User talk:Yamla/Archive 14

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).

Wrong
My edit to Tool's page was not Vandalism. Volto! is a live act in Los Angeles. Danny Carrey is their drummer. Please don't try to edit things that you obviously know nothing about.
 * Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Additionally, please do not add redlinks to articles.  --Yamla (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to make the base article for it. There are plenty of people who actually know the subject matter that can fill it in. I don't appreciate your amateurish meddeling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.89.5 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are unwilling to abide by WP:V and WP:RS, please refrain from editing the article. If you can find a reliable source, you are more than welcome to readd the information.  --Yamla (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, there's more to wiki that strict adherence to guidelines. It's meant to be friendly to people that would like to contribute, the role of the admins, ideally, is to help GUIDE that process and keep out trollers and spammers. You are doing a poor job. You are editing material you have no awareness of, otherwise you would have known that there is already a link on Danny Carey's page to VOLTO! and that Danny Carey (drummer for Tool, just so you know) is listed on VOLTO!'s official website, MySpace, ect. as the drummer for VOLTO!. I posted (although incorrectly) the link to the official site in the discussion part of the Tool page. It's highly unprofessional to edit pages without knowing anything about the content, let alone without reading the article yourself. Your editing is irresponsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.89.5 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You did, but not until after you were informed about WP:V. We regularly get people adding unrelated bands to other band articles, which is why we insist that the person adding the information provide sufficient information to verify that the information is correct.  This is indeed the very reason for the policy, WP:V.  --Yamla (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also refrain from further personal attacks. Thank you.  And thank you for providing a source for your claim.  --Yamla (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the reference immediately after you edited me. I made the assumption that people editing the article would be familiar with the source material (Volto!'s website, Tool's website, toolshed.down.net, ect.) or have read related material on Wikipedia that mentions the band. I know what the policy is and why it exists, but if you can do a quick search on Google and come up with the information without any real effort to research the subject, you'd be better off adding the citation yourself. It would make wiki a much more friendly experience, don't you think? The idea is to streamline it, not make it more difficult to make contributions. Some of my comments were personal: I appologize for those. Some were critisism, which I will not retract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.89.5 (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points and you may wish to work toward building a consensus for revising WP:V. The problem is when well over 90% of similar edits (that is, edits adding other bands to "associated acts" sections, not 90% of your edits, of course), it is simply much easier to revert all unreferenced additions and request that people follow our policies by citing such changes.  The general consensus seems to be that it requires only a little bit of work for the person adding the information to ensure it is sourced appropriately and avoids having to "prove the converse".  That does not at all mean that this is necessarily the best approach, only that it is currently Wikipedia policy.  --Yamla (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hey wats up. Redhead911

re: working man's barnstar
Thanks very much;

here, have some wiki-beer on me! :D

Tweaty again (maybe)
User:99.249.172.137 is either a tech savvy unrelated user asking for unblock (quite likely), or it is Tweaty. Please review unblock request. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan's 3rd Album Prod
I had already put the thing at AFD yesterday ... Vicmm42‎ had deleted the AFD notice. It's well on its way to deletion. If you feel like snowball closing it, it's here.Kww (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Juanacho again
Same links you blocked him for the last time.Kww (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
  You got a Christmas card! → → →


 * Since he is likely to be a sockpuppet of, who AFAIK is banned, the block should be indef. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Afi0956 is blocked indefinitely, not banned. However, if you have evidence that this is the same person as Vicmm42 then that account, too, should be blocked indefinitely.  --Yamla (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Your protection of Grant Chuggle's user page is appreciated more than you will ever know. Thank you! IrishLass (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kevin.Kinchen at WP:ANI
Don't know anything about this guy, there's a nice rant from him at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents from an IP address. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Trisha Krishnan
Hi Yamla. The last couple of years, we've both pulled lots of unfree and bogus-free images from Trisha Krishnan. The current GFDL-self one seems fishy to me too, but you seem to have given it the benefit of the doubt. It's unusual for someone to do this just a few days before contributing their own photo. Also, the photo and ones that're clearly from the same shoot are sprinkled across the web  , though none of them have any metadata that contradicts the uploader. Since the uploader doesn't seem to be around anymore, I wanted to check with you to see if you saw anything I'm not. ×Meegs 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fishy to me, as well. I suggest you nominate it for deletion.  I've searched repeatedly for this particular image and have been unable to find it on the web.  --Yamla (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. 60000 edits, wow. ×Meegs 18:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Life from the Inside Deletion (Continued)
Sorry, I've been busy and have not been able to follow up with the discussion. You said "Almost all of the content was taken from the website without any evidence that the website content was released under the GFDL." This is entirely untrue. Once a single paragraph was changed, nothing on the page was copied from the website, which means there is no need for a GFDL release. "The article was tagged for approximately two weeks and deleted as per CSD G12." It was not tagged for two weeks. I agree that notability is not trivial, and I would rather that have been the reason for tagging the article for deletion. But making up copyright violations that do not exist is improper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lekowicz (talk • contribs) 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was tagged with a violation notice on 2007-11-27T13:40:32 (times are probably in my time zone). It was deleted on 2007-12-10T23:28:45.  That's less than fifteen hours short of two weeks.  You say that it is entirely untrue that the content was taken from the website without any evidence that the website content was released under the GFDL.  Can you please point me to where the website indicates that the content is licensed under the GFDL?  Note also that the article contained the following, just as the first example I looked at: "Mason's plan to avoid work and share a sleeping bag with Jennifer goes awry when Kate finds religion, Ashleigh sports a bathrobe, Jennifer waits for poop and Guy embarks on a terrifying journey to have more kissable skin."  The website contained the following: "Mason's plan to avoid work and share a sleeping bag with Jennifer goes awry when Kate finds religion, Ashleigh sports a bathrobe, Jennifer waits for poop and Guy embarks on a terrifying journey to have more kissable skin."  I'm not sure what basis you have for stating the content is not copied directly.  --Yamla (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks - :)  Dav nel 03   20:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Yamla (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Assistance please
Please check my talk page history and let me know if I need to worry about that username, or if it is just drama I can ignore. Thanks in advance, Jeffpw (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's drama you can ignore. I did inform the original blocking admin about WP:SUICIDE, however, and will leave it in his or her hands as to whether to contact the Wikimedia Foundation and perhaps get the police involved.  --Yamla (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I added the user's real name to that post you just left, since he was my former adoptee. Why won't this all just go away? Jeffpw (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. Still, WP:RBI seems to be helping a little at least.  --Yamla (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Images
It was not me that originally uploaded the image on Elizabeth Mitchell, I merely found it on the page Juliet Burke and as wikipedia is under the GFDL, assumed the image was. So do not accuse me please, as someone else uploaded it. We need an image of her on her page where she does not look minging, she's a very attractive woman and I believe would be offended by that unflattering pic of her. I may write to her agent and ask if they will release one they are happy with under the GFDL. In the mean time, pick on the person who uploads or originally uses a pic, not me thanks! My only mistake was I didn't check, and assumed it would be under the GFDL as it was used on wikipedia on another page. Merkinsmum  22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the current picture is horrible. Note that we do not generally assume images are under the GFDL, though, as very many of them are not.  If you wish to add an image to an article, you must first check that it does not violate WP:IUP to do so.  --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind
...but I deleted Suspected sock puppets/Yamla. Of course, if you really were guilty of sockpuppetry, I think you'd be more clever about it than naming your accounts User:SOCKPUPPET 1 and User:SOCKPUPPET 2. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm not sure who Amanda Linthorne is.  Probably, but I'm not sure.  --Yamla (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if anyone objects to my blocking him as a sockpuppet without being sure whose puppet he was... they're welcome to unblock him and take personal responsibility for his future edits. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell?! why would it be me?! oh my gosh you actually have no idea about any of this do you?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.40.220 (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock requests
Sometimes, as in the case of User:71.108.64.236, it seems to be unnecessary to decline simply because the user did not use the template correctly. In fact, in the case of this user, I suggest you read my comment, and block for longer. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)