User talk:Yamla/Archive 29
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Aledownload
Thank you for the block on Aledownload. I thought I was the only one trying to keep their continuing disruptive edits under control and didn't want to be the one to go the full hog as it would seem like I was picking on them. It's been a continuing pattern for years from this user. So thanks for taking an interest. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Thank you for how you handled the concerns brought up here [1]. You were calm, clear and professional -- a great example to other admins who may accidentally step into water both deeper and murkier than might be expected. Jbh Talk 15:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC) |
Page deletion
Hi Yamla. User talk pages aren't covered by WP:CSD#U1. Can you please undo your recent deletion here? Blanking is generally considered sufficient in vanishing cases. (I should know, I've done enough of them!) WormTT(talk) 11:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hello. This was a request that came in to the global-renamers mailing list. Happy to email you specific additional details if you still think my deletion inappropriate here. --Yamla (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Please
undelete LH's t/p. U1 is explicitly clear with little wiggle-room. ∯WBGconverse 13:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm discussing this with Worm That Turned. I will post here indicating the result of that discussion. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The conclusion is that we should undo the deletion. Worm and I are just figuring out the best way to do this without making matters worse. Thanks, both of you, for raising your concerns with me. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Vanishing is an important option that should be afforded to almost every user. I absolutely think we should be affording individuals whatever we can within policy, to vanish, be it renames, or deletion of user pages, or archiving of user talk pages (which I'll do after the restoration), however, U1 is quite strict on the matter of deleting talk pages, as is WP:RTV. I'd be happy to discuss further by email, but thanks Yamla for listening. WormTT(talk) 13:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Worm That Turned, for discussing this in detail with me over email and for cleaning up after me. And thanks, Winged Blades of Godric, for raising your own concerns. We think everything is resolved now but look, it's Tuesday and nobody's had enough coffee yet. If not, please ping Worm or myself, or if you have the power, fix it yourself (which wouldn't be WP:WHEELWARing). --Yamla (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think the community is entitled to know more about this, including your motives for acting at this time and who instructed you in what you surely knew was a clear breach of deletion policy. Alternatively, regarding your trust and competence per WP:ADMINACCT if you were unaware of the policy after 13 years. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- The request came in to global-renamers mailing list and remains visible for those who have the access. As it was essentially a WP:VANISH request, I believed it was appropriate to delete both the user page and the user talk page. I see I was wrong about the user talk page, the strong consensus is that WP:VANISH is not sufficient. Therefore, Worm and I agreed the user talk page should be undeleted, and Worm undid the deletion. I'm not trying to hide anything here. There are privacy concerns at play, but only with regard to the original request. If you believe I have not sufficiently accounted for myself, you are welcome to take the matter to WP:AN. I won't repost the original request for privacy reasons, but several admins have access to the original request. Again, though, I made the wrong call and then worked to undo the call. But I made the wrong call in good faith. --Yamla (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- In 13 years how many similar requests have you responded to in this incorrect manner? How many have you acted upon at all? I am struggling to understand how this is your first foray into vanishing requests EVER in 13 years. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am not claiming this is my first foray into vanishing requests. I have no idea how many I have acted on, but that number would be small. I strongly suspect it's greater than this one, but I'd be very surprised if it was as many as five (but, to be clear, it may be five, it may be higher than five). I do regularly decline {{db-user}} on a user's talk page; if you include that in the count, it's substantially higher than five. In this case, I believed as the user was not currently blocked and had never been blocked, and as they wished to vanish, my action was appropriate. When it was pointed out to me that it was not, I engaged in discussion and then agreed the appropriate course of action was to undo my deletion. Look, I'm not sure what you want me to say. I didn't act in bad faith but I did make a mistake. When this was pointed out, I engaged in discussion and worked to get the mistake rectified. Will I make mistakes in the future? Undoubtedly, yes. Have I made other mistakes in the past? Certainly. Will I make this mistake in the future? I strongly believe I won't. I'm sorry I made this mistake. I'm unsure what you want from me. If you believe my admin bit should be stripped, I disagree but that's up to the community to decide (and obviously, you can bring that to the community). Maybe another sanction is appropriate. I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm not trying to claim my action was correct. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I will clarify my precise concern, as tactfully as I can. The request which you implemented concerns an editor who is being widely discussed in what is the most controversial case concerning a community elected representative, WMF & Arbcom. The case is approaching a critical stage. Intermeddling in potential sources of evidence is not a good look - hence WTT immediately asking you to rescind your action. It is not something that a busy Arb. would routinely get involved in. I'll leave it at that - clearly you knew nothing of the background. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I indeed knew nothing of the specific current actions in this case and saw no reference to this on the user page or the user talk page. Had I been aware of the active case, I most certainly would not have acted. Is... this the Fram case? If so, this just gets worse and worse. :( --Yamla (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. It is indeed that case. I'm not sure that the mentioning the name is even allowed given the WMFs restrictions on everything to do with their supposed evidence against him. I see that WBG mentioned the initials and is still editing so maybe WMF counter-intelligence isn't watching your page ;) Leaky caldron (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I indeed knew nothing of the specific current actions in this case and saw no reference to this on the user page or the user talk page. Had I been aware of the active case, I most certainly would not have acted. Is... this the Fram case? If so, this just gets worse and worse. :( --Yamla (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I will clarify my precise concern, as tactfully as I can. The request which you implemented concerns an editor who is being widely discussed in what is the most controversial case concerning a community elected representative, WMF & Arbcom. The case is approaching a critical stage. Intermeddling in potential sources of evidence is not a good look - hence WTT immediately asking you to rescind your action. It is not something that a busy Arb. would routinely get involved in. I'll leave it at that - clearly you knew nothing of the background. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am not claiming this is my first foray into vanishing requests. I have no idea how many I have acted on, but that number would be small. I strongly suspect it's greater than this one, but I'd be very surprised if it was as many as five (but, to be clear, it may be five, it may be higher than five). I do regularly decline {{db-user}} on a user's talk page; if you include that in the count, it's substantially higher than five. In this case, I believed as the user was not currently blocked and had never been blocked, and as they wished to vanish, my action was appropriate. When it was pointed out to me that it was not, I engaged in discussion and then agreed the appropriate course of action was to undo my deletion. Look, I'm not sure what you want me to say. I didn't act in bad faith but I did make a mistake. When this was pointed out, I engaged in discussion and worked to get the mistake rectified. Will I make mistakes in the future? Undoubtedly, yes. Have I made other mistakes in the past? Certainly. Will I make this mistake in the future? I strongly believe I won't. I'm sorry I made this mistake. I'm unsure what you want from me. If you believe my admin bit should be stripped, I disagree but that's up to the community to decide (and obviously, you can bring that to the community). Maybe another sanction is appropriate. I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm not trying to claim my action was correct. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- In 13 years how many similar requests have you responded to in this incorrect manner? How many have you acted upon at all? I am struggling to understand how this is your first foray into vanishing requests EVER in 13 years. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- The request came in to global-renamers mailing list and remains visible for those who have the access. As it was essentially a WP:VANISH request, I believed it was appropriate to delete both the user page and the user talk page. I see I was wrong about the user talk page, the strong consensus is that WP:VANISH is not sufficient. Therefore, Worm and I agreed the user talk page should be undeleted, and Worm undid the deletion. I'm not trying to hide anything here. There are privacy concerns at play, but only with regard to the original request. If you believe I have not sufficiently accounted for myself, you are welcome to take the matter to WP:AN. I won't repost the original request for privacy reasons, but several admins have access to the original request. Again, though, I made the wrong call and then worked to undo the call. But I made the wrong call in good faith. --Yamla (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think the community is entitled to know more about this, including your motives for acting at this time and who instructed you in what you surely knew was a clear breach of deletion policy. Alternatively, regarding your trust and competence per WP:ADMINACCT if you were unaware of the policy after 13 years. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Worm That Turned, for discussing this in detail with me over email and for cleaning up after me. And thanks, Winged Blades of Godric, for raising your own concerns. We think everything is resolved now but look, it's Tuesday and nobody's had enough coffee yet. If not, please ping Worm or myself, or if you have the power, fix it yourself (which wouldn't be WP:WHEELWARing). --Yamla (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
As a former subscriber to global-renamers it worries me that the list is being used for handling vanishing requests. It's kind of a dumb idea to send vanishing requests to that list, in my opinion - there are around 100 subscribers (all global renamers and stewards) so it's hard for things to stay private. The stewards OTRS queue seems like a better target. I haven't been on that list in a while, so maybe things changed, but I thought I would say something. --Rschen7754 18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are entirely correct. This is the first one I've seen, but I haven't been on the list all that long. In this case, I should have redirected them to the stewards OTRS queue instead. It would certainly have saved me a bunch of difficulties. :) But that's also the right venue for these sorts of requests, in any case. --Yamla (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was on that list for more than 3 years, and it is not supposed to be used for actual rename requests of any sort - it's for global renamers to discuss requests, renaming policy, renaming problems etc. Editors using it to make a rename request (for whatever purpose) should be directed to the appropriate place, which in the case of a courtesy vanishing request should be WP:Courtesy vanishing (which suggests Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or meta:Special:Contact/Stewards or stewards
wikimedia.org for anything particularly sensitive). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
 | |
| Ten years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! Nice find. I'm not sure I was aware of that, ten years ago. :) --Yamla (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Easy to find, Rlevse kept a good archive ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Topic ban notice
I feel you should be notified of this since you implemented the topic ban mentioned in the linked thread. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Fallingearth
Hi Yamla–I saw that you deleted the page I created on Guideline for incorrect attribution. Could you revert the deletion so I can put in the citation?Fallingearth (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, sorry, then I'd be violating WP:COPYRIGHT. I can email it to you if you wish. I still strongly urge you not to skip the draft process, though, especially given your acknowledged conflict of interest (thanks for declaring this). --Yamla (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Help with Edward Tayler Citations
I'm going to attempt to cite these properly, but could you do me the favor of fixing these rather than deleting them if they're out of order? Here is a reference to the fact that Tayler studied under Winters at Stamford. (And they would have since PhD programs are very small.):
Winters' contempt for relativism is well known and might be cited here in In Defense of Reason:
(https://archive.org/stream/indefenseofreaso030343mbp/indefenseofreaso030343mbp_djvu.txt)
I am more or less aware of the extent of the catalogue of disagree- ments that might be drawn up in reply to such a statement, but it is far less astounding than, let us say, the unanimity of the best minds on the subject of Homer and Vergil, particularly if we accept the doctrine of relativism with any great seriousness.
(I don't know how to get the page number of that from the online citation.)
And it is not just a one-off thing. He wrote extensively about it. Including in his poems. For instance the verse of On Teaching the Young here:
The poets only bliss Is in cold certitude-- Laurel, archaic, rude.
(https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47781/on-teaching-the-young)
The following contains some description of Tayler's interest in making clear, non-relative assessments of art:
One of Tayler’s most unusual stratagems, which went against the grain of academic practice and struck some of us as outrageous, seems in retrospect to be a defiant insistence on making qualitative value judgments. Each week, he required us to bring in a list of the top 10 poems by the poet under study, in descending order of greatness. With the confidence of an absolutist in a relativist universe, we were to list not our favorites but the poet’s greatest works. We were to state unequivocally which was the best of John Donne’s poems, or George Herbert’s, or Ben Jonson’s or Andrew Marvell’s. “It was a different kind of reading for us,” recalls Jonathan Tuck ’69, who took the seminar a year or two before I did. “Our normal expectation had been that the question of value had already been answered — or else why were we reading this work rather than another?” But here we were to read Donne’s or Herbert’s collected poems, as if it were up to us to affirm or deny their individual greatness, and rank them in order of worth.
(https://www.college.columbia.edu/cct_archive/may04/cover.html)
Finally I might want to add a sentence that Tayler was highly regarded for his keen dramatic skill and presentation... often being described as a something like a rock star. You get something of it here.
Tayler was also an avid motorcyclist and liked his martinis bone dry with a twist.
(https://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/issue/summer18/article/memoriam-edward-w-%E2%80%9Cted%E2%80%9D-tayler-beloved-shakespeare-scholar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Unblock request
Thanks for your help. I finally figured it out. My VPN was still connected, despite the application being off.--Petebutt (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Aledownload
You recently blocked Aledownload for persistent disruptive editing related to addition of OR material on a number of articles. One of the articles favored with his content was The Man in the High Castle, where he was having a field day interpreting all manner of small piece of evidence until the block. Well, he's back, now evading his block via a dynamic IP. I've made a noted of this in the unblock discussion on his talk page, but thought I'd alert you, too. It's clear nothing being said to him is getting through. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Unfortunately, I can't tell with certainty that this is Aledownload. It looks likely and I concur Aledownload has edited that page before. I just don't have access to the additional information that would confirm this. --Yamla (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- And I haven’t filed at SPI yet. But there are some very consistent elements another editor notes as well. Thus, the message above. We’ll see how things develop. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
Administrator changes
Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
Floquenbeam • Lectonar
DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
- Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime
Technical news
- Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
- The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Miscellaneous
- A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
Request
Hello sir, could you please review this page (Draft:Sukriti Kakar) and move to the main page if it meets all the requirements as you were the one who moved back to the draft (due to the user who moved the draft to the article space was blocked). Thank you. Tolly4bolly 09:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI
I mentioned you at meta:Talk:Steward requests/Username changes#Request for reversal of vanishing. Nothing negative, just the fact of the deletion request sent to the Global Rename list. Jbh Talk 22:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Article Query
Hey. Just wondering about an article for TV personality Karim Zeroual and what the reasons you have declined the article for as it seems to be locked for editing.
Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxLuckyCxX (talk • contribs) 22:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have never declined an article on Karim Zeroual. I have, however, protected an article (which is a very different thing) due to persistent block evasion from a long-term vandal. --Yamla (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
That's what I meant. Still trying to get used to Wikipedia after 5 years! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxLuckyCxX (talk • contribs) 10:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for your help getting me fixed up from the IP autoblocks that some troll is triggering. I'm not sure how they are doing it, but there is some vulnerability that is allowing someone with knowledge of an IP to create a pseudo "sock" account to the IP attached to the "real" account (in this case being me, Carrite). I would presume that WMF would be interested in shutting down this vulnerability... You might bring it to their attention. Carrite (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that's it. However, I'm wondering if you are using a VPN or a proxy, or editing from a shared environment such as a university or a library? You aren't under any obligation to disclose anything about this, though! It would just be helpful to understand what happened here, as I haven't seen that many legitimate people hit by an autoblock before, in years of doing unblock reviews. --Yamla (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
autoblock requests
Some sort of weird bug going on -- that autoblock points to 127.0.0.1, which makes no sense. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's always been that way. I haven't dug in to the template to figure out why. The autoblock id still lets us find the specific autoblock, it's just the 'accept' template sticks 127.0.0.1 in there for some reason. It's definitely a design flaw in Template:Unblock-auto. --Yamla (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Except now 127.0.0.1 is showing up on CU. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Jpgordon, It's supposed to be fixed at this point, phab:T233657. SQLQuery me! 23:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Good, thanks -- I figured someone would do an official report and get it fixed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Jpgordon, It's supposed to be fixed at this point, phab:T233657. SQLQuery me! 23:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Except now 127.0.0.1 is showing up on CU. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Possible block evasion Balkanholidays
Recreation of Draft:Balkan Holidays, possible block evasion by User:SunnyBeachTourist. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Vandal
Hi. The vandal return. Sockpuppet User:GARY_809 and User:AH999 See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.145.161.106 / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.151.92.145 / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.151.92.244
Annamargarita0 has gone back to editing Dancing on Ice right after their block. Could you reblock please?--Launchballer 12:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Don't, I have another page to edit over the weekend which the Swashbuckle gameshow. --Annamargarita0 (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Annamargarita0:, your edits have been inappropriate. How specifically and exactly will you significantly change all future edits? Hint: please read WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:CIR. --Yamla (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding User:Lyiriyah
@Yamla: I have been editing under this account for almost a year now. Did I disclose my assocation with my prev acc properly? Also, I had to create this account at my school because, even though you said I am free to create an account, account creation was blocked. I have just added the COI Userbox, wasn't aware it existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seemplez (talk • contribs)
- Yes, you have disclosed your association with your previous account. You have also disclosed your conflict of interest. Be careful, though. Edits like this one (which I am not claiming you made) would be inappropriate even with a declaration of COI. Instead, please suggest edits on the article's talk page, making clear there as well that you have a conflict of interest. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Yamla: No, that edit was not me, but I will check up on that account because an impersonator would need to be reported to TET.
National animal of Pakistan & other similar edits
Hi, can you check recent edits to the above article and others? I have to sign off for work. Thanks in advance. Regards Denisarona (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
uw-uhblock
What does uw-uhblock mean? Interested to know. --159.148.33.194 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- You can read about it at Template:Uw-uhblock. Note if this has been applied to your account, you are not permitted to continue editing, not even to post this question here. --Yamla (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories
.
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
Technical news
- As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
Arbitration
- The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
- The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future
, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
Miscellaneous
- The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Signed comments
Thanks for your hint, Yamla. In deed I was not logged in, but did it now. Chilliff (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Joker (film) edit wars feedback
Hi Yamla. I know you noted having concerns I was not open to collaboration. I think you misread my approach and intent, and hope to have better engagements with you going forward. Thanks for the feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco685 (talk • contribs)
|
Thanks for the speedy response to my autoblock unblock request! LakesideMinersMy Talk Page 13:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
Enjoy this!
|
The Deep Fried Mars Bar of Kindness |
| Thank you for responding to my unblock request so quickly! Seemplez | Chat 13:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC) |
Barnstar!!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC) |
Talk page access
Hi... if you look at User talk:Stewofkc, you will see that this user has returned to spam there, and remove declined unblock notices in violation of WP:BLANKING. You might have to revoke talk page access. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Thank you for patiently dealing with uncivil promotional editors who are clearly not here to build an online encyclopedia around our community policies and guidelines. Mkdw talk 16:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC) |
Image Question
Hello.
I was wondering about the copyright status for adding images for these two articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimefighters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Fight
I thought about adding this first image to the Crimefighters article seen at the top of this link:
http://www.rollenspiel-almanach.de/wp-content/uploads/Crimefighters.pdf
I also thought about adding one of these images for the Bull Fight article seen in this link:
https://flyers.arcade-museum.com/?page=thumbs&db=videodb&id=2519
Would it be acceptable to add these to Wikipedia? I'm guessing they are both still under copyright.
I wanted to check with administrator first.
They don't have to be added though, I was just wondering, thanks either way. Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
- The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
- A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.
ANI thread
Hi Yamla. For info, I've posted this at ANI, as you have posted on the talkpage of the user in question. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Revert
Hi. Why did you revert this edit? [2] 217.214.152.210 (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- WP:EVADE. If you wish to make an unblock request, you must sign in with your account. You'll also need to follow the instructions provided by WP:SO and WP:GAB. --Yamla (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yamla, their accounts are globally locked, it is not possible for them to log in to edit.
- IP, if you want your account unlocked so that you can post a ban appeal, please contact the stewards at stewards wikimedia.org. But before you do please read WP:SO again: it is generally required that you have not socked nor attempted to edit for at least six months, and not counting your edits here your last sockpuppet account was blocked only four months ago, so it is very likely that your appeal would not be accepted. You're free to try of course, but filing block appeals with little chance of success can be seen as disruptive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Martin Scorsese
Hi,
you left me a message that you removed my changes on the Martin Scorsese article. Why don't you just look at the "Marvin's Room"-movie-cast? It's easy to recognize that both, De Niro and DiCaprio, have worked on that movie together. --Fernando DiCaprio (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Please see WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. That's not what the citation says. --Yamla (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
So, is it better to remove the fix and leave it with misinformation than to prove my perhaps incomplete change with a citation by yourself? --Fernando DiCaprio (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Whatsoever. Just leave it with the misinformation and be happy. You probably expect too much to believe that more experienced users will help inexperienced users and perhaps complete a correct change with the addition of a citation. I'm out. --Fernando DiCaprio (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Wrongfully removing my sandbox
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I violated any copyright in my own personal sandbox, I only used images from Wikipedia and nothing else. I demand you tell me where your false accusations stemmed from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyTheAwesome (talk • contribs)
- You are not permitted to copy Wikipedia content without acknowledging the source. You are welcome to copy content if but only if you acknowledge the source. See for example, Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and specifically, the attribution bit, which you did not do. --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Create Template
Hi Can I create an Template? An article that doesn't count? M.k.m2003 (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- To create a template you would need to start an article with it saying
Template:at the start of the title. Please refer to this article for more information about it Help:A quick guide to templates
Glam metal fan 5150
Is right back at it. Unbelievable. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
IP talk page abuse
Hello Yamla, hope all is well. I saw that 2405:205:1504:E5BE:0:0:2184:E8B1 vandalized their talk page after your block. Just thought to put it on your radar just in case they continue to vandalize their talk page. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Are you still an admin??
Hello Yamla!! Are you still an admin on the English Wikipedia? Isamu Hatori (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. --Yamla (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Can you please take a look on my contributions? Is everything alright? Isamu Hatori (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Not getting automatically accepted by pending changes pages
Hello Yamla, I'm having a problem where even though I have extended confirmed protection I still need somebody to review my pending changes edits. I was hoping you could somehow fix that problem TurboSonic (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think you are perhaps misunderstanding "extended confirmed". The specific permissions this grants you are explained at Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Extended_confirmed_users and doesn't include automatically accepting your pending changes. Taking a look at that page, it's not clear what, if anything, grants automatic acceptance of pending changes. I can confirm that your account does indeed have "extended confirmed" rights, though. And note, it's very possible that the confusion is on my side instead of yours! --Yamla (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at the table https://i.imgur.com/coY4Qt1.png as outlined autoconfirmed and higher should be granted permission for their edits to automatically to be accepted. There's no reason for me to not have my edits automatically accepted when editing on pending changes pages. TurboSonic (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
212.219.185.14
They vandalized at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halo_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=928335794&diffmode=source they already got warned many times and it's a shared IP, so I'm suggesting a block to that IP. TurboSonic (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- WP:AIV is your best bet. In this case, there seems to be a single instance of vandalism since February; I'm not sure a block would be particularly helpful here. --Yamla (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ah I see, well I'll use that page in the future and I saw that so I wasn't quite sure if a block was necessary. TurboSonic (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
You realize you protected the talk page (much) longer than I protected the actual article (!). I would have protected it for, at most, a week to start with. Why protect an article talk page for so many months? El_C 18:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'll start out by saying you are very welcome to shorten the protection. I have no objection to that at all. I also already posted a note on the article talk page asking if people wanted me to remove the protection (if the level of disruption was okay for them). I may have chosen an overly-long protection. This was based on the disruptive behaviour during the unblock process, and based on the continued block evasion, from the user(s) involved. Anyway. If you think my basis is invalid, I'll be happy to shorten it myself (and have no objection to you just going and shortening it yourself, if you prefer). --Yamla (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, sounds good. I'll reduce the protection to, say, 2 weeks to start with and we can go from there. I did intend on possibly protecting the article talk page, also, by the way, but for a few days only. A compromise between a few days and a few months seems sensible. It can always be extended further —on the mainspace as well— if need be. Thanks. El_C 18:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Administrator changes
- EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
- Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂
CheckUser changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
- Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.
Technical news
- Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Miscellaneous
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive
.
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
Can you please
Do something about all the users who revert my useful contributions on this website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davik Kang (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- User has been blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist for very, very good reason. --Yamla (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
|
Thank you so much..... Madhuri007 (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC) |
Not Conflict of interest
Hi, The paper is written in 2019, 1 year after this the bio is written. It has nothing to do with his wikipage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadmahboob (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)