Jump to content

User talk:Yamla/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

January 2017

Hi Yamla! I just want to ask you how to resize an image in wikipedia? I replaced the deleted one in The Greatest Love (Philippine TV series). But I cannot do what DatBot did. He resized the image and lessen the resolution. I hope you can help me. From KyleC24 (talk).

I consulted you to avoid being blocked and do better in my contributions. I hope you can teach me. KyleC24 (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I just removed the picture. I'll just study it in the net. Thanks for your time KyleC24 (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You have to resize it somewhere other than Wikipedia, so we have the minimum size necessary. You can't, for example, upload a 1000x600 image but only use it as 500x300 on the article itself. --Yamla (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the advice. KyleC24 (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello

FYI... --JustBerry (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Weird. I replaced the blanked confirmation of sockpuppetry and have added that page to my watchlist. --Yamla (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Iran Air destinations

Hey I noticed you reverted my edits on Iran Air destinations. Those destinations are not served anymore. And at the moment Iran Air has no hub airport because hub (as per Wikipedia's own article) is an airport through which an airline handles majority of its passengers in CONNECTION FLIGHTS. Neither Iran Air nor any other Iranian airline handles majority of its passengers at any airport in connection flights. Therefore, these airports fit right in the category of "focus cities" which is again clearly explained by its own Wikipedia article or various other independent sources. Thanks for your cooperation. 253675sultanheader (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion and sockpuppetry. --Yamla (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

RE:Margaretver

Pardon me, I haven't reviewed the SPI regarding User:Margaretver. I did want to share one piece of evidence that may not have been made available at the time. @Hoary: When i say "WE" am talking about the 2 people in my department assigned to expand or add contents submitted via that page, both Nigeria related and non Nigeria related. I sincerely had no bad intentions when adding the link, neither did it occur to me it was spam or might be spam. Since the link seemed to be referring to "Chaga Mushroom" as is the significance of the page i added the link. That was a big oversight on my part and i apologize. .... added at 00:28, 6 January 2017 by Margaretver [1]. At the time I thought they were saying two people but reviewing the 3 accounts with a shared ip it seems they were saying that 3 people including themselves were sharing the same office. Which would mean that they share the same IP and since it's Nigeria I don't think it's unreasonable that they share the same the same computer. It could very well be sockpuppetry but I wouldn't to make sure that this evidence was seen.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, take a look at the overlap in edits. It's an almost complete overlap. If this was just a matter of three people sharing the same computer, that'd be one thing. But they are editing the same articles. To then claim there is no relation whatsoever is totally untrue. As you point out, there's already an admitted relationship. Anyway, thanks for bringing it up. I sincerely appreciate it. --Yamla (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Syrians in Egypt

Hi Yamla. I see that you deleted Syrians in Egypt as a copyright violation. Just to let you know that that article appeared to have been copied from Refugees of the Syrian Civil War#Countries outside Syria, so I presume that is also a copyright violation. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the rose gold iPhone SE a copyvio image on on iPhone SE, too?

In this edit, you removed the rose gold iPhone SE image as a "copyvio image". It also appears to be the image used on iPhone SE; does that also need to be removed, or does its use on that page fall under "fair use"? Guy Harris (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a violation of WP:FU everywhere, because it should be easy to get a freely-licensed replacement. Thus, we are violating copyright. However, there's at least a non-free-use rationale for IPhone SE. So, at least it's not an immediately obvious violation. The rationale uses an interesting claim; any replacement image would look nearly the same. I don't buy it, but apparently the uploader does. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist doesn't get pings

You tried to ping Materialscientist at User talk:Bryanturnerhca, in connection with an unblock request. However, Materialscientist has his preferences set to not give him pings. (Don't ask me why.) I have now posted a talk page message to him, and he has responded to it, so the matter has been dealt with, but it could have stayed unseen and undealt with for a very long time if I hadn't happened to know about Materialscientist's choice in this matter. It might be safer to always post a talk page message for anything that you think an editor needs to know about, as opposed to something you merely think they may like to know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that. I'll make sure to notify admins on their talk pages, in the future. --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Deadling with editors who refuse to talk

Hi.

I am really looking for advice here. I am trying to make constructive edits to Google Play Music. For my intial edits, I was reverted, and I proceeded to the talk page to have a peaceful discussion about it before making any further changes. After several days without any responses, I made my edits again, going by silence means consensus. Now, I am being reverted again, and the person is refusing to enter the talk page to have an actual discussion. I am really trying here, but I don't know what to do... The person appears to act is they own the article without letting anybody as much as touch it. I appreciate any help I can get in handling this. LocalNet (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet:, best thing to do is to leave a message on their talk page, directing them to the talk page of the article. People often don't initially see discussion on the article's talk page unless this is specifically pointed out. Also worth pointing to the talk page when editing the article directly, but I see you've done that. Okay, so what if the editor still doesn't respond? Now it gets tricky. If there are plenty of other editors and you are able to build up consensus on the talk page, great. All of the editors get to more or less enforce the consensus. But what if there's only two of you? Now it gets a bit more difficult. WP:CONSENSUS points to WP:3O which is exactly set up for disputes involving exactly two editors. It's not clear if they'll accept a dispute where one party isn't using the article's talk page, though. WP:CONSENSUS gives other options, but you might very seriously consider whether it's worth it. Sometimes, it pays to give way. Sometimes it doesn't. --Yamla (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. I do not attempt to give up, at least not yet. But thank you for the answer and the info. LocalNet (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #17439

Hey Hum, the 'Blocking admin' button isn't working so back to the old manual system! "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" is I think applicable to this user. Please place on the UTRS page your views on offering Template:2nd chance either now or in August when a year will have passed. Just Chilling (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Responded there. Thanks for letting me know! --Yamla (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Air India Express Tehran IKA launch". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 February 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Air India Express Tehran IKA launch, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

User talk:Nitish.massey

In case you didn't see it, the lengthy personal attacks here (rev-deleted) are worth a look - it's all copied from something called "wikipediasucks" apparently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Wildflower episodes

Hi! Can you help me to fix something. Because someone redirected the List of Wildflower episodes to the original article which is Wildflower (TV series) and I want to make a list of episodes for Wildflower because it will be airing on February 13, 2017. And I still can't find the solution for that problem. I hope you can help me immediately. Thanks!. KyleC24 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Also on the List of A Love to Last episodes. I really hope you can help me.

Also, I've uploaded images on Wildflower (TV series) and The Better Half (TV series). I don't how others do the reducing of dimensions to reduce the size/KB, so i'll just wait for someone to do it for me. KyleC24 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Soft block vs. hard block

Hi! User GCRI New York was "soft blocked". The blocking message contains bold text "please take a moment to create a new account". The user requested to be unblocked and renamed, and your answer (here) was that the user can't be unblocked unless he shows understanding of certain policies. That simply makes no sense. At the same moment, we decline to unblock him and invite him to create new account. It seams like you are trying to retroactively turn a soft block into a hard block. This specific issue was discussed here with the consensus that users soft-blocked for username issues should not have to answer further questions as a prerequisite to unblocking after the username issue has been addressed. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I understand your point about converting a soft block to a hard block, and won't do that again. Does that mean I'm obligated to unblock users in such a case, if I see the request? --Yamla (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I won't say you are obligated to do anything. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks, and thanks for letting me know. --Yamla (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI

There is/was a request to unprotect Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport. The request also mentions and indirectly requests the talk page be unprotected. It looks like you've been involved with handling the sock issues there so I wanted to let you know. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Artist Publishing Group

Hi. I saw that you deleted this page twice. I would like to understand why the page has been deleted and what needs to be done to move forward and publish the page. Please advice. I am new to Wikipedia and am genuinely trying to understand and abide by all rules. I have 0 affiliation with the company, I simply saw a section on Mike Caren's page and saw that it was red/blank. All sources that were used were credible music news sources like Billboard and Warner - the only other sites used were the official APG website, once, and a music blog. I'm still unsure as to what the problem is. Thank you. Ab34hj788 (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This is explained in WP:UNDEL. Given that the page was determined through community consensus to be inappropriate for Wikipedia, you'll need to follow the steps outlined in WP:UNDEL to get it undeleted. --Yamla (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so quickly. I read the WP:UNDEL and still am a bit confused on what was deemed inappropriate about the page? There was no vulgar images, explicit language or spam. Again, there is no conflict of interest here, so I'm still very confused and again, wanting to abide by all rules. Thank you. Ab34hj788 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
For that particular article, there wasn't much discussion. It's all listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artist Publishing Group. Note that I wasn't involved with the deletion. Primarily, it looks to be concerns about WP:NOTE, that it's not particularly notable on its own, aside from Warner/Chappell Music. I make no claims on whether or not that is accurate, but this should guide you to how you'd have to approach the undeletion request. You'd need to establish notability. That is, significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the publishing group itself. Note that I am not the best person to answer questions about notability and the undelete process, but hopefully this has given you enough of a place to start. Good luck! --Yamla (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for getting back to me again! We've had so much trouble with other users on the forum and you are being the most helpful! I've done some research and noticed that [Publishing] and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthouse_Entertainment - which, mind you, has no credible sources or references. These publishing companies are on the same notable ranking and scale that Artist Publishing Group is. Do you know the appropriate person to contact about this information? If these two pages can be accepted, surely APG can. Thank you again!Ab34hj788 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I was mistaken to point you at WP:UNDEL. I meant to point you to WP:DELREV. My apologies. I hope I'm correct with DELREV; I've never wanted to overturn a consensus-deletion. But I believe you are falling into the criteria, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." That is, presumably, you can establish notability with significant, reliable, independent coverage. Wikipedia doesn't have specific people you can talk to, to make this happen; instead, you have to convince the "community", which means following the DELREV procedure. Note that you won't want to use those other articles for comparison. WP:OTHERSTUFF explains why. I'm sorry, I know just pointing you at a bunch of policies isn't perhaps as helpful as just giving you the answer, but I'm not an expert in this area, and the policies at least go into details on why things are the way they are. --Yamla (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Got it. You have been so helpful and I cannot thank you enough! Thank you for your time and patience and helping me to be a better member of the Wikipedia community! Ab34hj788 (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Xanda

Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion by Lysvincent/No Mono again

Hi Yamla, I reported the user Cronohean to WP:AN/V, but they have some of the same edit summaries as Lysvincent (repeated "remove unsource [sic] content", "url not found", etc.), editing the same topics (a page their previous account created, Weak (AJR song); Dua Lipa; Matoma; electronic artists; another of their blocked accounts, No Mono (talk · contribs), edited Believer (Imagine Dragons song) and so have they, and previously stated on their page this was their favourite band), and making the same type of edits. This is definitely the same user. They also copied the POTD template to their user page, just as Lysvincent, Lysvincent 2nd (talk · contribs) and No Mono (talk · contribs) did. Ss112 21:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Yamla. You have new messages at BHARATHESHA ALASANDEMAJALU's talk page.
Message added 13:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hello Yamla, Iambiography was registered a day after MaxSem declined the unblock request by Megrajpura (a user you blocked couple of weeks back) and recreated Bbrt Sharma using diffrent title Bbrt Sharma (Musical Artist). Please take a look. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 16:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that Megrajpura (talk · contribs) is not blocked. That user never was blocked, they were just running into problems with an IP block. The article remains inappropriate, though. --Yamla (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see, noted. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 16:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

VPN

I can turn off my VPN when I edit Wikipedia and then turn it back on when I leave.

Why are VPNs blocked? What sort of abuse is going on?

YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Huge amounts of vandalism, apparently. And using a VPN makes this vandalism hard to tie to existing users; see WP:GOODHAND. --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SlitherioFan2016

Please don't archive SPIs. Only clerks and CUs are allowed to do that. In this instance, you should just have closed the SPI (any administrator can do that). Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh! My apologies, I didn't realise. Thanks for pointing it out to me, I won't do it again. --Yamla (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Help with Lyft proposed changes

Hi Yamla,

You were nice enough to send me at thank you when I requested independent review of an issue for the article about Sheryl Sandberg on behalf of Facebook, and I disclosed by COI. I have a similar situation, with less urgency, for Lyft, whom I also assist as a paid editor. I've has a Request Edit review pending for the company for about a month now. Talk:Lyft/Archives/2017#Suggested_changes.2F_Independent_review If you happen to have time to do a review, or can refer this to someone who does, I'd be very grateful.

I work with many of the largest and most prominent companies in the world, and am a long-time proponent of following the WIkimedia policy for paid editing disclosures and independent review, 100% of the time. The more success I have in getting independent reviews following disclosure, the more word spreads among these very prominent companies that the policy does work, even if it's more time consuming. I know of a few really big ones on the fence right now about following the policy, or, as an editor reacting to the length of the wait suggested under the Lyft proposal on the Talk page, quietly making changes without disclosure. That anonymous comment probably comes from an editor who gets paid to violate the policy, and literally follows me around Wikipedia trying to undermine confidence among these prominent companies. It's really bad for Wikipedia when this editor erodes trust in the process. Thanks, Ed BC1278 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)BC1278

Another editor just did a review of the proposed changes. So no need for any help here. Thanks. Ed BC1278 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)BC1278

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request for block review". Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Thebooksarehere

Maybe revoke talk page access for Thebooksarehere - I'm not going to edit war with them over blanking their declined unblock request, but they are acting a bit disruptively. --bonadea contributions talk 09:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Done! --Yamla (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Admin Help

Hi Yamla, you've been great help before. I am trying to create a Wiki page but it says "This page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it.". Do you know what there is I can do to make edits to this page (Artist Publishing Group)? Thank you!WikiWikiFresh (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@WikiWikiFresh:, That page is protected from recreation because of WP:COI and WP:SPAM issues, and because it was considered inappropriate for Wikipedia, by community consensus; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artist Publishing Group. If you believe you can address the issues (you have no WP:COI, you can find substantial non-trivial independent reliable sources to establish notability, etc.), you can follow the procedures outlined in [[WP::DELREV]]. Note there's a fairly high bar there. --Yamla (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

V

Hey there, Yamla. Re: this, the last block the user received was for 3 months, so if there was going to be a reset, it seems like it would be reset of 3 months, not six, unless your point was to escalate the block because of the block evasion. I don't see that the user was blocked again, so I'm a touch confused. I also wonder if maybe just revoking talk page access for the duration of the existing block would be the more humane move, seeing as how the editor has a hard time staying away? Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't this mean that the block has to be changed to reflect reset? Confused too, also agree with Cyphoid about talk page revoke.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 02:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I just reset the block to six months. I'll ask the user if they wish to have talk page access revoked. It's a good idea in this case. --Yamla (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sock editor again

Yamla, FYI [[2]], if my edits are reversed, please see the edit history. Springee (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yamla, I agree with the idea of an ANI related to the HughD socks. My concern is will it achieve anything? There have been 3 SPIs (one was not added to the list but is discussed here [[3]]. The final result was all the IP editors were the same person but they lacked the technical proof they felt they needed to block HughD. HughD hasn't logged-in in almost a year so any IP records have been erased. The other problem is illustrated here [[4]]. HughD is making illegitimate edits but for editors who haven't seen the long history it's easy to see this as an IP adding content. Sure the IP is blocked but another one takes it's place and things keep moving. I'm all for an ANI if it will result in a statement that HughD is using a wide range of Amazon, Chicago based, and other IPs and his edits should be reverted. But it doesn't seem to help much if the next time he shows up with a new IP we again have to prove this is the same shifting editor. Anyway, I'm getting tired of this game (which I'm sure is HughD's intent since he is hounding my edits) and I'm more than open to suggestions that might shut it down for good. Thanks for any thoughts. Springee (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not that I likely need to convince you but I noticed that one of today's IP's defense statements seemed very similar to ones made by HughD, [[5]] and [[6]]. Springee (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Web host blocking

Hello! Thanks for your very quick response to my unblock request. The text "not a web host" was added automatically by that template. I actually didn't intend to claim that my login was not via a webhost. I'm not altogether clear what the issue is. I hate to take up too much of your time, but what is undesirable about logging on via a web host. The block only pops up when I have my VPN switched on (which is required for viewing many sites while in China).

Is there a workaround for this so that I can have my VPN switched on and still access Wikipedia?

Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The solution is WP:IPBE and I see you have already requested that. :) --Yamla (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
OK thanks. I can just keep switiching my VPN on and off so the issue is not urgent. Have a good day. :) Edaham (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Reblock user?

Hi Yamla, on April 25 you unblocked SadhuVaswani so that they could request a username change. They have not yet done so; instead, they've taken to editing Dada Vaswani. Would a reblock be in order? Thank you, /wiae /tlk 14:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Will reblock immediately. --Yamla (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Theoretical question

I just saw your unblock decline at User talk:134.154.38.82 - obviously the correct response, of course. But it made me wonder about something. If an editor has talk page, email and UTRS access revoked, how would they make a WP:SO request after the requisite six months? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a good question. I'd suggest the user in question will have no problem doing so, having made about a million unblock requests on various IP addresses. Think it's worth following up with them and indicating that a single unblock request after six months of zero edits would not reset the six-month timer? --Yamla (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that might be worth doing. Perhaps suggest that, after a minimum of six months, they should make one request from an IP for talk page access to be reinstated on their original account so they can then make an actual unblock request there? And perhaps copy the message to User talk:Fangusu. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thinking again, perhaps just tell them to go at least six months and then email Arbcom to ask for talk page and/or UTRS access. They don't need WP email access as I'm sure they can find an Arbcom email address. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I tried this already. I always like to say there's hope for any blocked editor who wants to restore their account and contribute, but Fangusu is an utterly and completely hopeless case. Don't waste your time, lots of us have wasted enough. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ivanvector. I wonder if it's worth reintroducing that text to her talk page. Then again, I'm also wondering if the time I spend writing this sentence is time completely wasted. :( --Yamla (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I too fear it will be a waste of time, but a new copy of that message (with the email link replaced by a reference to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) is something that I think we could offer with relatively little effort. I don't mind doing it if there's agreement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to anyone trying again, either restoring my notice or crafting one of your own. But honestly I don't think Fangusu really wants to be unblocked, she's just happy to troll us with unblock requests that sound sincere. There's very little indication she ever read my note, although I made it a point to clear everything else off her talk page for a while after I had posted it, which was an IAR abuse of TPG, but none of it helped anyway. If she did read it, she certainly never made any effort to follow my advice. The one time she did manage to convince someone to give her a second chance (some months before I got involved) she went immediately back to the copyvios and abusive behaviour that got her blocked in the first place, and that whole time she was also operating multiple accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I've posted this, for what good it will do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Boing! And thanks, Ivan. Let's see if this makes a difference. Though... let's not put down any actual money on that possibility. :( --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits from editor editing from 3-4 different accounts

An editor is currently editing and re-editing on the Comme des Garçons page regarding a translation issue from an account for which you have declined an Unblock request. This editor appears to be editing from different account names and some IP accounts, which no clear pattern of edits. Here is some of the preliminary ID information and let me know if you would like me start a paper trail on this editor:

"Idrahduetdy Your edit from your IP address IP194.75.76.202 was reverted on 25 April, and your Unblock request to User:Yamla was declined."

I have left notices on two of that editor's pages indicating Talk page consensus as needed. One of the other names that editor is using appears to be Issimo15. Since you are the last sysops who interacted with that editor I thought you might look at it when time allows. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@ManKnowsInfinity: What type of trash I'm seeing here ? I have only one account, named Idrahduetdy. Issimo 15 and another name written in Japanese used to be my former names, my account was renamed twice ! And I'm planning to change it again and again, hope this will not make a problem for you, and if it will be, I don't care. I don't accept such accusations. I'm waiting for apologies. Idrahduetdy (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, It's clear that you have enough knowledge of the French language. 'Comme des garçons' is translated 'Like kids' and not 'like some kids' which would be 'Comme quelques garçons' in French. Peace! Idrahduetdy (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@IP editor: Your edit from your IP address IP194.75.76.202 was reverted on 25 April with the explanation that there is a published and accepted translation of the phrase you are discussing being used by reliable sources. Your Unblock request to User:Yamla was declined about a month ago in late March. The new book from Yale University Press by Andrew Bolton in 2017 is translating the phrase you are discussing as "like some boys." Your preference does not appear to be in agreement with reliable sources and published sources, and consensus is required prior to your making this edit from separate accounts. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Adding another single purpose IP-account to the one given above with this same edit and no explanation: IP61.69.147.54. Is this becoming an issue. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Maleidys Perez

Got another at Special:Contributions/64.237.237.8. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone else beat me to it and blocked the vandal. --Yamla (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Now at Special:Contributions/64.237.234.15 — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked. --Yamla (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and quick question

Hi Yamla -

Thanks for making edits to the UberEATS page. Quick question about updating the logo, given we own the rights, can I upload the updated logo to the page or is there another process I need to go through? Appreciate your guidance.

Cheers, Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzeeful (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The best way to do it is to upload the logo somewhere on UberEats and indicate there that the logo is available under the terms of Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International or similar open-source license. Note this would permit commercial reuse of the logo, though trademark law (if applicable) would certainly still apply. Alternatively, if you think the logo does not rise to the threshold of originality required for copyright protection, you could indicate on the ubereats site that the logo is released to the public domain. If you wish a more restrictive license, though, it's not clear to me that we'd use that logo over the older logo which someone from UberEats released under the CC Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International license. If you've read this far, congrats. Copyright and fair-use is notoriously tricky. You may well have questions. I'm happy to answer to the best of my ability. --Yamla (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

June 12 - update

Hi Yamla - Can we upload the logo to Flickr, set the copyright setting as Attribution-ShareAlike, then upload our new logo to the Wikipedia page? Just want to be sure we're going about things the proper way here; really appreciate your helpful guidance.

Cheers, Ben

hi

i am saying hi again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:381:101:142:504A:71CF:709E:FBFD (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking User:BukhariSaeed

Hello.

I am one of the bureaucrats on Urdu Wikipedia. I've just seen your review of the unblock request by User:BukhariSaeed. The user has made significant contributions on Urdu Wikipedia, especially in connection with theology and more specifically about Christianity and Islam. He appears to neutral, moderate and secular in his views, takes criticism positively and strives for more better contributions.

I therefore request you to kindly unblock the user with the condition of prohibiting sockpuppetry and any other concern you may have. I am also ready to explain your concern to the user in his plain language.

I am sure that the user will be a valuable asset for English Wikipedia NOW as he is for Urdu Wikipedia. Umpteen thanks in advance. --Muzammil (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not the original blocking admin. That is CactusWriter (talk · contribs). If you take a look at the block log, it shows me because I revoked talk page access. Note that they were also banned from WP:UTRS for a year due to their abuse of that process. I don't endorse unblocking this user given their behaviour here. As previously mentioned, though, they would be eligible for the WP:SO after six months of zero edits. They've so far rejected that offer. After previously promising to "never do sock puppetry", they continued engaging in sockpuppetry and block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Maleidys Perez

Is back at 24.50.204.51 again. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

And 64.237.232.162 — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
People are already blocking before I see your message. :) --Yamla (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?

I know you may be upset still, but I'd like to let you know that the block on this IP address has just expired today. Earlier this year, Floquenbeam wrote on our IP's talk page that we were, quote-unquote, "not permitted to blank unblock declines while the block in question remains in effect", and since the said block no longer affected us anymore, I decided to get rid of Turkeybutt's pathetic unblock requests. I'm sorry if that bothered you or anything. -- 67.162.203.107 (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Six months has passed. The block is no longer active. You are entitled to remove all the declined unblock requests from that talk page, not just the one you actually removed. My apologies. I have rolled back my removal, and you are free to remove the rest if you choose. --Yamla (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Keith-264

I wonder if I might impose on you again. Do you know how I can resign from these (extended confirmed user, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker) user rights please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's possible for me to revoke these specific rights, but I suspect they'd just be autogranted to you. I'm curious, though, why do you wish to resign from them? Extended-confirmed-user means, for example, you can edit some pages which would otherwise be blocked, due to people setting up accounts purely to attack those pages. There's little harm in just ignoring those user rights if you don't want to use them. Now, I'm not saying I'm unwilling to remove them from your account, just... they may be regranted, and in any case, I'm not sure why you'd want rid of them? --Yamla (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see you asked another admin to do this, too, and he or she has made the changes. Okay. Good stuff. --Yamla (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I never asked for them and after being blocked I think it would be a conflict of interest to keep them.Keith-264 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Re. Janagewen

Hello. At Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User Murph9000 reverted the same wiki article for too many times without providing adquete reasons!, you suggested that comments made by Janagewen and their sockpuppets at article talk pages should be removed. Janagewen has made multiple unhelpful and uncivil remarks at Talk:Instruction set architecture. I would like to remove these remarks because they could confuse editors not aware of Janagewen's background, but I've unsuccessfully tried to find a supporting policy or guideline. Is it accepted practice to remove unhelpful remarks by indefinitely banned users? Thanks in advance. 50504F (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It is permitted but not required. WP:RBI is an essay (not a policy) on this. The specific policy is WP:BLOCK: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. However, in closed discussions, comments by blocked editors should not generally be reverted or struck through." --Yamla (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

block

User:Supermann has been in contact with me, and explained the situation. He is apparently not the same editor who originally wrote the article on Bliss which was rightfully deleted. He came to it much later as part of his usual pattern of editing, and reconstituted a much more appropriate article. Not understanding what to do, he then decided to use a different username in uploading the illustration. I have spoken to him in person in NYC. and I think he understands about using only one account.(another trusted user also spoken to him, and independently came to the same conclusion) I'm asking you as a fellow admin to unblock. I will personally watch what he does. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe this ("He is apparently not the same editor who originally wrote the article on Bliss which was rightfully deleted") to be true. Supermann (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Shxiyi (talk · contribs), which used to go by the name of BlissMedia. See also, the unblock requests over at User talk:Shxiyi. This user has continued to set up accounts to get around the block (for example, Supermansaga (talk · contribs)) without disclosing their previously-admitted conflict of interest and paid editing. I strongly oppose unblocking this editor. Note, though, that I am not the original blocking admin. That would be Alexf (talk · contribs) in the case of BlissMedia (subsequently renamed Shxiyi) and Bbb23 (talk · contribs) in the case of Supermansaga. --Yamla (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Comparing the 2015 Bliss Media Ltd. and the 2017 Bliss Media I doubt they they were by the same user. The 2015 is outrageous spam, making vague unjustified claims; the 2017 is honest, sliightly promotional only (I've explained to him how) even if very borderline notable at best. I'm looking at the [[7]] and thought it does sound implausible, it's possible. But even if it is false, I have a slightly different feeling about undeclared promotional sockpuppets who write spam, and those who write decent articles. How about , obviously, a one account restriction and only not connected in any way to that company?. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay with an unblock if the editor refrains from editing anything about Bliss Media, broadly construed. So, no editing an article about Bliss Media. No editing an article about a movie made by Bliss Media. No editing an article about an actor appearing in such a movie. And of course, a one-account restriction. So far, they've been categorically unwilling to have such a restriction. --Yamla (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't imagine an unblock without the restriction you suggest. DGG ( talk ) 13:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

71.81.74.166

Hi Yamla. You added a sock notice to the talk page of 71.81.74.166.[8] I've not looked into it, and if you still have those suspicions, then please leave it there. However, I noticed this IP editing on a really obscure page and doing a geat job of making it better. Given the level of reverts of IPs on that page, that was a bit of a surprise. So, he seems to me to be a good guy, and if it was a case of mistaken identity, would you please consider removing the tag? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The blocked vandal, Lewisthejayhawk (talk · contribs), edits almost exclusively around basketball. We know with certainty that Lewis used that IP address. However, I can find no evidence Lewis used that IP address after March. So I'll remove the tag but leave a notice on the IP talk page, strongly suggesting the editor set up an account. --Yamla (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Yamla, it's appreciated. Bromley86 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, that was a huge mistake. I very, very much regret interacting with that person. It's been a while since someone's been that breathtakingly rude. I won't be interacting with them again. --Yamla (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
No good deed goes unpunished. You should know that by now :) . Bromley86 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for lifting my Bot block, but one thing still worries me

As the topic states, thank you very much for lifting the bot block problem. There's one thing, however, that still worries me. You've said that the previous owner of this IP is used to run an open proxy, but how long ago was that? It is worrisome that someone has access to my IP besides me. I am 300% certain that I have never used an open proxy to edit Wikipedia or even attempt to open it through an open proxy. And I have the sole access to this computer. So I would like to ask you a more technical question, if you would be so kind as to look into it for me. Could it be that my IP address covers more than my own computer? I'm not sure if the address is that of a local relay/server and covers a range of computer instead of my only one. Is there an explanation besides that someone's using my IP? Can you suggest me a way to find out who if that's the case? Thank you, and apologies in advance for your time. Anthonydraco (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The specific block in question was only on a single IP address rather than on a range. The block was placed, automatically, back in May if my memory serves. But I wouldn't worry too much. It's normal practice for people's home IP address to change every so often. My particular ISP is fairly static these days, but it used to change on a daily basis. It's probably more common than not for an IP address of a home computer to change on a weekly basis. I think you should be more concerned if you believe you have a static IP address. That is, if you specifically pay for a static IP address and therefore have specific reason to believe it should not have changed. --Yamla (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I see. Thank you very kindly for your insight and the time it took to investigate and respond to me. This sheds some light on the technical aspect that I am not aware of. I indeed do not pay for static IP, so it has probably switched hands to a less resputable editor or a open proxy provider. Anthonydraco (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken

I added a new picture in the iOS page as the new version was announced yesterday (June 5). I am sure that it was not a test and was a permanent edit. This image is not under copyright as it was also used by another person in the iOS 11 page and please check the references for the pie chart edit. I am not vandalising anything, just trying to help update things. Therefore, I request you review the information and to allow me to add it back. 11:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Darius robin (talk)

You are mistaken, that image is copyrighted; see File:IOS_11_Homescreen_iPhone_7_Plus.png. As such, you'd require a detailed fair-use rationale. Additionally, you were adding it at 1242 x 2208 pixels and it was overwhelming the article. It'd be appropriate to add the image if, but only if, you use it at low resolution and if you add a detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not the one who uploaded this image on Wikipedia, I just reused it from the iOS 11 page. Ok, I take the blame for the size, but the image was just reused. Can I add it back in a smaller size? Thanks for your help. Darius robin (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You cannot add it back unless you provide a detailed fair-use rationale, as required by WP:FU. This is important; you can't just reuse an image already in use elsewhere, you have to ensure you are adhering to WP:FU. For example, it's almost never okay to use a non-free image solely for illustration. If you provide a detailed fair-use rationale and use an appropriate size, you can add it back! --Yamla (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think I won't use the picture, but are the changes in the pie chart fine? The info there is updated on Feb 23, now there is updated info, so can I update it? It has sources. Darius robin (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeap, so long as there are sources! --Yamla (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks :) Darius robin (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Protection for Chandigarh International Airport.

Hello Yamla. I saw you on an article that you protected. Can you please protect Chandigarh International Airport page? The article is been vandalized continuously by IP Addresses. They are adding content without a reliable source and despite that content removed by me, citing the reasons without any source, they are continuously adding it. For example is the SpiceJet flight from Chandigarh to Hyderabad. Spicejet is not adding any such flight from Chandigarh. I am confident about this because I went to check this flight on the website. And there is no news of this flight as well. I request you to protect the page. With Regards-- FlyJet777 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Note that the protection only applies to IP addresses. I set it for one month. --Yamla (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank You very much Yamla. :-) FlyJet777 (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Request to unbluck

Hello Yamala ,you have been blocked me(user:Abbas dhothar) on english wiki ,why???, there written because of Copyright violations .I did not know what copyright voilation I have done . Plz. unlock me .

thanx user:Abbas dhothar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.238.172 (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Make the request after signing in, on your user talk page. Note you will have to read and understand WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FU, though. You have committed several violations of these policies and we'll need to be convinced you understand what you did wrong and be sure you'll never make the same mistakes again. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yunshui 雲水 13:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla/Archive_21&oldid=1139267697"