User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Great to see you Schumin!

It is nice to run into someone I know on here! Keep up your good work. All has been okay with me...you have some interesting projects going on here. Chrisfortier 01:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Thank you so much for contributing so many (if not all) of the high-quality images of the Washington Metro and associated articles. They have greatly improved these articles. Geoking66 03:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Haha thanks for the welcome Ben. You sure found me on Wiki pretty fast! JoshEdgar 23:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I must give Schumin a barnstar for this...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For tirelessly working on Wikipedia, and being a true Wikipediholic, Ben is on Wikipedia like 5 times a week. Barnstar for you, Schuminweb!!! JoshEdgar 23:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help me bring back a page for YouTube user "Boh3m3"

Here's my case. Ichormosquito 04:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another DC Peace Group You Might Want to Watch ;-)

Washington_Peace_Center I listed some of the problems and might encourage a couple other people with knowledge of the Center to update it. Carol Moore 01:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Buena Vista, Virginia wiki

Why do you continue to delete the link to the City of Buena Vista's Economic Development page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.149.6 (talk • contribs)

Spam. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How is the City's Economic Development website considered spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.72.234 (talk • contribs)

The whole site is basically advertising for this or that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Facts about the business community, events, available property in the City, economic data, and visitor information is considered advertising. Check out the City of Harrisonburg's wiki, or many other City pages, and you will find the Convention and Visitor Bureau, Chamber of Commerce, and other sites that advertise exclusive members. What has been provided on www.buenavistabusiness.com is contact information for every business in the City and other City information related to economic development. I would ask that you review the policy a little more carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.72.234 (talk • contribs)

Smoke detector

Please explain why you believe a website comparing different types of smoke detectors is not relevant to Smoke detector. --Pascal666 09:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it there, along with the four other non-relevant locations where you inserted it. In other words, it appeared to be spam. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TFD nominations

Would you mind combining the railroad templates into one nomination? See WP:MULTI. TFD does receive a fair amount of traffic, but few people will have the patience to make one comment for each of them when one comment for all will do. Gracenotes^T § 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with that, I just didn't see any method written anywhere for how to do a group nomination, so that's why I did them all individually. I'll cobble them together somehow. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Farragut West

You were right on the mis-thinking for the GW thing, I was thinking of the wrong station. Although GW is nearby a few blocks south from it. ;) -- Marcsin | ^Talk 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bulk rename of pages

Can WP:AWB bulk rename a list of pages? Pages i am thinking of are (year) Australian Championships which I have discussed with the creator, should be (year) Australian tennis championships or similar. Thanks for any advice, Garrie 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that AWB will facilitate a bulk rename of pages. If you're wanting to do a bulk-rename, though, I'd get consensus before you push such a change through just to be on the safe side. And then if you're already working to get consensus, you might also be able to find someone with a bot that can do the rename rather painlessly. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply even if it's a "sorry but I can't help".

Yeah, I know about reaching consensus, I've been discussing with article creator and will follow up on Aust Wikipedians Noticeboard and at some sort of tennis project (I'm sure there is one). Problem is, even if "2007 Australian Championships" is the official ATP name of the event - it is too general for use here and at the very least we would need to add (Tennis) to the end. Garrie 04:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

About WikiProject Shopping Centers

Nice addition using AWB. I wonder how can I help with the importance rating? Which shopping centers deserve High-importance, which Mid and which Low? Thanks. --Deryck C. 08:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're more than welcome to help out, though the importance rating needs a thorough discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shopping Centers, because I am totally at a loss as to how one would assess importance. I made shopping mall and strip mall "top" importance, but otherwise...? SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Hey, is it okay if I remove the old, Deadmalls-related discussion to an archive on the talk page? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 00:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but wait a bit before we archive it. I want to go through it all before we banish it to an archive page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added Werdnabot's archiving function to the talk page, so a bot will now prune old topics automatically. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Caitlin Hill article

I actually think you are totally confused by the 3RR. The user has made three or four edits in the last 24 hour period, so I was warning him not to revert any more. Wikipedia custom is to warn users before their 4th edit and before reporting them, rather than just wait until they violate the rule and then report them.

I say see talk page as others wish to engage the user in a dialogue but he is just editing without doing so and so could end up being banned. I do not believe there is any requirement for me to post there.

Please consider reading up on Wikipedia policy before posting in such a sharp tone on my talk page in future. Feebtlas 15:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I was not meaning to take "such a sharp tone" in addressing you on your talk page. I thought I was being nice. If that was not how I came off, then my apologies to you.

Otherwise, though, the only contributor between this edit and this edit (the latter being where you mentioned the 3RR) was 82.9.207.124. Checking their contributions, that IP has only made two contributions in total to Wikipedia, both to the Caitlin Hill article. Of those two contributions, one was a reversion, and one was a rewording. Therefore, under the three-revert rule, they had burned one of their three permitted reverts to the Caitlin Hill article. Therefore, they were still permitted two more reversions. However, as I mentioned before, if it gets to the point of making the third one, I personally think that they really ought to be looking at other avenues to resolve the problem. But under the 3RR as it currently stands, the fourth reversion of the same article is where the violation takes place. Revert three times within 24 hours, and one is still within the policy as long as one does not revert again within 24 hours.

So that's my take on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, one more thing: RFC's are not bad things, and are not things that one ought to be intimidated by. I find RFC's quite helpful, because they basically solicit the opinions of uninterested third parties to gain a broader perspective on a topic of contention among editors. It's basically advice and nothing else. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is where the confusion is, the IP '82.9.207.124' is Impulsion, so with the anon IP and the registered account he was up to 3 reverts and could be banned if he edited again. I left this on this talk page reminding him of this and also that logging out of his account is not a way around the 3RR [1]. If you need evidence that they at the same person examine both talk pages, both were involved in trying to create another page for a 'youtube celebrity' that was quickly deleted as non notable, perhaps now he is trying to snipe down other articles? Feebtlas 10:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandalism revert!

Thanks for removing [2] the vandalism from my user page. After I reviewed the contribution history of the IP in question, and taken in context with the warning on their talk page, I was able to determined that it was probably not vandalism but a disgruntled message that should have been on my talk page (and have moved [3] it there). Thanks again for your speedy anti-vandalism patrol! --Kralizec! (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the great work that you did recently in reorganizing the references at the Broadcast signal intrusion‎ entry. Labyrinth13 14:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

YouTube celebrities

This entire article was written in response to existence of term: New Hot Properties: YouTube Celebrities If Wiki-readers get confused, they can link to Fame beyond YouTube, which now contains a brief, sourced definition. Ichormosquito 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if you think "YouTube user" works better for TheHill88, but do you think I've provided enough so that editors can make use of the term elsewhere? Ichormosquito 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think that the article that you have provided is a great "reliable" source of information for a lot of different articles about YouTubers and beyond. That said, however, I don't think it establishes notability for the neologism "YouTube celebrity". The way I see it, the neologism probably shouldn't be used on here until a link on YouTube celebrity turns blue - that is, until notability is sufficiently established through reliable sources for an article about it to survive an AFD discussion. I'm currently monitoring an AFD about another neologism - Coldspot (Wi-Fi) (see AFD debate). Based on the way the discussion there has been going, I'd say that the article's days are numbered. So that's how I see it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blue, did you say?  ;)

I predict that even when "YouTube celebrity" can indisputably support an article, too great a lobby will want to merge it with "YouTube". I'm skipping a step. For now, however, you won't find the term on "Caitlin Hill". Ichormosquito 05:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Metro_logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Metro_logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigrTex 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Feel free to nuke the image at any time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with a deletion review?

If you want to keep an internal link to "As One" on TheHill's page, help out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory Williams. Ichormosquito 04:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Schwan's Home Service

I noticed you redirected Schwan's Home Service into Schwan's Food Company. I am not sure if you are familar with the company but the parent company and the home service division are two completely different entities. The amount of information on the Schwan's Home Service division is far too much to put under a single heading in the Schwan's Food Company article. Not to mention that the organization of this amount of information I don't believe can be done under the one parent company article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tigerman81 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I contend that there is still plenty of room in that article for information on the Schwan's home delivery business, which I am familiar with - my mother would refer to the guy as "Mr. Schwan". Make a section, and build it out! SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your AWB redirect bypassing

Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken and Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use; thank you. --NE2 14:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Post-username change, I got a significant number of messages posted on that redirect that I didn't find out about for a while later. So, yeah, I'd consider it "broken". Solution: Get rid of that link. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone would edit User talk:Schuminweb, when it's just a redirect, but you should not make these edits, and you should especially not make them with AWB. If you continue, your access to AWB will probably be revoked. --NE2 14:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't look at me - I don't know why anyone would do it, either, but it's happened enough times to make the change worthwhile. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's actually a problem, request protection of the redirect. --NE2 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that's actually a pretty decent solution, and thanks for bringing it up. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NE2, that's why I just stopped by this talk page. I would recommend you stop and just watch the redirect page (should be automatic). Did you have a link somewhere automatically adding a new edit section? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, and you know what? I did miss something. I fixed User:SchuminWeb/Talk template, which had a "new message" link to the old location. I knew when I initially went through and changed things manually that I'd probably miss something. I figured someone somehow went in through an old link (though not that particular one), and posted there that way, thus my rationale for going in and back-changing all the old links. Thank you for leading me to the location of the "leak", so to speak. That solves a lot. So thanks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA nomination

Thank you for the nomination. If I may do so, I'm going to put your nomination on hold for a few weeks, as I am currently in the process of moving, and will not have time required for an RFA at the moment. I still have to physically move, plus get Internet service hooked up at the new place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AmiDaniel/VP/L2

Please do not edit this page, you corrupted the userlist. Making minor edits does that to the page, and major edits will be rejected if a mod did not make them. I saved your name change, but in the future just notify a moderator please. Thank you, Prodego ^talk 02:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you look about two sections up, we found the problem that had earlier led to my incorrect diagnosis of a talk page posting problem, which resulted in my back-changing all my old links thinking that would solve the problem. It turned out to be a new message link in a userspace template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All in all, my apologies. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Johnson

Hi. Since you voted for merge, I hope you don't mind my asking: If the final decision is delete/merge, would you be willing to implement it? I'm a novice and I'm not sure how to merge this info with the List of resisters. Thanks.HG 04:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC) PS resvp to me, ok? HG talk

Right now, I'm in the process of moving, and so my Internet access is kind of limited until I can get everything hooked up in the new place. So for now, your best bet would be to get someone else to do so until I get everything set up again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Input device

Hi

I've just nominated the above article for deletion. As you were the person who tagged it for cleanup, I thought I should let you know - there probably is an article to be written under this heading, but this isn't it and in my opinion it isn't going to get that way from here. Feel free to disagree, of course Chrislintott 12:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Double Dare

The show doesn't exist any more. It is being shown in repeats possibly, but it is no longer being produced, for this reason, as well as the precedent set by all the other wikipedia articles about TV shows, shouldn't it say "was"? -Mike Payne 03:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Usually with creative works and such, it's proper form to say "is", as I understand it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Knight Rider, Airwolf, Bonanza... All these shows say "was" because it should be in the past tense, the show is no longer being made... Right? -Mike Payne 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me double check myself just to be sure, and get back to you on that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Just dropping you a line to inform you of my request for adminship. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Washington Metro/Technical names for lines

I just saved what I currently have. Essentially I'm using this for disambiguation, so I can make sure that Connecticut Avenue Line is a disambiguation page and not about the streetcar line. --NE2 19:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you, and I like what I see. I also love all that documentation that you found! Wow! SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've found all of the names. --NE2 19:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Coliseum Mall page

I have corrected this page twice. As a former Thalhimers employee, I know for a fact that when the Coliseum Mall store opened in 1976, the store's logo was installed without the apostrophe. The company had been known as Thalhimers (without the apostrophe) for some time, and by the time I worked there, was known as "Thalhimers, a unit of Carter-Hawley-Hale Stores". I would appreciate you not changing the page to what was essentially an incorrect spelling in this case. Thank you. Dma124 12:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday, SchuminWeb/Archive 5, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Boricuaeddie ^{Spread the love!} 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you... SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 12:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Trolls

Regarding your comment on my comment on Talk:Space Shuttle; that is good advice. Don't worry, I don't plan on doing it again. Sorry. Vsst 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

September 24, 2005 anti-war protest

I saw your revert to this article, and i just wanted to add that I have many more high res pictures of that march so if any of them would qualify to be put in that article to replace the little thing that's there now I think they probably should. However, I will upload them and leave that up to your discretion and that of the community. Also, I have no idea how to put things on Commons and tag them appropriately so people would be able to find them if they were searching for that. If you wouldn't mind giving me some pointers on that, that would be awesome. Cumulus Clouds 09:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do in that case is to just upload it straight to Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/). Add it to Category:September 24, 2005 anti-war protest. You'll need to register before you can upload, though. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've put up everything I've got, if you see something that would make a good replacement or addition to that article, please update it accordingly. Cumulus Clouds 21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Greatly appreciated. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cosby Show

Thanks for the message, as a relatively new user, it was welcome and reassuring. I'm not completely happy with the article's cleanup yet, but was exhausted and decided that was enough editing for me for one night!! (I hope I posted this message in the right place) Kereama 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Anchors and tenants

Hi. Trying to get some more feedback on this issue. Your additional thoughts and comments would be most welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shopping Centers#Anchors and tenants. Thanks. Skeezix1000 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Notifier

Can you help me arrange that I screwed up when I applied. thx Thedjatclubrock :) 19:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Congratulations on what, unless something drastically changes in the very near future, appears to be your impending adminship, which I supported.

In light of this new status, and the comments made by some of the oppose !voters, I suggest that you might want to consider removing the political image from your userpage and talkpage. Although informative of your personal beliefs, it could rub some users the wrong way when they come to these pages to speak with you in your admin capacity.

This is not a sine qua non to adminship, at least in my book, but I'd appreciate your giving it some thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can dig up another recent photo of me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're an Admin!

It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. -- Cecropia 05:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know you had an active RFA. Why don't you tell us these things? :-) Sheesh Tuxide 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Ben. Enjoy! —Anas ^talk? 10:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Belated congrats from me as well. —AldeBaer 21:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Another belated congratulations. Edison 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

Are you sure you put the level of protection you intended on the sandbox? JoshuaZ 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I came to talk about the same thing. SchuminWeb, please be careful when setting move protection levels. You have to uncheck the box under the move protection levels, or else you'll end up edit protecting the page. Sean William @ 19:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that wasn't what I intended. I was trying to get the hang of how protection works by testing on the Sandbox, and that protection was where I was trying to restore it to how I found it - move protected, but open to editing. I shall get the hang of this eventually... SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Testing admin tools is best done in userspace at say User:SchuminWeb/Test or something like that. JoshuaZ 00:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll do that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Going

What do you say? You think he's notable? I'm not asking you to go over there, I just want your opinion. Barring spam accounts or accounts created for the AfD, I count 5 keeps and 2 or 3 deletes so far; but I'm not sure how blatant the spam is. Congrats on your new position. Ichormosquito 07:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "Nick Davis Productions"

Honestly I simply want to create a page for the production company. Now, I can reference newspaper articles if you like, please tell me in plain English the steps I have to follow to create the page so it won't get deleted for future reference.

Thank you.

- David D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjdeutsch (talk • contribs)

Your best bet is to give Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) a thorough reading, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The article in question was nominated for speedy deletion under G11 - blatant advertising. However, I deleted it under criteria A7 - non-notable organization, which I think gives you the benefit of the doubt on good faith. If your article satisfies the notability criteria, then you're good to go. If not, it will likely get deleted again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Evan Almighty

You may want to actually read the article on Magical negro before calling my edit vandalism. The term is used widely in the movie making industry for exactly the type of character Morgan Freeman plays in Evan Almighty. It's certainly not "nonsense" and I am offended by your accusation. Captain Infinity 03:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

For changing a link on God to Magical negro as a pipe, as people would be expected to get the former rather than the latter, that's crossing a line. If you want to work it into the article otherwise, fine, but please call it what it is in the future. It should also be noted that I didn't do the revert - just the warning. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Snakes

The page List of snakes by state (U.S.) wasn't surposed to have the imformastion or text in it, it was surposed to have the list of the lists that contained the information, since the info was split between saperate pages, (Example:List of snakes in Missouri and List of snakes in Colorado) And if it wasn't meant for the article mainspace, but some other mainspace, then you could have told me or chanced it yourself. §→Nikro 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That article met speedy deletion criterion A3, consisting only of links elsewhere or a rephrasing of the title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So...

You are an admin now. Congrats! Kaori 20:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And thank you for nominating me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

check

why did you touch my profile. i took the image from an article on martin. i know nothing about the image itself, nor uploaded it. regardless Sexyorge 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That image, Image:Heidegger2.jpeg was subject to speedy deletion under criteria I6, which is for images with no fair use rationale. It had been tagged for seven days with no fair use rationale forthcoming, and thus I deleted it. I used TWINKLE, which, when deleting images, also removes all instances of the image. Additionally, per the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, fair use images may only be used in the article namespace. They may not be used in the talk namespace, user namespace, user talk namespace, Wikipedia namespace, etc. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

you deleted the second one even though it clearly stated fair use and had an explaination and all information was provided as the copyright holder asserted it could be used for wikipedia and non-commerical purposes. frankly, i am not going to upload any more images. it's become clear you are abusing your rights as an administrator Sexyorge 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Images licensed only for Wikipedia and non-commercial use are incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, and, if uploaded after May 19, 2005, are not permitted, and therefore are subject to speedy deletion under criteria I3. If you or someone else can find an image that's in the public domain or that we can license under GFDL or a similar free license, I'll add it to the article myself. Or if you find an image that we can use under fair use and it has a detailed fair use rationale specifying exactly why it's fair use per our guidelines, we can have it. Anything less and it will be subject to deletion. That's the policy, and I've cited what those policies are. Rather than argue with me, why not give the various policies and guidelines related to images a good read and come up with something we can use? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

There's a faulty deletion template and unsubstantiated neutrality templates at Ben Going, and I don't want to be hit up with the 3RR. Ichormosquito 04:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, he did eventually get the review going. The template still doesn't work, though; and if you could get the link working in the template, I'd appreciate it. Ichormosquito 04:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, Deletion Review took care of it. Sorry for being jumpy. And just so you know, the user who accused me of being someone's friend has been blocked. His evidence consisted of tracking down my channel and seeing I was one of 4,000 "Friends". It wasn't a genuine argument. If you were paying attention to Going's AfD, you might recognize some of my newest subscribers. Ichormosquito 09:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Lande Deletion Review

Hi Ben, I was the creator of the Andrew Lande article and upon returning from my trip to Europe to my surprise the article was deleted. Maybe I didn't write up enough sources the first time but the guy is in fact encyclopedia worthy.

I'll cite WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (People)

First the broad notability

Significant coverage - Co-written two major books published by Random House and National Geographic Books. As well as the author of Bob Hope: America's Entertainer, an awarding winning A&E television documentary.

Sources - random house, Santa Barbara News Press, Ingram, Library Journal, Etc.

Reliability - Has been Editor of Wine Newsletters, articles, television documentaries, e and books and an international Expert on Food and Wine. Trustee of the Bob Hope Foundation which awards millions of dollars every year to worth individuals and causes.

Independent of the Subject - This goes to WP:SPS partly where it passes

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

And also to independent third party sources like the April 2006 article about lande in the nob hill gazette and the may 21 Marilyn McMahon "Lande guides you to Best in the World" article in the Santa Barbara News Press. The cigar connoisseur was also written up in the Library Journal and Ingram all reliable substantial print sources.

Onto the specific Wikipedia:Notability (People), and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Notability (books)

• The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

(The magazine articles, newspaper articles, and editorial reviews as well as his books)

• The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

(Published Random House and National Geographic Books, well reviewed and highly ranked books on Amazon.)

I hope we can come to a consensus

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Andrew Lande. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andman8 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Andman8 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Lande was deleted through proposed deletion. That's the process whereby if the proposed deletion tag sits on the article for a specified period of time, it gets deleted. Anyone can contest it by removing the tag. If it's deleted and someone contests it then, a reasonable request by an editor will restore it. So it's back, but that doesn't mean it's ineligible for AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Bounding

Fireproeng 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Animal House

What would satisfy you for a source? It's not the kind of info they're likely to publish in a media guide. It's just one of the myriad of things they play over the loudspeakers and video screens. So you're most likely to see it mentioned in fans' comments about games they've been to. Baseball Bugs 02:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability are the standards for what is a good citation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I asked you. The fact that you asked for a source indicates that you don't believe it's true. So, what would convince you that it is true? Baseball Bugs 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Truth and verifiability are two different things. The standard is not whether it is true or not. The standard is whether or not it is verifiable. It is true that I am presently wearing blue jeans, a green shirt, and black flip-flops. However, it is not verifiable by reliable sources. You will find no reliable sources verifying that information, and therefore it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Same goes here. While it may be true (I don't know), it presently needs verification by a third-party source. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me try again. You plainly either don't believe or at least are skeptical about this particular fact, because you have not cited every statement in the article. So, why did you tag that particular line in the article? Baseball Bugs 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For example, "Produced on a small ($3 million) budget, the film has turned out to be one of the most profitable of all time; since its initial release, Animal House has garnered an estimated return of more than $200 million in the form of video and DVDs, not including merchandising." Lots of unverified statements there. Why did you not tag those statements? Baseball Bugs 02:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I can easily verify the "pep talk" simply by making a recording of it the next time I'm at the Metrodome. That's "primary source" verification. But how can I verify the dollar figures? Somebody could easily have just invented those numbers. Baseball Bugs 02:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You cannot just make a recording and use that as a citation. How about this: Rather than argue with me (especially regarding a passage in the article that's been deleted), read the policy and then get back with me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's as valid as taking a picture. And please explain why you're discriminating against that one section, when there is much more unverified info. And don't say the legacy section is "unverifiable". How do you know? You haven't researched it. Baseball Bugs 02:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't make me take you to an admin over this. You have no right to declare that something is "unverifiable" when you have obviously not bothered to research it. Baseball Bugs 02:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you're stonewalling me, here's the way around this. Rather than asserting it as an absolute fact (even though it is), I will say that the weblogs of many different teams' fans talk about this. That is a verifiable fact. Baseball Bugs 02:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am an admin. You want the bit in there, please provide a reliable source for it. Blogs are not reliable sources. Really, please read the policy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Then you shouldn't be stonewalling fair questions. Please tell me why you're singling out that particular item, when there is so much in the article that is uncited? Baseball Bugs 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You continue to refuse to answer my question. I guess I will have to write to MLB.COM and get a sworn affidavit on the subject. Good grief, Charlie Brown! >:( Baseball Bugs 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I re-read the policies. It says weblogs are "largely" not reliable. Granted. But when you've got dozens of them making the same reference, you've got a trend. Also, according to what it says about images, if I took a picture of the stadium screen showing that clip, that would be acceptable evidence. Also, I have been amused (so to speak) over the last 2 1/2 years about this hair-splitting over "truth" vs. "verifiability". The word "verify" means to make true. Baseball Bugs 03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to a major league club asking them to "verify" that they sometimes play the John Belushi clip as a "rally starter" in the last of the ninth. Baseball Bugs 03:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you put information gained that way in the article, you would be citing an "unpublished source", which is against WP:RS. Additionally, that would go against WP:NOR, as that would then be original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not if I can get them to put something on their website that mentions it... or, if they can point me to somewhere in MLB.COM or some other "reliable" source that already mentions it. Otherwise, next time I'm at the Metrodome, and if the Twins are trailing in the last of the ninth, I'll take a photo and post it here, which would be allowed under the image guidelines. Baseball Bugs 10:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Casey at the Bat

Oddly enough, I might need for you to weigh in on a citation debate going on in that poem. Editors keep trying to add that the phrase with but one more inning to play "has sometimes been used by optimists or comedians" to suggest it's the eighth instead of the ninth. That's logically preposterous, but more to the point, the editors need to provide an actual published, non-weblog citation of someone claiming that viewpoint. Right? Baseball Bugs 10:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems a little weasely as well as a little off. But you are correct - they need to provide a reliable source for that claim. If not, slap it with a {{fact}} tag and make sure it stays there until it is cited, or the passage is removed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got the one guy convinced to find a citation. But I'll do the fact-tag if it comes to that. As far as the IP address rantings on the talk page, I'm ignoring that. He has the power to make corrections to content, if he does it in an appropriate way. Baseball Bugs 01:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd put the fact tag on it now, personally. Serves as incentive to get a move on with it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the current version of the article. But if someone adds it back, I'll tag it. Baseball Bugs 06:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New to Wiki

Hi,

A recent entry was deleted to which was flagged as purely advertising a product/company. To my understanding the entry (SnapVillage) can be 'fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.'

I read that it was a good idea not to just post again and to ask to be able to repost. Please let me know if this would be ok to rewrite my entry so that it is not promotional and strictly factual.

Snapman1020 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I did undelete the article, BUT... I googled the text, and it's also a blatant copyright infringement [4], so I deleted it again, this time under G12. Write a new article in your own words and then we'll talk. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)