User talk:Infrogmation/Archive September October 07

Archive of old talk for User:Infrogmation

Next older talk archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive May-August 07

Next more recent talk archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive November December 07

September 2007

Images on Commons

Your message:Hi. Please be sure to check your use page on Commons for discussion. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 20:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at commons and also made corrections. Kindly advise if I did things correctly this time. Thanks. - Dragonbite 22:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I notified you here as well as I wasn't sure how often you checked in at Commons. Glad to see you take care of these matters. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Sunshine Records

Hi - thanks for the heads-up on the "Move feature. Sorry, I was not aware of this function and have not used it before. I'm reading the guide now and make sure I use it in future. Dunks 02:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 03:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:JJAudubon.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:JJAudubon.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 07:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban still in effect?

Banned User:SFTVLGUY2 appears to be back as User:ConoscoTutto. -- Ssilvers 20:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infrogmation, I was coming here to inquire about the same. ConoscoTutto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) established an account in Oct 06, made a few edits, but the account was dormant until about the time you indef blocked SFTVLGUY2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for copyright violation, when ConoscoTutto became active in the same area. SFguy was a difficult editor; ConoscoTutto appears similar and has the same interests. I'm hoping you'll keep an eye out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Also, user page info is similar: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I'll be taking a look and maybe asking some other admins for input. -- Infrogmation 15:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive

Re:this - I am truely impressed with your work on commons. Raul654 20:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eeep! That's a lot, eh? Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for letting me know. -- Infrogmation 21:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nash Roberts

Hi, Infrogmation.

I'd first like to give you a HUGE thanks for all the work you do on Wikipedia, particularly pertaining to New Orleans and the interests of our area.

Now, as to what I'd like to ask you about: The "easter bunny" bandit struck the Nash Roberts page again today. Going by the history of the page: you've "undone" his vandelisim twice, I've undone it twice now, and a third registered user has undone it a fifth time.

Do you think it would be approporate to restrict the page to editing by registered users for awhile, until "Mr. Easter Bunny" get's tired of editorilizing on the page?

Just a thought. By the way, do you think the vandal is Bob Breck? LOL! -Fish Man 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! I won't speculate about "Easter Bunny" fan's real identity... Aparently they're editing from some sort of rotating ip# via BellSouth.net. For now I'd just keep doing what we're doing and reverting, perhaps Bunny will either give up or actually discuss on the talk page. If not, semi-protection of the article would be an option. IMO it hasn't quite come to that; "Bunny" seems a minor annoyance who is getting reverted quickly for now. As to the thanks, you're very welcome. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism

The same editor who used 207.69.137.14 to vandalize articles, which you banned, is now using 207.69.137.42 to vandalize articles in the same manner. Can you ban that IP address as well? Steelbeard1 10:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another admin already blocked that vandal for a month. Thanks for the alert, -- Infrogmation 11:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thnQ

thank you for your kind welcome.

B0Rn2bL8 12:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supernerd 10

User Infrogmation I was wandering if you knew why supernerd 10 was mad and put that vandalism on that page. Because he does not like vandalism at all and tries to block it as much as possible. But anyway could you possibly tell me why that happened. thanks. Swirlex 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what User:Supernerd 10's problem was and why the user decided to vandalize. I just reacted to the vandalism (temporary block-- a user without good edits before might have gotten a permanent one). Supernerd 10 can offer an explanation or challenge the block on their user talk page if they wish, but I havn't heard anything. Sorry I don't have anything more interesting to tell. -- Infrogmation 20:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you though. It may have just been that supernerd 10 didn't like something on the page. And also thank you for reacting to the vandalism.Swirlex 10:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mr Richardson

Hi there, was it really necessary to come in behind me and change the block from 3 days to 1 month, on the above editor? I fully appreciate that his actions leave a lot to be desired, but to change a first time block, by this amount may as well have just blocked his account indefinitely, and seems to me to have been a punitive action instead of stopping the initial problem. If he had continued then after the block, I have his paged watch listed I would issued alot longer block if he'd carried on. I can understand the length of ban is subjective, but I don't think anything has been gained with this apart from an admin/'crat undermining an other admin. Regards ^Khukri 13:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned the block back to it's 3 days, well now 2 days. Regards ^Khukri 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that someone who has logged in and shown signs of knowing what they're doing here and vandalizes should be treated more seriously than a passing anon ip# who might be passing through and should be given more benifit of doubt, and blocked what I thought appropriate concerning both the insults and vandalism from that editor. However, I hope you are correct and "Mr Richardson" has leared their lesson with a shorter block and no further action will be needed. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and I hope so too or I'm going to look bloody stupid. The only reason I didn't block indefinately the first time round was that there were a few constructive edits in his history. As I said previously I've got him on my watch list so any re-occurence and I will go permanent. In his little rampage he did half a dozen things wrong but I just mentioned the personal attacks in the block as that was the most serious at the time. Anyhow, thanks for your time. ^Khukri 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No stupidity, just differing perspectives as to how strict to be in a particular case. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans categorization

Please come join the discussion I have started at: Category talk:Hurricane Katrina. - TexasAndroid 15:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richardson again?

Just as a heads up, an IP address began attacking my User page and Talk page with very similar attacks to those I got a few days ago from Mr Richardson, around about the time Mr. Richardson became active again today and before he was indef blocked. Letting you know in case he manages to somehow use an anon IP to continue despite the ban in future. It was User:83.100.253.244. Regards, Liverpool Scouse 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Image:Cone.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cone.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edits in New Orleans article

I added to the crime section, a notable and well sourced paragraph regarding the effects that the Katrina refugees had on the crime rates cities they were moved to. It was supported by several reliable sources and took me quite some time to get together. You reverted it as if it were vandalism and did not make any attempt towards discussion.

If you feel the information is untrue, perhaps you should find some valid sources supporting your view.
If you feel it wasn't relevant to the article then perhaps you should justify that point.
If you're just embarassed about what that information says about a city you like, perhaps you shouldn't be editing the site because it's obviously not NPOV for you to do so.

I have re-added my work to the article, if you wish to change some parts to make the article better, do so by all means, if you want to delete the whole thing again but have a good reason, that's fine too, please tell me what the reason is so I don't feel like you're just trying to keep information you don't "like" off the site. 64.230.5.75 18:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

after a nice cup of tea I have come to the conclusion that I have made a bad faith assumption that you removed my contribution without good reason. I appologise if my previous post comes across as abrupt in any way, but it did reflect my strong feelings at the time. Regarding my edit: I changed my wording slightly, and moved my text to a slightly more relevant place in the Crime section of the article, I think it does fit there alot better but perhaps you could make some suggestions as to how to improve upon it. 64.230.5.75 05:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page User talk:64.230.5.75. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:AmericanAustinAuto1930.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AmericanAustinAuto1930.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:EdwinWEdwardsPortait.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:EdwinWEdwardsPortait.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:CarolLombard.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:CarolLombard.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 13:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:CarolLombard.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CarolLombard.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 1of3 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

Could you please provide input as the blocking admin on the unblock request at User talk:JackSparrow Ninja#Block. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 21:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PabloCasals22.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PabloCasals22.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 15:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Image:BlueAmberolRim.jpg

I took the liberty of trying to clarify the licensing status of Commons:Image:BlueAmberolRim.jpg, which you originally uploaded (I was in there fixing bad categories). Could you please take a look and chime in so it doesn't need to say that I presumed your intent? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:USRegalRecord1Big.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:USRegalRecord1Big.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. β^_command 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block avoidance

You had indef. blocked User:Migssant/User:Migssant19 back in April due to image abuse and copyvio. Just letting you know that I'm pretty sure the user has returned in the form of Lacreta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Except for non-free logos and one image up at PUI, it is plausible that the rest of the images this user has uploaded are his own work. I'm just writing to let you know since you were the blocking admin. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Red links" in New Orleans Mardi Gras

Thanks for the perspective on this issue. I agree that the presence of "red" words often spur Wikipedians to create new content, but in this case, I made the decision to remove them because the pages had not been created since the links were added in 2005. That being said, it would definitely be interesting to see a page created for Bernard Xavier de Marigny de Mandeville. I plan to construct pages for these entries and will add links as I go. In the mean time, if you think the presence of "red" links will help, let me know and I'll re-add them. Kindest regards, AlphaEta ^{T / C} 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ajuk requests to be unblocked

Do you mind if I unblock him? That edit summary was absolutely unacceptable, but the edit by itself was innocent. S/he already served half of his block and had enough time to think about his/hers behaviour. MaxSem 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I didn't notice this. MaxSem 15:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user seems to me to not be a vandal, but unfortunately sometimes wishes to amuse themselves by being a brat. As it has been an annoyance to other users, I thought a 1 day time out was appropriate. -- Infrogmation 16:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DorothyLamour2.jpg

I have tagged Image:DorothyLamour2.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Wbrz 10:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP user continuing to cause problems

I'm bringing this here because you put in the most recent one-month block on this person. User 207.69.137.42 seems to have wasted no time, after being unblocked, in attempting to remove all useful content from the article on James D. Nicoll, making spurious demands to prove things that were already referenced and adding "notability" warnings above material that explains why Nicoll is notable. Can you please take a look at this revision history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_D._Nicoll&curid=3688955&action=history) and see if a repeated and/or longer ban is appropriate. Thank you. Vicki Rosenzweig 15:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phonograph cylinder

Phonograph cylinder has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]