User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SchuminWeb

Current Talk
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Archive 11

New message
Archive 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.

Contents

Toe Socks

Hi Schuminweb, Thanks for all the work you've been doing repeatedly removing a stray reference (toetoe) from the Toe Socks page. The reference was in a meaningless position, with no associated statement, and was to the home page of a commercial organisation.

I examined the target website, and found that there is a page on there that contains useful information about the range of toe socks that is available, which did not feature on the WP page. I have therefore added information to the WP page (second paragraph at the top of the article) to this effect, and used a specific page on the toetoe website as verification.

There is a relative dearth of information on toe socks on the internet, and understandably much of it is of a commercial nature. I hope that my way forward seems fair and valid to you - if not, please feel free to discuss.

Best regards, Hebrides 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Delta Lambda Psi

Heya, I am trying to write an article about Delta Lambda Psi, a queer co-ed frarority at the University of California, Santa Cruz and I need help if possible. It was deleted for lack of information around DLP, but as Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, I thought it would be good to have it mentioned as one of the few, if not the only, queer co-ed and allied Greek society. DLP is a validated club from the Student Activities Office at UCSC http://soar.ucsc.edu/organizations.htm and has a distrubtion list from our Qconnect media http://queer.ucsc.edu/events/qconnect%20April%209-15.html, and the feminist studes updates http://humwww.ucsc.edu/FMST/PDFs/biWeeklyUpdate91406.pdf

Is there any way these sources can validate DLP for inclusion as a true greek org? Thanks.Tim Tlafond 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7 for lack of reliable sources establishing its notability. I did a little Google search on "Delta Lambda Psi", and found no suitable reliable sources for them. Everything I found is just a trivial mention of the organization's name, but no articles from reliable sources actually on the topic of Delta Lambda Psi. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Since DLP is a new organization, and not necessarliy a fact based theory on evolution or anything of the sort, how can a page be created that follows standard protocal of Wikipedia? There are a number of fraternities/sororities that are on Wikipedia, how do they get around using reliable sources for their inclusion? DLP is undisputed as an organization recognized by the University of California, the Student Activities Office, and the student population...I just don't know how to translate that into reliable source status. Thanks so much for you help/advise! Tlafond 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Short answer: You don't. If there is nothing to be found from reliable sources, then 10 to 1 says it doesn't meet inclusion criteria and becomes subject to deletion. As for others, if they're not backed up with reliable sources, then that needs to be fixed, or they're possibly lacking in notability and they would also be subject to deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hi, i'm the creator of the Old St Mary's page that you recently deleted. I'd just like to know why you deleted infromation about a team with over 40 members that plays regular football and has been for 20 years?

It is not as if it wasn't factual, it wasn't as if it had just two lines on. This was a page that me and other members of the club have spent hours working on, simply for you to just go and deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No reliable sources to establish notability. Sorry! SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well look, if i recreated would you put it up for deletion again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Technicality: I didn't "put it up" for deletion. Another user nominated Old St Marys Football Club for deletion. I just deleted it. But unless you provide reliable sources, it will just get deleted again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well you say the sources were unreliable, the problem is it comes from having a knowledge of the history of the club. How do i get my sources to be reliable, most of that is written by the chairman himself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If there aren't reliable sources, then I'm sorry to say the club probably isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. --Clubjuggle 15:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Backlinks

What's the justification for removing "backlinks" to deleted articles? In particular you removed the link to the Wheelbarrow song from the Football chant page. You might note that the page has a number of redlinks to pages yet to be created about various songs used by football teams. Jooler 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:Deletion process#Process item 6. --Clubjuggle 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Hult041956 Needs help.

User talk:Hult041956 Needs help. It's something about fair use. Can you help him? I done the best I can. Please? Goodshoped35110s 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I did my best... I just hope I didn't confuse him any more than he already might be. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD A7

Hi. I wanted to seek clarification from you about your deletion of Where Angels Dwell No More. I am a recent administrator and want to be sure I'm not missing something. :) Under non-criteria at WP:CSD, the policy states that "Failure to assert importance but not an A7 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 under that criterion." Under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations, it says "Only the types of article listed can be deleted under this criterion. Others need to go to Prod or AfD." A7 seems to be specifically for people, groups of people (professional or otherwise) or web content. Are there occasions when exceptions are meant to apply? --Moonriddengirl 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I overreached just a touch there... sorry about that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am literally on my knee's begging you

I have tried just about everything, but I'm giving this one last shot. Would you consider resolving this dispute between the two of us? You ask why I brought up legal threats and you also suggested a dispute resolution, but then when I ask for a resolution you revert it as vandalism. One last time sir, will you consider actually discussing our grievances like men? 86.45.211.36 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You can contact me on this profile, which I have recently created. Sir, I will not stop, and every time you accuse me of trolling or vandalism you will only increase my resolve. Perhaps it is time for you to stop considering me a troll. Concerned Citizen101 18:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The best time to pursue dispute resolution probably would have been about 5 sockpuppets and a couple dozen personal attacks ago. I tried to mediate and, and offered a fair and workable solution to your concerns, and even went so far as to offer you a venue to do so. You replied by saying you had no further interest in pursuing the matter. All of which begs two questions: first, why are you pursuing the matter, and second, if you are truly interested in mediation, why are you ignoring the advice you were given by a neutral mediator? I really do bend over backward to assume good faith, but all available evidence indicates that your sole purpose in being here at this point is to harass SchuminWeb. If you truly want to pursue dispute resolution, then I recommend you follow the steps at WP:RFC, WP:RFM or WP:ArbCom, but I frankly don't expect you'll get very far. --Clubjuggle T/C 18:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Clubjuggle - This is about much much more than that dodgy redboy article. I have thanked you for that and you are of course a shining light of courtesy. 86.45.211.36 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words. I'd appreciate it more if you'd stop vandalizing Ben's user page. There are established dispute resolution processes here that you are welcome to follow, but attacks aren't going to get you anywhere. --Clubjuggle T/C 20:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how I vandalised his page. I pleaded with him to resolve this dispute personally. Take a look at the last few messages he removed as vandalism. Also Clubjuggle, this is about Schuminwebs abuse of powers, his advertising on his homepage (Which no-one gives a ratsass about) and his general discourtesy and incivility. Me and him could have resolved this weeks ago, but he has refused. Even now, as I try to talk to him he marks me as a vandal. As someone who has donated very Liberally to this encyclopedia over the last few years, this is an outrage in my view. I'm sorry that it is considered vandalism to point these facts out. Concerned Citizen101 22:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. To start with, here is a good example. If you want to go back farther, I can do that, and include your personal attacks as well. Now if you want to take this to mediation/arbitration, as you've threatened several times, go do it. The links with the instructions are posted above. --Clubjuggle T/C 05:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

To be completely fair...

To be completely fair, wasn't it a bit of a WP:COI for you to speedy User:Concerned Citizen101? Might it have been better to tag the page and let another Administrator handle it, if only to avoid fanning the flames? Clubjuggle T/C 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My policy: smother them with love

I don't care if it was a dog, an emo band, a band of emo dogs, whatever. If we're as welcoming as possible, eventually he will either help us write a better encyclopedia or he'll get bored. From my own experience, I know this can be difficult; but what other options do we have? Hang in there. Ichormosquito 08:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What can be done, though? I see that he's been blocked multiple times. My advice would be to keep ignoring him. If he doesn't want my help, then I'll ignore him, too. Ichormosquito 08:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation on Midge Potts

I have officially filed a request for mediation regarding the Midge Potts article. As I have named you a party in the dispute, your input is requested on the case. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Midge Potts.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for Arbitration

Since Jinxmchue refused the mediation request, I would like a vote on your thoughts on whether or not I should file an arbitration case here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with The News Leader. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. It is inappropriate for you to remove Speedy Delete tags from articles that you started, if you object, you should use the {{hangon}} tag. Furthermore, while the other editor may have personal issues against you, he went about the suggested deletion the wrong way, and was warned for that. However, I agreed with his essential assessment that the newspaper is not notable.  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about that little proviso. My apologies. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Accepted :)  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The News Leader

The News Leader, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that The News Leader satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The News Leader and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of The News Leader during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Twilightning

Hi, I was wondering if you could restore Twilightning, which you speedily deleted, and restore the backlinks that were delinked. Their allmusic profile demonstrates that they have released several albums on notable metal label Spikefarm Records and one on major label Universal Records; I am willing to copyedit/reference the article if it's not in good shape. Chubbles 23:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the article into your userspace, at User:Chubbles/Twilightning. Remember, you need to make the article verifiable through reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'd like to move the revised userfied version back to mainspace and restore the backlinks. Chubbles 02:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music seeking opinions on this matter, in order to see what they think. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Helibanner" deletion

Hi Schuminweb, I am the creator of the "helibanner" page. As per the other users I have spent hours trying to get a page that is both clear and factural but also includes illustrations to add further understanding. As such i was suprised to see that you have deleted this article for the reason of "a company or corporation that is not of importance of significance".

Helibanners is a generic name applied to a subset of arial advertising (i.e. banners pulled by helicopters) and thus is not a company/corporation. The external company (which i added as a link) is called "Hobbs banners". I can not understand where the confusion lies.

The deleted article was informative for anyone who had seen a helicopter banner and wondered how the system worked, the specification and the flight regulations regarding their use.

Please can you shed some light...

Thanks

Below is the deletion summary:
12:41, 22 September 2007 SchuminWeb (Talk | contribs) deleted "Helibanner" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD a7), was an article about a company or corporation that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject.. using TW)

No assertion of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not state why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfisher21 (talk • contribs)

Restored. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Greg Olsen (Artist)

I didn't even have a chance to prove Greg Olsen (Artist)'s significance before you deleted it. I respect that your an admin, but you decided much too quickly and I think you need to put the page back. I've not been editing it for longer than twenty minutes or so. You could not have possibly been well informed enough. Also, maybe you didn't see the hangon tag. It was supposed to be discussed. I really don't feel, after taking that into consideration, it should have been deleted. Thank you. Carter | Talk it up 13:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read the text of the {{hangon}} template, it says, "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria." It met. It was deleted. I even went so far as to Google the name just to give you the benefit of any possible doubt, and all I found was the artist's personal Web site. If that were the only criteria for notability, then there would be a Web site about me... SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Festival for Peace article

Dear SchuminWeb,

I appreciate your holding off and am working on a) teaching myself the "Wiki-Ways" and b) aggregating supporting documentation from my archives and external sources, as quickly as possible. It's out there, just buried deep under the weight of Woodstock.

I apologize for posting so hastily. If you delete this article, no worries as i will just come back and post one with better support (and hopefully skills '-) when i have my act together. Hopefully having an article deleted won't count against me in future endeavours in the "Wiki-world" as once I get my posting skills up to standards, I feel I can contribute a small bit to the knowledge base. I may be a newbie here but in the real world, I've been around for a half century of music, technology and business.

be well,

Bebopnjazz 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Having an article deleted doesn't count "against" anyone - numerous articles that I've worked on have gotten the axe through AFD, some of which I actually went along with. Remember, we're working to build an encyclopedia - not counting "strikes". SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gathering of eagles.jpg

You removal of the image under WP:CSD#i8 was incorrect as it was not a bit-for-bit identical copy. Please restore the image. --Raphael1 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to cite WP:SNOW as reason why I'm not. It was orphaned as it was, and so it would have been deleted anyway through IFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not orphaned as it's on Islamophobia. An IFD already failed. --Raphael1 05:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

MoveOn.org ad controversy

I'm unfamilar with the Anti-war project; what 'class' and 'importance' ratings do you think MoveOn.org ad controversy should have? Do you think the article should be part of other projects? Revolutionaryluddite 06:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a "B=class" rating. I'm not placing an importance rating on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Revolutionaryluddite 18:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rosslyn Photo

Hey, not to get into a stream of WP:ILIKEITIT's, but I was wondering about your thoughts about the Rosslyn (Washington Metro) photo. Personally, I found the Image:Rosslyn train motion.jpg one really cool. In any case, the old photo Image:Rosslyn upper level.jpg seems grainy and of poor quality (no offense. I see you're the uploader of that image, but you have to admit, it's the sharpest photo in the world). Anyway, I was wondering what you thought of one of these acceptably licensed alternatives, which are generally sharper than the current one (personally, I really like the third). Thanks for your feedback :) --YbborTalk 01:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually like none of them. The camera jiggled on #1, #2 is a floor shot (which you weren't all that fond of), and #3 has the same strange what-is-this floor element in the lower right corner that the other photo of yours had. Lemme go digging and see if I can come up with a better Rosslyn one.
By the way, I love your Mt. Vernon Square one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, although as I'm sure you've seen, that's from Flickr. Unlike you, I don't take any photos myself. For my part, I loved the improvement you made to the Braddock Road Station. While we're on the subject, I went through all the stops today, looking for poor photos to replace. My ideal photos for a lot of these stations would be like the ones for Bethesda and Georgia Ave-Petworth, where the focus is on the station, not the train. It seems like some stations however, have photos that are basically just photos of Metrorail cars that happen to be in a station (e.g. Greenbelt, Rhode Island Ave-Brentwood, Cleveland Park). In these cases about all you gain from the photo is an understanding of whether it's indoor v. outdoor, and central v. side platform. Is this a legitimate fear? --YbborTalk 01:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for providing visual examples. That's always helpful. I admit, the photos of Petworth and Bethesda are good. As for Greenbelt, that's quite similar to the Braddock Road shot (same basic vantage point), and the only major difference is that there's a train at the platform. As for Rhode Island and Cleveland, yes - you have a legitimate issue there. Those photos were admittedly taken as "train photos", and not as "station photos". I'll go digging to see what I can come up with - that or a little railfan trip is in order! SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I found some photos to replace the Rhode Island Ave and Cleveland Park photos. More station-like photos, though I think I need to spend some time railfanning WMATA again to get some better shots, especially considering I'm relaunching Transit Center soon... SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ben Schumin

I sincerely ask that you remove the advertisement to your personal webpage from your wikipedia page. This is strictly against the rules and there is no reason that a high ranking member such as yourself should be allowed to break any of the fundamental rules which allow Wikipedia to run as smoothly as it does.

Yours sincerely,

Graham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.209.228 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As much as I hate to rely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if it's good enough for Jimbo Wales (who references the unrelated site Wikia on his User page), it's good enough for Ben Schumin. --Clubjuggle T/C 21:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to Unprotect "List of Pokémon episodes" Page

The List of Pokémon episodes was protected on Sep 26 due to a dispute between those who felt that US airing sequence should not be used, in favour of production episodes, and those who felt otherwise. As no discussion has taken place since then, it is assumed that the party who initiated the dispute is no longer interested in this issue. I have asked for the article to be unprotected since a week ago, and in that time, no one has objected. Therefore, can the page be unprotected now? I am in the process of cleaning up the Episode titles which has minor mistakes, and I cannot do so if the page is protected. ICEBreaker 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to make that request formally at WP:RFPP. Though if there's been NO discussion, then I don't see why not. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there was an initial post, and a response, but no discussion since then. Anyway, I'll do as you suggest, thanks. ICEBreaker 14:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Auto Assembly

I've just noticed that you've made changes to the Auto Assembly page and deleted the logo from it. It's causing me some frustration as one of the the main editors of that page. The logo that you removed is the official logo for the convention and was uploaded by the joint convention organiser and the artist who created the logo.

I don't know if he actually entered the copyright information correctly, but maybe a quick email would have solved this rather than just deleting the logo? I don't have copies of all of the artwork myself, Sven Harvey who runs the convention with me does so it's hard for us to coordinate keeping track of things like this and making sure that we keep things updated.

Obviously now we've got to fix the page and upload the image again which isn't really productive for us and makes out that our own logo was in breach of copyright. Was it really too much to ask for a quick email?

Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonPlumbe (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Make sure you are explicit about copyright information on the image, and you should be fine. The image was speedied for lack of copyright information. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Greene (fiddle player)

Hi Schumin, you deleted the talk page of the said article but from what I can see the article is still there. Does it take a while for the deletion of the article to kick in? ScarianTalk 16:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it means TWINKLE is being dumb, as it has a tendency to do from time to time. Thanks for letting me know. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh good! Thank you for the delete, friend. Have a nice day! :-) ScarianTalk 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Greene

Sent email to Richard Greene, got amazingly quick reply. Nonetheless and despite permission from him, you deleted the page. Did you look on the (old) talk page before it was deleted? See new talk page: See Talk:Richard Greene (fiddle player) GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Article restored, but he still whould file an OTRS ticket with the Foundation, to make sure all is well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm sure he doesn't know how to do that - I don't know how, either. If you give me some instructions I can stay in contact with him and help him have that done. I'd hate to have the article on such an important musician deleted. Thanks again. GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ 16:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)

Deletion of TekBots Article

Hello, my article written about TekBots was recently deleted due to "blatant advertising". I need some type of further clarification on how my article "exclusively promotes the subject". I have read the criteria for the speedy deletion of an article and don't understand why my article got delected so quickly.

I had asked other users to look over my article and to possibly provide some revising where needed, but they as well as I had no chance to improve the article because it was deleted so quickly.

Do I need more sources, less information, more information, or what so that the article won't get deleted right away?

Thank you for your time, --Jordman16 20:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

When it mentions how and where you can purchase one near the top of the article, it is advertising. Additionally, you lacked any sources to indicate notability of your topic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.historymania.com/american_history/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And the page cited is a fork of our encyclopedia. Possible bot malfunction? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Waynesboro Outlet Village

Ben—Your schuminweb links are all coming up 404. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks for letting me know! I had a redesign recently on the site, and all the internal addresses changed. I fixed them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It happens :-) --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Pushead article

Pushead is a famous and notable artist who has done work for Metallica, Sound Garden, The misfits and more. There are over 20 dead links on Wikipedia due to the deletion of this article. Please search Wikipedia for "Pushead" to see the damage that been done. I am sure this was done in error because this man is a very established and quite noteworthy.

The metal band "Septic Death" has a lenthy article which is ironic, because the band is notable only because pushead is in it. Please delete the Septice Death article instead!!!

I am sure there are many people worldwide who would like to see this well known artist's wikipedia entry restored.

Also visit http://www.besound.com/pushead/cvr.html and google "Pushead" for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobDaley (talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to ask you again, but

User talk:In the known needs help. He wrote some summary on his talkpage and he said whether he can rectify something. Thanks! Goodshoped35110s 23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a shot... I hope it helps... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I also helped the person, but I didn't really get the question. Thanks anyway! Goodshoped35110s 02:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Trinity College Dublin IP

Why was this institution blocked for so long? Previous blocks were for hours or days. Was this in part because your user profile was edited? Blocking thousands of people in a university for a year is a slight overreaction to what was a relatively small number of vandal edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The previous comment was left by a writer for Trinity News. You have been featured on the front page of the latest edition Trinity News as a 'fire alarm geek' for your blocking of the Trinity proxy IP [1] (not yet online as of writing). Ironically, the article doesn't mention that it was just one proxy that was blocked, even though the previous comment was left using an unblocked proxy. Was this institution block instigated as per Wikipedia policies? --Jason (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It was per policies, but I admit it was a bit of an overreach. I'll wait to pass judgment on the other issue until I see it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the article in question [2] (note that it omits the photograph that was on the frontpage - I can take a picture and send it to you if you like.) --Jason (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Was it one off of Wikipedia or Schumin Web? If so, you can just either link me to or describe the photo, and I can go from there. No need to photo the page in that case. Thanks for the article, by the way. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
So, is Trinity still blocked <pa removed>?? 134.226.1.229 14:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Since you so eloquently requested I reinstated it for 1 month, oh and I removed the personal attack Gnangarra 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops

Did I step on your toes here? Apologies. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Either way, we stopped the vandal. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

jann haworth

Hello. You speedily deleted an article on this artist on 16th September '07 (the title was Jann haworth with a lower case h. I didn't realise that titles were case sensitive at the time). I gather that this was for lack of notability. I've been in touch with Adrian M H and he has suggested that I contact you to see if the article can be made acceptable. I sent him details of at least 11 references to the artist's work in published books and at least 7 published Exhibition Catalogues available on line. She was a leading member of the Pop Art movement in England in the sixties and the co-designer of the Beatles' Sgt pepper LP with her first husband Peter Blake.There are also numerous references to her in magazine and newspaper articles. I would like a chance to re-write and re-submit the page so as to footnote all the content by reference to these verifiable sources. Would you be kind enough to permit this? Severy 21:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article, and removed the speedy deletion tag. Word to the wise, however: I'd start the article over from scratch. Still, if you can incorporate great references into it, it should survive. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Golden Rivers Football League

Hi, you deleted this article as a PROD back in July. Would it be possible to restore the article? If you are not comfortable with restoration then I would be happy to keep it in my userspace until it looked ready for article space again. I feel the article at least deserves to go to AfD. Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk 05:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The George Washington University Pictures

Thanks for commenting on the pictures for The George Washington University article. I really appreciate it. I have tried to fix them, I hope I have fixed the copyright problem. If you have any more fixes, I could appreciate any advice you have. I am trying to make the article get Featured Article status. Mst48 04:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Explorer

There is no reason to remove the gallery that was placed on that page. Your reason stated that they are "tacky" which is certainly your opinion. Please, if you really don't like it, use the talk page. - Rjd0060 20:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone threatening suicide.

I thought you just wanted to know, that I've been hearing that someone wanted to commit suicide per here. He's in high school, and was wondering whether you have any support for him. -Goodshoped 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If you're interested, It's here.

And what a nice image you have of the Washington Metro! I'm not sure whether my images are kind of OK, but, it looks good! Now, about an unblock. I was responding to this helpme to this user who has been blocked after he claims to have stopped vandalizing, so I kind of offered some help on him, and reviewed his contribs, and kept vandalizing. So is it all right if you review the unblock, if it is at all possible? Thanks. -Goodshoped 03:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Your photos convey some good information, but a lot of them aren't framed very well, with the subject partly out of frame or way off to the side, out of focus, or blocked by some other object. Some of them, however, like this one, this one, and this one are really good! Just remember to take your time when you set up your shot. Not every photo will be "gold", but it will increase your chances of getting a great shot. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! The reason why some of the images aren't framed right is because I live in San Francisco, and it is nearly impossible to get a picture because I am usually either in a hurry, or it is a timed shot. -Goodshoped 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tornado_drill.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tornado_drill.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- RG2 09:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lexi Cruz

Hi, I saw you deleted this article per WP:CSD#A7. I don't mind the deletion (at all), afd would have taken care of it, but this is clearly not a speedy though. The articles does indicate why its subject is important or significant. It just doesn't pass notablity etc. Garion96 (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! Your image Image:WMATA metro center crossvault.jpg was the random picture of the day for November 4, 2007. It looked like this: {{RPOTD default

-->

|boxwidth=500px |subject=Metro Center (Washington Metro) |description=The Metro Center station of the Washington Metro |imagesize=450px |user=Schuminweb }} . Again, Congratulations! - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for letting me know. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with GWU Images

SchuminWeb...could you help me show that the images you have marked are fair use images under the GWU Wikipedia article? If you click the links, they show that they can be used. I don't understand what more I can do to show everyone they are free and I used them fairly. If you look on the Cornell University Wikipedia Article, I followed the exact same method to show that the pictures are fair and under free usage - they use Flickr the same way I do. I would really appreciate any help you could give me. I am very new at this and all I am trying to do is make the GW article a Featured Article. I sincerely thank you for any help you could provide. Mst48 14:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way to go about this would be to analyze the images one by one:
  • Image:GWCOA.jpg - Lacks a fair use rationale. We can't use an image as fair use unless it has a detailed rationale explaining why it is permitted under Wikipedia's fair use policies for each specific usage.
  • Image:GWUlogo.jpeg - Originally stated in image description page that the logo was in the public domain. The logo copyright tag was correctly used, but there was no fair use rationale, nor was the source cited. Another user has rectified the problems with this image.
  • Image:GWUColonialArmyLogo.jpg - Speedy deleted under CSD I4.
  • Image:MVC.jpg - The license tag you have selected does not agree with the source (the Flickr page), which says "All rights reserved". Additionally, as fair use, such an image would fail our fair use policy, since the image could easily be replaced with a free image.
  • Image:FoggyBottomPanorama.jpg - Is not sufficiently free for our purposes, as the "no commercial use" and "no derivative works" riders break Wikipedia's image policy. If used as fair use, it would fail Wikipedia's policy, as the image is replaceable with a free equivalent (i.e. I could go down with my camera and take a picture that conveys the same information and license it under GFDL or equivalent).
  • Image:GWUCommencement.jpg - This image had the wrong license initially. I later checked the source, and rectified the problems there.
Probably your best course of action would be to give Wikipedia:Images a read, and follow a number of the links contained therein. It seems like you do mean well, but are just unfamiliar with our policies regarding image use. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

I didn't know it was blatant copyright infringement. I prodded it for... I forgot now, but it was a... uh... prod reason, not AFD but not Speedy deletion (that I knew of) either. Thanks for letting me know. --EoL talk 03:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverse Takeover

Not sure why you consider my site (ShellStockReview.com) SPAM. I've been educating investors about Reverse Mergers and Shell Stocks for over 7 years. No other list is more comprehensive. Can you explain why you deleted my insertion twice. Also, when you search in WIKI for "Reverse Merger", it takes you to "Reverse Takeover." It really should be the other way around ... that is what is used in the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donbjr (talk • contribs) 05:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Harrypottersatan

The image is used to illustrate the article from which it was taken. If there is a replacable fair use image that also illustrates that particular article, I haven't found it. Serendipodous 08:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I realized that - that's why I reverted myself. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the nice note and acknowledgment! That really felt good to receive. Owlmonkey 22:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Medea Benjamin

Thanks for the compliment...in e-mail, she said she'd pass along requests to Cindy Sheehan and Midge Potts for some better photos of them as well. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Jessop Saville & Company

I am the author of the recently speedy removed article on the above. Shall I say you were very quick to judge. I had a computer problem for a few minutes which meant I had to get out and re-enter. Only two sections of the article appeared, the centre section, particularly that relating to Jessop is still here. He was a famous philanthropist here in the steel city and not mentioned in wikipedia. The company changes to the present state are the last part of the article which goes together with others on Edgar Allen & Co., Hadfields Limited and Samuel Osborn- all great Sheffield steelmen and those, along with Firth and Brown who have given much to this city. I would be very pleased for this to be restored so I can complete. Cheers, Tudorminstrel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tudorminstrel (talk • contribs) 11:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing backlinks to article that has been speedily deleted...

Err, why are you doing that? In some articles, the names (such as actors names) are perfectly valid and are awaiting articles. For instance, List of football referees‎, Megalithic yard and List of Blake's 7 episodes all contained links to someone (presumably a different person in each) called Alan Butler. The fact that someone created an article called Alan Butler that got speedily deleted does not invalidate all of these links (though I agree they should eventually be disambiguated, should a valid article appear). It seems wrong that you are deleting perfectly valid red links that could be encouraging articles about these people. Stephenb (Talk) 16:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Done automatically using TWINKLE. In 99% of the cases, removing the backlinks is okay. Feel free to revert me if you feel otherwise about this one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I use TWINKLE but not that feature. I would be very careful about using it indiscriminately, as you appear to be doing. Stephenb (Talk) 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)