Misplaced Pages

User talk:Yamla: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:20, 18 November 2006 editChadbryant (talk | contribs)3,589 edits →User:Chadbryant← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:56, 12 January 2025 edit undoBusterD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,975 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 49.195.3.58 (talk) to last revision by FloquenbeamTags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{busy}}<!-- First bout of COVID, made it almost five years -->
{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
|-
|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''3''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
|-
|}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Yamla/Archive_8--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->


{{User:MiszaBot/config
==Archive==
|maxarchivesize = 64K
|counter = 46
|algo = old(3d)
|archive = User talk:Yamla/Archive %(counter)d
}}


{{archive box|image=]|
* ] (from ], ] - ], ])
* ] (from ], ] to ], ]) * ]
* ] (from ], ] to ], ]) * ]
* ] (from ], ] to ], ]) * ]
* ] (from ], ] to ], ]) * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* }}


==Piotr Kamler page==
== ] ==
Hi, Yamla. I just created a stub for Polish film director ]. The page name came with a warning that another page under that name had been removed by you in 2015 because it was created by a banned user in 2015. I couldn't find a reference to it in your logs so I proceeded, but thought it best to check and see if there is any issue I am missing. I believe my stub is all original content. ] ]


== About reference ==
Kareena Kapoor's birthday is on the 21/09/1980, but its says on the page 1977 which is wrong. Please check the internet and change it back. {{unsigned|Kartikey12}}


I want to clear some doubts i agree i made some disruptive edits on 1991 killing and Har krisha which was reverted and i didn't edit that page again but can you explain me how i made disruptive edit on Punjab king's As I said earlier, I only changed the words and there was no source mentioned even before my edit on ]. ] (]) 14:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:In that case, please provide a reliable source for your claim. See ], ], and ]. It is ''your'' responsibility to provide this when making the change. Thanks. --] 17:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:You added new content. You are required to cite that content. That the previous, different information was unsourced is not an excuse. --] (]) 15:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::okay i will keep that in mind Just last question like page When I edit the list of battle or list of Sikhs page, Do I have to mention reference?, Because this is type of page are just list where people and Battles are mentioned, which already have Misplaced Pages pages. ] (]) 15:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::and i am not making any excuse it's just i feel block warning was not necessary in Punjab king case ] (]) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages policy '''requires''' citations "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." (]) --] (]) 15:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Okay i think it's help me to improve thank you ] (]) 15:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kareena_Kapoor&oldid=87766464


] from the past month (December 2024).
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/kareenas-goa-bday-blast--wish-her/22098-8.html


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
http://server1.msn.co.in/Profile/KareenaKapoor.asp
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
The first one is wikipedia's own old page, which says her b'day is in 1980. I have a diehard fan of hers, this is the first time in 5 years that I have seen a website claiming her birthday is in 1977. MSN is also very reliable.{{unsigned|Kartikey12}}
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. ibnlive is claiming she was born in 1981. It says she is celebrating her 26th birthday in 2006. Your first birthday is when you are born. So that does not help. The msn link is at best a tertiary source and does not seem to meet the criteria under ]. The information it provides is probably accurate but we need a better source. Thanks. --] 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
No, your first birthday is one year after you are born. If what you are saying is true, then i am born in 1992 and i am not. Also, IBN have their own news channel which is one of the most widely watched in India, they are not just some small news channel they are very big and their website is very popular.
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
http://www.kareina.info/kareena_section/background.asp
:] {{hlist|class=inline
http://celebs.ceeby.com/actresses/KareenaKapoor.cfm
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
I would also like to see where you saw that she was born in 1977, i only saw imdb, and that is wrong because it says abhishek bachchan b'day is 1965, and he was born in 1976. {{unsigned|Kartikey12}}
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
:These citations are ''most definitely'' not reliable. I will remove the date of birth from that page until someone can provide a reliable citation as per ]. --] 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
== ] ==
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
Hi, Yamla. You recently removed this image from the '']'' article, saying that it lacked the required detailed fair use rationale. The image page ''does'' have a four-point rationale on its page — what more would be required in order to keep the image? (I'd like to learn.) —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
:The rationale is only for ], not ]. If a picture of this companion contributes meaningfully to the article on ], a rationale for use there must be added. It is not at all clear that it was contributing meaningfully to that article and the article is already quite long. --] 18:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->


== IP block exemption ==
::The rationale says that she is a main character in the programme, and there's a short paragraph at ] about her. I don't really feel strongly that this ''particular'' image should be included, especially since the character has yet to appear in the series, but I ''do'' feel that it's important that an image of ''a'' companion appear in the article. It had previously included the image ], which does have a specific rationale for ''Doctor Who'' — would that be more acceptable?


I am not able to contribute to English Misplaced Pages because my IP address is used in an open proxy (sometimes I use mobile data, and it still shows the same that my IP is blocked for open proxy). I have been using English Misplaced Pages for more than 6 months and have made 7000+ edits and want to contribute more and more, but because of this problem, I am unable to do so. (I also mailed to Wikimedia stewards, and in reply they said that, to contact a checkuser directly ) In these circumstances, it will be very helpful for me if you grant me the IP address block exemption access and allow me to contribute to the English or global Misplaced Pages. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:blue; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">] <span style="color:#FC0;letter-spacing:-2px">❯❯❯</span>]</span> 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that the article has become very long, but I don't think that removing that image was necessarily the best way to start cutting. There are far more extraneous bits. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:Please clarify. That you are able to edit this page and that you have made 7000+ edits means that you are able to edit without ]. To be clear, I'm not accusing you or saying you are ineligible for IPBE, only that I'm unsure why you think you need it. Please clarify. --] (]) 22:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::@], I am able to edit this page because I used mobile data from another operator and was able to edit it, but in my home, where I use Wi-Fi, I am facing the issue that my IP is blocked for open proxy. I hope that you understand my situation. Mobile data is expensive in my country, so using it frequently is not easy for me. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:blue; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">] <span style="color:#FC0;letter-spacing:-2px">❯❯❯</span>]</span> 00:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== I'm confused as to why you deleted my topic ==
:::To be clear, the reason I cut the image is because it was missing a rationale for that particular article. Making the article shorter was just a side-effect. The image definitely does have a rationale, but for an entirely different article. It's clearly valuable in that other article but not so clearly valuable in the article on Doctor Who. With an appropriate rationale, I agree it would be appropriate to have an image of a companion. Ideally, it should be a companion significant enough to merit at least a full paragraph discussion in ]. Which specific companion is probably less relevant. --] 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi!
::::I've provided a specific rationale for ] and restored the image. I didn't realize that the rationale needed to be repeated for each article. Thanks for educating me. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


I've added a topic recently on the ] article's talk page. You then .
== c14u ==


I'm not an experienced contributor, so if I've broken some kind of Misplaced Pages rule, I would greatly appreciate it if you could tell me about it. As ], it came out as a bit aggressive to see my comment be deleted with no real explanation.
What happened? And I also noticed that her talk page was protected. Is there a chance we could unprotect it so we can discuss her unblocking?--''''']]''''' <sup>]</sup> 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Conversely, if you disagree with the comment itself, the place to discuss that is the talk page, and deletion doesn't seem like an adequate reaction.
:She was caught editing the Misplaced Pages from yet another anonymous IP address. The problem is that she is not on a static IP so it is easy for her to continue to violate Misplaced Pages's block. I am not the person who protected her talk page, that was ], but there's really no point unprotecting it. There's ''simply no chance'' of her being unblocked at the moment, and not for at ''least'' another year, not given her continued abuse (despite the block) of Misplaced Pages policies. And given her history of continuing to abuse Misplaced Pages while blocked, I think it is unlikely she will ever merit an unblock. This is on the basis that I can't imagine her leaving the Misplaced Pages alone (and thereby not violating her block) for a full year. That said, perhaps with another year or five of maturity, she'll smarten up, be willing to abide by Misplaced Pages policies, and be willing to contribute productively. --] 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for clarifying. I thought c14u created another sock again.--''''']]''''' <sup>]</sup> 04:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Have a great day,
== Congrats and thanks for the cupcake ==


Max ] (]) 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Hey Yamla. Long time no see. Congratulations on your milestone! :-) You do essential work to keep Misplaced Pages up to encyclopedical standards. Please, keep it up. Also, thank you for the cupcake and for your kind words. As usual, I'm at your disposal should you need any help. Cheers, ] 03:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:Please see what I left at the time on your talk page. You aren't permitted to edit articles or talk pages about the Arab-Israeli conflict as you are not an extended-confirmed user, except with a few small exceptions. That is, you haven't made enough edits yet to contribute in that controversial subject area. Again, please thoroughly read the material I left at the time on your talk page. --] (]) 02:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your answer.
== Jennifer Hawkins ==
::I've already read what you left on my talk page, and it makes no mention of talk pages at all. I also had a look at the page for ] which was linked, and nowhere could I find any mention of a ban on editing talk pages, let alone a systematic ban for all users that don't have enough privileges. In general, the snippet seems to mostly ask for good behaviour, which I believe I had. Maybe you posted the wrong snippet on my page? In any case, if you have a specific rule in mind, I would love to know where to read it in the documentation, I thrive to become a better Wikipedian.

::You also mention that I have restrictions as I'm not an extended-confirmed user, but from what I can see they seem to be automatically enforced, as I can't edit the page. Are you saying that the systematic ban from edititing the page is automatically enforced, but that there's a similar ban for the talk-page that high privilege users have to enforce by hand?
Hi! Isn't the photo you tagged as copyright violation a TV screenshot? I've seen that clip on several news shows and almost every entertainment tabloid show out there, not sure who would own the copyright. Would they all own the copyright? Or would that shopping mall own the copyright, or is it public domain since it was a public event? Can you help? {{unsigned|24.14.161.99}}
::Please don't see this as resistance to criticism or bad faith, I am truly confused as to what's happening, and from my perspective, looking at the snippet you left on my talk page and the page for ] only makes it seem like nothing in this situation should prevent me from writing in the talk page.

::Hopefully, understanding what I did wrong this time should help me avoid repeating the same mistake in the future ^^
:Which image? The original creator of the image would own the copyright, as a general rule. Subsequent news shows, etc., would ''not'' own the copyright unless it was transferred to them. If the photo does not identify the copyright holder, the image needs to be tagged as having no source. --] 05:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::Have a great day,

::Max ] (]) 06:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
==Please warn the users of the images==
:::Note that I'm not claiming you were editing in bad faith. I agree that you exhibited "good behaviour" and were clearly editing in good faith. You weren't aware of the restrictions, which is why I let you know. Specifically, check out ]. In that subject area, the "Extended confirmed restriction" applies. You are not yet an "extended confirmed" editor, meaning you are not permitted to edit in that topic area. That includes talk pages. Frankly, the standard template I left on your talk page does not do a great job of spelling this out so it's no wonder you were unaware. ] includes some additional information at the top (see "Warning: active arbitration remedies"), but I wouldn't expect people to notice that unless it was specifically brought to their attention. In summary, you need to avoid editing in that subject area until you are "extended-confirmed", which happens automatically on accounts at least 30 days old and which have made at least 500 edits. --] (]) 12:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

When you add an ] tag to an image, please consider adding these tags to the image caption:

<tt><nowiki>{{speedy-image-c|]}}<br />{{replacethisimage}}</nowiki>

I have found that it stimulates quick action in finding replacements. --] (or Hrothulf) (]) 12:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:Will do! It looks like someone made the effort to add a refu-c to the templated warning so this should basically just be a matter of copying and pasting. Thank you for the excellent suggestion. --] 15:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for telling me about the new {{]}} template. I just thanked ] for creating it. -] (or Hrothulf) (]) 15:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

== Incorrect 3RR warning given ==
Hello. I see you gave {{user|4.191.245.163}} a ] warning over ]. However, I had looked into the article issue from the ] and the anon was removing uncited negative information about a living person (which was being re-inserted by other editors). As you know, ] ''requires'' the removal of such uncited negative info, and such removals are ]. (I have just noticed that a source has been found for this, so it's somwwhat a moot issue now, but thought I should remind you of this anyway) Regards, ] 00:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:My apologies. It was always my intention that the editor understand that no 3RR violation had yet taken place, but I'll point out that no 3RR violation was about to take place either. --] 01:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

==Abbie Cornish==

I understand why you took down the picture there, but did you mean to take out the information regarding her affair with Ryan Phillipe? If so, why? This seems like legitimate information. If you did not intend to delete this, is it acceptable that I put it back up there?

]

:It is acceptable if you can find a reliable citation (not just the gossip magazines). Please see ] and ] before adding it back. If you can find a reliable citation, I'd love to have the information there. --] 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

==uploaded image==
I uploaded an image and im not sure if it is uploaded with the correct information needed. I dont know how to put the link to the photo in here. It is the image for this article, ]. If it is not correct please go ahead and delete it. Thanks. —] 01:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:I've removed the image. ] requires that we use freely-licensed images to depict living people, so we can't use this one because it is copyrighted and not freely-licensed. In general, when adding a copyrighted image to an article, you need to explain ''why'' it is fair to use it in that article. Why is it necessary to use an image at all? Why this particular image? Why not a free image? Why is it particularly unlikely that the copyright owner would take offense? You also stated that this was a promotional photo from an issue of XXL Magazine. We cannot use photos from inside a magazine, and promotional photos must come from a press kit. That is, you need to provide evidence that this came from a press kit (or promotional kit). Certainly, XXL Magazine would not be the copyright holder in that case. This is a lot of information to take in in one paragraph. If you'd like me to clarify any bit, please feel free to ask. As you can see, there's a lot of requirements. If it strikes you that Misplaced Pages seems to actively discourage copyrighted images with lots of policies and requirements, you are most certainly correct. We ''much'' prefer free images. --] 01:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What are some sources for "free images", is myspace considered as one? –-] 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:''Some'' of the images on myspace may be released under a free license, most aren't however. If you find an image which states it is released under most Creative Commons licenses or the GFDL or is public domain ''and'' the source of the image is reliable (so, fan sites claiming that images are public domain are ''not'' reliable, see ]), you have found a freely-licensed image. I estimate probably 99.5% of the images on the Internet are not licensed under a free license, however. The ] article has some links to a way to find freely-licensed content. Flikr can also be a source, though again most of the images there are not freely licensed. --] 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What info would I need to upload a cd cover from amazon.com? I've seen many album cover images with nothing but the link for the source. --] 02:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:It's a copyrighted image, so source (in this case, the name of the album), license, and detailed hand-written fair-use rationale justifying each use. Plus, it may only be used to depict the album. You can't use it, for example, to show what the singer looks like. --] 02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

== Possible sock of c14u ==

After comments left on my talk page from Tennislover, I checked out ]. It does seem like there's a similarity to c14u's original writing style. The user has transcluded a status template much like mine.... I'm also going to have someone from a Japanese Wikiproject check out here Japanese userpage.--''''']]''''' <sup>]</sup> 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:Yeap, this was a confirmed sockpuppet of the banned user. The account has been shut down and the contributions (mostly) deleted. I took a look at the Japanese user page but unfortunately, I cannot read Japanese. --] 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a good hypothisis from me. I didn't know for sure.] 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:Yeap, sure was. Please let me know if you find any others. --] 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I sure will. She doesn't really do a good job hiding herself.] 03:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

responding to the most recent messege: '''AMEN!'''] 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:I asked someone from WikiProject Japan to translate the userpage. Check out my talk page for details.--''''']]''''' <sup>]</sup> 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::I don't mean to be against the user's block or anything, but what exactly was the evidence against PPie?--''''']]''''' <sup>]</sup> 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:::In order not to give anything away, I'd rather discuss this via email. Please send me an email and I'll let you know. Not until tomorrow, though, as I'm signing off for the evening now. :) --] 04:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I sent the Japs an alert on .--''''']]''''' <sup>]</sup> 04:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


==A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes==
Hi. I was just looking over your revert on ], and followed the link to ] for the reason why. Do you mind if I reimplement that edit? It corrects the ] wikilink, and rightly removes the extra listing for an actor who guest starred on one episode of a series. I don't have to call it a revert, if that's helpful to you. (In fact, I really should work on fleshing out the substantive part of the article, but that's not a task for tonight.) I just thought I'd check with you first - don't want to get in the middle of a mess! ] | ] | ] 04:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:'''Absolutely'''. The key point, though, is that ''you'' would then be taking responsibility for the edit. So if for example redoing the edit introduced some slander or something, you would now be responsible. Not a problem here, of course, but I'm just letting you know. We don't let the edits from banned users remain but there's no problem having someone redo them. --] 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::I understand. Thanks! ] | ] | ] 05:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

==Lieutenant Dol Grenn/Gerzi==

I've removed all his comments from my talk page if it'll put an end to this nonsense. Cheers, ] 12:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you, I very much appreciate it. --] 15:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

== Fair Use ==

Could you explain to me what is this ''fair use''? I am sorry for that, but I really cannot understand what it means.
You see, I am from Poland and English is not my native language, so I sometimes can't understand what you mean. {{unsigned|Varda}}

:Please see ]. Thanks. --] 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

== Riya Sen Image ==

Hey dude, I have added a fair use rationale for the biopic on the article ]. Please take a look at it. And, oh, since I have removed the deletion tage from the image as advised on the tags (i.e. the tags mat be removed if provided with a fair use rational), I also have removed the line from the article page that says the image is scheduled for deletion. I also have changed the licensing information from screenshot to fair use in Riya Sen and Style (film). I also have looked for another image to be used (yes, using ]), and have done so. Well I admit that it didn't vary much, if any, in source and copyright status from the earlier one. But, I think before there is a replacable picture available it may stand. Please, check and advise. - ] 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:I already responded prior to this message, but just to be clear... ] prohibits the use of a fair-use image to depict a living person, so this still fails the criteria. We can't wait until a replacement image is provided, that's not sufficient grounds under ]. Additionally, this is a film screenshot so we cannot use a different license. And given that, we are not using the image to provide critical commentary on the film but rather, just to illustrate an actress. It still violates the license. I know you are working hard here and you definitely are editing in good faith, but the image still violates WP:FUC. Please feel free to ask for more detailed explanations. --] 18:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I was checking for the proper rationale I came upon ] - all copyright images from ], all depicting living persons, and all uploaded without a fair use rationale (well, alomost all). Either they have not been noticed or I am failing to see the point here. I thought, if the article expounds heavily upon one aspect of the subject matter then in case of a living person that particular aspect may be illustrated to enrich the informaiton further. Was I wrong? And, yes, I would like to take the opportunity and ask about the '''replacebility''' thing. What should I understand by that term? - ] 18:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) - (p.s. please don't quote me verbatim on my talk page, it looks a bit silly (hahaha), I know what wrote to you)

:They have not been noticed. There are in fact a large number of similar images currently in violation. It takes time to track them all down and tag them. ] was tightened up recently. It used to be permitted to use a fair-use (non-freely licensed) image to depict a living person (with appropriate rationale). This is no longer the case. As to what "replaceable" means, it really comes down to whether it would be reasonable for someone (not necessarily ''you'') to create a free image. For example, ''you'' may not own a particular car but if this car is or was sold, someone else may and could take an image. ''You'' may not be able to take a free image of a living person but someone else certainly could. In both cases, the fair-use image is replaceable. --] 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(In response to you comments) I think I met the ] on 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 (1 and 9 not being applicable in this instance). I have found nothing on living persons on the page. And, I don't see how the iamge may be replaced wthin the give time. If you check history of the article you will find that at list 3 contributors, including myself, have taken an attempt to provide a biopic for the subject (all revolving around Style the movie) and failed. Please, advise. - ] 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:Why does 1 not apply? Is the person dead? If so, I apologise. But if the person is still alive, criteria 1 most definitely applies. "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." If the person is still alive, the subject of the photograph still exists and a free equivalent "could be created that would adequately give the same information" (in this case, what the person looks like) simply by having someone take a picture of her, or having her agent release a promotional image under a free license. As to having the image replaced within the time, this follows from the current image violating ] so therefore, see the non-compliance section in WP:FUC. Images that fail WP:FUC must be deleted within 48 hours or 7 days, depending. --] 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But, ''FUC #1''' says nothing about if the person is dead or alive. If it does, I apologise. I have already stated in the rationale that it may be replaced if a free image is available, which may not be coming soon. Besides, according to the ] - "Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use... (8) An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." I '''did not''' do that, rather I uploaded an image that describes a significant event in the subject's life/career. - ] 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, it does. "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." A living person is a subject of the photograph that still exists. A dead person would be a subject of a photograph that no longer exists. I agree that it is not spelled out explicitly but I assure you this is how it is meant to be understood. As to your other point, that you are not using the image merely to show what she looks like, I disagree. The image is in the page's infobox and thus is definitely showing only what she looks like. If it was ''not'' in the infobox but instead was attached to a paragraph discussing that particular movie and that paragraph made specific note of what the character looked like, then it would be an example of an image not being used solely to depict the person. As of now, though, it is not attached to any such paragraph and in fact the article makes only passing reference to that movie. --] 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

== I'm here again ==

Is it possible to restore my user page and your comments on my discussion page again? ] 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:You asked to disappear. Why did you recreate this user account? If you plan to keep editing from this account (and no other), I can reverse the deletion but this is not something we generally do. --] 19:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

==Thanks!==
]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> awards this Barnstar to '''Yamla''' for hard work on anti-vandalism that makes Misplaced Pages better for everyone]]Thanks for the recent rvv! I appreciated it. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC) <br clear="all">

==A little help, please?==
If it's okay, I'm requesting assistance in dealing with the user ]. He continues to blatantly disregard civility and edit warring rules, despite warnings. Not only did he attack edits to the ] article (see page history) - but take a look at my talkpage, his talkpage (which he's been generously deleting things from ''against'' Wiki policy, I might add) and both the talkpage and user page for ]. Perhaps the voice of authority from an admin he's listened to before might calm him down a little? Cheers. ] 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:Thank you! ] 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::Ugh. He's done it again. Take a look at his talkpage, calling me a "kid", saying I'm being " being impudent to my betters", don't know "smack about smack", etc... this flame-baiting is getting ridiculous. He really needs another warning, or something, because he's not going to cease of his own accord, be it hostility directed towards me or anyone else. ] 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

== Nice cupcake, thanks ==

Yeah, sure. Nice cake. Loved the taste. I really appreciate what you admins are doing here. Great job. Sorry about the "existing" thing, my page search with strings - "living" and "dead" overlooked it. Not a right procedure, I guess. But, I still have points of disagreement, if you are no already tired of arguing over one little picture of one indian starlet. They are:
#"...if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken", along with "...having her agent release a promotional image under a free license". Hahaha, you ever tried taking a picture of or talking to the agent of ] people? I did. It's far from "simple" as you said.
#"The image is in the page's infobox and thus is definitely showing only what she looks like." Well, the caption said it showed the subject of the article featured in line with the subject of the image (i.e. Riya Sen in Style). That "definitely" doesn't count as a depiction of merely how she looks like.

Anyways, I have removed the offending image, and hoping for either a better rationale or freer image to appear. I intend to take this article as a case of becoming encyclopedic for myself. It still needs a lot of work.

And, oh, here are a few more '''fair use''' images you may like to take a look at. They fail more miserably than ] on the rationale for deletion you provided to me. It is only fair, otherwise, another poor soul may be misled by their existence and do the same mistake as I did.

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*Any picture uploaded by with a name that begins with '''''ac'''''
*Any picture uploaded by with a name that begins with '''''19'''''

Thanks again. - ] 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:I have not tried taking a picture of any celebrity, actually, but I have worked with some celebrities and non-celebrities to get a freely-licensed image for use on the Misplaced Pages. None of them were Bollywood actors or actresses, however. As to the infobox, these are used to provide basic information and to depict what the person looks like. If an image is to be used to provide critical commentary on a film, it needs to be attached to a paragraph providing that critical commentary. Often, an image which was attached to a paragraph and was fair-use there is moved up to the infobox but then must subsequently be removed for exactly this reason. Some of this stuff, unfortunately, is not explicitly spelled out. Other times, we try to spell something out (criteria #1 of WP:FUC) but people understandably read it differently than was intended. And then what about a situation where, say, the person is still alive but is in hiding? They still exist so a ''strict'' reading of #1 says we cannot use a fair-use image of them. But it's not reasonable to create a replacement. Now, try to write out a clear policy that will take ''all'' of these crazy situations into account, and you can see the problems. In the end, the only way to really go about things is with discussions like this, even though they take time. And thanks for noting the other image problems. I'll try to mark at least some of them when I have a moment.--] 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

== OK, I just wanted to know that ==

OK, I just wanted to know that because I'm a curious man. Ciao ] 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


== SJ revert ==
I think it comes off as a little elitist, and a tad creepy, that you immediately jump on this and throw it out citing the lack of a wikipedia article, as if that makes or breaks someone's notability. The band in question is internationally touring and signed. So to some extent they are artists with influence in pop culture. I understand you don't want vandalism, but what's the point of information exchange if interesting tidbits are left out? {{unsigned|Bachelor Steak}}

:Do they meet the notability criteria guidelines outlined in ]? --] 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

==Thanks==

For the advice and the response. I responded as well. I look forward to communicating with you in the future under more pleasant circumstances.

J.

==User:Chadbryant==
I apologize for bothering you about this but I noticed you have dealt with Chadbryant previously. I posted a warning on his talk page so that he will perform proper reversions, while also asking him to stop claiming that I am a sock puppet. He has refused to abide by either. Instead of a polite response he made this edit: . To make the story short, I am not a sock puppet. I came across what I thought was a questionable edit by a poster on the recent changes page. I reverted and looked at the poster's history and saw other questionable edits. I reverted them and asked him to use the talk page. I haven't reverted since, meanwhile he refuses to use the talk page (he used it until I oointed out the application of ]) Chadbryant has somehow confused this with sock puppetry. I don’t know what else I can do? I have asked him to use talk pages. He refuses. I have asked him to explain him stating how I have supposedly harassed him. He refuses. I have asked him to abide by basic wikipedia policy. He refuses. I am trying to abide by the rules. Is there anything you can do?

Again, I apologize for bringing this minor issue to your attention. I simply find it annoying. I didn’t know what else to do. Thanks. ] 03:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:From ]:

:''Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Misplaced Pages and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. ''

:And from the same policy, under "meatpuppets":

:''A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate.''

:The "]" account first edited on 12 October 2006, and almost immediately jumped into several AfD discussions (see ; this account was being used to comment/vote on AfD discussions before its 20th edit). Interestingly, this account (as of this writing) does not even have a userpage set up by the user in question. The majority of this account's recent edits are reverts to my deletion of non-notable content in several sports facility articles. This account is at the very least clearly exhibiting the characteristics of a meatpuppet, and quite possibly is a sockpuppet of ] who also continues to Wikistalk me and revert/delete my contributions in bad faith.
:If the continual (and obvious, at this point) harassment from "]" does not cease, I will file a ] on the account. - ] 01:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

== Archive page and re to email ==

I added an archive link because the bot was archiving to archive 8, which didn't have a link on this page.

Also, thanks for the reply to the email I sent you. I realize that Misplaced Pages doesn't have the regular complicated justice system, but it's always good to verify my facts. =)--''''']]''''' <sup>]</sup> 03:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

==]==

I hope it's alright posting this; I wasn't sure whether it'd fit on any of the noticeboards. Could you do something about ] please? He adds incorrect information to articles, and has removed the warnings from his talk page to stop. He then posted on my talk page, which, according to my Googling , is quite offensive. Thanks a lot, ] 15:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:This user has been blocked for a month. He was previously blocked for one week for similar behaviour and his continued blanking of his discussion page showed bad faith. --] 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks a lot. Cheers, ] 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

==Kate Beckinsale link==
Hi, thanks for your comment on my ] about adding an external link to the ] page. I am aware of the policies and did think carefully before adding one - however, I think you may be over-interpreting the rigidity with which this rule should be applied. I do very much agree that commercial links should not be added willy-nilly, but that was not my intent. If you look at my contribs record, I carefully defend quite a number of pages against exactly that. However, I do think that surely on a star page, at least one prominent fansite should be referenced. This also happens to be the case at a casual browse with the following randomly selected star pages - ], ], ], ] (Yahoo Movies), ] - I could go on! In each, just one typical example of a good-quality fansite is shown, and that is what I was trying to show on the ] page, about which, I assure you, I care a good deal on both quality and accuracy issues. Thanks for your time and attention. Best regards, Mark. ] 16:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

==Ted Hughes==
Hmmm. I see that you also deleted a perfectly good academic site link from another page I pay a lot of tlc to, ] - can you justify please? ] 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

== 3RR ==
Are you acting as an editor or administrator when you reverted ] three times between 15:47 and 18:56 on 17 November 2006? --] 19:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:I was reverting a simple case of an image which violated policy and so had to be removed. It is not considered a 3RR violation to enforce policy. --] 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

== Kristen Bell ==

Whatever you say {{emot|;)}}... <small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;<small>•</small> ]&nbsp;<small>•</small> <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>&nbsp;<small>•</small> ])</small> 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

== A vandal to keep an eye on ==

I'm not particularly interested in hunting down vandals, and you seem to be willing, so I thought I'd let you know that 66.64.223.2 seems to be capable nothing but vandalism. Perhaps you can take care of it. Just a thought. ] 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


== Images ==
On ], you wrote

:''Misplaced Pages has decided the choice is between a free image or no image at all''

That is simply not true. In fact, ] clearly says ''All original Misplaced Pages text is distributed under the GFDL. Occasionally, Misplaced Pages articles may include images, sounds, or text quotes used under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine. It is '''preferred''' that these be obtained under the most free (libre) license (such as the GFDL or public domain) practical. In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then '''fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available)'''.'' Please don't mis-state the facts. ] 23:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:The full quote is "It may not always be feasible to find free images all of the time but for subjects where it is possible, Misplaced Pages has decided the choice is between a free image or no image at all". This is indeed the case, please see ], first criteria. --] 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:56, 12 January 2025

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.


Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Piotr Kamler page

Hi, Yamla. I just created a stub for Polish film director Piotr Kamler. The page name came with a warning that another page under that name had been removed by you in 2015 because it was created by a banned user in 2015. I couldn't find a reference to it in your logs so I proceeded, but thought it best to check and see if there is any issue I am missing. I believe my stub is all original content. Wrightjack talk

About reference

I want to clear some doubts i agree i made some disruptive edits on 1991 killing and Har krisha which was reverted and i didn't edit that page again but can you explain me how i made disruptive edit on Punjab king's As I said earlier, I only changed the words and there was no source mentioned even before my edit on Punjab Kings. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You added new content. You are required to cite that content. That the previous, different information was unsourced is not an excuse. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
okay i will keep that in mind Just last question like page When I edit the list of battle or list of Sikhs page, Do I have to mention reference?, Because this is type of page are just list where people and Battles are mentioned, which already have Misplaced Pages pages. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
and i am not making any excuse it's just i feel block warning was not necessary in Punjab king case Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages policy requires citations "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." (WP:CITE) --Yamla (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay i think it's help me to improve thank you Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

IP block exemption

I am not able to contribute to English Misplaced Pages because my IP address is used in an open proxy (sometimes I use mobile data, and it still shows the same that my IP is blocked for open proxy). I have been using English Misplaced Pages for more than 6 months and have made 7000+ edits and want to contribute more and more, but because of this problem, I am unable to do so. (I also mailed to Wikimedia stewards, and in reply they said that, to contact a checkuser directly ) In these circumstances, it will be very helpful for me if you grant me the IP address block exemption access and allow me to contribute to the English or global Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Please clarify. That you are able to edit this page and that you have made 7000+ edits means that you are able to edit without WP:IPBE. To be clear, I'm not accusing you or saying you are ineligible for IPBE, only that I'm unsure why you think you need it. Please clarify. --Yamla (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
@Yamla, I am able to edit this page because I used mobile data from another operator and was able to edit it, but in my home, where I use Wi-Fi, I am facing the issue that my IP is blocked for open proxy. I hope that you understand my situation. Mobile data is expensive in my country, so using it frequently is not easy for me. Thanks. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 00:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you deleted my topic

Hi!

I've added a topic recently on the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel article's talk page. You then deleted it on January 7th.

I'm not an experienced contributor, so if I've broken some kind of Misplaced Pages rule, I would greatly appreciate it if you could tell me about it. As I was trying to help, it came out as a bit aggressive to see my comment be deleted with no real explanation.

Conversely, if you disagree with the comment itself, the place to discuss that is the talk page, and deletion doesn't seem like an adequate reaction.

Have a great day,

Max Maxime182752 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see what I left at the time on your talk page. You aren't permitted to edit articles or talk pages about the Arab-Israeli conflict as you are not an extended-confirmed user, except with a few small exceptions. That is, you haven't made enough edits yet to contribute in that controversial subject area. Again, please thoroughly read the material I left at the time on your talk page. --Yamla (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer.
I've already read what you left on my talk page, and it makes no mention of talk pages at all. I also had a look at the page for contentious topics which was linked, and nowhere could I find any mention of a ban on editing talk pages, let alone a systematic ban for all users that don't have enough privileges. In general, the snippet seems to mostly ask for good behaviour, which I believe I had. Maybe you posted the wrong snippet on my page? In any case, if you have a specific rule in mind, I would love to know where to read it in the documentation, I thrive to become a better Wikipedian.
You also mention that I have restrictions as I'm not an extended-confirmed user, but from what I can see they seem to be automatically enforced, as I can't edit the page. Are you saying that the systematic ban from edititing the page is automatically enforced, but that there's a similar ban for the talk-page that high privilege users have to enforce by hand?
Please don't see this as resistance to criticism or bad faith, I am truly confused as to what's happening, and from my perspective, looking at the snippet you left on my talk page and the page for contentious topics only makes it seem like nothing in this situation should prevent me from writing in the talk page.
Hopefully, understanding what I did wrong this time should help me avoid repeating the same mistake in the future ^^
Have a great day,
Max Maxime182752 (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Note that I'm not claiming you were editing in bad faith. I agree that you exhibited "good behaviour" and were clearly editing in good faith. You weren't aware of the restrictions, which is why I let you know. Specifically, check out Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. In that subject area, the "Extended confirmed restriction" applies. You are not yet an "extended confirmed" editor, meaning you are not permitted to edit in that topic area. That includes talk pages. Frankly, the standard template I left on your talk page does not do a great job of spelling this out so it's no wonder you were unaware. Talk:October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel includes some additional information at the top (see "Warning: active arbitration remedies"), but I wouldn't expect people to notice that unless it was specifically brought to their attention. In summary, you need to avoid editing in that subject area until you are "extended-confirmed", which happens automatically on accounts at least 30 days old and which have made at least 500 edits. --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)