User talk:Infrogmation
- This is the talk & discussion page for user Infrogmation
- Old discussion moved to User talk:Infrogmation/Archive4; earlier than that to User talk:Infrogmation/Archive3; older discussion at User talk:Infrogmation/Archive2; oldest discussion at User talk:Infrogmation/Archive1
Please add new disussion at the bottom of the page.
July, 2004
Hello, please take a look at one of the other state categories, such as Category:New York, to see how we've been handling state municipalities and counties. Each municipality is categorized under "Cities of..." or "Towns of..." as well as under their parent counties, which are in turn categorized under "[state] counties". Any places that don't fit into these categories can either be placed within the county categories, or under "[state] geography." As for unincorporated communities, the larger cities have "[city] neighborhoods" categories, which are in turn listed under Category:Neighborhoods of the U.S.. Thanks! Postdlf 20:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help. -- Infrogmation 20:50, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why did you delete Stege? Set it as s Stub if you want, but don't delete it! There are lots of stubs that are that short, and are not deleted. Se Special:Shortpages. do you think all of them should be deleted? Den fjättrade ankan 01:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- If you wish to expand on the "Stege is a city in Denmark." That seems to be below the minimal stub quotent. Someone else tagged it with the quick delete reccomendation, and I had to agree. Lots of the smaller articles in Special:Shortpages will indeed be deleted, as if you look many consist of things like copyright violation notices pending. There are occasionally good reasons for articles under 50 or so bites, but more often they contain no info not to be found in the article that links there, even significantly less. Anyway, if you want me to undelete Stege I will, but I think it would help if the article had at least a little bit more content. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 02:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I notice you reverted a table to old style markup on this page. Is there an problem with the new style? I didn't notice a difference in how it displayed. Rmhermen 16:05, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I reverted 3 edits back to undo the loss of the photo and the addition of a spamed link. I was then planing to redo the more recent markup edit, but I didn't see any difference in how it was displayed either, so I didn't bother. I have no objection to the markup being either way if anyone else has a preference. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Introducing Epigraphs
Whenever you see a brief, apt quote at the head of a Wikipedia article, an attention-grabbing phrase that sums up some aspect of what is to follow, it's called an epigraph. It works like a chord opening a Haydn symphony: an attention-getter. Sometimes a succinct epigraph is a stylish way to start an article, unless it becomes overused. Very little chance of that, apparently. Do you always remove any epigraph you see, and create a lead-footed category Quotes for bald lists of quotes? As recently in Ashley Montague? How pedestrian. Read the entry epigraph. You might even try one yourself. And when you say "Loose the smart quotes" do you mean lose, as in "Lose the vulgarisms, Infrogmation?" Why will you not permit an epigraph to a biography? It's not forbidden by a Wikipediarule, is it? Wetman 06:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm quite familiar with epigraphs, and have used them myself in some of my music writing. I have no objection to them per-se, moving it to the "Quotes" section was done while I was doing other edits which I hope you will acknoledge made your fine article on Ashley Montagu in some ways even better. I sometimes like such quirky touches, but others at Wikipedia have impressed on me their opinion of the importance of formating, and I do think there's something to be said for the practice of having an introductary sentence or paragraph at the begining of each article. I suppose its a matter of taste as to whether the result is "pedestrian" or "encyclopedic". You are quite correct in pointing out my error in typing "loose" where I should have typed "lose". I fear I sometimes have a problem with not noticing when I do something like that. Perhaps its similar to your not noticing your adding a superfluous "e" at the end of Montagu's name. One of the positive aspect of Wikipedia is how such things tend to get noticed and corrected. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 15:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Dear Infrogmation,
Thanks for your infrogmation :) I too have been contributing quite a bit (not like beaurocrats of the system for I hate beaurocracy and red-tapism!) I never liked my name being displayed anywhere - in a truly open world, we cannot claim anything as 'mine' (my POV!). But I also know that the world is far from being ideal! I did feel that having a name has some advantages and so here I am, with an identity. And all of a sudden I am surprised at the so many 'enlightened ones' trying to educate me. I wonder if this is an exhibition of their sense of supremacy or is it a blind arrongance/ignorance or is this a real noble deed! Just like everybody else, I too consider all my fellow humans as idiots :)
For beaurocrats like you my humble request to you would be to abolish the closed-mindedness that exists among a considerable proportion of the 'self-styled' kings, princes, queens and princesses in this so-called open encyclopedia! Forgive me if any of the above statements offend you. I really don't mean them that way. And if your message was a real noble deed, thanks from the bottom of my heart. Regards. --Drbalaji md 00:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
LDBear
Thanks for the tips! I especially appreciate the Manual of Style. I never could find it, and another user who kept changing my formatting on another article never did respond. Thanks again! LD L.D. Bear 05:42, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Category:Defunct companies
I have some doubts about placing LaSalle in this category, if it's really defunct firms. Although the LaSalle brand name is gone, General Motors is still very much alive. If it's intended as a list of former marques, we could add many more, like Oldsmobile and Eagle. But I don't think that's the purpose of the page. RivGuySC 21:47, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Okay. Remove it from that category if you think it's not appropriate. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:49, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sax pic
Hi, Infrogmation, I tried my hand at writing good captions for the Saxophone article, though I don't think I did justice to your Image:CatSax.jpg. Would you happen to know more about the picture - were it was taken, who is pictured, what she was playing, etc. that might be useful in the caption? If you have a minute, might you add some description to the image description page? Many thanks! -- ke4roh 12:59, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
Washboard pic
Hi, I love your washboard picture! Please could you add some licensing information? Thanks. Lupin 21:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Whoops! Thanks for catching my mistake on this article. I totally forgot to check the history - I'd been listing that user's articles for speedy deletion and didn't notice that he'd tampered with an existing article. All his other contribs had been new pages full of crap. Thanks for reverting before someone deleted the article! - Ocon | Talk 05:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Swap pages?
How can I swap the pages Madras University with University of Madras which is a redirect to the first page? Sridev 16:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I took care of the move. You might wish to check "What links here" and change the pages that link to the redirect to link directly to the article. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
August, 2004
Tincalconite et al
Totally agree with you. The pictures need articles. I will work through the list tomorrow again and create stubs for the images without text. Please be patient, and thanks for the comment -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:59, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Went to create articles today after work, but somebody beat me to it. I added only some more content, and there is a reasonable stub now. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:21, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Huastec vs. Huaxtec
Huastec is fine, too. This is a similar situation as that of Tezcoco vs. Texcoco vs. Tetzcoco. The original Nahuatl for this term very probably had 'x' (the English 'sh' sound) rather than 's'... BUT that term itself might already suffer from malinterpretation, because the Teenek people (as the 'Huastecs' call themselves, compare with Mayan's analogous winik) were referred to as Cuexteca by the Aztecs. 'Cuex' in this term comes from 'Cuey'+'Teca' as the /y/ always devoices and palatalizes in that context. 'Cuey' is related to "turn around"... and the story says that the Huastecs did indeed 'turned around' (from Izapa, perhaps?) and returned to where they had already came, Pánuco. A portion of their population did remain at or near Izapa: the Chicomulcetecos. So, perhaps, 'Huaxtec' << 'Cuextec' ... this phonological process would certainly not be rare ('cu' -> 'hu' and /a/ -> /e/ adjacent to a palatalization). IF 'Huaxtec' is indeed a correct appelation, then a possible etymology is from 'Huax'+'Tecatl', where 'Huax' is analogous to the 'Huax' in Huaxyacac (Oaxaca). Thanks for the welcome you gave me and your notes. I see that we have some interests in common. It has turned out to be a real pleasure (addictive) to be able to contribute to the Wikipedia. --User:Danakil 01:36GMT-6
- It's good to have another knowledgable contributor about Mesoamerican subjects here. "Huastec" seems the more common spelling in English (checking google shows 2,900 hits for that spelling v/s 698 for "Huaxtec"). The Wikipedia:Manual of Style reccomends having articles at the more common name or spelling, with less used ones as redirects unless there is some specific reason to do otherwise. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Painters
Hi Infrogmation,
As I was recategorizing Category:Painters I noticed we are working somewhat on cross-purposes. I use Category:American painters and you Category:United States painters. Could we agree on one or the other? I do think that the resulting one should be a subcategory of Category:American people and that Category:Painters should be removed from the affected individual artists. Could you agree? Pethan 15:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have folded Category:American painters into Category:United States painters Pethan 20:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Thanks. -- Infrogmation 21:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ryan Stiles
You changed the entry about Ryan Stiles to state that he is a "United States actor" instead of "American actor". I believe this should be reverted back to "American" or "North American", as he works in and has lived in Canada as well (his parents were Canadian). To my knowledge he still does stand-up in Vancouver from time-to-time.
- Fine by me. -- Infrogmation 03:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Page blanking
Hi, just thought I'd point out that you and I share two things. 1. We both live(d) in New Orleans (Tulane U.). 2. We both had our user pages blanked by User:217.206.214.197. Other folks reverted my page. I took the liberty of reverting yours. Geogre 13:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- Infrogmation 20:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Carpet viper
You were too quick with Carpet viper, as it is a real snake and the information given on the page was truthful. --Yath 04:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Ok. Restored. -- Infrogmation 04:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wallace Stevens
I understand the motivation behind changing "American" to "United States" in this article: "American" can refer to anywhere in the Americas, and for the U.S. to claim the title alone is a bit strange, if not arrogant. But: however strange or arrogant it may be, (1) English-speakers understand that "American" means "of or pertaining to the United States of America," and (2) using "United States" as an adjective is cacophonous and awkward, since there's no English equivalent to, say, the Spanish estadounidense. I hope I don't sound captious. I say all of this in earnest. Perhaps I've missed something, or perhaps the Wikipedian standard is to use "United States" instead of "American"—tell me where I've gone wrong. Hydrotaphia 01:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't see you've done anything "wrong". The nationality of biography subjects is usually mentioned towards the start of the article. I was doing a few quick spot edits to articles in process of the category naming adjustment, and I think on the Stevens article changed the unlinked term "American" into a link to "United States". If you prefer "American" in the text, the form "[[United States|American]]" is fine. I was mostly concerned about the category; if I changed anything stylistic you don't like feel free to change it back. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 01:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks! Hydrotaphia 06:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fox 25
Since pages for television stations are usually allowed on Wikipedia, I looked up the proper call letters for the station (WFXT) and redirected the Fox 25 article to there instead. Just so ya know. Bearcat 05:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Good. I suspected that "Fox 25" might not have been a unique name. -- Infrogmation 05:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
New B-Movie Bandit template
I went ahead and took your excellent suggestion to heart and came up with [[template:bmoviebandit1]]. Take a look-see. - Lucky 6.9 08:15, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hoo boy, did I open a can of worms. There are only about four hours left on the admin nomination, and if it fails, I'd like to talk to you about active ways of putting the B-Movie Bandit to bed once and for all. - Lucky 6.9 19:24, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just got your message. Thanks again, and believe me I appreciate your initial idea. If I don't get the adminship, I'd still like to work to end the problem as I said. - Lucky 6.9 20:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you. Some of us should try putting our heads together about the "B-Movie Bandit" pest. I'll post some thoughts on your user talk page soon. -- Infrogmation 21:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It's a nice feeling to have community support on this. Here's my response from my talk page, and thanks again.
Add to that list whacked-out verb tenses, a repeat of the title in the edit summary, no wikis and no real content. In the case of actors, the content is nothing more than the name of the show(s) and the years they appeared in it: Joe Smith is an actor who appears in Soap Opera from 1966 to 1977. Or, John Jones is an actor who appears in such movies as The Movie Name and The Other Movie. If the listing is for a movie, the content isn't much different: The 1988 thriller Really Thrilling Movie stars Joe Smith, John Jones, Mary Cooper and Jane Walker. Such is the kind of content we're cleaning up. Great idea about a discussion page. - Lucky 6.9 02:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Frog, you rock! That talk page is the greatest idea since the proverbial sliced bread. - Lucky 6.9 22:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. I assume you are talking about User:B-Movie Bandit and User talk:B-Movie Bandit. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 22:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, you assume correctly. I understand Jimbo Wales himself is about to weigh in on this nincompoop. - Lucky 6.9 20:44, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Curtis Kearns
i recently posted the "Curtis Kearns" Article. I live in albany, Ohio. And i was updating a little of the local political news, and i thought i would make a page for him. I know the guy Personally, and he has been toying with the idea of running in the future. Hes a local political activist, founder of a local Young Democrats of Ohio Chapter, stuff like that.
- If you can't show the person is of some note and encyclopedic interest, the deletion request someone made for the article will probably go through. It looks rather like a vanity article, which is not within the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 04:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Grammy year pages
Hi, we seem to be working at cross-purposes. I removed all the header formatting from the couple of Grammy year pages that had them, to make the format consistent throughout the years. I see you've just added them to Grammy Awards of 1991. Looks like we need to come up with a standard strategy :)
I dislike using headers in these articles because the sections are so small - a line across the page every few awards looks messy to me. The table of contents also seems more of a problem than an asset to me, such a long box for such little benefit.
So what do you think? I think the current format (on all years other than 1991) works well. And, whatever we decide, I'd like to make sure all years are the same. Regards -- sannse (talk) 09:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I find having section is useful when I wish to make some spot edits. However as occasional spot edits are about all I expect to do on the Grammy pages, I'll defer to those who work with those pages more closely. Further discussionon your talk page. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi, thanks for the link to List of artworks! Being able to know what's already here makes things a lot easier. :) Miss Puffskein 20:42, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for undoing my revert (I think)
Hmm, I thought procedure was for a candidate to indicate that they were to withdraw, and then someone else should remove the discussion. (This in case irregularities occurred or so). In this case there's certainly been irregularities and strangeness that should be followed up sometime, so thinking along those lines, I reverted.
I could be entirely wrong on this, hmm, I'll reread procedures.
Have a nice evening! Kim Bruning 21:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- No big deal, I think. You just need to know any nominee is free to withdraw their name from consideration if they wish. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
P.S.: I'll reread 'em too, in case something significant changed since last time I read them.... Hey, I've been here so long I can recall the days before the voting procedure... one day I was just bitten by a radioactive spider, and woke up with admin powers... :-) -- Infrog