Archive of older discussion on User talk:Infrogmation for January and Febrary of 2005. Older archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive6.

January 2005

Thanks

Heya, for fixing all the pages I had open but was waiting for wikipedia to speed up again before fixing. --fvw * 02:25, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Block

Could you by any chance unblock 82.3.32.72 - which I blocked prior to my de-sysoping and have now received an email about its being a dynamic IP address blocking a legit user? Cheers, Evercat 22:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 22:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uh, sorry to do this to you, but also 62.252.0.4, same reason. :-) That's the last one (so far) Evercat 23:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Got it. -- Infrogmation 23:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright status.

Thanks for uploading Image:Fchristi.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Alan Liefting 04:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

re: new jersey

It's usually capitalized, yes. Unfortunately, when one does a search for a term in lower-case, then clicks on the 'write this article' link, the title becomes carved in stone -- unless you know some way to get in and change it. Auto movil 19:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. The "move this page" feature that is in the task bat of every page while you're logged in. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Got it; thanks! Auto movil 20:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Evil Monkey/Nudity

I included the sex toy picture because I thought it was interesting. The elephant got included because there are some people who regard the 'private parts' as obscene so I thought I'd see what was available in the animal world. Evil Monkey → Talk 00:12, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sophie Tucker

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that I responded to your question about my Sophie Tucker edit on the Talk page.

Cheers, dablaze 08:10, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

PD-old

Go ahead and change the tag, you're right. :) Neutrality^talk 04:36, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hi. Could you please add a source for Image:TaxcoRecordLable.jpg, which is labeled fair use? Thanks! Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 01:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I scanned it from a 78 rpm gramophone record in my own collection; I presume fair use to illustrate the Taxco Records article. Does that answer your question? -- Infrogmation 05:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maya ruins

Hi, thanks for the warm welcome. I plan on adding some more pictures of mexican ruins from the last few years. In general, it seems like the pages about Maya (and other) ruins don't have nearly enough pictures. The Maya Civilization page has only a couple of images, at low resolution, all clumped most of the way down the page, and no pictures of Maya glyphs or numerals (though there is a picture at Maya numerals which perhaps could be added).

My main question, however, was what you think of making a more uniform template for Maya ruins. I should maybe ask this at the talk page for Maya Civilization, but I should probably go study for my french exam tomorrow. It seems that a map listing all of the major sites at the main page, and maybe maps both of the region and of the sites themselves at individual pages would be useful. When I have time I may try to do some of this. At very least I think i'll try to upload some maps of Chiapas I've already made. It's too bad that wikipedia doesn't support some vector graphics program, so that people could build off each-other's work.

Again thanks, --Jacobolus 05:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like good reccomendations. Talk:Maya civilization seems to be the place to bring up proposals where Wikipedians interested in the subject are most likely to see it. Thanks again for your contributions here! Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

no!

Eek! Definitely not! At first my heart skipped a beat because I thought I had left myself logged in on a public computer, I've traced my steps and found that the criminal is my own (very immature) little brother. I'm not as paranoid about logging off with computers at home, but I suppose I'll have to be from now on. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -Frazzydee|✍ 03:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Undo vandalism

I spotted some vandalism in the article Dorothy Bush Koch but do not know how to undo it!

Tabletop 01:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No problem, someone else fixed it!

Tabletop 01:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Carlos

Thanks for the welcome. It looks remarkably like the one I cleared out some time ago from my Talk page. :) I spend most of my wiki-time these days working on religious propaganda. --A.S. Damick 18:36, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the standard welcome became standard because it covers what needs to be covered. Your earlier welcome was apparently back when you were using a slightly different user name. If you particularly care about it, you can ask to get your older edits assigned to your current user name. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about it, but that's okay. Thanks, anyway!

Regarding the standard welcome—I wasn't criticizing it, just trying to convey that I'd received that info already. --A.S. Damick 02:20, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Image talk

I have no idea where I got the sex symbol image. I was surfing the net one one day and the picture just caught my eye. By the way, the picture didn't qualify for fair use, so I put it under the GFDL.—JarlaxleArtemis 21:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um, if you didn't take the photo nor are the copyright holder, you don't get to release it under GFDL. See Wikipedia:Images, Wikipedia:Copyrights, and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more information. -- Infrogmation 21:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know for sure that the guy who first posted the image on the web said that it was free for anyone to copy and do whatever they wanted with it. It wasn't copywrited, either. Would that qualify the image to be under the Public Domain template?

If the person who said that was the photographer and/or copyright holder, yes. If not, it would depend-- for example, is that person credible for reporting the copyright status? This illustrates why listing sources can be important. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Happy Carnival

Happy Carnival everyone. I'm a "fan" of New Orleans Mardi Gras. :-) -- Infrogmation 16:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

February, 2005

deletion of image in Sex in Advertising

(First comment by Infrogmation copied from User talk:Haiduc)

Image "Photo_of_magazine_page.jpg" has been re-deleted. It most certainly was not "deleted in error"; it was tagged as a copyright problem and went through Wikipedia:Images for deletion as well (either of which would have been enough for deletion. If you are not the photographer and copyright holder of the image, you have no right to release it as "PD-self". Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Images, and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to inform yourself of Wikipedia practices and policies on image uses. You may also wish to see Wikipedia:Fair use; note that fair use is context dependant. I'll assume this was the result of some sort of confusion on your part; note that deliberately putting false information here is considered vandalism. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 01:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- I am sorry that you did not read the text of the image file. There is no confusion whatsoever on my part. I took the time to consult with an experienced attorney specializing in intellectual rights, who researched case law and offered an informed opinion as well as documentation indicating that we are within the bounds of the law in using this image, all of which were posted on the image page. On what grounds are you challenging his authority and suggesting I am putting up deliberately false information??? Mind you, I have no intention of starting a pissing match with you or anyone else here, the project is too big and too delightful to stumble over petty details, but by the same token I am sure you do not want to come across as acting in an authoritarian fashion. I look forward to your comments, Haiduc 01:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I certainly did read your text. It included your tagging the image "I, the creator of this image, hereby release it into the public domain." If you are not the photographer and/or copyright holder of the image, I do not see how that can be true. Are you making a claim to be the photographer and/or copyright holder of the Yves St. Laurent perfume advertisment? I certainly do not wish to "come across as acting in an authoritarian fashion", but I hope you can recognize that this is a rather unusual claim. The first time the image was deleted (on 12 January), it was due to having been listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more than a week, in accordance with policy. Policy allows for speedy deletion of repeated recreation of previously deleted problem text or images. If you are making a claim to be the copyrigh holder of the ad, how is the best way we can confirm that? Shall we contact someone at the Yves St. Laurent company to confirm that their adversment has been placed in the public domain? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 04:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about the confusion issue. I was floundering through the various options of tagging the image, and the closest I could come to some kind of "validation" was the tag I chose, based on the claim that this was "a photo of a magazine page." But in retrospect that was a mistake, it was a stretch that was not necessary in light of the legal opinion which I was able to obtain. In light of all this, I can only come to the following conclusions: #The only tag that I could lay claim to was erroneous. #Based on case law, I have a legal right to use the image for journalistic purposes. #Therefore there needs to be another tag to satisfy this need.

I am sure you cannot all on your own do much about this, but since you are more involved in this project than I am perhaps you can get the ball rolling to implement this fix. If need be I can put you (or others at Wikipedia) in touch with this attorney, and I would be willing to cover any of his fees. Regards, Haiduc 04:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to make an argument for fair use, notice that Wikipedia:Image copyright tags does have a Template:Fairuse (indeed {{Fairuse}} is quite widely used). Did you not notice that option, or did you think it inappropriate? If the latter, what sort of tag or claim status are you envisioning? Perhaps you can bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Infrogmation 05:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for all the blather, I missed that tag when I looked for it. Do you see any issues, then, if I bring back the picture under that tag? Haiduc 12:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That seems appropriate to me. Listing the image source (eg publication it was scanned from) and copyright holder (Yves St. Laurent in this case, I assume) on the image page is encouraged. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see that you two have a handle on the issue. I was the person who originally listed this image on IFD, but if we have a legitimate claim to use it based on case law then great. If either of you have the time, are their other similar case-law based precedents in non-US, english-speaking countries? Not that I'm sure it matters, but it'd be interesting to know. Thanks and good work on working through this. -SocratesJedi | Talk 23:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wigdor, again...

I've made an admittedly-pretty ad hoc attempt at 'neutral' wording on the Keith Wigdor article, and predictably enough, it's getting reverted without explanation. I've counter-reverted twice, but won't do so again within 24 unless there's 'other developments'. As you started the article, and tried to suggest a neutral wording yourself at one point, I wondered if you might help hold the ring... Alai 21:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The most active editors there seem to have a viewpoint they wish to promote. If a couple of editors keep an eye on the article with neutrality as a priority, this might actually help form a stable version. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 14:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverting 24.238.162.225 ?

Why were this user's edits (to many pages) reverted? I see a note on that talk page about vandalism but I didn't see any. In particular, the user corrected a few factual errors in some articles that were then reverted (blindly?). I've restored the user's edits in articles where I know e was right. --Boco XLVII 22:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User was deleting text, editing other's user page, adding profanity and insults, etc. Deleted pages with no history other than junk or vandalism don't appear in user history (though sometimes I wish they did just to help keep track of what users are up to.) As the majority of what I could see by this user today was a problem, I reverted most of their edits for today. Apparently they made some good with the bad edits (or is the ip# shared by more than one user?). Thanks for spotting and taking care of restoring an appropriate edit. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK. It makes sense that vandalism isn't saved in page history, but I didn't think about that beforehand. Eir edits in eir recent contributions history seem to be factual corrections and the like, but I understand reverting everything just to make sure. Keep up the good work! --Boco XLVII 02:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...mario profaca...

oy! --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Infrogmation

Bratwurst

What was wrong with the Bratwurst picture? --Trweiss 04:32, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tagged as unverified 10 April 2004. Listed on WP:PUI on 16 Jan. -- Infrogmation 19:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Infrogmation