An archive for old talk at User talk:Infrogmation for May and June of 2005.

So you say Burt Reynolds is an United States actor. That's okay I have no problem with it. I just need you to stop an anymonous user 206.201.180.226 from changing it to "American actor", because I've been changing it back to "United States actor" which is more accurate than "American actor", so if you need any proof on the accuracy of "United States" instead of "American" go to the alternative words for American page. Heegoop, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

During your stay in Yucatan what did you find out about the chicleros? Since Yucatan was used a prisoner dumping area by the Mexicans, they were forced to collect chicle and then have it collected by buyers at annual events of unmitigated savagery to each other, according to legend. This is why until even the 1960's the Yucatan was not a major tourist destination other than the island of Cozumel. The Mayans of this area were also a tough bunch, traditionally messed with and I'm sure because of the chicleros.

Thanks for raising this subject-- I have loaded a number of PD images too. Your comment leaves me inclined to gather them up and upload them to Commons myself, before someone else does. Somehow it seems as if there should be a better way, but it's one solution. Mwanner 17:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

This user recently vandalized Judicial Activism. It is believed that s/he is not the only user of the IP, but you said s/he should be blocked if vandalism continues. It has. Thanks for cleaning this up. Dave (talk) 15:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I saw that back in March you removed the month-old copyvio notice from Crossbar latch and restored the article, but I couldn't see how the possible copyright issue was resolved. Do you remember? -- Zigger «º» 17:19, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

IIRC, it was declared okay on WP:CP; for some reason I'm not able to load the history for WP:CP for 2/3 March to confirm this right now. -- Infrogmation

Please do something for God's sake. You are an administrator. Read this guy's post on my talk page from today.

"Keith, I was not vandalizing your page. I made a communicative entry, in response to some of the ideas you have told me about (in this wiki environment, as well as through private emails), and I have every right to express myself, regardless of your slander. BTW, I have no idea who Daniel C. Boyer is. If anything, Keith, you have been attacking me and hurting my feewings. That's a wiki-nono.

Oh, almost forgot, Francine Wigdor, Keith Wigdor's mother, recently shipped a crateload of fossilized coprolite sculpture from her frustrated son's prized collection, directly to my NYC studio. I think a mentioning of this in the Staten Island article might be apropos. Thankyou in advance for your comradely contributions and constructive intellectualism. --Bleedy 21:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)"

If you do not stop this guy from harrassing and badgering me, I will keep posting all his harrassing posts here, to show to the rest of the Wikipedia community that you do not uphold policy. You do monitor my talk page, yet you let this guy abuse the shit out of me. I will fight back, if you refuse to correct this problem. Classicjupiter2 02:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I find some of Bleedy's comments snarky, rude, and juvenile. I find some of yours just as bad. Again, I have no interest in taking sides in your petty little surrealism (or "surrealism influenced") clique war. I wouldn't mind blocking you both if that's what you think would be appropriate, but I fear you all would just come back again from another ip#. As to serious advice, I'd urge you to try to write calmly and rationally and not to be quick to decend into the gutter even if someone else is. I doubt I'll see you following it, but hey, free advice, take it or leave it. -- Infrogmation 15:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Your advice is completely useless. You seem so quick to respond, yet you do nothing, even after the fact that I told this guy that the badgering between the both of us will cease and he keeps coming back to abuse me. If he comes back to abuse me again, I will keep posting his comments on your talk page to prove to the Wikipedia Community that you are useless as an administrator. You do not even give this guy a warning. I never brought you into any surrealism conflict, you decided to involve yourself and you admitted to me that you do monitor my talk page, yet you do not even give a warning to this guy, even after I tell him that all bickering, badgering, and conflict will cease and he still keeps up with his bullshit. You are totally useless as an administrator. Classicjupiter2 17:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Carlos, do you work part-time as a DJ? Classicjupiter2 17:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Okay then. Since you insist so vehemently, I've blocked both you and Bleedy. Ciao, -- Infrogmation 20:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Sorry about the Heywood thing was just trying to convince a friend to use Wiki pedia... was hoping he would update the article before anyone spotted the nonsesne addition. Nice work on catching it so quick though!

Wow! I dont think you were talking about the Heywood, Victoria page were you.. you were talking about Niggas vs Black People page werent you.... it appears multiple people use this IP.. 202.7.176.133 17:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up about image tags. After uploading a few images as a new user a couple months ago, have attended to editing articles instead; mastering nuances of image tags proved a tedious task. Since then, a couple of images have been uploaded, but only after permission was received. Could you review the attempt at tagging for this image ?

please do not alter the comments people have made on my talk page, even if they are idiots. thank you. -- Bucephalus talk to me 10:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I only reverted it as part of reverting a vandal who had altered other people's comments, but I'm sure you can take care of vandals on your talk page yourself. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have uploaded my own photographs of noteworthy people, like Sibel Edmonds and Daniel Elisberg, also some of my own original CAD work like this MIG gas metal arc welding cutaway view... However, I see a lot of buzz around the question of whether they are noted clearly enough as "free use" (my intention by uploading them to the wiki.) I'm still new here and haven't see exactly where I'm supposed to make this clear enough. I hit the "I indicate" button, and even try writing my intentions where I think most prominent... where do you think I should be writing, or best affirming my intentions? TTLightningRod 18:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi. i didnt understand your Geronimo revert. Was this vandalism?. thank you. — ishwar   (SPEAK) 22:37, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Of my two recent reverts of that article, one was to remove the additon of an irrelevency (I presume a newbie test) and the other to remove the additon of an interwiki link to a non-existant article. Ah, I see that sv now has a Geronimo article, but contrary to proper procedure, someone added a link to an article not yet written at the time (I've found a fair number of bogus interwiki links added by anons lately). Does this answer your question? -- Infrogmation 05:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i see. yes that answers (i was just wondering about the swedish one). have a nice day/night. — ishwar   (SPEAK) 08:11, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I copied the whole text to a word processor and run a spell-check upon this. The spell-checker suggested relieves and I changed this. I hope the rest of the corrections are OK. -- Akumiszcza 12:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, do you speak spanish?? you should try making an article about "Republic of Yucatán"; you could make a really good article... I´m working in ES:República de Yucatán, it´s not complete but if you could help with some information y would thank you a lot. I´m new in the wikipedia project so my contributions might be deficient. I saw the article in dutch language too NL:Republiek Yucatán.

-- User:chibestia 03:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I marked it as a speedy delete by error. I was under the impression it was to be merged with Popeye with no redirect. I never saw a problem with the article, but it was marked for merging because it was apparently felt that it couldn't be expanded (and after I attempted to expand it). I apoligize. -- FuriousFreddy 11:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My apologies too; I saw a speedy delete notice on a blank page, and stupidly didn't check the page history. Still, I see that it's back and looking like a real article, so all's well that ends well. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Woops. Didn't mean to bump you off there, but I saw an unsigned "test" so I figured I'd just wipe and re-post with a signature. — chris.lawson ( talk) 01:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anne Bancroft

I'm sorry Infrogmation, you must remove my content because it is a copyright violation. I took it from the About Marriage site regarding Brooks and Bancroft. If I said NPOV, that was because I was undoing all my other updates I made in the past 3 days. So in summary you have to remove the information about how Brooks and Bancroft met, that she suggested to take the "producers" to broadway and that she was previously married. I don't have 'permission' from About or their writers to use their content. Thanks. -- Brux 20:53 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oz Garcia

Hi. It was Oz Garcia's article that you were flagging me with NPOV not Bancroft. I removed almost all of the offending content on Garcia's site. But I have to ask, if Garcia works with someone like Leonard Nimoy why is that a NPOV violation. I looked at other business articles on wiki and they talk about who that company deals with or bought. Again, I thought what I was writing was okay because it lasted 4 days and I worked a lot on Garcia's site. But no worries. -- Brux 00:53 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Users

Hi. As for your comment on rough start, you are probably correct. I have to look up what is considered copyright and what is in public domain. But I want to know why new users don't have some kind of alternate page. You put up that page under my talk and I had no idea that it was there. I had no idea of 4 tildas. I couldn't find my way around until everyone started slamming me. Then I had to start investigating things like rules, content, etc. But it sure leaves a bad taste in your mouth when you thought you were doing something right and find out you aren't. I don't really care because the stuff I was putting up is not my real interest, but the ride was rough. Regards Brux 04:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Unfortunately Wiki allows non-signed-on users to make edits which is a flaw because this tends to cause easy vandalism. Also I can start a new IE session, come back to Wiki and my userid will still be up -- which is a system cookie problem.
As for your communicating something, you have done a fine job of how you guys play in your sandbox. Thanks for the sand in my eyes. Regards -- [[user:Brux|Brux}} 16:02:02, 12 June 2005

Hey, just to tell you, I purposely stuck in an edit summary of work in progress as I was in the middle of expanding that article. Could you please look at the summary edits before deleting? Otherwise, keep up the good work. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 23:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think I caught that one just between the anon substub and your first additional edit. Glad it's taken care of now. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from vandalizing my user page. That is all. Enviroknot 00:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't and wouldn't. I reverted an anon vandal. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 00:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You reverted to the vandalized version. Whoever they were, they were doing me a service, as you can see by the number of times I've had to revert vandalism by Yuber, Mel Etitis, Mrfixter, and the rest of Yuber's sockpuppets. Enviroknot 00:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi, can i contact you, via aim or email? i would like to talk pleas, my artical was a candidate for speedy deletion, but didnt qualify thanls, Chipwizme 00:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Doc Cheatham, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

I apologize 100%, you are correct. The explanation at the template was different than what is posted in the template. What do you suggest I use. It was not created by me, but is in the family scrapbook, which I hold the copyright to. ~~

Hi Infrogmation, you're the first admin I could find on WP:RC. There is a vicious character going round who has violated the 3RR and has been hurling personal attacks at people on Talk:Circumcision and elsewhere. Would you kindly ban this character? JFW |  T@lk 19:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, Gamaliel dealt with it. JFW |  T@lk 19:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reviewing my contribs & some history, i find that i probably noticed, in work related to Indigo (color), that MI then redir-ed to L'Écume des Jours, & perceived that as absurd. I expect i searched the phrase internally, noted that Duke Ellington (whom i couldn't, from memory, have IDed as related to it) didn't say much, and probably googled w/o consulting 1931 in music. I would probably have have screened the hit-contexts for likelihood of being helpful, and used the first hit, among those, that had as much info as i put in the stub. I would have read no further, nor evaluated the reliability of the source i used, before writing the stub. So while i expect the info i added was out there at that time, i doubt i would not see any reason for defending my one source over your source or sources.
But thanks for your courtesy in consulting me.
-- Jerzy· t 02:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have now reopened the notice board, if you are interested in contributing new topics, or in nominating articles for the Collaboration of the Week, which also received a revamp. Please post on the project's talk page if you show interest. Mike H 02:44, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

In german Wikipedia the VFD-dicussion for this article was just deleted by someone named MarsTheGod [1] I want write and read articles and I do not loose time on any war. Its certainly a art to sell art that is not recognised as art. We should have an eye on it 80.108.45.253 18:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) -

correction, the vandalism of deleting was not done by MarsTheGod but by IP 84.135.45.1 80.108.45.253 17:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Howdy, Infrog!

Your help is needed : TCOL is changing his name to Mike Halterman. Can you sysop Mike H, and desysop and block TCOL? Thanks. Stewards are discouraged from doing bureaucrat-like things on their native wikis, else I would just do it myself. Please check Wikipedia:Changing_username#NEW_REQUESTS (the very end) to make sure it isn't already done, and archive the request when you finish. First sysop username change in a while...

Check +sj + 05:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just left a message on User talk:Mike Halterman. If he confirms it still needs doing, I'll do so. -- Infrogmation 14:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Raul654 already opped my new name. TCOL still needs to be deadminned, though. Mike Halterman (Talking is hot) 14:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I know IMDB says 1989, but, the DVD did print 1988 on it, see. As I told you here. -- Mike Garcia | talk 21:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I reverted your reverts of User:Mike Garcia and have brought the discussion to the talk page of 1988. If we can develop consensus there, I will go with our decision. FYI. Wikibofh 04:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See that article's history. Apperently the release date was '89. Mike Garcia was changing it because it said '88 on the packaging of a DVD (perhaps that was a copyright date?). I'm told we go by release date. If there's some dispute as to what date to go by, perhaps discussion/policy could be added to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (if there isn't a film guideline already). -- Infrogmation 04:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I did read the history, and the actual article. The article makes it even less clear, saying it was made in '87, released in '89, and '88 was some sort of compromise. Then again, it looks like it's not clear on the article either. I think as a general style rule we should probably go with release date, so you'll probably be right. The other part was that the revert lost the Animated Beast portion out of video games, which also seemed appropriate. Had it just been B&T, I probably wouldn't have bothered.  :) Wikibofh 14:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that fix, when I added it to the Tfd, I noticed I had 2 chicagoan's, didn't think of checking the actual category. Thanks. <>Who ?¿? 00:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It appears that 66.36.136.123 is evading your block to edit Mezmerize from another IP. Not sure sure what one does about this. Guettarda 04:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake to unlock the article. Unless you object I am going to re-protect. Guettarda 04:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I enthusiastically endorse reprotection. -- Infrogmation 04:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I banned Mike Garcia (2nd ban in a week; 3rd time doing the same thing) but didn't ban PetSounds. PetSounds has only been here for a couple weeks and I'm not sure he's aware of the 3RR policy. I left a warning on his page notifying him of it but it got lost in the 1.5 edit conflict bug.

Were you aware that he's only been around a couple weeks? I didn't ban him since I assumed it was ignorance (not malice like Mike Garcia who acknowledges that he'd get banned (see his talk page)) and figured education was the better route to take than punishment.

Did I err in this decision? Cburnett June 28, 2005 21:23 (UTC)

I agree that Mike Garcia has every reason to understand that his behaivour will result in blocking, while a newer user may not know this. However as PetSounds continued to revert after being warned I put in the block on him as well. I think enforcement of such policies needs to be evenhanded and consistent. I don't question your decision, but perhaps we had a bit different style in a matter of discression here. I think we're in agreement that Mike Garcia's violations were quite open and obvious. Cheers, -- Infrogmation June 28, 2005 21:51 (UTC)

I must have missed where PetSounds was warned then... Cburnett June 28, 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Where was PetSounds warned about the 3RR? (not questioning your judgement, just wondering if I missed something) the wub "?/!" 28 June 2005 22:01 (UTC)

I thought I saw PetSounds warned, I thought by Cburnett(?) and there were also references to it in the edit summaries of the disputed articles. Did we loose some edits in the switchover? I'm not in the habit of blocking without warning; if there was inadiquate warning I certainly appologize. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Okay, I see a warning from Cburnett in the history of PetSounds talk page (maybe got lost in edit bug?), and an edit of "Green Day" where Mike Garcia (!) warns about the 3 revert rule, which considering the source I can understand no attention being paid to. Hm. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 21:41 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute between Anheuser-Busch and Budvar on which is actually the older beer. Regardless of what the Budvar article says, At this time it is probably just easier to refer to it as the other Budweiser for right now. As far as I am aware Yes the name Budweiser has been around for quite sometime named after the Czech Republic town of Budweis but according to Anheuser-Busch which began using the Budweiser name 1895, they claim that Budvar didn't actually start up until the early 1900's but of course Budvar denies that this is accurate and thus the dispute. So again it's just easier to list Budweiser in it's own article and the Budvar-Budweiser as the Czech beer not making any specifics on which is older. User:Misterrick, 21:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC). reply

Thanks much for your feedback. Since the rights to the name and trademark "Budweiser" is a matter of legal dispute and court actions in multiple nations, I think Wikipedia should stay neutral and make "Budweiser" a disambiguation page. I will do so unless good reason not to or considerable opposition is raised; discuss on Talk:Budweiser. Thanks, -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 21:26 (UTC)

Don't know if this is the right place -- I find the Wikipedia "talk" page idea obtuse and confusing. Is there any way to just write you a note without making it a part of a page? Do we have to communicate here only by posting to each other's "talk" pages? I've been reading the help pages but they don't give me the overview of how the site works that I need, at least not yet.

You mentioned that edits of the New Orleans Mardi Gras article broke or made some of the links less relevant. Here's the problem. The writing, the readability of articles, is a lot more important than linking all over God's creation. I think it's bad to write "American Civil War" just to make a good link, or to have to write "Krewe of Endymion" because "Endymion" alone wouldn't link correctly. Given the choice, forget the link in favor of writing that flows, not fumbles, I say.

I see many articles that have strange-sounding redundant wording, probably because people are link-happy. So I guess, to use the langugage that I think is important, readable, clear, can I just remove many of these barely-useful links? There's a search box next to every article, after all. If somebody really wants to jump to researching the Civil War just because it's mentioned in passing in an article about Mardi Gras, they can use that. Probably 90 percent (defintely 50 percent) of the links I see in articles are pretty pointless, IMHO, and all the underlining turns even good writing (which this article wasn't) into a thicket of hyperlink hieroglyphics.

If I must, how do I use the words I want while keeping links intact -- what's the coding for writing "Civil War" while linking to the article "American Civil war"? And what's your take on how many links are really significant and useful in an article about Mardi Gras?

TIA. DavidH

Yes, user talk pages are the common place to communicate with other users.

How many terms to link may be a matter of preference to some degree. Certainly topics of direct relevence should be directly linked-- such as in the example of the New Orleans Mardi Gras article, the individual krewes we have articles on. Mentions of topics we have significant articles on tend to be linked -- you could delink the mention of the American Civil War in the New Orleans Mardi Gras article if you wished, but someone else would be likely to re-link it in the not distant future. Many people seem to like lots of links. See the Wikipedia:Manual of Style; for cases not specifically covered use your best judgement, but don't be too suprised if sometimes someone else has a different stylistic preference.

Yes, there is a useful trick when you wish to use one term for style reasons and have the wikilink go elsewhere, it is sometimes called the "pipe trick", and you may have seen a few examples in the New Orleans Mardi Gras article. Start brackets, put the target article name, followed by a "|" (pipe), followed by the text you want to have appear, and close brackets. So if in context it is clear what civil war you're talking about, you could type "[[American Civil War|Civil War]]" and get Civil War.

Happy editing, -- Infrogmation June 30, 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Hey Infrogmation, Thanks so much, you cleared it up. I saw the pipe trick right in front of me, but screwed it up, and somehow it didn't sink in from Help.

In general, I am really against inline hyperlinks. If the name of a website is hard to remember, I like simple links that take you there, but links to other Wikipedia articles -- won't every word eventually be linked to every other word unless we take a strict, very strict attitude against it? In other words, it's great to have a link for " http://www.whatthissite.com/user/bin/gobledeegook" because no one can remember or type it, but to find another article, all you need is the Wikipedia search box. Anyway, I get the concept, just my two cents.

I'm not just an opinionated beginner. (I am, but not just that.) I've been a journalist or technical writer for more than 20 years, written style guides and participated in usability and readability studies and research. Inline hyperlinking is contrarty to many pricipals I hold dear. I'm sure I'll become an active participant in style discussions and hope to contribute to improvement of Wikipedia. In the meantime, I discourage everyone from linking to Wikipedia articles just because they are there. Text is a wonderful thing to read. Hyperlinked text has the same problems as the typographic attrocities perpetrated by nearly everyone the day the Mac brought fonts and variable point sizes to the masses.

Thanks for listening and the encouragement. DavidH

I'm glad you define American as from North or South America not just the United States. American really does mean that. Everytime I elimanate usage of American referring to the United States this dumb fuck Firebug reverts it back. Please help if this ever happens again. By the way if anyone ever reverts the inaccurate usage of American please contact me and I'll help you get to the bottom of it. Heegoop, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except it's contrary to plain writing. "American" is near-universal usage. People know it refers to citizens of the U.S.A. and there's no disrespect to residents elsewhere in the hemisphere. In geography contexts, of course, you might want more precision.

I also disagree, respectfully, with personal name-calling like "dumb..." I hope everyone agrees that collaboration thrives on civility.

DavidH 30 June 2005 21:08 (UTC)

I've stated my position in detail a number of times; in short I prefer specific to portentially ambiguous terms. Use of American has been one of the long term running discussions on Wikipedia. Thanks for the feedback and offer of help, but I have to agree that calling people who use the term differently "dumb" is inappropriate and needlessly insulting; please see Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks, -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 06:43 (UTC)

• Current talk: User talk:Infrogmation
• Next older archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive March April 05
• Next newer archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive July September 05