Yamla

Welcome

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please add new comments to the bottom of this page. Thanks. --Yamla 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

2006

Latest comment: 19 years ago242 comments70 people in discussion

July

Dude, get off people's nuts about images. they're pretty and it's pretty easy to rationaize fair use if someone ever lawyers up and sues. FAIR USE, man. 24.124.95.2 06:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

June

Skittles Lover

Hi Yamla.I am not a sock puppet of whoever that other user was but anyway thank you for welecoming me to wikipedia. --Skittles Lover 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&action=edit# --24.124.95.2 06:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Marking of 202.156.6.54 as a sock

Diff: [1]

How can a shared IP be a sockpuppet of any one registered user? I don't understand. That is the shared IP used by all Starhub cable modem users in Singapore. I have reverted your change because of this. Kimchi.sg 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

RE:Image problems

I have now successfully (as far as I can tell) applied approriate copyright to the following:

I'm hoping to add these back to Paris Hilton, but I didn't know if you could maybe point out anything else that may be needed before I go ahead and add them all back; as I don't want them to just be removed again.

Cheers. :)

Pazuzu567 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Edgovan20 and sockpuppets

I think you have more than enough evidence to take this user's account away from him and block him permanently. Personal attacks galore, repeated edits against consensus opinion, inappropriate use of sockpuppets, vandalism, and a refusal to take the responsibilities of Wikipedia editing seriously. There's no point in playing his silly game anymore. If you want to take action I'll support you fully. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 18:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fnarf, like anyone takes notice of what you think. oh how rude of me, i forgot to say hello. Edgovan20

Thanks

Thanks!!! Tcatron565 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

MySpace

I still need a clear statement about MySpace images...Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok I try my best to provide fair use rationale for them. Thus far I have left the logo-tagged pictures intact because the tag speaks for itself and I couldn't find any rationales added to other logos by browsing about 50 of them on Wikipedia. I have finished with 20 of my pictures already. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks

Thanks for this revert: [2]. --mtz206 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

Gemini531 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Gemini531

Gemini531 02:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image deletions

Hi there. I've just noticed that Image:Arwen2Work.jpg and Image:Arwen sword-2.png have been deleted. I can't rememeber what these images looked like or which articles they were in. Can you help? Also, do you have a link to the WP:IfD page about these images? It would help if the entry in the deletion logs had a link to the WP:IfD archive (if there is one). Also, when I scanned the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images I initially thought that you had only removed them from the gallery, rather than putting them through IfD (I don't have these images on my watchlist). It would be easier for me to see that they have been deleted if you leave the dead link there, and then a blank box will show up. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. These images were blatant copyright violations with no provided fair-use rationale. They were noted as fairusedisputed and the original uploader was notified. No fair use rationale was provided and so I speedily deleted them as they were copyright violations. They were both movie screenshots. Sorry for causing you hassle. --Yamla 17:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not really a hassle. What would be a hassle is if you don't have a way of telling me what articles those images were used in. Can you do this? Carcharoth 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

These images were used in the articles on Liv Tyler and Arwen. --Yamla 17:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah. OK. I had figured out the Arwen page (obviously), but forgot about the Liv Tyler one. Do you think you could leave a message on the article talk pages next time, not just in the page history? Thanks. Carcharoth 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will try to do so in the future unless removing a blatantly inappropriate image (e.g. one not even of the subject at hand), or if removing vast quantities of images uploaded by a person blatantly violating copyright and fair-use. Here, I'm talking about someone who uploads a hundred images of American Idol contestants, for example. But as a general rule, I will try to leave a message on the discussion page. In fact, I'll try to do so a week prior to the scheduled deletion as well so the OrphanBot doesn't interfere with the notification. Do you happen to recall the tag you can add to an image's use on an article page to note that it is in danger of being deleted? Do you think that would suffice? --Yamla 17:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh sure, with hundreds of copyvio uploads, I understand. But for individual images, it would be nice to get warning on the article talk page. It is very common for people not to keep an eye on the image pages, though they should really... As for the tag, try Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_templates, or something similar. I'll have a quick look there myself. And its fine to keep the discussion here. We shouldn't be much longer anyway. Carcharoth 17:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The best I could find was Template:Unverifiedimage and Template:Nonfreeimage - that last one looks quite handy! Carcharoth 17:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think the tag I'm looking for is something like {{unverified}} or something. I'll take a look the next time I need to add it to an image. And yes, you bring up good points. Looks like we are in agreement. Have a great weekend! --Yamla 17:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Miss Ciara (talk · contribs)

Why do you think this user needs to change her user name? Please do not bite the newbies. - ulayiti (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

See WP:USERNAME. Wikipedia does not allow names of well-known living people. Miss Ciara has specifically claimed she has chosen her name as she is a fan of Miss Ciara. --Yamla 13:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you take this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names if you have such a problem with it. I don't see any reason why someone would mistake this user with Ciara, especially as her user name is not 'Ciara'. Besides, it's only a first name - disallowing this would be enough to ban most first names from being used as user names (especially if 'well known' is interpreted as loosely as you just have). - ulayiti (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, though I thought it was a pretty clear-cut case. While Ciara's full name is well known, she is not professionally known as anything other than "Ciara". Similarly, Madonna's full name is known but she is also only known by her first name. We would not allow someone to be known as Madonna on the Wikipedia. I assumed "Miss Ciara" would fall into this same category. --Yamla 13:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, no problem. If the user name had been just 'Ciara', then I'd have thought it borderline, but 'Miss Ciara' is all right by me. Also, the WP:USERNAME criterion requires the person to be 'well known', and I'd interpret that slightly differently - Madonna would not be an acceptable user name, but Ciara is hardly as 'well known' as Madonna. - ulayiti (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It looks like we have everything worked out. My apology to Miss Ciara was meant to be sincere, though, and if you think it sounds like I am hedging a little bit much, please do let me know. --Yamla 14:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I Know

I know what your talking about. But, I was thinking to hold off all the personal info until my book was published. So that's what I was going to do today! Thanks for the concern. Tcatron565 13:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Processing

I've done with 70% of the work. I've "invented" some fair use for the MySpace picture Image:Julio G.jpg, please have a look at it and tell me what you think. And here's a list of pictures I don't want to use any more.

Image:Snoop we just wanna.gif
Image:Nastackiremadream.gif
Image:Sean paul.jpg
Image:FatJoeWhatsLuv.jpg
Image:Happy2.jpg
Image:Strip .GIF (it was just my try if animated gif-s are working here, God, I was a novice then)

Can you give me an advice on how the heck I can get a full and correct list about my uploads? Edit counter comes up with many errors...Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You deserve an apology

Well Yamla and others, I am sorry for my disruptiveness
Although I still think I changed the redhead pic with good reason
Now I intend to use Wikipedia properly
Knowing this, will you give me a break?
Every 5 minutes I seem to get picked on here
Remember what I said please.
So, as I said I will make good changes here from here on.

Edgovan20

external link

Thanks for write your comments when delete my link. I dont kow very much about wikipedia. I hope make one big website with pictures and videos. No problem, Thank you

User:Gemini531

Hi Yamla. I happened across Gemini's user page, and was intrigued by the "kid" userbox. I didn't even know there were people under 14 on wikipedia (14 is an arbitrary number here). It seems to me like you're being a bit harsh with her. Or were, maybe. I'm not sure if you're still watching her actions or not. She's a kid. Just give her some leniency, eh? Canæn 07:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

IP addresses

Would you please STOP blocking IP addresses as many people in a large region may use the same IP address. I know when I sign on I have obtained the same IP address and you have blocked it because of another using that same IP dial up address did something.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Yamla for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Vandalism, fourth unique block Your IP address is 67.72.98.86. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.87 (talk)

This IP address shows no signs of ever actually being blocked by me. What most likely happened here is an autoblock, i.e. a block of a user, not an IP. However, I can find no evidence that this IP address was autoblocked, either, though it may still be true. In any case, there's no real justification here to stop blocking people who vandalise Wikipedia, particularly those IP addresses not marked as shared, and even if there was, this would be a policy change and should go through the appropriate channels. --Yamla 14:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you blocked it for 6 weeks: [3]. (The IP address mentioned in the above comment, not the IP that the comment was left from). --mtz206 (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ahhh. Thanks, Mtz206. That said, given that it was the fifth unique block (and sixth overall) with a previous block of a full month, given that the IP is not marked as shared, and given the large amount of vandalism originating from that address, the block was justified. The user can request an unblock by placing {{unblock|My reason for unblock here}} on the page. --Yamla 14:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair Use Pictures

I think I am finished with labelling the pictures with accurate fair-use rationales. Can you please check them and let me know if I am really over it? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 19:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Changing some pages...opinion?

Hi yamla...im thinking of changing the pages Fucking and Wanker, perhaps adding some examples. I dont really want to make any changes unless I have some support ya know. Well, cheers anyway...Ed --Edgovan20

Message from 67.72.98.81

Refrain from blocking general IP address such as 67.72.98.86. Many people use the same IP address in one region, and are being limited due to your constant putting of blocks to edit on that particular address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.81 (talk)

67.72.98.81, here you are asking that Wikipedia stop protecting themselves against any and all vandals who use IP addresses. This is simply not going to happen but if you really think this is worth pursuing, I encourage you to suggest this as a policy change through the appropriate channels. --Yamla 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:24 Promo.JPG

As it seems the only reason this was labelled as fair use disputed was the lack of a rationale, I have added a more detailed on to the article. Since it is used as a promotional image in the article on the show, I'm sure it qualifies as fair use. Thanks. TheProject 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

blocking 67.72.98.86

!@#$-it, can you PLEASE stop doing that!!?? I keep running into this blocking stuff over and over again. And I can assure you that I am NOT the guy who is doing the vandalism. What you are doing does not make sense; you only force me to logout and re-dial, sothat I can write this angry note. Of course, the guy who is doing the vandalism can do the same thing, so all you achieve is aggravate some innocent bystanders. JdH 08:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am not doing anything. I have not added a block to these addresses in quite some time, more than a week. But if you are concerned, you need to mark these addresses as shared (you can use the {{sharedip|Internet Service Provider name}}). Until you do this, administrators are going to provide longer and longer blocks because of the totally excessive vandalism occurring from those addresses. Wikipedia has a right to protect itself. It would also help if you could provide the contact information for the ISP administrators so we can have action taken against the perpetrators. And by the way, there's no bug in the software. Please see WP:AUTOBLOCK to understand why you are being blocked as collateral damage. --Yamla 15:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Angelwear

Hi Yamla. I had thought that the links and information I put up on some celebrities pages were okay and not considered as advertising because they are to raise money for charities. I am sorry aobut that, and wondered why it isn't okay to help out if it's for a good cause? my log in name is Earth angel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth angel (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM for Wikipedia's policy on external links. Thanks. --Yamla 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry

Sorry about the image problems. I tried to fix the citing on the Joel Madden page, and i have not added any new pictures. i am still trying to get the hang of things around here. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargrl576 (talk • contribs)

Stargrl576

You were kinda harsh on Stargrl576...-Good*charlotte*rox 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Most of the warnings were standard warnings from the templates. And I did add a "Don't worry" section before your comments. I think I've been quite friendly in this case, though I did still flag the errors. --Yamla 22:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

????

i changed the pic on the Joel Madden page. Is it okay now?-Good*charlotte*rox 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

On what basis did you determine this image may be used with no restrictions? I searched the source and can find no such statement. The terms of use for that page most certainly do not make this claim, nor does the copyright page on that site. Please let me know as soon as possible, thanks. --Yamla 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

---I'm sorry, I only read the terms of use and found the statement "All information compiled may be used at your sole risk." I understand that it does not apply to media. I just read the copyright page and realize that I was wrong. What should I do?- Good*charlotte*rox 23:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

---(Thanks for checking it out)

You can put {{db-author|Misread copyright restrictions}} on that image page. Copyright and fair-use are very difficult to get correct. --Yamla 23:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Katie Holmes

Hi Yamla, I am not quite sure why you reverted my post there is a website dedicated to Katie Holmes baby, Suri, SuriCruise.com , my post is a supportable fact and facts deserve to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.21.53 (talk)

Your addition didn't make sense. Also, any such website hardly makes a notable addition to the Wikipedia (see WP:N), nor should the website link itself be added to the article (see WP:EL). Also, see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Yamla 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:Sin City Jessica Alba poster.jpg

Can you help me undertand specifically what is needed and what exactly it is I need to do rather than simply tag the images and move on? Thanks. --TJive 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

As you can see from the license text, you need a "detailed fair use rationale for each use". See this page for an explanation of what is needed to justify each and every fair-use image. It's kind of a pain in the behind but it's the only way we can legally claim fair-use on copyrighted images such as this one. --Yamla 03:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

MostWanted05 is on a war path

Look at the user's record! Lil Eazy E, Spider Loc and Hot Rod. The user put up delete tags as retaliation for his Young Life and Lil Dumu articles. Is there a way to block this user. You can check out this resume! This user also is on request for comment. Are you an administrator? Cause we do need to solve this problem with MostWanted05. This behavior is gone far enough! Thanks for reading. LILVOKA. 8 June 2006 13:33 (UTC)

Clerks II Posters

I found the images from Kevin Smith's official message board at viewaskew.com. Kevin Smith uploaded the images himself. I even cited the source (http://viewaskew.com/theboard/viewtopic.php?t=47404). I don't know what the problem is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meph1986 (talk • contribs)

For Image:Dandrposter.jpg, the problem is that you forgot to include the detailed fair-use rationale as the license text indicates is required. For Image:Clerks2poster.jpg, you did not include information on the copyright status. --Yamla 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I fixed it. Is it alright now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meph1986 (talk • contribs)

No. Please reread WP:IDP, particularly this bit on the fair-use rationale. You seem to have been providing extra information about the source of Image:Dandrposter.jpg. The source is fine. :) You did not make any change to Image:Clerks2poster which requires both a license and, probably, also a hand-written detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm still lost. This is my first time doing this. --Meph1986 22:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, most of the explanation is right here. The problem for Image:Dandrposter.jpg is that we know it is a copyrighted image but we are claiming that, because it is a movie poster, we can use it under the principles of fair use. But, as the license says, we need a detailed fair-use rationale for each use. That is, why specifically is its use in Clerks II okay? In fact, there's a very good chance that it is not okay because the image is of very high resolution. See this page for some examples of good fair-use rationales, but note once again that it probably can't be used as the resolution is too high. I am thinking it will probably have to be deleted. The same goes for Image:Clerks2poster.jpg but the more compelling short-term problem for that is that you have not given it an image copyright tag. See WP:ICT for a list of valid ones. Almost certainly the one you want to choose is {{Movie poster}}, again with the detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 23:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well I guess it has to be deleted since the image is too large and I have no idea how to delete it. I should just stick to locating and fixing spelling errors. --Meph1986 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dont see what the big deal is. Jessica Alba's very hot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.156.111 (talk)

Aishwarya Rai Picture

Hi, Yamla, I upload the Aishwarya Rai Picture and tagged it. You tagged it as unverified. Can you tell me what's missing so I can repair it? --Plumcouch 18:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeap. What's missing is the detailed hand-written fair-use rationale explaining its use in the Aishwarya Rai page. Please specifically see this bit on fair use rationales. --Yamla 18:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Yamla, it's me again. I provided additional information for Aishwarya Rai's Devdas picture. Could you check it to see if it's all right? --Plumcouch 20:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeap, that's probably good. Thanks. :) --Yamla 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Guess my Name Contest

You have been invited to participate in the:

GUESS MY NAME CHALLENGE

(Try to guess my name and put it in my Talk Page under the section Guess My Name) Guess my first name.Contest ends June 16, 2006. --Cute 1 4 u 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image --Yxa.blod.Keira.Knightley.JPG

I added the source you asked for. Why did you delete it then...? Bronks 15:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, well the image is still missing a detailed fair-use rationale for each of its uses. Given that it is a promotional photo, it may only be used to promote the movie. That makes its use in King Arthur (film) okay (so long as you add the detailed fair-use rationale) and possibly the use in Keira Knightley as well as that article specifically discusses the movie. Remember, though, that the image cannot be used simply to illustrate the person depicted. Also, every single use requires a detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay. thank you for the explanation. Bronks 19:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Red Hair

I do not understand what the issue is - Please explai. I added the link for the wikipedia article on Red hair to teh article on Maureen O'Hara - perhaps the most beautiful of all "red heads" - I suppose that thsi could be considered point of view but I am happy to compromise and simply leave her name alone under the famous redheads with the article.21:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

house picture.

I'm a little puzzled by your complaint about that picture. The picture has been on wikipedia since March, and no one has had a problem with it until now. The picture qualifies as fair use because it "illustrates the DVD in question". Isn't that enough? If you check out the House article, there is a section describing the dvd for the first season. The picture is there to show the dvd cover that is talked about in the section. I bet dvd covers are used in other articles about tv shows or movies, so i really don't understand the problem. If it isn't enough that it "illustrates the DVD in question", what can i say to make it so the picture qualifies and is able to be used on wikipedia? dposse 01:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please see Fair Use Rationale. Every single use of a copyrighted image must be justified. In this case, we don't need an extensive justification, but we do need a simple one. Just listing the license is not enough. --Yamla 01:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Alright. I added a fair use justification. Is it good enough? Do i need to change it in any way? dposse 02:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

WOOHOO!!! You're welcome, and thank you. I'm glad it passed the test of a admin. ^_^ dposse 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original research

If you look I did provide a source, both the episode date and an official recap of the show. 02:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the provided citation does mention a substantial portion of the allegations. Listening to the show will fill in the blanks. Ocatecir 02:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The page you link to does not cite any of these allegations. I've added {{fact}} tags to the uncited bits. I also cleaned up some of your spelling and grammar but it looks like you beat me to it. Thanks! --Yamla 02:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

3RR

Hello Yamla. You had recently blocked Ravi5099 (talk · contribs) for violation of the 3RR rule on the Joseph Vijay article. He was a newbie, and was unaware of the rules. I just received an email from him, asking for his ban to be lifted. He now understands the rule, and would like to contribute more to wikipedia, he says. Also, the user who requested a ban on him, has a *ahem* very popular history. Thanks, and cheers! -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}07:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, the block was only for 6 hours. Note that I did also block Anwar saadat for the same amount of time. But thanks for taking care of this. --Yamla 14:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clearing that up. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

New User

just wondering... how do you know if a user has a sockpuppet?--Kamikaze*grl 14:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are various ways. The most obvious is a set of edits in the same style to the same group of articles. There are many other ways, however. --Yamla 14:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

kay, thanx-Kamikaze*grl 14:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Picture

What do you mean like to write a fair-use? (SKITTLES 20:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC))Reply

Please see Fair Use Rationale. Every single use of a copyrighted image must be justified. Please note that you have already been told about this. --Yamla 20:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean I've already been told about this? you're confusing me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKITTLES (talk • contribs)

You were told about this by OrphanBot on 2006-06-10 04:10. --Yamla 20:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Pictures

Are you satisfied with my work? Please inform me if there are any untagged pictures left, since *edit counter has recently been shot down totally, I don't know if I'm missed something. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 23:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Need to check on this. Looks good from what I've seen so far. --Yamla 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

More Pictures

For the images of Brad Pitt, Nicole Richie, and Peter Wentz. I have seen many other images been acceptable from magazine prints, the Brad Pitt Image shouldn't even be in question because it is a movie still, a movie is something that ANYONE can own. Peter Wentz has no picture, and it is important for him to have a head shot on his article. Nicole Richie also has no pictures, and that Vanity Fair article was an important event on her life, if you feel that what I chose as the copyright is incorrect, then please change it, or make a note of it, but you shouldn't have removed the images. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrockstar (talk • contribs)

Your license tags were blatantly false. Also, you cannot just use scans from the insides of magazines. Such images are not permitted on Wikipedia. Additionally, you have not been providing the detailed fair-use rationale required for fair-use images. I encourage you to read up some more on image copyright before uploading any more images. Thanks. --Yamla 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Emmy Rossum photo

Hi, you recently sent me a message about an Emmy Rossum Poseidon picture. What do you suggest I should do to keep the image up? I'd like people to be able to view Ms. Rossum in all her glory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.190.49 (talk)

Are you talking about Image:Jenniferramsey07.jpeg? If so, it needs a detailed fair-use rationale provided for it. See WP:IDP for more information. Additionally, it can only be used to illustrate and provide critical commentary on the film and its contents. So it can safely be used (with rationale) in Poseidon, but cannot be used on the Emmy Rossum page except to directly depict that movie. It cannot, for example, just be used to show off Ms. Rossum. --Yamla 22:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Blanking page

I did not know I was not allowed to blank my own page. Please do not say that If I continue to, I have never blanked any pages other than my own. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrockstar (talk • contribs)

Rachel Greene

What's the problem with the changes I made? Acording to article Rachel Greene, this is the correct way of spelling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raistlin8r (talk • contribs)

Sorry, my mistake. I was confused because the Greene spelling redirects to the Green spelling. --Yamla 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually...

I really am not that interested by her, I think I noticed that little tidbit always being altered, so I added it. :P I have too much on my watchlist. Yanksox 23:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I have about 1500 pages on my watchlist which I'm sure is too many. Many of these are user pages, though, where I left the first warning. I claim it was because of this sort of thing that Hilary Duff ended up on my watchlist. Maybe. --Yamla 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tool Talk

Thanks for the revert on the Tool talk page. I'm glad someone else knows that "methinks" is a word. =) King Bee 23:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Yamla ...

Once again I tried to include the pic of Ciara's debut album into her main site, but once again you didn't accept my "Fair Use" reasons (I forgot to log in, didn't I?) ... Now I'm a lil bit confused cause I tried to explain, that - in my opinion - the album cover of an (debut) album is the best way to represent a ceratin era of a musical artist's career as people can see a link between the cover and the timeframe ... What should I add? I'd really like to here a suggestion - I think it's important - even in a biography! ...

Greez, Noboyo

(P.S.: You want to check and remove every single picture, which doesn't explain it fair use? Oh boy ...)

Transformers (animated series) images

On 15 June 2006, you removed a couple images from this page specifying that no fair use rationale was provided. I wasn't the person who uploaded these images, however I HAVE uploaded a HUGE number of other images and spent a great deal of time linking them and making this page look somewhat complete. So even though you're probably sick to death of discussing images, I have to clarify "Fair Use" with you so the rest of the images don't end up getting trashed.

I checked the Wikipedia instructions for posting Fair Use images. My understanding is that a Fair Use rationale can be something as simple as an explanation of how a particular character is depicted in a particular film or TV series. Therefore, is it fair to assume that a successful rationale for these images would be along the lines of "(character name) as depicted in (TV show)"?

Thanks.

P.S. I'm new here and still trying to learn how everything works. :-)

Vandalism

You did indeed vandalize the Laura Prepon page, as have other fanboys who are in denial. Don't go around accusing people of original research when you could have looked up the verification yourself. I don't appreciate your slapping me with a "newbie" message either, God-King. Evan1975 21:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is not vandalism to remove uncited information, especially when citations have previously been requested. It is your responsibility to cite the new information as per Wikipedia policy. And the "newbie" message was a standard template. --Yamla

I can and will say whatever I want on my talkpage, thanks. Evan1975 21:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, actually, WP:NPA shows quite clearly that you cannot. --Yamla 21:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have the right to remove vandalism from my talkpage. I don't know what your problem is. Please leave me alone. Evan1975 22:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Current warnings from other users do not count as vandalism. --Yamla 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Joseph Vijay

Again User:Ravi5099 has begun reverting the article blanking links and paragraphs [4], [5]. What action will be taken, if any? Anwar 23:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Plumcouch and I have already given several vernacular and English links as proof of red card. But Ravi keeps removing them. Anwar 00:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Joseph Vijay

When you have biography of someone, (Joseph Vijay in this instance) You have to mention his credits. Not his small failures. My edits are based on removing his failures from the text, while "Anwar Saadat" is putting back on.

"Anwar Saadat" portrays Vijay as a person who is known for his 'notoriousness'. Which is wrong. Please take action against "Anwar Saadat" not me.

Spam

Apologies, I thought I was adding links correctly. I wont do this again! --Sunholm(talk) 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: Fair use

What sort of fair use images can be used for actors and actresses? They're all over Wikipedia and are tagged and deleted quite inconsistently. --TJive 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

A promotional shot of the actor themselves, that could certainly be used. Headshots, for example. Just be careful to make sure it really did come from a promotional kit for the actor themselves. I agree, a great many copyrighted images are used on Wikipedia without a reasonable fair-use rationale. It is a big problem. --Yamla 19:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you suggesting that no images pertaining to even the most notable and common of their works can be utilized, even iconic ones, e.g. Marlon Brando as Don Corleone or at the docks in On the Waterfront? I'm having trouble finding explicit recognition of this interpretation in policy. --TJive 20:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, they can be used but they must be used to identify the character, not the actor. A picture of Marlon Brando as Don Corleone would be perfectly appropriate provided the article talks about this famous role of his. It would not be appropriate if the article makes no mention of his role in Godfather. Note that now, the image of the character is being used to illustrate the character in question, not the actor. --Yamla 21:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for giving specifics, as the relevant guides do not. May we relate this now to what is contended? Let's say that the Jessica Alba article is discussing her role as Nancy Callahan in Sin City. Would there then be justification for, say, a screenshot of the movie containing that character (esp. with prominence)? And is there a different standard applied to screenshots than posters? In other words, if there is justification for a screenshot, is there not for a poster, even when they essentially show the same thing? --TJive 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, was wondering if you had time to see my latest comment and questions, directly above. --TJive 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, too many messages. :) It would be appropriate to use a screenshot depicting a character if the article on the actor discusses that character. So, a screenshot showing Nancy Callahan would be appropriate in an article about Jessica Alba if the article specifically talks about her role as Nancy Callahan. Now, if the article on Jessica Alba simply notes that she played a character called Nancy Callahan, that's not sufficient. It has to be a more detailed than that. A perfect example is Marlon Brando's role as the Godfather. That would be a perfect time to use the image of the character in the actor's article. I'm assuming, at least... haven't checked out Brando's article but I'm assuming there's a long discussion about the Godfather there. As to screenshots vs. posters, the main difference is that posters are specifically promotional material. As a result, we don't need to be quite so diligent in the fair-use rationales. There's a general assumption that posters are likely to be okay while movie screenshots need to be clearer in their rationale. There's no official difference between the two cases, though, as they are both copyrighted images. I'm speaking here about the unofficial general "feeling". --Yamla 17:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

So you are saying you simply feel that the material at Jessica Alba, at present, does not justify the use of a Nancy poster? That did not seem to be the extent of implications in your comments on the image page, i.e. that it should not show up on actress material. I had the opposite impression regarding the two, that editors were generally more lax about the use of screenshots than posters.

So if the Alba article dealt with the Callahan character in a significant way, that is what would justify inclusion of the image? --TJive 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The image was being used to illustrate Jessica Alba, not her character. The article does not talk in any great detail about the character though it does mention that Jessica Alba played her. It didn't help that the image was the top-most on the page, typically a spot reserved for a picture of the actor rather than the character played. If the Alba article dealt with the Callahan character in a significant way, it would indeed justify inclusion of the image in that section of the article. What I'm saying on the image page is probably a little pedantic. In retrospect and from your comments, I think it would be reasonable to use this image to depict the character as well as the movie as this is clearly what the poster is trying to depict. My major concern is that it is not used simply to depict Jessica Alba. Thank you, TJive, for taking the time and having the patience to discuss this issue at length with me. I'm sorry some of my comments have been contradictory or slow. --Yamla 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's alright. Even in the (almost) year and a half that I have been here, image and fair use policy seems to have shifted often and most of the stuff we are talking about is not explicitly written down anywhere, and seems to mostly come down to general interpretation. I don't follow discussions on it, so the best I can do is ask someone who seems to know. Thanks for responding. --TJive 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nexopia source

Hi, the number of users and hits shows on the bottom right. - Supmyman7 22:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Barnstar

Thanks ! Appreciated Mad Jack 05:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Scientology Link

Did you even look at the links you removed? The video was not mine, but it was a valid MSNBC interview with a certifed PhD from Carnegie Mellon University. Its removal was completely unfounded. 128.226.219.107 21:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:Barely_Legal_082001.jpg

Hello. You marked this image for deletion and commented "Removed image with no fair-use rationale". However, I think Template: Magazinecover used on the image description page made it quite clear why the image was acceptable fair use. I added the rationale to the image page as well. Thank you, PseudoAnon 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

One more thing: I asked for clarification at Template talk:Magazinecover. Of course I didn't mean it as a personal attack on you. Regards, PseudoAnon 08:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I responded on Template talk:Magazinecover. Thanks for letting me know, I didn't take it as a personal attack and please don't take my response as a personal attack on you. :) --Yamla 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: vandalism.

Sorry, but I did not add that picture to the Sara McLean article. I thought I removed it, but was in a bit of hurry, so maybe I got something wrong? Anyway, if you have a look at the log, you'll see that I did not add it. Not a serious issue, but I don't want to have a reputation for vandalism...:\ vidar lo 13:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wrote a bit more refined reply on my talk page. Thanks for catching the error :)

This was a simple mistake from my side. I checked an article I watch (pH) and found the image Image:Sarahvulva.jpg in that article. I checked other articles edited by the same IP, and looked for the image in them It was in the Sarah McLachlan aritcle. However, I must've waited until some other fellow had removed the image, and then pressed edit, and removed the first image line I saw. Sorry for not checking better, but it was not intentional harm. See this diff for more information. vidar lo 11:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

BLOCKING

Personal attack removed --Pilot|guy 00:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry you feel this way. Your personal attacks and sockpuppet use show that the block was a good idea. --Yamla 16:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

An unusual WP:3O Request

Hi Yamla, I have a unusual request (!). You were very helpful with me with a previous Wikipedia:3RR case I put forward some weeks ago, and thought it may be appropriate to ask for your assistance with a problem I'm facing. Inline with WP:3O, I was wondering if you could help stop a persistant (unregistered) user who I've faced a few problems with.

The user has been blocked for Wikipedia:3RR and vandalism a number of times, but has dynamic IP rolling and thus an infinate amount of IP addresses which we can't block indefinately!

The problems are for the most part regarding the Shaw and Crompton article (but also Royton) and how a user is refusing to accept consensus (apparently it is an inappropriate way of presenting facts), the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) and citation (see this edit).

I'm trying to get the Shaw and Crompton article upto Wikipedia:Good articles status, but cannot until the opening sentence is inline with the formulation in the naming conventions and the opening line says "Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester". It currently says a very longwinded (and unique - no other article in the related localities use this method) "Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish in Greater Manchester, lying ten miles to the north-east of Manchester in the north-west of England. It lies within the traditional borders of Lancashire, and is one of seven areas which together form the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham."

It may appear quite trivial, but (despite going against the conventions) would be like saying "Alabama is in the traditional borders of the Confederate States of America and is one of 50 states that make up the USA". - just not appropriate!

The users demands, methods and trolling are becoming increasingly sophisticated and inappropriate.

The user demands that we place mentions of Oldham after a reference to an ancient and dissued British land division of Lancashire (possibly due to the stigma that the Oldham borough has a large Ethnic minority population) - also see this edit as an example of the mentality. He adds nothing else to the content of the page and has stimulated a massive debate on Talk:Shaw and Crompton, where we (a much larger collective of Wikipedians, backed by all the consensus and conventions) have tried to stop his changes.

I think admin intervention and a simple message for clarification would help the situation.

Do you think you could aid in any way? Is this an appropriate method to go about this?

Could you get back to me on my talk page, even if it is a negative response? - I do understand that an admin role would be hugely time-consuming. It would be very much appreciated however if you could help or point me in the right direction. Thanks, Jhamez84 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yamla, many thanks for the swift reply. There have been some developments on the Shaw and Crompton article since, however. The page is currently semi-protected and has been targeted by the same vandal and a number of sleeper accounts and sock puppets.

I'm inclined to think that a simple message on the talk page would suffice given the developments. However you may think that the current climate doesn't warrent anything further.

Do please take your time for your own conveinience, and thanks again for getting back to me. Jhamez84 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair use

It seems that your interpretation of fair use is somewhat unusual. I have seen quite a few featured articles on music albums and band with album covers in them, and the best "detailed rationale" I found was {{fairusenoalternative}}, which doesn't really add any new information. I thought there was some consensus that a detailed fair use rationale has to be provided for any use that's not already covered by the text in {{albumcover}}. I don't care much either way, but I find it unlikely that editors will come up with original, detailed fair use rationales for every album cover we have, so it's most likely that the template needs fixing. That or we remove most if not all album covers from WP. Rl 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gripes

You seem to have a problem with websites that talk about companies, yet there are hundreds of other sites you have not addressed (pepsi, coke, hersey, at&t, ford), so please stop pestering people who post legitimate data simply because you think wikipedia should not have information about successful entrepreneurs (NOT spam and NOT advertising in other's eyes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.52.10 (talk)

Please see WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM so you can better understand Wikipedia's policies. --Yamla 21:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your new threats

I am aware.. if you ease of a bit you will se that i am archiving. I dont want to see this stuff everytime i log in do I?? -- max rspct leave a message 22:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I already issued an apology for this. It looked to me like your first act back from the block was to blank your user discussion page. Such was not the case, my mistake. I'm sorry. --Yamla 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you paid attention to other admins.. you will have noticed that others give short blocks for much more. Anyway you seem to admit that i was archiving all along. So what happend? You banned me for 31 hours unjustifiably and because you saw me talking about my clean record on 3RR noticeboard. You wanted to give me my first one. I waSN't deleting warnings - archiving.. and i got banned as you never waited or paused for thought. I want that block struck from my blocklog. -- max rspct leave a message 00:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No. You archived that most recent time. The evidence shows quite clearly that you were not archiving when you were blocked. You even admitted outright (six times, in fact) that you were blanking. You weren't archiving, you clearly stated, "if i want to blank i fucking well will." You will also find that a 24 hour ban for vandalism is quite appropriate, as is an extra 7 hours for attempting to bypass the block. When I blocked you, I had not seen your comment about your clean record on the 3RR noticeboard. Shorter blocks are generally given for the first 3RR violation, sometimes just a warning, but you'll notice that I imposed "time served" on you. You may think this harsh but I think you'll find most people would disagree. Your continued personal attacks aren't helping your case. I suggest you consider contributing productively to Wikipedia, as clearly many of your edits have already been, and stop this behaviour. It does you no credit. --Yamla 03:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

User:SKITTLES

User:SKITTLES doesn't seem to grasp the concept of image copyrights, even after a lengthy explanation from me and a block by you. Most recently, he/she has decided to add photographs taken from fan (or otherwise unofficial) sites and claims that all right have been released. See Image:Laurenlc.png for a recent example. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 00:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Help needed

In recent weeks I have tagged a number of images uploaded by User:Fitz. This user seems to have serious issues with properly identifying the source and copyright of images they upload. She/he has recently taken to outright removal of warning tags on images. Can you help this user see the error of their ways? Thanks. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seems my efforts aren't appreciated by Fitz. Note their latest image summary on Image:Regz2.jpg. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 04:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Blocks

That was a completely unneccessary block you gave me. I was not blanking any part of any article. Quote: "Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to User talk:Max rspct." - That was not an article but my userpage. I was archiving. Where does it say that I cannot blank or archive my user talkpage? it is MY ___domain. See Wikipedia:User page:

"In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons."

-- max rspct leave a message 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I told you. Additionally, as I have also told you, the specific case of blanking current warnings from a user talk page came up for admin discussion recently and the decision was quite clearly that it was not acceptable. You were not archiving, you were blanking and said so in no uncertain terms (and with profanity). And you do not own the user talk page and specifically do not own the comments posted by other users. What you have posted above is about your user page, not your user talk page. --Yamla 14:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No you are wrong. That wikiepdia page refers to all userpages/userspace ..thats why it has a subheading in it called: '[and editing of pages in the user space]'. I have looked at the admin board. I cannot se anything you referrred to. In any case it is not policy to block users for 31hrs for blanking or archiving their userpage. I am going to take action on this later today.. Ps check RJII's talkpage. There is an organisation using his login name? A disruptive project to prove a point or..? -- max rspct leave a message 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You weren't blocked for 31 hours for blanking your user page. You were blocked for 24 hours for blanking your user talk page after being warned you were not permitted to do this. This block was extended to 31 hours when I discovered you editing from an anonymous IP address in an attempt to bypass your block. See Blanking own talk page for the discussion on blanking your own talk page. The policy is that you may not blank current warnings. If you have a complaint to make about RJII, please make it to the appropriate ___location. I am busy today and will not be able to look at RJII's behaviour in the near future. Nothing personal. --Yamla 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

THAT IS NOT POLICY. Chit chat among admins does not mean it is policy. I have never completely blanked my usertalkpage. And would have archived it anyway. It takes to to tango and you started this by giving me an unfair block (not even draconian as it is NOT policy). -- max rspct leave a message 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair use

It is my understanding that promotional materials released by actors are usable on their biography page and that dvd covers are usable on the dvd page. If this is not accurate, the templates {{promotional}} and {{dvdcover}} are innacurate, and need correcting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

These are usable but require a detailed fair-use rationale as the license notes. --Yamla 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, good. We're all on the same page then. Good luck in fixing troublesome user. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lindsay Lohan

I provided a source and a description. That's enough.--CyberGhostface 22:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It most certainly is not, as the license makes quite clear. --Yamla 22:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please stop reverting my userpage. Its my page, I should decide what is in it. You blocked me. I added the fair license protocols. What more do you want?--CyberGhostface 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I haven't touched your user page. I was unblanking your user discussion page because those warnings were current. However, it does indeed seem that you have resolved the image problem. Thank you. --Yamla 21:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ciara

I put a citing source beside chart positions on Ciara's singles. There is no need to put a stub saying it needs a source. Charme36

Yes, but the citation does not cite the chart positions listed. It only cites a very small minority of them. --Yamla 22:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

So do I have to put the citations at the bottom where the references or external links are? Charmed36 22:51 21 June 2006

Sneha Ullal

What information do I need to add for the image to stay. Tut74749 22:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You need to identify the copyright holder, provide an accurate license (though the license provided may be correct), and a detailed fair-use rationale for each use of the image. --Yamla 22:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do I just have to state where the images are from and the copyright holder for these images? Tut74749 22:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and an accurate license and a detailed fair-use rationale for each use of the image. --Yamla 22:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why are you deleting these images. What did I not do that made u delete them. Tut74749 20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You stated that the film screenshot was being used to illustrate the actor, not the film itself. This is obviously a copyright violation, then, of the film itself as noted in the license. --Yamla 21:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

But doesnt the image show kareena only and nothing about the movie. Tut74749 21:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is Ullal.jpg alright? If not please tell me Tut74749 21:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, looks okay to me. That assumes the picture is a promotional picture of the actress, not a screenshot from a movie or a promotional picture used to advertise a movie. Also, of course, it would only be acceptable in Sneha Ullal, and assumes that perfectpeople.com took the original picture and own the copyright to it and specifically released it for promotional purposes. --Yamla 21:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks just wanted to make sure. Thanks for helping. Next time I will make sure I have all the info prior to uploading a pic. Hope I didnt annoy u. Tut74749 21:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry

I removed the template on Aly+AJ on accident. I know it was vandalism.

Copyrighted Images on Personal Page

I removed them but please I need a full clarification from you of that matter if you don't mind. Omernos 02:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

All copyrighted images may only be used under a fair-use exemption. For example, we may use a promotional image of Nicole Kidman on an article specifically about her. Use of copyrighted images on your user page would also require justification under fair-use. However, Wikipedia has declared as policy that nobody is permitted to use copyrighted images on their user page. That is, even if you happen to have a fair-use rationale, Wikipedia has determined that you still may not use a copyrighted image. You are, however, permitted to use public ___domain and other such images. See WP:FAIR, the bit about "Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages". --Yamla 02:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Yamla for the clarification. It's good to learn! I won't use any fairuse images on my userpage. And I'll try to spread awareness if possible. Thanks again. Omernos 02:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Adrienne Barbeau

Was wondering if you'd mind helping me out on this page. Just a user that I am having a hard time explaining concepts like NPOV to - he insists on using phrases like "remarkable" and "known for her breasts" about this actress - doesn't seem to realize that those are opinions, and if we print those, we have to acknowledge whose opinions they are. Also, one picture is definitely too big and also seems to be an issue. Thanks in advance Mad Jack 04:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I hope that does the trick Mad Jack 17:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Copyright violation about Jenn Rivell

Could you explain this more to me? I thought that screenshots from movies were okay to upload and use. Also, in the future you might want to provide a more descriptive edit summary or something because I wasn't sure who you were and why you were retagging the image. --Liface 22:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they are, but only to illustrate the movie. Here, you are using it to illustrate the person and that is not a valid use of a movie screenshot under fair-use and Wikipedia policy. --Yamla 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is Nelson M

I wanted to say that I am sincerely sorry about the changes on the India.Arie page. I misunderstood the addition of original research/ opinion. I hope that you won't block me. I sincerely apologize. I am very sorry. And as for the Ciara page, I did not know that the Reference.com was an older Wikipedia source, I thought it was different. Please reply to this message. Again I hope you don't block me. Thank You!!!

Reference.com clearly indicates that it uses Wikipedia as its source. However, as you seem to have discovered the problem, there's no reason for me to block you. It looks to have been an honest mistake. Now I just need to finish undoing your changes. --Yamla 01:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

From Nelson M

Thank you for giving me another chance. I will make sure to never, ever use Reference.com as a source again.

Another Message from Nelson M - Ashanti

Can you explain to me why some other people's information gets to stay posted up and mine does not, like on the Ashanti page on Voice, I do not see a source for the information.

A big part of the reason is not enough editors around to verify the information. Thanks for pointing that out, though. I have removed it. In general, if you find information like this that you think may not be true, one way of dealing with it is to add the following: {{fact}}. Information you know to be untrue can be removed right away. --Yamla 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lohan

Why is having the Lohan kids DOB irrelevant? I did not go into detail about one sibling on anothers page, I just said when that child was born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.196.156 (talk)

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't warned you about that nor have I reverted changes of that nature as far as I can see. Perhaps you are confused. --Yamla 15:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yamla,I am confused. Your name & comment was over my edit to the Lohans page, which is why I sent you a comment.

What is wrong with my NK edits? I am trying to made each section seperate so when 1 clicks edit they are able to edit just 1 section & not the whole article. I do preview it & thought it was okay, but it was not. The size of the headings ( which depends on how many equals are placed arounf the words) is what I am trying to figure out. I am not senselessly/ stupidly playng with her page.

Sandbox: will looking @ the page's changes thru 'sandbox' instead of 'show preview' help me not having to make so many revisions ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.196.156 (talk)

Please put your comments at the bottom of my talk page. Also, please do not bold everything. I still have no idea what you are talking about regarding Lindsay Lohan. I have not reverted any of your edits on that page and my comments on your discussion page are unrelated to Lindsay Lohan (and do not mention Lindsay Lohan). As to your Nicole Kidman edits, as I mentioned you have been removing the {{unverifiedimage}} tag from the image on that page. The image is unverified as it does not accurately identify the copyright holder or provide detailed fair-use rationale. You have been removing this tag without resolving the copyright issues with the image itself. As to the sandbox, I'm not sure if it will help you compared to "show preview". It is meant to be used to try out areas you are unfamiliar with, such as figuring out how to add an image, without actually modifying a real article. --Yamla 15:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

(1)Yamla,as requested, this is at the bottom. However, I bold for it is easier to see.

(2)Forget the LL questions. Another user must have sent them to me.

(3)NK unverified image: I checked & you are referencing the NK pic at the top of the page of NK in a red dress. I never deleted any tag or naything from this pic. What I did delete was a link for a NK pic that did not work. This link was further down the NK wiki page. Are you a imdb administrator (*correction wikipedia administrator) for your words are very harsh ("blatant vandalism"; "you will be banned").

You quite clearly did remove the unverifiedimage tag. See here and here. You were warned about this and continued doing it, that's why I added the harsher warning. Note that the warning was a standard template, not something I wrote. I don't know why you are asking if I am an imdb administrator as this has nothing whatsoever to do with imdb. --Yamla 16:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I mistyped. I meant are you a wiki administrator bc of your harsh sounding messages (("blatant vandalism"; "you will be banned".)?

When I first edited the NK page, there was no unverified image tag standard template. What I deleted was this: -->File:Http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Nicole kidman2.jpg <-- look here: [6]. I checked subsequent editions since then and I see what you mean.

Scottsdale Pictures

All the pictures are listed at the side, however, I did not realize it does not apply to local governments, I will change the license. Steel87 10:05, 26 June

Trisha Krishnan

Hello, Yamla, I have a small problem over at Trisha Krishnan's article: User:Thala keeps changing her picture to one with an improper copyright status, source and copyright tag. We have a completely fine picture of the actress (one where she doesn't make a funny face even) with copyright information and correct tag. I tried to talk to User:Thala as you can see on his talk page, but to no avail. Could you try it, please? --Plumcouch 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am upset

I cnnot stand people like you If u got somethin to say mail me it.Tired of u. Mind yo own business. Get down or sit down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakim67 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I cannot understand what you are trying to say. --Yamla 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tom Ford Vanity Fair Cover

Im not sure if you would look at the article again but, how is this different from using it for Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley? Its the exact same thing except that Tom Ford was more heavily criticized being the creative artist of this photo and cover. He caused more controversy than both of the actresses together --Shrek05 15:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles on Johansson and Knightley specifically discuss the magazine cover, the article on Tom Ford does not. To be clear, I'd like more detailed discussion of the magazine in both of the women's articles, but that's why I have my objection. The use of the image in the Tom Ford article would just be to depict Mr. Ford, not to illustrate the controversy as the article currently stands. --Yamla 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lost (TV series)

Huh? Why did I get a rather aggressive msg from you? I haven't editted anything to do with this "lost" series, I don't even know what it is. Stop being so pedantic and randomly accuse people of things they haven't done: "Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Lost (TV series). It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox."

See here. --Yamla 13:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:Christina_promo.jpg

Hi Will you just delete it? When I find the source, copyright holder and a proof it's from a promotional kit I will reupload a new one. You don't have to revert what I edit on my talk page. I got the message, 17:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding user:Nelson m

Though it may be irritating, inserting uncited info is not vandalism, and so it shouldn't be reverted using the administrators' rollback feature (nor should test warnings be left on the user's talk page). Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, inserting copyrighted images without fair use rationale [7] [8] isn't vandalism either, and the blocking policy says nothing about users who have inserted images without fair use rationale into articles. In relation to images, users can only be blocked if they don't specify the copyright holder and status, and the description page for Image:Ciara Goodies Music Album Cover.jpg has identified those things. Because of this, I am requesting that you unblock ATL Boi (talk · contribs). Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, copyrighted material vandalism is considered vandalism. See Types of Vandalism. Additionally, if we allow editors to continue uploading copyright-violating images with no chance of blocking them, what possible reason would they have to stop? Fair-use rationales for copyrighted images aren't optional niceties (see WP:IDP). I'll try to be more careful with uncited info, however. I try hard to warn with {{Please cite|article}} first at least. --Yamla 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding entry:Celebrity

Why did you delete the external link to Who's Alive and Who's Dead on the Celebrity page? What Wikipedia Policy did it violate? I think it is quite informative as to whether or not a celebrity is alive or dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sccosel (talk • contribs)

The information is (or should be) already available in the Wikipedia itself. See WP:EL for the policy that it violated. --Yamla 02:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

So, let me understand something... An external link that would be useful to all readers of an article can't be used if it "should be" on Wikipedia, but isn't? The person that updates the information on the webpage pointed to by this external link is extremely prompt in keeping it updated. S/he just isn't doing it on Wikipedia. So, just because they aren't maintaining constantly changing information on Wikipedia, the link shouldn't be in Wikipedia? And, what gives you the right to "police" (or maybe even a harsher word is in order) Wikipedia? --Sccosel 02:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did you read WP:EL? Also, please see Category:Living people and Category:Dead people. --Yamla 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I corrected your Category links. I guess the Living people category is ok, but the Dead people category is not presented as well as Who's Alive and Who's Dead and it is not as complete. I only see categories for entertainers. You seem to be too strict and hardline in your judgements of "appropriate" content on Wikipedia. --Sccosel 03:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:Trisha

So sorry about that. Rest assured, it wont happen again. =) Btw, I dont really understand what you mean by providing a detailed fair use rationale. Umm, I got that picture from the picture gallery of the movie I found at this [9]. Hariharan91 16:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, you've now provided a detailed fair-use rationale. Unfortunately, it is not accurate. The image is being used to depict the actress, not the character, and thus is not fair-use. --Yamla 17:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That image depicts the character of the actress in the film. I've seen the film. That's how she looks like in the film.

Heads up

While scanning through the disputed fair use image page, I came across an image linked to Sally Ann Howes. If you look, you'll see a ton of articles with copyright issues. I tagged a few of them, but it's been a long day and I'm done for now. : )

Secondly, the user who uploaded the images on that page, User:Jennyarata, seems to have uploaded quite a few images with dodgy copyright info. Since you seem to be all over situations like this, I thought you might want to investigate. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Chris Brown's whole biography is copyrighted

Yamla, Chris Brown's whole biograpy was copied and pasted from here. And if I'm not mistaken isn't that copyrighted material, and shouldn't it be removed? (Do It - To It 00:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC));Reply

This is clearly false. --Yamla 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image copyright problems

I'm real sorry for all the trouble i've caused. As you can see, I just recently started my edits on Wikipedia and I'm still learning. I've corrected the information on the images I've uploaded and i've also added {{db-author}} to certain images that already exist. By the way, I did not upload Image:Trishakrishnan2.jpg. It was uploaded by someone else. Sorry again. It won't happen again. Now, since i've done what you've asked me to do, please do unblock me. Xena4441 18:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You should already be unblocked. Please let me know if this is not the case. --Yamla 16:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Xena4441 07:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

On Laura San Giacomo pictures

Hi! I need to understand something: you say that movie screenshots used to depict the actor rather than the character or movie do not qualify as fair use. Fine by me. Still, how come that the Nicole Kidman article has an image from the Hours? Or Tom Cruise article etc ? These pictures should be deleted as well, then. Otherwise, the Giacomo picture from The Stand should also be acceptable. By the way, do magazine covers qualify as fair use images (to be used to depict actors, that is)? I'm really confused with some of the copyright parametres. Xanthi22 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just because another article is doing the wrong thing does not grant permission for another article to also do the wrong thing. But let us take a look at the two articles. Nicole Kidman, four images. First one is licensed under the Creative Commons. The second, from the movie, The Hours, is used specifically to depict the movie. The article goes out of its way to note that she got an Academy Award for this movie. The image is being used to depict the movie. Next image, Creative Commons. Final image from a music video. Again, there's substantial discussion of this music video in the article. The image is being used to depict the music video. Now, on to Tom Cruise, six images. First is licensed under Creative Commons. The next one is from Top Gun. Note that there is, once again, substantial discussion of this movie in the article. As a result, it is fair-use. Next, a screenshot from War of the Worlds. Again, there's a whole paragraph of discussion about this movie and the image is illustrating the movie. Next image is licensed under Creative Commons. The next image is clearly a copyright violation as it stands. It is marked as such. The last is from Oprah. There's a whole section on Cruise's Oprah appearance. This is clearly fair use, though the image is marked as missing a rationale at the moment. Note that in none of these cases was a film screenshot used to depict the actor, only as a picture of the film under discussion. It's a somewhat subtle point. Also note that the leading image, typically used to present an image of the actor, should not be from a film. Because, as noted, the leading image (the first one on the page) is used to depict the actor, not the film. --Yamla 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

And no, magazine covers may be used to illustrate the particular issue of the magazine in question, not to depict the actor. However, take a look at Keira Knightley. There's substantial discussion of the particular issue of Vanity Fair (where Knightley appears) and so this qualifies as fair use; it is being used to depict magazine and only coincidentally the actor. --Yamla 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay

Ok, now I get it. You're right. Sorry for giving you a hard time. The difference is quite subtle but perfectly understandable.

Thanks! Xanthi22 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Om Shanti Om(film)

Dear Yamla,

A new article regarding a Hindi movie to be directed by Farah Khan named Om Shanti Om(film) was recently created. The thing is, this movie has already been named Happy New Year!!! and the article for the film in question has already been created. Look here. The person who created the page for Om Shanti Om must have been looking at the incorrect information provided by the July edition of the Filmfare magazine. See here. I think the article for Om Shanti Om should be deleted or redirected. I leave this in your hands. Thank You. 60.48.223.50 10:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, i'm the user who created the page for the new movie. I did this based on the second link above [10]. The first link above is based from 2004, whilst the second one is from 2006, so that is more likely to be authentic. I would tend to leave the page as is till more information is obtained. - unni 15:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Infoboxes

If removing a picture from an infobox, please take care to only delete the file name and caption, not the field for the file name and caption. --TheTruthiness 16:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

X-Americans (the ethnicity-American lists/categories)

Yamla, I'm just curious, where do you stand on the whole "labelling" as X-American thing? I've recently sourced a majority of these lists to include only people who have been described specifically as "X-American" (or "X" - if they are American) by reliable sources i.e. as opposed to "X grandmother", "X descent", etc. citing a part of the no original research policy, which states that we cannot combine A (i.e. a definition of X-American) with B (a statement that says Person 1 has an X grandmother) to create C (Person 1 is therefore X-American). Do you agree on this? It's been a major help in tightening up the pages and takes away the right of Wikipedians to decide who they think/do not thing should be on these lists, most of which borders on original research. There is currently also a discussion on this here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_deductive_reasoning_original_research.3F. Hope to here from you on this subject Mad Jack 18:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

What I am about to say is not Wikipedia policy. It is instead my opinion. Also note that I was born in England and have spent most of my life in Canada, though I am not yet a Canadian citizen. This may colour my opinion somewhat. Let's take the example of British-Canadian because it is one I am most familiar with. :) In my opinion, a person can be described as British-Canadian if they hold dual U.K. and Canadian citizenships. In this case, it wouldn't matter how the person describes themselves. A person may also be described as British-Canadian if they describe themselves this way and there's at least some basis to accept this. If I claimed to be British-Canadian, Wikipedia should generally accept this because I was born in England and because, although not a Canadian citizen, I have spent much more than half my life in Canada. (For the record, I do not generally describe myself this way). My little brother, born in Canada to British parents, could probably be described as British-Canadian if he describes himself this way. If he does not and assuming he holds only Canadian citizenship, I do not believe Wikipedia should list him as British-Canadian due to WP:NOR. What about someone with a single grandparent who is British? Again, does the person describe themselves as British-Canadian? What about someone with some vague ancestor who was British? Well, in this case, I think it is silly to describe the person as British-Canadian but if this information was cited, I wouldn't remove it. This is actually more often the case with someone of, say, Irish ancestry. It is occasionally relevant and really, if the person describes themselves that way, that's how they identify themselves. Even if they are wrong. :) Okay, so what about someone with one British parent, born in Canada, who does not describe themselves as British-Canadian (or for which no reliable citation can be found)? No. In my opinion, there is no basis to add the person into the category. They don't describe themselves this way, no reliable source describes them this way, and they hold only one citizenship. Two important points to note... Native tribes (pardon me if this is the wrong term) have their own definitions for who is part of their tribe. Some require 50% or higher blood to belong. Others require 12.5%. Some require but a single drop of blood. Again, in this case, I'd say the person belongs in the category if they describe themselves thusly or another reliable source can be found. The other matter is Jewish people. Being Jewish is both a racial description and a religious description. Also, the whole matter of Israel makes it also a national description. I may be a Jewish person "simply" by converting to Judaism, no matter what my nationality or birth. I mention this only because a lot of people describe themselves as "Jewish-American". SO, in summary: a person belongs in the category only if they hold dual-citizenship or describe themselves thusly, or if a reliable source can be found to cite the description. Otherwise, the person does not belong. --Yamla 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yamla, that is completely correct and the way it should be done. However, I will add that if a reliable source describes the person as "Whatever", that is fine. So, if The New York Times says "Keira Knightley is Jewish", we presume they checked their facts and we can put her in there (she isn't, I guess, but I am giving an example). Does this seem reasonable? And I would appreciate your contributions on the linked discussion, because it seems many people are leaning towards describing anyone as "X-American" because of their grandmother, etc. Mad Jack 19:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your input. It may be that in America, things are somewhat different in that the X American label is applied to people on a descent basis, which accords with the definition of Irish American in reputable refrerence works: "an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland" without specifying that they were born to Irish parents, were born in Ireland or identified as Irish. Arniep 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, arniep, allow me to quote this, from the NOR page, again: "But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion." So, to paraphrase: In an article about whether or not Person X is an Irish-American, Arniep is saying that, given a certain definition of Irish-Americans, that person is Irish-American. Regardless of the fact that Arniep's opinion appears to be supported by certain definitions of Irish-American, it remains Arniep's opinion. It must be supported by sources that express this opinion on the person themselves. Mad Jack 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Me again

Hey, sorry, it's me again! You mentioned the pictures in the article about Keira_Knightley. The headshot is depicting the actress in a movie screenshot (and of course, there is no reference to this movie in the introductory paragraph). You told me headshots of actors should not be from screenshots from films/TV. Secondly, it is a copyrighted image (as the uploader admits), it is high resolution etc. And it's okay in his case? Just because the uploader basically says: Hey, it's copyrighted and may be from a film but I'm using it to demonstrate the actress in it, so I think it's fair use, blah blah blah. It's like, okay, if you use a fair use rationale like this, which basically says something like "oh, I think we can use, it's fair use", everything is finally justifiable even though in essence it makes no difference from NOT saying it and still violates all of the copyright parametres. It's like we are deceive ourselves willingly. No essential difference, just a fair use rationale with no real practical significance. It doesn't make sense. And this guy did with to other images, too. Please, check out the Knightley image and explain me.

P.S.: Sorry if this came out aggressively now, but I'm not confronting you or something. I just don't think that the copyright system in Wikipedia makes sense because it does not follow any real consistency that carries some weight and importance with it. -- Xanthi22 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, the image in Keira Knightley was indeed being used to depict actress rather than to illustrate the film. I have removed it. Please note that there are probably hundreds of such copyright violations. I fix the ones I notice and have time to fix but there's simply no way I can get to them all. --Yamla 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hrithik Roshan

Hello, Yamla. Something really weird has happened: as I'm writing this, the entire artice for actor Hrithik Roshan has disappeared (along with it's history). The talk page is still there, though. Since you're an admin, maybe you can "see" things on that page I can't. Can you check what happened to it? (I'm still hoping it's just a temporary server glitch ...). Best regards, --Plumcouch 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. It was vandalised basically to a blank page, then nominated for speedy deletion and deleted (by another admin) overly fast. --Yamla 03:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mena Suvari

I noticed you put unverified tags on the images in the Mena Suvari article but I couldn't find them on the unverified image page. Could you tell me what the problem with them is? Dismas|^(talk) 10:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Neither have detailed fair-use rationales for their use in that page. --Yamla 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks but I don't understand completely. The second image has a few rationales for its use on the image description page. If that's not good enough, what needs to be there? Dismas|^(talk) 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, the second image does have a detailed fair-use rationale but the image is actually being used to depict the actress, not to provide critical comment about the film itself. For that reason, no fair-use rationale is possible. The first image is again being used to depict the actress rather than to publicise the movie. As such, we cannot use a publicity picture for a movie. A good example of a detailed fair-use rationale is Image:Knightley - Johansson - Vanity Fair.jpg --Yamla 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. You've proven to me that I should never even touch an image relating to a celebrity or movie because the process is just much more trouble than its worth. I'm not a lawyer and don't intend on going to law school just so I can add images to articles. I don't understand legalese and I don't intend to try. Dismas|^(talk) 00:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Proper Image Information

I noticed a bunch of my uploaded images were tagged for deletion. I was just wondering what all information I need to keep them here? -- Jay 04:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll check it out, thanks for all you're help, I was worried for a sec there! Thanks again. -- Jay 04:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Help!!!!!!

How do I upload images? What is a source filename? I'm confused! Please reply a.s.a.p.! -MCRGIRL

Check out WP:Image and more specifically, Wikipedia:Uploading images. I hope that helps! --Yamla 02:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tpgracesnl.jpg

go ahead and delete the image. found no use for it.Myrockstar 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Playgirl

Was just moving the image to playgirl since I deleted it from Brad Pitt didn't want to offend the person who uploaded it.Myrockstar 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Besides if you said it yourself on the image "Image may ONLY be used to illustrate the publication of the issue in question. It may not be used to illustrate the magazine generally and may not be used solely to depict the actor in question. " Why was it removed from the Playgirl article where it clearly makes mention of it. Myrockstar 07:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

While there is no doubt that the image would be appropriate on the article about Playgirl, it does need a detailed fair-use rationale. You are right that the article makes explicit mention of that particular issue. --Yamla 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:Wmagcovbrad.JPG

There is now a mention of the notable event for which I intended to use the image in question on the article of Brad Pitt. Myrockstar 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

That looks good to me. You have done a good job, Myrockstar. --Yamla 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:Nrview.jpg

You said "Was being used to depict person, not to talk about that episode of The View." Thats exactly right, I used to image to depict Nicole Richie and not the episode of the view. If I am wrong in putting the image, please direct me to the place where it says it's only correct to use an image of a television show to talk about the show itself. Myrockstar 09:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure. See Image:Nrview.jpg. The license itself says "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or the program and its contents". Note specifically that it does NOT allow you to use it solely to depict the person involved, as it was being used. You could place the image lower down in the page, attached to a section which specifically discusses her appearance on The View. But you cannot use it as the main image depicting Ms. Richie. --Yamla 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, thank you for pointing that out, I'll try harder to find a correct image.Myrockstar 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just asking

Dear Yamla, I've provided a new fair use rationale for this image. I hope you could check it out for me and tell me whether it's correct. Thanking you in advance! Hariharan91 11:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is good if and only if the image is being used to illustrate the movie, not the actress. That is, it could be used on the movie's page. It could also be used on the actress's page attached to a section (not at the top) which goes into detail about the movie. That is, a paragraph or so of why that movie was particularly relevant to the actress's career. The image cannot be used solely to depict the actress, however, no matter what the fair-use rationale says. --Yamla 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can I place this image in the Filmography section of the Trisha Krishnan article? Hariharan91 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

No. It can only be used if there's a substantial discussion of that movie on the Trisha Krishnan page. A paragraph several lines of text would probably suffice. At the moment, there isn't anything like that there. --Yamla 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:Aly & AJ - On The Ride (Concert DVD) - Front Cover.jpg

I don't understand what the problem with this image is? It's the official cover used to illustrate the DVD article in question (On The Ride (Concert DVD)). You said I needed a 'detailed fair-use rationale', but I thought that the {DVDcover} tag was sufficient for DVD covers? Was I out of line by adding 'Cut-down from original size, considered Fair Use to illustrate the proper articles', and should I just remove that, and it'll be ok? Please explain what's wrong with having it in the article. Thank You. Jay 20:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's a general license. It needs a note indicating that it is used in that article to illustrate the publication of the DVD, etc. Consider: you are uploading it and using it in just that one place. But what if someone else comes along and adds it to ten other articles? It would be hard to tell if the image was being used fairly in each place without the detailed fair-use rationale for each use. --Yamla 20:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

How's this:

"Official DVD cover of the 2005 Aly & AJ release On The Ride (Concert DVD).
Considered Fair Use to be used in any article to illustrate Aly & AJ or the Aly & AJ release On The Ride (Concert DVD)
as long as no profit is made, and
it is used only to properly illsutrate the article." Does that hit the mark? Jay 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

To properly illustrate the DVD in question. :) The rest looks good. --Yamla 23:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

All right, I'll add that info and return the DVD Cover to the article. Thanks a lot for all you're help. I appreciate it. Jay 01:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Signed comments

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I understand what you mean, but it didn't even occur to me that it was a problem until you told me. I'll leave it in future, if there are people who can't spell, that's their right ;-) thanks Rossrs 14:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem man.

It might look a little skimpy now, but it will grow as the rest of the article matures. Cheers. --P-Chan 19:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry !!

Hello Yamla, I'm French (so I'm sorry because maybe you won't understand all what I say !!)

In the T.I.'s article, I wrote the King album was Double Platinum (and it's wrong). It's a mistake and I didn't want to be a vandalist. I'm sorry !! Thanks.

86.195.125.203 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Pfeiffer

Thanks, it is a great pic. I added a source - I hope that's ok. Mad Jack 02:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

T.I.

Is there anyway you can protect T.I.'s page from vandalism?? 68.154.15.86 02:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but it's only meant to be used for a short time. And as you are an anonymous user, it'd also block you. :( --Yamla 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just made a screenname :) Bad Chick 05:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:Sonblue 02.jpg

In an attempt to "not scare off the newbies" I've added some information to the talk page for an image uploaded by User:Vinaixa67: Image:Sonblue 02.jpg. With luck it will be some help and that user will be able to get the rest of the way on his/her own. Hope this is useful. Crypticfirefly 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

How did vadilize the Paris Hilton page. I added her album cover. How is that vandilizim plus the info for the Paris album cover is all true.

Did you even look at the preview? And the information on the image page is missing the detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 23:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

How do I make it fit in the preview box on the Paris Hilton Page?

Use of Copyright Images on Personal Pages

I don't know how you got to find that I used Copyrighted images on my user page, but you need to use this method more to find more people who are using copyrighted images on their user pages and note them. User:Translucid2k4 is using some, I don't know how the user didn't get noted yet while I got the warning directly. -- Omernos 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Trisha Krishnan picture (again) sigh

Hello, Yamla. User:Thamizhan has uploaded two picture: the copyright-violating one of actress Trisha Krishnan and one for a movie, Thirumalai. Both fair use rationales state that a Venu Arvind, who is once credited as cinematographer and photographer. I googled the hell out of the web to determine if this claims are true, but didn't find anything. (There's a TV actor named Venu Arvind but that's it.) From my POV, User:Thamizhan has added wring copyright information so he can keep his pictures. Could you talk to him, please? --Plumcouch 11:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

A question

Hello, I have a question. I list some foreign language sites as references to an article. Should I use the original sites as links or should I use the translated sites (via Google)? The translation is occasionally very awkward, but still, it is the only solution for someone who doesn't know, say, French but wants to click on the links and read them.Thanks in advance -- Xanthi22 22:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The correct answer is that you should search for an English language article which references the information. Barring that, though, the best answer is to link to the French site, noting that the link is to a French article, possibly providing a secondary link to the google translation. But the primary link should be to the original article. --Yamla 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yamla

I dont understand. Why does this image have copyright problems. I just copied the same thing that was on this image. Why is it that only my image has been tagged with several copyright and non fair-use tags whilst the other one is going to remain there? 60.48.218.22 06:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please don't compare one image to another. I'm not at all convinced that the image of Trisha Krishnan is valid and Wikipedia is filled with many images used dubiously. --Yamla 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for keeping the Merrill Lynch page safe and blocking Pittrader !

--Ray 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Guess what: copy vio again

Hello, Yamla, it's me again. There have been problems with User:Kadavul over at Ajith Kumar's article. The guy keeps adding a copyvio picture time and again. I have written messages into my edit summary and one onto his talk page, but to no avail. Also, he has edited the filmography and added instead of roles the actor plays, all his co-stars. I remember an edit war between fans of Ajith Kumar and Joseph Vijay who have been doing this to "prove" their actor is better, because he/she has worked with "better" co-stars. I really don't want that to happen again. Could you talk to Kadavul? Thanks a ton. --Plumcouch 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC) PS. Sorry to bother you all the time.Reply

I'll take a look at it. --Yamla 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The picture I have problems with is this one: [11]. When you scroll down, you'll see a small note with URLs which indicates *why* I doubt the copyright status of that pictures. --Plumcouch 11:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your recent edit to Dr. Allison Cameron

You removed all the images... which qualify under WP:Fairuse#Images with the comment "Removed images without detailed fair-use rationales." Could you please explain what you mean/want? I've noticed that images of this character have been removed before and in my opnion it is fundemental to the article to identify the person with a picture... so if there's somthing I could do to make the images stick, please let me know. I've temporarily reverted you because I think it is that important to the 'pedia to have these images. Crazynas^t 15:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

All copyrighted images must have a detailed fair-use rationale and this is clearly spelled out by the license. See this bit on fair-use rationales. At the moment, these images are copyright violations but I'll let them stand because it is likely that at least one can be justified properly. --Yamla 16:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

About Image:KaciBrownYamaha.jpg

Please do not confuse me with User:Ae 3, whom you blocked for one month, when you read my comment. Since I have marked the image with the {{Promotional}} tag and placed the URL of the web page in the image description page, should the changes to remove the image from Kaci Brown be reverted, or should I nominate the image for speedy deletion as a copyvio because 48 hours have not yet passed and it is not used in Kaci Brown? Jesse Viviano 17:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll mark it with {{orfud}} and if it isn't used within seven days, it will be deleted automatically. In my opinion, it can now be added back to the Kaci Brown article, though that particular article isn't on my watchlist. If you want to do that, please go ahead and then remove the ophaned tag. Thanks for tracking down the source! --Yamla 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Jennifer Aniston

I don't know if you have a problem with deleting photos, because alot of the topics in here are about photos, but if (promophoto) isn't a good enough liscensing tag, then what is? Does Wikipedia have to be such a tight ass dealing with pictures, that any picture that isnt uploaded correctly should be deleted? I mean seriously. Wikipedia has lost a great number of liscencing tags when you upload an image, which makes it harder and harder to find one to use. So if you can find a good enough tag, to use for the Jennifer Aniston image I uploaded, so people could see what she looked like, i'd really like to hear some feedback. --koolgiy 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I'm not sure which image you are referring to. {{Promophoto}} is a perfectly fine tag provided that the copyright holder is identified, provided evidence is given showing that the image came from a promotional kit or otherwise was specifically released for promotion, and provided a detailed fair-use rationale is listed for every use of the image in a Wikipedia article. Most of this is explained in the subst'ed license text itself. One problem is that people (though not necessarily you) often just use that tag for images that were not released for promotion, or fail to include a detailed fair-use rationale for their use. --Yamla 01:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok if thats not a good tag, and I don't think that was from a promo kit, (It was froma photo shoot, unfortunatley there isn't a tag for photo shoots) then I dont know what tag will work. If you can find one put it on.--koolgiy 01:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yamla

Welcome

Archive

2006

July

June

Skittles Lover

Marking of 202.156.6.54 as a sock

RE:Image problems

Edgovan20 and sockpuppets

Thanks

MySpace

Thanks

Sorry

Image deletions

Miss Ciara (talk · contribs)

I Know

Processing

You deserve an apology

external link

IP addresses

Fair Use Pictures

Changing some pages...opinion?

Message from 67.72.98.81

blocking 67.72.98.86

Angelwear

Sorry

Stargrl576

????

Katie Holmes

MostWanted05 is on a war path

Clerks II Posters

Aishwarya Rai Picture

Guess my Name Contest

Image --Yxa.blod.Keira.Knightley.JPG

Red Hair

house picture.

Original research

3RR

New User

Picture

Pictures

More Pictures

Emmy Rossum photo

Blanking page

Rachel Greene

Actually...

Tool Talk

Transformers (animated series) images

Vandalism

Joseph Vijay

Spam

Re: Fair use

Nexopia source

Barnstar

Scientology Link

Re: vandalism.

BLOCKING

An unusual WP:3O Request

Fair use

Gripes

Your new threats

User:SKITTLES

Help needed

Blocks

Fair use

Lindsay Lohan

Ciara

Sneha Ullal

Sorry

Copyrighted Images on Personal Page

Copyright violation about Jenn Rivell

This is Nelson M

From Nelson M

Another Message from Nelson M - Ashanti

Lohan

Scottsdale Pictures

Trisha Krishnan

I am upset

Tom Ford Vanity Fair Cover

Trisha Krishnan picture (again) sigh