Archive of discussion from User talk:Infrogmation

Next older archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 2011-2014

Next more recent: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive June 2019 - 2022

I've noticed you created a large number of articles regarding my favorite wikipedia subject, old 78rpm record labels. Thank you for all you've done in that area. This is a bit off the beaten path, but you might be interested in a merge proposal I've initiated for electrical transcription records, here: Talk:Electrical transcription. Thanks! 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 16:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Francisco Luis Héctor de Carondelet page, your edit caused an ISBN error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi, Infrogmation! We'd love to have you if you can make it! Please spread the word if you know of other Wikipedians in town who might be interested. Feel free to get in touch with me on my talk page. All best, Craub ( talk) 21:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NOPLDontBeAfraidToBeAmazing.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B ( talk) 15:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

This is a wonderful page about the French !uarter houses. I wonder if you could tell me the strett addresses of some of them? I am in Seattle so can't pop over and look at them.

I am especially interested in the big white house on St. Charles.

Kit Moss/FrankieDeramus1865 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankiederamus1865 ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I generally have at least street and often nearest cross street listed on the full descriptions on Commons. If you have a particular photo you want info on, let me know specifically which, thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 17:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:1984WorldsFairMetalSign.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

(Message to all bureaucrats)

There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.

In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. – xeno ^talk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Message to most bureaucrats

A bureaucrat chat has been opened by Maxim at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion.

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion suggests notifying bureaucrats on their talk page as well as BN, hence this courtesy note. – xeno ^talk 16:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Greetings, User:Infrogmation.

I recently ran into an image you uploaded back in 2005, File:HitlerEagleNest45.jpg. It promises some hope for a situation not unique in the Wiki world but one which I am insufficiently familiar with; I hope you can offer some helpful advice upon it.

I am currently assisting an 89 year-old World War II vet with his contributions to Wikipedia. He has personal experience that spans several articles at the encyclopedia, and, as a retired academic, is gifted with a precise command of language and conscientious approach to documentation.

My enquiry concerns the proper way to license a "second hand" image. In the description of the above Kehlsteinhaus image you provided the following for Source:

From the family collection of an aquaintence, uploaded and used here by permission.

And below this, under Author, the following:

U.S. Army soldier in occupied Germany

The above image was subsequently shared with Wikimedia Commons, where it resides today ( here).

Evidently things were different in 2005, as any effort in 2015 to upload an image at Wikimedia Commons demands the user either declare it to be their own work, or if not, channels them to a series of options, none of which appear to allow "second hand" licensing by an uploader of another author's work. By that I mean, for example, either an image taken and shared back during World War II, or one offered later at say a unit reunion by its original author, who has since passed away, to a computer savvy member to post at their website on the Internet.

How does one license such an image, where the original author freely shared their work, intended that others share it, sought no copyright or compensation, and passed away since?

Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated, as I never know each exchange with the veteran if there will be another, and cross my fingers there is.

Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 16:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

If I remember correctly, the photo was taken by the deceased father of someone I knew. (I *think* I'm still occasionally in touch with them on social media.) When I saw it I said I thought it might be useful on Wikimedia if they were willing to share it under a free license. She liked that idea and okayed it. I asked if she wanted name credit on it, and she said not particularly. So I uploaded it as you saw. Yes, I think a bit more precision in info &/or OTRS would be in the way it would be done now.

The main concern is that there is no possible conflicting copyright claim. She inherited the work of her father. (I've uploaded a number of photos by my grandparents and even earlier generations which I've inherited myself.) I don't know if this answers all your questions, but I hope is some help. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 19:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the prompt feedback, User:Infrogmation. I completely get the situation you describe, but am still puzzled how you have been able to upload images by others w/o license releases (vetted by Wikipedia volunteer copyright enforcement team staff and kept on file)? The same veteran I mentioned above has an "outline history" of his unit posted at his website. He gave verbal permission to me (via email) to use it, but a wiki bot discovered the new material introduced at a Wikipedia article on his unit paralleled that on his website and flagged the content as a copyright violation and threatened impending deletion. I then had to go through the outlined WP:OTRS procedure and get his written (digital) release, which I forwarded to the copyright team (the approval of which is still pending).

Obviously, he was alive, cooperative, and able to understand and execute the text release. But he has images that were broadly shared at the time they were taken during WWII he is not the author of (and has no idea at this point who was; whomever, they obviously were not at all concerned with future copyright, and there is no monetary value or material historical significance attenutating to them at this point. Nothing like this image: Into the Jaws of Death.) He also has images that were specifically offered to him by now deceased vets to post at his webpage, who likewise were not interested in preserving their copyright: their sole interest was in seeing the history of their unit preserved on the Internet and shared with whomever was interested in its legacy.

How does he upload them? The only option once one selects "This is not my work" at Wikipedia Commons is an option that appears to hold promise of someone being able to explain the above an upload such an image in good faith, but in the end doesn't.

Under option number five beneath the heading "Now tell us why you are sure you have the right to publish this work" appears the ostensible route to take, "Another reason not specified above". All those above it - images already licensed as freely shared at Flikr, the copyright has expired in the U.S., it is the work of the U.S. government, et al - don't fit. But the moment one clicks on the text box to enter their explanation under option five a check button above it next to the injunction "The license is described by the following wikitext (must contain a copyright tag)" automatically activates itself and demands an existing license (in "wikitext", no less). There's no room at all for explaining/justifying an upload of someone else's image like yours of the Kehlsteinhaus. How does one do it?

Thanks. I'm desperate to get this veteran's images uploaded while he's still lucid and computer savvy, but the clock is ticking quite loudly, as you can understand. Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 22:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

If you want to get the images online but can't get enough info on source/copyright status, you might consider putting them somewhere else than Wikimedia. There are a number of free photo hosting sites online; Flickr.com is one I know that allows a large amount of high resolution images with captions and detailed descriptions. Not everything of historic import can go on Commons. Yes, uploading can be problematic getting correct info on source and copyright, but understand this is because Commons does not allow fair use, and many people have tried to take advantage of Commons by uploading with false source or fraudulent licenses, which Commons must continually protect from. As to the image I uploaded long ago, it seems my word was simply taken, but I understand the value of the more stringent procedures now in place and should probably see if I can contact my friend and see if I can get an OTRS to have on file with Wikimedia. Sorry I'm not of more help. You might ask on Commons help pages if someone can be of more help in determining licenses. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 18:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm aware of all this. I'm not trying to stockpile the images somewhere, I'm trying to help this veteran integrate them on a page on his unit at Wikipedia. Those he took are no problem; those shared with him w/o regard for preserving copyright are the ones I'm trying to learn how to properly license.

Am I to understand that Wikipedia is not a clone of Wikimedia Commons in terms of licenses required for uploading, and possibly it may offer more leeway than WC in an instance like the above? When I first began at WP I uploaded images to it; somewhere along the line I got the impression it was better to do so at WC - I can't tell you anymore how I came to that perception. Regardless, I have made all my uploads at WC since.

Is my inference (from your most recent post) accurate, that WP might offer more leeway than WC in a situation like I've described?

Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 23:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would modify the position of bureaucrat. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.

To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. – xeno ^talk

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:MortonDowney.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello,

Would you be so kind as to come over to the page on Steve Reich and check into the section of the talk page titled "Oh Dem Watermelons" at /info/en/?search=Talk:Steve_Reich#Oh_Dem_Watermelons and give us an opinion about the incorrect attribution of a piece of music about watermelons to Stephen Foster? It's one of those "original research" catch-22 situations where ... well, just read the posts. Your knowledge of music would be greatly appreciated. Love and hugs, cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 ( talk) 20:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks, and i am now bugging you again because i just found an actual academic citation (YAY!) I placed it in the talk section of the article. Let me know what you think. cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 ( talk) 21:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi there! Thanks for your interest in my editathon! I've updated the meetup page and am a novice at this so any and all help is welcomed. Please let me know what/how your are willing/able/available to do? Thanks!!-- Heathart ( talk) 15:45, 27 Oct 2015 (UTC)

The article Raymac Records has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article lacks reliable sources that suggests notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheGGoose ( talk) 03:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Froggy, I saw you sign up for an earlier version of this event, hope there's still interest. If you like, I can put you in touch by email with the organizers.-- Pharos ( talk) 15:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years. As a result of this discussion, your bureaucrat permissions may be removed if you do not return to bureaucrat activity within the next month. If you do not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, you will need to request reinstatement at RFB. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past bureaucrat efforts. – xeno ^talk 21:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Noted, thanks. Cheers -- Infrogmation ( talk) 23:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello again- as you know, your 'crat bit is pending removal per the above. Do feel free to request the change yourself at m:SRP#Removal of access before that happens, if you prefer. Thanks again, – xeno ^talk 14:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years. As a result of this discussion, your bureaucrat permissions have been removed by a Steward. If you wish to request reinstatement, you may do so at WP:RFB. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past bureaucrat efforts. – xeno ^talk 06:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply

7&6=thirteen ( ☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Froggy, do you think you might be able to join and help out at the Tulane University Edit-a-thon as part of the Art+Feminism global campaign on March 4? There are some very interested and enthusiastic new editors there, but they could use the assistance of someone with more on-wiki experience.-- Pharos ( talk) 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

We are having an editathon at Xavier University on 3/11! Would love for you to join us! -- Heathart ( talk) 23:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:PrettyBabyLPBack.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Low Bridge (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Murray. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Busy Bodies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gramophone. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Block user:72.136.164.103 for vandalism. 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C ( talk) 01:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Xavier University of Louisiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.xula.edu/cas/index.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi- I uploaded over 2,000 photos here, but almost 3 years ago I was sick and my body seized up into a coma. I am just returning to editing the en.Wikipedia. Every photo I uploaded from Flickr or photographers' private photos, and with all I uploaded using the Magnus upload tool (after teaching the photographers during multiple emails how to change to a Creative Commons license, either BY or CC-BY-SA). At some point, Magnus' upload tool wasn't working and I had to save the photo to my computer and then upload from there. Many photos have since been re-uploaded above my upload from the actual source. That's fine, and improvements are too. My problem is that about 3-5 photogrphers later went back to their Flickr page and changed the Creative Commons license back to copyright, and I was unable to explain or defend them. Few editors bothered to check them out. The worst offender was named Klaus Hiltscher, and another was Cowboy Ben Altman, who insisted on uploading them himself, and now I know why. Can you please contact the Powers That Be on Wikimedia Commons, since I feel almost NO reaching out, assisting, whatever, in comparison to the past with Wikipedia, which is a shame for us older editors who don't understand how to find someone who can capture a tiny sound-bite for articles, improvements on the Wikipedia pages, and cropping and lightening. My user page on Wikipedia is here: /info/en/?search=User:Leahtwosaints. My uploads alphabetized are here: /info/en/?search=User:Leahtwosaints/Leahtwosaints/List_of_uploaded_musician%27s_photos

AND, my Username is the same on any Wiki, no matter where. Sad to say, the photographers and newer editors have wasted no time in reverting my edits, photos, and the like on Wikipedia, and it may be time to discontinue any editing of any kind unless you or someone can find a helpful editor who understands Commons as well. I'm still VERY ill, but didn't mind till all this. -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:DotRecord.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EspanRegalRecord.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry to dump this in your lap, but I saw a great old pic of Mick Jagger. It was uploaded by the photographer, and when I checked the source, found it is copyrighted. I don't know how it got missed, or the rules changed but can you fix this and then let me know what's wrong there? It's this one: [1] The file is File:Mick Jagger (1976).jpg. Damn, it's nice even though it's not HD, and I'm hoping we can keep it. Nearly all the Stones' photos were from my work nagging other photographers to change to Creative Commons (or at least a big part of them, including Lisa Fischer-- who needs watermarks to be removed. (Not my upload!) Maybe some day soon you can teach me that and how to make audio clips? Thanks honey. -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 19:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm not sure what the problem you see with File:Mick Jagger (1976).jpg is. Per source [2] it is cc-by licensed. Could you specify what the problem is? Thanks. -- Infrogmation ( talk) 00:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Infrogmation. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gulf Coast. Since you had some involvement with the Gulf Coast redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SST flyer 11:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Infrogmation.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Infrogmation. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Infrogmation. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DotRecord.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. GXXF T • C 22:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi! Do you have any plans to do photo hunts/photo drives in New Orleans or nearby parishes? I could add additional photo ideas if you like! WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

My time and ability to go out of my way when I do have time varies, but feel free to suggest! Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 01:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Alright! Among the photo reqs I have at Commons:Commons:Picture_requests/Requests/United_States#Greater_New_Orleans are Lusher Charter School (both elementary and secondary campuses) by Tulane University, Isidore Newman School in Uptown and the Orleans Parish School Board headquarters in Algiers. WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Commons Category "Schools in New Orleans" and subcategory "Schools in Uptown New Orleans" has some of both Lushers: File:LusherOaksNov08.jpg File:New_Orleans_Lusher_School_Freret_Aug_2016.jpg. (I know I've photographed Newman School on Jefferson Avenue but didn't see it in a quick look; may be among the pics I never have uploaded to Commons.) Thanks for letting me know about the requested picture list; a good many of the requested are on Commons and have been for years; I know I've photographed and uploaded images for most of the libraries in Orleans and Jefferson parishes, see eg Commons:Category:Libraries_in_Jefferson_Parish,_Louisiana, Commons:Category:New_Orleans_Public_Library. Some others listed can be found with a search on Commons. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 13:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for showing me the links! Those first two are definitely the Lusher School primary and secondary campuses (respectively) and I added the pictures to the Lusher School and East Carrollton articles. Some additional views of the primary school would be nice, and a color photo of the Fortier building would be desired, so I left the photo reqs up. As for the libraries, many of the pictures would be very useful for Wikipedia articles. There may be some cases where a closer-up image would be nice, and/or if additional angles/views would be great (mainly to show signage that states the name of the library). In those cases I'll clarify the photo requests! WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and added photos of New Orleans libraries to several neighborhood articles. I also clarified requests and expanded text information about these branches. I think I'll do Jefferson Parish tomorrow. WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I decided to go ahead and do those too :) - I think it's very important to show what institutions (schools, libraries, post offices, fire and police stations, parks, etc.) make up a local community, whether it's a city neighborhood, a suburban municipality/development, or a small town. It shows how places are unique, and I think Wikipedia can be very helpful in building and maintaining neighborhood and community cohesion in the New Orleans area, the United States, and around the world.

Speaking of that, one issue with New Orleans is that only Lusher Charter School has an attendance zone (and therefore a community attendance area), and even that is going away in 2017. No other New Orleans school has an attendance boundary with guaranteed admission. I wonder if anybody can get access to the pre-Katrina attendance boundary maps at the OPSB headquarters and/or on archived copies of the OPSB website. This may be very helpful in indicating which neighborhood schools served various neighborhoods and districts of New Orleans prior to Katrina.

WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 14:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

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

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

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.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The article John Deacon (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Nevé – selbert 22:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. I had a look at File:Early SSA accounting operations.jpg and the text still says "circa", the talk page is a red link. I then followed back into Commons at [3] and it says "early accounting operations in Baltimore circa 1936". I've reverted, but if you can sort out the conflicting statements please feel free to do so. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 12:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Good catch, thanks. The error seems to have been in the Wikimedia text, which I have fixed. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 18:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beale Street Mama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ted Lewis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:GoldStarChoates.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

You might want to take another look at this, please. It's getting to be a mess but my effort to help was not appreciated, so I am going to drink tea instead. Cheers 82.34.71.202 ( talk) 23:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

There are two ways to edit wikipedia. One is by what we know to be true, the other is by what the sources tell us. There are two ways to view sources. (1) they are right or, sometimes, (2) what we don't like must be a typo. Take your pick. I was very surprised to find this and am trying to research it further. We'll see what we see. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 01:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

This seems to be the version of Careless Love Blues that also lists LA on clarinet. http://adp.library.ucsb.edu/index.php/matrix/detail/2000030391/W140626-Careless_love_blues Carptrash ( talk) 01:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Please look again more closely. It says cornet, not clarinet, significantly different instruments played in different ways. Are you familiar with what those instruments sound like? This is a rather famous early Armstrong recording. Easily found on YouTube or elsewhere online; no clarinet at all. -- Infrogmation ( talk) 04:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Whatever you took File:A bit of something for discussion.jpeg seems very dubious and bizarre. No such claim in multiple reissues, standard discographies (Rust Jazz Records, &c.) Listen to the record, vocalist accompanied by piano and violin; search YouTube for "Bessie Smith - Hateful Blues" (Wikipedia doesn't allow me to link directly). Thanks for your suggestions on ways to edit Wikipedia; a suggestion from me to you: if you encounter something that contradicts pretty much everything else written on the subject, and the Wikipedia article has long been well established and reviewed, perhaps bringing it up on the talk page for discussion might be useful. Thanks for your work and attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 04:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Would you please review recent edits at Algiers, New Orleans. I monitor an error tracking category and noticed that some edits at the article had broken the population density in the infobox. I am reluctant to fix a problem like that when a lot of other stuff was done because I don't want to be seen as endorsing it. However, I fixed the problem and am wondering about the edits since 25 July 2017 diff. I saw your comment at Talk:Algiers, New Orleans#Founded 1719 which addressed the issue of the established/founded date, so I'm hoping you know about the topic and could check anything that is needed. The culture section should probably be pruned to include only items with a blue-linked article. Thanks. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Regular Criminal. Since you had some involvement with the Regular Criminal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, Infrogmation. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I didn't want to remove any information, there were some references with a duplicate name tag and I tried to fix them. I'm sorry if I accidentally removed a reference.-- Carnby ( talk) 20:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the reply. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 22:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Category:Aviators, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. feminist ( talk) 16:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Used one of your photos. Thought you might be interested in the history. Feel free to improve of course. FloridaArmy ( talk) 11:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Neat; and hello! :) –  SJ  + 17:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The article Crescent City Records has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JMHamo ( talk) 09:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, Infrogmation. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Allergology. Since you had some involvement with the Allergology redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc ( talk) 20:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Reform Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Reform Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Toa Nidhiki05 18:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Infrogmation: Thank you for correcting my error, of several days ago, about Patterson's alias in NOScO. (I started cleaning up the stale and poorly-organized Beth Patterson article a week ago. It still needs better and more cittions.

("OCD"ly, I started these edits after I enviously read rave commentary about this year's FQF, on the fb page of my, and her, friend Tom Jackson. (Maybe next year...) Tom & I live in Chicago; I once heard Patterson perform at Tom's house. After I started working on the article, Beth and I have been having an email conversation about it, starting with my question about a CD of hymns (on CD Baby) by a different Beth Patterson.) Acwilson9 ( talk) 00:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

This is an archive of discussion from User talk:Infrogmation

Next older archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 2011-2014

Next more recent: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive June 2019 - 2022