery of the logos. Such a use would violate our fair-use. I'm sure you can think of plenty of other examples where a logo would be used in a manner not adhering to our fair-use policy. For this reason, we require a rationale for each use. Yes, generally, the logo is used only to illustrate the team (or company or whatever), but it's still policy. --Yamla 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Yes, you are right, logos have been (improperly) placed into galleries in the past. Hmmmm. But the {{logo}} template specifically forbids this, assuming that "to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question" can be clearly interpreted this way, which I think it can (a gallery does not illustrate the item in question). However, it is true that the template in question does request a detailed fair use rationale description, which appears to be redundant, but whatever.

OK, well. Sigh. OK I will add this information in the future when I rescue logos and similar images. However, I would say then, it's not really kosher for editors to tag an image for deletion for lacking this information; this could (and probably does) lead to the deletion of perfectly valid images. Instead, the editor finding the situation should add the fair use info himself. It doesn't really take any (or very much) longer than adding the deletion tag.

Thank you for your time and attention. Herostratus 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't....

What is wrong? Length is all I can see. Hunted by A.K.G. 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)