Archive of discussion from User talk:Infrogmation for August through November of 2006.

• Next older archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive June July 06
• Next newer archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive Dec 06 Jan 07

Hi--I noticed this edit in which you reverted my edit on the Pussy article. I removed the "show their pussies" tidbit of the caption because it is misleading, and possibly a pun. I realize that the "Pussy" article is a hotbed for vandalism, but this was a change made in earnest, and I am going to try to rectify the situation. Best wishes, and let me know if you have any thoughts as to how we can best phrase the caption : ) AdamBiswanger1 04:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your work. The double entendre is the whole point of the image (and the article as a whole, perhaps). Improvements in the article's language is welcome, but I doubt it would make it any less of a hotbed of vandalism; the subject seems a natural magnet for pre-teens discovering Wikipedia and their sexuality at the same time :-) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help with Andrewrobertlam. Iamheredude 04:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your question regarding Molly's. I wrestled with this same issue myself for a while before making the edit and adding it to the French Quarter article. I was in New Orleans during that time (I'm a French Quarter resident) and saw significant media attention focused both on Johnny Whites and Molly's. Molly's did indeed shut down early the night before the storm, but were opened again the next day, the day of the storm. But Molly's is not a 24/7 bar like Johnny White's. They always shut down for a few hours during the day, even before the hurricane. For about three weeks after the storm they continued to shut down around 7:00PM before extending their hours until later in the evening. If there was a single day that Molly's wasn't opened for business, I would have left them out, but that hasn't been the case. As they've been open daily, to include the day of the storm, and along with Johnny White's they received considerable media attention for this, I felt it was appropriate to include them. Thanks again for your question. Please let me know if you concur with my thoughts on this or if you have a suggestion to better improve this article. Respectfully, Hebron 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you mean the link to my uncyclopedia user page? Please can you edit my user page as appropriate? Thanks for your help. I'm trying to "tidy up" my page and my image here at the moment! Miller 14:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

No, my comment was in reference to eg the Colter caricature uploaded from there. I don't know of any problem with having the external link on your user page. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The user Andeh has recently suggested that I mark redundant images for speedy deletion. That image has now been marked. As for Coulter, I don’t care much for her, but I realize now it’s best to keep my own political views away from Wikipedia. If you have the authority to do so you can delete the image immediately if you wish. Thanks. Miller 14:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm being threatened with an indefinite block by another administrator, any edits I do to The Guardian are reverted, and I'm generally being harassed by several users.

What I would like:

• Removal of all threats on my talkpage and Talk:The Guardian
• Block or warning to other users to back off
• Continued monitoring of the situation until offending users leave me alone

If not, I'll ask another administrator. Thanks, Tchadienne 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Infrogmation, thought you might be interested in some comments posted at my talk page by the user ( User:Olmec98) who you had temp. blocked for their edits/reversions at Olmec yesterday. What is most intriguing is that they have signed their post "Clyde Winters", the very name of the self-described Afrocentrist writer Dr CA Winters whose works and views were being pasted into the article. Now, there's no way of knowing whether this is so at the moment, although curiously enough Dr Winters' site is very similarly named (http://geocities.com/olmec982000/index.html).

Since they seem keen to continue on in dialogue and in defense of that viewpoint, I will redirect them to the article's talk page where we can see what or if some consensus can be reached. It might be worth keeping an eye on, and particularly if this is Winters then there may be some interesting discussions ensuing. Cheers, -- cjllw | TALK 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for mentioning it. I recall Mr. Winters from Usenet years ago. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

. Infrogmation Someone at Olmec Alternative theories is trying to maintain that Wiercinski did not use material dating to Olmec timesThere is someone who keeps changing the fact that the skeletons examined from Tlatilco and Cerros de las Mesas were excavated by Stirling and all date to the Olmec period. This is made clear by the professor at the following site#REDIRECT[ [1]] Please stop this person from making these corrections because they are untrue Clyde Winters 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Looks like the DarwenIndependanceParty have reincarnated themselves as the Darwen Freedom Society: [2] Do you think the editing style is similar enough to justify indef blocking? FreplySpang 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

It looks like it. Seems to be a persistant vandal under a new name; if the same vandalism material is being put in by a new name a block of some sort seems in order. -- Infrogmation 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I would not have added the material if I felt it was wrong or off-topic. So please feel free to cite sources indicating contradictory evidence to my additions before removing them. I'm always surprised at how many people take enjoyment from removing the work of others. If you feel a fact causes the article to lose some balance, add a balancing fact. Don't just tear down the work of others. 192.246.0.76 12:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for asking. I replied on your user talk page User talk:192.246.0.76. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Infrogmation! Thanks for the welcome.

I should have known who you are with the "frog" derived user name. I've seen your user name on many of the entries I've read here. I registered here years ago but contributed little or nothing. After reading a recent article in Atlantic Monthly decided to register again (could not remember previous login or perhaps it was deleted from inactivity). Don't yet know my way through the interface and having a damned time trying to figure it out. What's the best way for me to get your current e-mail or give you mine?

walter r b.

Wrayb 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay so what's going on with the New Orleans Mardi Gras contribution? It seems to be a bit "clickish" very much resembling the Mardi Gras click sites around the web.

We did everything by the book referring to the talk page which had NO, ZERO, NADA info concerning contributions that had been made, plans for the future or anything, period. We made a very legitimate contribution that was deleted without any explanation or discussion as ya'll like to call it here on Wikipedia. I also noticed that nola.com's link was removed, and if anyone has claims to promoting Mardi Gras in this city , it should be them. Further more half of the people making contributions to this section don't even live in this city but are only doing so to further promote their weak at best sites. Admin wherever you may be I implore you to get a grasp of this section of Wikipedia as it seems there is a bit of dictatorship going on which in essence is killing the whole spirit of what Wikipedia should be. I understand ya'll all have a great interest in Mardi Gras whether it is finical or other wise but to blantly try to push out new sites who have ligament contributions just sums up the clickish cut throat nature of some in the Mardi Gras industry.

It is mighty funny that the "Mardi Gras" contribution has massive amounts of discussion pertaing to contributions on it's talk page but "Mardi Gras New Orleans" had none. I bet that was deleted too? So let me be the first to open the discussion on whether the following is acceptable to this contribution or not.

Ceramic Mardi Gras Mask Ceramic Mardi Gras Masks are unique and original pieces of art work from New Orleans. The Fancy Ceramic Mardi Gras Masks are usually poured, sculpted, and handpainted by many native artists in New Orleans, Louisiana. Ceramic Mardi Gras masks are usually designed to be displayed as decorations and are not generally worn as face mask. They are almost as old as Mardi Gras itself and although not part of a costume, they have been handed out at balls and some of the earlier works signed "Sally New Orleans" are some of the most sought after collectibles on the web.

Of course this will be cleaned up to contain links to other Wikipedia reference contributions but I think you should get the picture of the direction we are trying to go with this contribution, which was so blantly deleted.

I wonder if the user who deleted nola.coms contribution got a message from the admin as well? I somehow doubt it.

We also made a contribution for "Mardi Gras 2007" which was original and not yet contributed in anyway which contained links to the "Mardi Gras New Orleans" contributions and this was deleted as well. The click has been busy. So ADMIN wherever you may be and correct me if I am wrong but I think one of the contributors to this section has found their way into the admin area, although a conflict of interest, please keep an open mind when reading our comments but this has been an ongoing problem with the Mardi Gras "click" for some time. It is mighty funny that we made another contributions to an unrelated Mardi Gras item and it has not been deleted, bumped, etc, etc. Hmmmm...why does it have to be so conserveral when it comes to Mardi Gras. I can only suspect that the "MG click" has had a hand in it.

This is exactly the sort of thing that gives New Orleans Mardi Gras a bad name.

Les Bon Temps Roulez!-- Nolaimports 05:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)nolaimports reply

Nothing "clickish" at all. Every edit of yours I saw (for all I know, there may have been others which I havn't) were promoting the commerical enterprise which shares your user name. This is against Wikipedia policy, as has been explained on your user talk page with links to details you can read. You were told "Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia" and " non-commerical edits by you to improve the quality of the encyclopedia are welcome." I think that's pretty clear. Take a bit of time reading the first 4 links which Armadillo put on your talk page if you need a more detailed explanation. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 10:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply

This is the contribution we would like to add:

"Ceramic Mardi Gras Mask Ceramic Mardi Gras Masks are unique and original pieces of art work from New Orleans. The Fancy Ceramic Mardi Gras Masks are usually poured, sculpted, and handpainted by many native artists in New Orleans, Louisiana. Ceramic Mardi Gras masks are usually designed to be displayed as decorations and are not generally worn as face mask. They are almost as old as Mardi Gras itself and although not part of a costume, they have been handed out at balls and some of the earlier works signed "Sally New Orleans" are some of the most sought after collectibles on the web." Someone please tell us how to do it. If it is acceptable. I also have some original pictures I would like to add but I assume that is a no go too.-- Nolaimports 18:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I ask an arbitration about French School. Can you give me your opinion. Thanks again. Olmeque 17:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, I wanted to share with you a persistent vandal, anonymous user 71.199.81.12, who keeps inflating the record sales for Lil' Wayne. He changes records that were certified as "Gold" to "Platinum" and those certified "Platinum" to "2x Platinum". He has been doing this for weeks now, and I've warned him three times on his talk page. You can see from his/her contributions that most of his edits are to artists album sales, with no source or truth whatsoever. Wbbigtymer 04:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Noted. As I'm unfamiliar with the sales figures myself, could you post a source or link confirming that their changes are wrong? Thanks. -- Infrogmation 11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

This is the riaa database. Unfortunately, there is no way to link the search results from it, but simply typing "lil wayne" in the artist field returns his album certifications. Wbbigtymer 13:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for warning him, but I'm frustrated, yet not a bit surprised, to deliver to you the news that he's still up to his same old mischief (he did it again). Wbbigtymer 01:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Given a 48 hour block. BTW, I suggest putting a link to the above riaa link on the article talk page for reference. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply

He's back at it again. Wbbigtymer 20:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello. There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what issue I was addressing. Any/all claims should be verifiable by a reliable source, and that source should be clearly cited/referenced in the article. This is basic wikipedia policy. The citation that was originally included only mentioned ONE online store that sold the referenced T-Shirts. I never wrote anything about T-Shirt designs; your claim was that several sources were selling shirts, while the cited article only mentioned one store. Now that you've added the link to the Times-Picayune article that clearly indicates other vendors, my concerns have been addressed. This link was not included in the article previously. Thanks. Hal Raglan 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay. I see we were editing paying attention to differant details. I hope we have it settled now. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I guess I did'nt realzie there were more than one high society album. -- Sicamous 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

No problem. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation

No offence, but you don't use edit summary in many edits you're making. I nearly identified you as a vandal in VandalProof. Michaelas10 17:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Um? What edits looked problematic? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Is this practice always necessary? I realize I'm butting in this conversation, but I don't always use edit summaries, especially for the many vandalism reverts I've been doing lately. Wbbigtymer 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry for not checking the talk pages Regarding the vote for Keep, while I can appreciate the need for these votes i'm sure you can appreciate that those reading the article are extremely likely to be from the Usenet talkgroups he has used/posted on and therefore they are likely to be the only ones voting. This article is of no interest to anyone except this extremely limited number of people and this man has done nothing of merit other than make a few posts on an internet group. Imagine I made a forum, got 20 members, wrote an article about that forum and then when it was nominated for deletion asked all those members to vote to keep it. From what i've seen it would probably be kept, but it still has no place on wikipedia. This article is a scar on the face of useful information.

I took a stab at fixing the Rob Couhig article and left some comments on its talk page. I still think it needs work, and is probably still too long. -- Praxedis G 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I stand corrected sir. Do you happen to know the route? Did it meander through the 1/4 or did it just go down Bourbon St.? L0b0t 20:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

They all tend to blend together. Usually ending with a sunrise on Frenchman St., and a pain filled walk home with no sunglasses. Make groceries (and levees) not war. L0b0t 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for laying a big block on the IP vandal. Makes me feel a little guilty about the snarky tone I used in the subject heading... :) But it warms my heart to see some teeth in the anti-vandal policy! Thanks! -- Jaysweet 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I saw your reasoning for the limited block was there were legit postings under the IP address. Can you tell me the posts that were legit?

I believe there has been additional vandalism as Randall has signed up with various usernames after your anon IP block. Please refer to Randall Robinstine and users Vrrayman1993, Vrrayman1995. Can you possibly block the user without the anon only option checked or possibly check the prevent account creation also? If there is a legit user (I am not seeing this though) that already has an account they will still be able to post.

As this IP has been blocked many times from the block history could it be for a longer period of time? The last block was for two months so by Wikipedia Blocking Policy it should be gradually increased. Actually the policy says eventually that it can be indefinately blocked. The account seems like a static IP to me and once was indef blocked, but was taken off and since been blocked two more times for vandalism. Thanks -- Abernaki 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I saw a few things like example. If it a static ip# mostly vandalism with only a few minor legit edits as cover, I will reblock without the logged in exception. -- Infrogmation 17:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Can admins check the IP of usernames? If so, can you see if Vrrayman1893 's posts yesterday Sept. 24 use IP address 69.76.206.218. It looks like to me that he continues to sign up for new usernames to get around the anom block. Thanks -- Abernaki 18:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm presuming now the small number of non blatant vandalism edits were just a red herring, and have reblocked to disalow account creation. -- Infrogmation 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:GretaGarbo1920s.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 17:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I've seen that you contributed a lot to the entry about Bell Records. There is a record called Johnny Johnson And his Bandwagon: (Blame It) On the Ponyexpress from 1970 (the year I bought taht record - my very first one! When I seached for some more information on the artist I coun't find anything. Do you know more?

right|thumb|

-- Reinhard P. Braun 20:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I don't know anything about that. Happy hunting. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 00:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

We are very interested in using some of the images you have published showing the damage in the area around the Florida Avenue Bridge after Hurricane Katrina. We would like for you to contact us by e-mail (at bridgeresq@yahoo.com) so that we may discuss crediting issues and what other images you might have available.

Thank you very much.

Brandon Simpson

Raptor3333 is committing egregious vandalism without being warned, and some of it has not been reverted. I also was seriously considering whether or not the Sidney Cooke article that he edited is anything more than an attack article. Chicken Wing 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the notice. Blocked, apparently a vandalism only account. -- Infrogmation 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

We got an email from a user at the university behind 24.104.98.2; they are saying that the block currently won't let them create an account to edit non-anonymously.

Is this abuse situation bad enough that new login creations and logged in edits need to be banned from there as well, or would backing that block off to an anon-only block be enough?

Thanks for your time. Georgewilliamherbert 01:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hm. There is no notice at User talk:24.104.98.2 that it is a shared University ip#. If you have credible information that it is, please add information about what institution controls that ip#. If we have credible info that it is a University ip#, I have no objection to changing the block to anon only. -- Infrogmation 02:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Done. I have added a whois info lookup (URL included in the note) and a link to the Wikipedia article on the college ( York College, City University of New York ) to the talk page. Thanks for your prompt response. Georgewilliamherbert 02:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Block changed to Anon only. -- Infrogmation 02:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Was wondering if you had any thoughts or input regarding this user's current unblock request? Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 06:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

At first thanks for welcoming me on my talk page, nice to meet a human here. I have a question how Wikipedians handle with pages having unverifiable content and how verification works. For example a page without any external link which content cannot be verified through the internet (using google, yahoo etc.) How long is tag source tolerated and how to ask for a verification if you are not sure that content is notable. Thanks. Tulkolahten 11:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I notice in the Cleaning department that the Copyright Problems team needs new members. I'd be willing to help out - despite the fact I am not an Administrator. Please let me know if I can/if you would like me to (or otherwise).

-- ReviewDude 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

But it has spent almost 3 weeks protected already, and got 1 (!!) edit between unprotect and re-protect. Semi protection isn't even effective against a determined editor after 4 days. After that, you're locking all the good anons and all the good new editors. Which is pretty bad, really. - Splash - tk 23:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Would you block this user..his vandalism has returned, and he has been blocked about this exact problem before. thanks in adv. Cnota 03:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note, I'll take better care when closing future AfDs. -- Core des at 06:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for tagging User:We the blight. You beat me to it--nice team work. :) Cheers, Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 16:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your nice post on my talk page recently. I'm going to assume it has something to do with my edit to the New Testament (which was obviously flawed). I used the word licentiousness in a section on morality, and it stayed there for the better part of day on one of the most active topics in Wikipedia (I would assume). The reason I did this is because the word keeps popping up in articles I've been using at inappropriate times, along with laciviousness, etc. I was curious to see if I could get it onto an active page, and whether anyone knew to delete these misleading words. Since you say I should ask you if I have any questions, I suppose I should ask if there's something Wikipedia could so about this less obvious vandalism, which I now see rarely gets removed; some place to list this sort of vandalism; the standard vandalism page has nothing about any of this. Original Name 14:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zapata.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. ( Talk) 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I am busy on recent changes patrol and came across a number of administrator type edits by a new user who was leaving indefinite block messages on user pages. Initially I thought that this was vandalism but saw that the user was in fact indefinitely blocked. My questions are:

1. Why would a new user be posting these messages?
2. Why would a user be indefinitely blocked after only 4 attempts at vandalism, 2 warnings and no prior blocks. I'm referring to IGAforLunch.

Thanks

LittleOldMe 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I have no idea about Bluesheep02; ask them. A few sample examples of their edits I looked at didn't appear to be vandalism. As to the second point, users that bother to create an account and log in then produce nothing but blatant vandalism are generally not given as much slack as unlogged in ip#s, as it can be assumed that the former have more of an idea of what they are doing, while the latter are given more benifit of doubt. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay Really, it's just one of those things where there are only 24 hours in a day... Thanks for the heads-up, though. Good faith. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 03:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

My name is Manuel Toro, ArtsMode Network Director. ArtsMode Network is a legal company sited in Figueres, just front the Salvador Dali Museum and Foundation. Below is our postal address, telephone, fax and e-mail. Any other information needed can be obtain in Commercial Public Register of Girona, Spain.

The company was created in 1989 and we are the owners of various artworks of Salvador Dali, including “La Toile Daligram”, which is reproduced in the home page of www.Salvador-Dali.net. This web site is mainly dedicated to “Dali-News” and essays about Salvador Dali, in part created by people who works for ArtsMode, like “Els tres P Mesons”, (“Wide articles and essays”). This website is the result of years of hard work compiling information (written information) about the world of Salvador Dali, and we are very proud about it, enough to consider that it is a very useful tool for Wikipedia people really interested in Salvador Dali who wants or need to consult as much information as possible. In that way, we try to place a link to this information in Salvador Dali places, including Wikipedia.

Is one of the most visited web sites related with Salvador Dalí. Dali News and wide articles and essays have a wide collection of articles about Salvador Dalí, his life, Gala, Museums, Surrealism, etc.

• http://www.salvador-dali.net Dali-News english, español, français, italiano, català...

I no-wikied the URLs here because your "blacklisted hyperlink" bot won't let me save the page otherwise (added new topic below). Ortolan88 17:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comprehension,

Manuel Toro ArtsMode Network S.A. Pujada del Castell 27 17600, Figueres, Girona, Spain Tel: (34) 972 51 45 71 Fax: (34) 972 51 45 72 e-mail: dali@salvador-dali.net URL: www.Salvador-Dali.net

I noticed you deleted a copyvio image I posted today. They all came from the same user, BobbiLou, who has uploaded many images all marked as pd-self. They all pretty obviously copyrighted and not made by him so if you dont mind, can you look into it? I posted this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard but no one has responded yet. Thanks. - Tutmosis 15:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. The one I deleted was an obvious copyright violation as it had text right on it showing it was not created by the uploader. I already put a further warning on the uploader's talk page; it does look to me like this user's uploads are mostly or all problems. Thanks again, -- Infrogmation 18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot for doing that. Would you mind doing the same with Pennsylvania State University Athletics, moving it to Penn State Nittany Lions, also per its talk page? I requested the deletion of Penn State Nittany Lions so I could do it myself, but someone recreated the redirect before I could do the move. Thanks. - Elmer Clark 19:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This IP (209.66.200.45) block is affecting every school in San Diego County... does it have to be blocked? Or can you at least edit the block reasons to be reflective of the fact that it is an entire organization with over 550,000 students, staff, and teachers and not just one person. A simple IP WOHIS would have shown you that in the first place ;-). Nsidney 16:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

That it is a shared school ip# is noted on User talk:209.66.200.45. The block is anon-only, and should not affect logged in users. The ip# has been a long term source of vandalism and junk edits. What would you reccomend? -- Infrogmation 18:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd say that is sufficient. One thing: the IP belongs to the San Diego County Office of Education, so it affects 550,000 people as opposed to 13,000 in just one district. Thanks for looking into it for me. Nsidney 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Infrogmation, After reading your message, I realize that my comments were innappropriate. I acted out of anger and apologize. You are right. Just because this user was being a jerk doesn't give me the right to sink to the same level. J Dogg 23:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I just came here to let you know that an IP block you performed yesterday (170.148.92.42) is affecting what may be an innocent bystander who recently came off a block.

You might wish to visit User_talk:XLR8TION#autoblock_2 to respond to the users request for unblock (perhaps replace with a semi-block?). regards, Crimsone 18:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, I was looking through the older logos and I saw your old logo, the sun that said "Wiki" on it, I was wondering if you woul allow Wikia usage of it? I'm pretty sure that it is general use under normal wiki policy, but I don't know. if it's ok with you that I use it, leave a message for me on my Wikia. it's under the same name as this one.

Oh and I'm ok with you not wating me to use it if you want to keep it yours without non-Wikipedia use (or no other use at all)...

CchristianTehWazzit

I've never created such a logo. The image history to should allow you to determine who did. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Infrogmation/Archive Aug Nov 06, I noticed your edit to a gymnastics related article. There's a new wiki called GymnWiki specializing in gymnastics at http://gymnastics.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. If you'd like to contribute some gymnastics info that is geared more towards gymnastics fans than Wikipedia might be interested in, feel free to drop on by. If you want to add just a couple of sentences about your favorite gymnast that's all good too. Hope to see your posts at GymnWiki soon! Gforb 15:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Nearly all of the edits by 65.30.207.31 have been to repeatedly insert a commercial (to my eyes) link ( http://www.jazzreview.com/ jazzreview.com) into articles, mainly the Jazz article. I have reverted it several times, but thought I'd bring it to the attention of a jazz-knowledgeable admin to look into. Thanks. Special-T 13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Howdy. Just started a " Spanish Tinge" article. Also, I have been madly linking appropriate songs to 12 bar blues. PS -- Had to de-link salvador-dali.net (see above) in order to save over your blacklisted hyperlink bot. Ortolan88 17:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Got your note on the wax cylinders and am reading through "Tinfoil to Stereo." Nothing yet on regular consumers re-recording the cylinders, but I may find it yet. Bc.rox.all 06:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

In May 2004, you replaced the old Aztec calendar article with a version that you created and left the old copy in the Talk Page. The old version in the Talk Page is far longer than the current version which is pretty close to the version that you created. Are you really saying that none of the stuff that was in the old copy is of any value? That seems hard to believe. I know this was a long time ago but I would appreciate understanding what were the problems that you saw in the old text. Thanks.

-- Richard 21:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

That version contained many rambles about other Mesoamerican civilizations and calendars that had little to do with the actual subject of the article. I think the important points are covered in the relevent articles, but feel free to review if you think there's something in the version on the talk page that should go elsewhere. Cheers, -- 23:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. See my comment at Talk:Pussy about options for protecting that page or not. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

You raise a good point, and I believe that's a good idea. Perhaps I'd wait for a bit more input on the talk page before unprotecting the article, though. -- tariqabjotu 14:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I see that you reverted this user's edit to the Louis Armstrong article. Thanks. But, did you happen to take a look at her edit history? She has placed that same reference in a dozen other articles. I have been going through, slowly, and removing them all. The Wikipedia adventure never ends! Thanks for your efforts. --- Charles 01:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hio there; any chance you can get a re-ban of this IP address, they're vandalising articles quite readily. [3] [4] J O R D A N ^{[ talk} 14:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Good call. Reblocked. -- Infrogmation 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The user 64.107.1.217 wrote to my talk page. Who on earth are they? -- Filll 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

An anon using rotating ip (or spoofing) who has a habit of getting into edit wars and personal attacks. -- Infrogmation 01:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I have never talked to them or edited any page that they are currently editing. Perhaps I knew them in a previous incarnation. Maybe it is best to steer clear. -- Filll 02:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

All of User:Xricci's edits have been to add an external website link ( http://www.allaboutjazz.com) to various jazz-related articles (most recently to Jazz). It appears to be a mainly commercial site, but I'm not convinced enough to go around reverting all the links (some have been reverted before and re-inserted by this user). Mind taking a look? Thanks. - Special-T 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah, yes, that website's contact person is one Michael Ricci. - Special-T 16:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I left a note at User talk:Xricci. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I'll remove some of those as I get the chance. - Special-T 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Why remove these links? All About Jazz ( http://www.allaboutjazz.com) has an incredible quantity of valuable information. Take a look at the massive archives of reviews (incl. >18,000 cd reviews back to 1997) and articles available there, for example. Why should this site be considered spam? -- Nilinator 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If an editor judges an external link to have particularly informative information and adds it, that's legitimate. If an account exists only to promote external links to a particular website, that's something else. -- Infrogmation 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

guys, michael ricci / User:Xricci here. i'm the founder and publisher of all about jazz. aaj is far and away the most important website focused on jazz music today, and a link from the general jazz page (at wikipedia) is absolutely essential. i've also noticed links to other important articles at wikipedia, so i followed suit and added links back to aaj that were valid (like the miles davis profile). if links have been removed, i'd like to see them restored. i'm somewhat surprised that you maintain the jazz section at wikipedia and have very little understanding of all about jazz. i've been producing the site on a shoesting for 11 years (hardly commercial). we reach nearly a million monthly visitors. Michael 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and jazz is certainly one of many topics we need many more and better articles on. Please be careful about putting in links to websites you are connected with; see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If there is disagreement about the appropriateness of a particular link in a particular article, it is best to discuss it on the article talk page. I hope you'll help us improve our jazz articles, that would be very welcome indeed. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

After reviewing this external link, perhaps you will judge it to be particularly informative and add it yourself, then, if that's the best way to go. Please take a look at some of the thousands of pages at All About Jazz, which are all archived in a pretty cool searchable database. I can't imagine being curious about jazz and not stopping at All About Jazz to learn more about a specific artist, recording or project. -- Nilinator 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I am perturbed by this rush to judge All About Jazz as "linkspam" (see today's edit to Sonny Rollins to delete the link to their article [5]). There is valuable material at All About Jazz. In some cases, the Professional Reviews section of album pages includes an AAJ article: see for example The Heliocentric Worlds of Sun Ra, Volume One - no less valid a source than allmusic. I fully endorse your view that "If there is disagreement about the appropriateness of a particular link in a particular article, it is best to discuss it on the article talk page.; it would be good to see people do that before leaping into deletion edits, as on the Rollins page. AllyD 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreed. I consider AAJ a valuable source of information too, and I disagree with "It appears to be a mainly commercial site". Even in this case of a possible conflict of interest, as a wikipedia reader and editor, I consider the quality of the linked page more important than that "theoretical" conflict. BNutzer 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Note I have no objection to relevent links in general nor AAJ in particular. If active editors interested in the subject think an external link particularly informative, fine. But when a Wikipedia account's only edits are to put in links to a particular website which the account holder is connected to, that seems to me a conflict more concrete than "theoretical". I hope this clarifies my opinion. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 00:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Infrogmation: I see and understand your point and share your concern. Luckily, I don't run into that account holder's conflict myself when editing ;) Cheers, BNutzer 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Current discussion: User talk:Infrogmation

• Next older archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive June July 06
• Next newer archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive Dec 06 Jan 07