User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 11

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

5o4plan

Hi. You deleted my page about 5o4plan, but I'm not sure why. The deletion log says "was an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject"

But it had a band biography, history, discography... it had references and links to external sites and related Wikipedia pages. I don't know what more it would need...? There are other Wikipedia articles that mention 5o4plan, but there's no link... which is why I figured I'd make a page myself.

So I guess I'm just not sure what was wrong with it... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LickLickSalute (talk • contribs) 17:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

5o4plan fit A7 quite well. Even if it is mentioned in other articles, that still doesn't mean it's notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

agility cms deletion

can you please explain why this page was deleted? the format was exactly like the page for community server. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.224.237 (talk • contribs)

Agility CMS was deleted for the second time for blatant advertising. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay - but how is the community server article any different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspre (talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry, but i don't see how the agility cms article was any different from the community server one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspre (talk • contribs) 18:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A7 Speedies

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Granagh%2FBallingaryy+GAA, here you deleted the article as A7. A7 does not apply to speedy requests see Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteriaGnevin (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not completely understanding what you're upset about. The original article was speedied as an unremarkable club. Then another editor recreated it and contacted me. I gave them the histories of both titles, and userfied it, then deleted the cross-namespace redirects. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think what Gnevin means is that notability is not a speedy deletion criterion. Only where there is a lack of an "assertion" of notability is where articles can be deleted under A7. The fact that the article claims that the club won the Limerick Senior Hurling Championship is an assertion of notability. That said, the article is back in the mainspace at Granagh-Ballingarry GAA, and I would welcome an AfD as a test case - so we can see where the notability line is drawn. I am of the understanding that it has always been the case that a GAA club affiliated to a local county association is notable, especially a senior (ie. the highest level) championship winner. EJF (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You are noting following policy is what i am informing you of, article can not be speedy deleted per A7 Gnevin (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Any comment on you not following policy? Gnevin (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, now get over it already... SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
For an admin and one who is/was not following policy , who is being informed in a WP:Civil manner you certainly like to WP:Bite, poor form Gnevin (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly solvable model

I noticed your speedy deletion tag on Exactly solvable model. That actually wasn't a speedyable problem, but it was something that could be quickly resolved. As it was a duplicate article of something already covered by a "better" article, I just merged the two, and set one as a redirect to the other. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. I am not an expert in Wikipedia conventions, so I thought this was the correct way to bring this fact to the attention of an editor / admistrator.
I am making a similar suggestion for deletion of another article "Integrability" which seems to be an even more preliminary sketch for some of the material more thoroughly covered in the article "Integrable System".
Another question: is there any easy way to change the title of the latter to "Integrable Systems", which is more grammatically correct in the plural? One would only use the singular when speaking about a single "Integrable System". The plural version now only appears as a redirect link, whereas it should be the actual title of the article. R physicist (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The easiest way to do that is to use the [move] tab at the top of the page. See Help:Moving a page for more information on doing page moves. That will fix the title, preserve the page history, and also create redirects from the old title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I would leave Integrable system in the singular (i.e. I wouldn't do a page move on it). SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why you suggest this. The name of the domain that is explained in this article is Integrable Systems, not Integrable System. It is not an individual object object like, e.g. a triangle, but an area of mathematics (and physics) that carries the collective name Integrable Systems. One would not say, for instance, "Dynamic", instead of "Dynamics" or "Mechanic", instead of "Mechanics". It sounds very strange to have the title read "Integrable System" when the singular would, in practice, only be used when referring to a specific integrable system, rather than the whole domain. R_Physicist (talk)

I would like to change this, but when I looked up Help:Moving a page it said one should use a "move" tab at the top of the page, which I could not locate. Has that been removed, or am I just not looking for it in the correct place? R_Physicist (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing: Please do not use the speedy delete tag for these requests. Place the {{merge}} tag on both articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. This is what didn't know. R_Physicist (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Another question: is there any easy way to change the title of the latter to "Integrable Systems", which is more grammatically correct in the plural? One would only use the singular when speaking about a single "Integrable System". The plural version now only appears as a redirect link, whereas it should be the actual title of the article. R physicist (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

One would use the move tab as described above (however, see point #2 below). However, looking at the article, the title is more in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions as it currently is. So I would not rename it if I were you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reminder: I would still like to correct the title of the article to accord with standard usage, which in this case would be Integrable Systems, but cannot seem to find the "move" tab at the top of the page. Could you please suggest what may be wrong? R_Physicist (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the log for your account, and you're still too new. Accounts have to be at least four days old before you can move pages. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cd51-1003g.gif

Hi ben,

I'm new in the wikipedia and I have to learn a lot how it works and which are the best ways to communicate or give a contribution to this great web. I offen use this tool privatly. Now I started to upload some of my artworks and the feedback is very different. Yesterday I recognized that I had on my web (www.boris-lux.de) still the copyright logo. This comes from the time a started my web in 1997. So I got the information from wikipedia that the drawing above is not license free. I changed my homepage and ask for undo of the deletion of this drawing. I hope it is available again. So the link could stay.

Best regards boris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lux Boris (talk • contribs) 07:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Kiva Kahl

Why did you speedily-delete article Kiva Kahl without giving any reason for deletion, and without acknowledging or taking into account the concerns which had been raised at Talk:Kiva Kahl? AnonMoos (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the prod tag expired. Are you willing to advance the article to a deletion discussion? I know that no one was there to remove the prod tag in five days, but I don't know that the article's advocates knew that that's what they needed to do. In other words, I am pleading ignorance on their behalf. I am willing to advocate for this article from this point forward. I appreciate any consideration. –BozoTheScary (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing in the text of Template:Prod says the article will be deleted if the template isn't removed in five days. Since Schuminweb gave absolutely no reason for his deletion, and didn't bother to consult or ackowledge the comments made on the talk page, it's not clear to me that there was any valid reason for the deletion... AnonMoos (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you read the policy WP:PROD, yes, if the tag sits there for five days, it is ripe for immediate deletion. I will consider your complaint here a contesting of the PROD, but I'm taking it to AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
AFD started. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiva Kahl. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Woodforest National Bank.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Woodforest National Bank.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Masks in ritual

Ben, I'm not certain exactly what you did to complete the transfer from 'Masks in ritual and theatre' to Masks in ritual; but whatever - looks like you tidied up something I left undone. If so, apologies - and thanks. Bob (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a history merge, since you didn't use the [move] tab above. Please make sure you use that move tab in the future. It keeps us in compliance with the GFDL. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Balaclava

The article on the Flame Resistant Organizational Gear program is cited and includes a large picture of a balaclava. There is no need to include all of the references on that page on the balaclava article page. A user can click on the link and see it for themselves. I note that there are no references for most of the information on the balaclava page. If you are so insistent on citations, and if this article is so important to you, then please add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeman (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are already citations on an article, it is not against any policies or guidelines to use the same reliable source on another article. Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source for purposes of citations. As for the other information, we do need more citations, yes. It's a work in progress. Still, place a cite from a reliable source on Balaclava for the passage you're trying to edit war on, and I'm satisfied. Please do not revert unless you have this reliable source. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
But it is redundant to place those citations in both when one could just read them in the linked article. May I also point out that it was not I who was starting an edit war, it was you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeman (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't go there on who started what, since it's pointless bickering that will get nowhere fast. Edit warring is a Bad Thing no matter who starts it. Either way, though, it is not redundant to use the same citation twice. It's perfectly acceptable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case then why did you bring up the topic of edit warring first? You DID start it, so don't go complaining when I point that YOU are the one at fault here. From a look around your User talk page, it appears that I am not the only one who has had this problem with you. It's a pathetic control issue. You remind of the types described here: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268&p=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeman (talk • contribs)

Thankyou

for correcting my spelling mistakes Larklight (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

Not a problem. I find it annoying too, and luckily no one has created an attack page about me (yet).   jj137 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Randi Rhodes

No personal analysis or commentary was added to the Randi Rhodes page. A section, which has yet to have citations listed, was clarified in light of Rhodes' recent conduct. In the future, please refrain from deleting information that does not fit with your personal views of the subject discussed, as this detracts from the neutral stance that Wikipedia strives to maintain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asperitus (talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility?

Can I ask where I broke the wiki civility policy? I am not the one reverting friendly messages. I fail to see where I am acting incivilly. Goodandhonestwhig (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be right here Toddst1 (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you link to a secure link? Anyway, did you see his behaviour before that? Being called a jerk is conducive to acting like one. If he didn't act like one he wouldn't be called one. Goodandhonestwhig (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

September 24, 2005 anti-war protest

Apparently the contentious link is dead. Thought you'd want to know. Toddst1 (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You recently removed a link I added to the wiki zentai page

Citing that it was promotional in nature. You claim to be a wiki holic so I would think it in your best interest to do research first before proclaiming your assumed knowledge of something. If you had visited the site you would have seen that it is a personal site that is free and open and sells nothing. It is no more promotional then any of the other links provided, some of which actually sell products on their site. If your into zentai I suggest you visit as there is a lot of cool pics to check out. Lycra zentai (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SS America 1940.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SS America 1940.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -MBK004 05:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You changed my revision on sheetz

I live in Tyrone,Pennsylvania, which is eight miles outside of Alttona. I would know if it was based in Altoona or not, they use the general location as Alttona, because it is the largest city around. It is indeed based in Hollidaysburg, however I understand where you're comming from and I respect your reasoning, therefore I will not rechange the section.--NRAPA33 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Tisdale album

Can I beg you to apply a bit of salt to this one? This is the second recreation in 24 hours. Kww (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sodium chloride applied. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm a tad confused. The protection log shows you unprotecting the article. I thought that you apply protection to salt, not release it.Kww (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops! Thanks for catching that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Heartless Crew

Hi you deleted the Heatless Crew page saying that there was a copyright violation with last fm. Well I wrote the article at lastfm and on their editing page it says "All submitted content remains copyright of the author, and is licensed under the GFDL." doesn't this mean that I am allowed to resuse the same text here?

Thanks

Raverdrew (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a little digging around on the site, and I did find the passage in the help pages that states that content is licensed under the GFDL. However, you made no indication on the Wikipedia article of the source of the material, which breaks the GFDL, and still makes it a copyright infringement. Since it appears that you intended to be GFDL-compliant, I'll fix it for you to bring you in compliance. Just don't forget to always provide proper attribution to material you didn't write yourself. Prevents a lot of headaches down the road. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


ok cheers SchuminWeb.

Raverdrew (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor Novikov (chess player)

Hi, Igor Novikov (chess player) is a notable chess player, so even with deletion of article because of Wikipedia:CSD#G12, it is a suitable subject and thus leaving redlinks make sense in this case. SunCreator (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then feel free to create a non-infringing article. We offer no opinions on notability with a G12 nomination. All we delete for in this case is copyright infringement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yea, no problem. Just makes an article look odd when there is a players name with no link among other names with links. I guess it's some sort of automation to remove such links. So thought you might like to know. Regards SunCreator (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your eccentric reordering of Notes and References

Would you please explain to me the rationale you are using for reversing the well established Notes/References order, and why you think it is a sensible use of your (and my) time to be insistently and aggressively imposing your view on articles to which you have made no contribution. Notes are footnotes, wp:notes, ie, they sit at the foot of the article. References are more like an appendix. If you examine wp:cite you will find every example uses the opposite of the order you are trying to impose, including the exemplary Notes and References at the bottom of the guideline itself. The most casual cruise around Wikipedia show the standard order is used, apart from perhaps the odd new article started by a novice editor, or I suppose articles you have interfered with. The guidelines don't explicitly state this - I suppose, like me, the editors thought this was implicitly obvious. Apparently you don't. If your position is well founded then you should present your position to the discussion page of the guidelines, since they will need to be rewritten. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look through the article in question (Aquaculture), you will see that I have made many contributions. Otherwise, I now place it on you to show me the specific passage in project namespace that states that a notes section must precede a references section. Otherwise, we're wasting time and bandwidth on this discussion. And lastly, it is uncivil to refer to good-faith contributions by an established editor as vandalism as you did here. Calling my edit vandalism has caused me to believe that you think I'm acting in bad faith, which is generally not a good thing. Don't forget WP:AGF. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You have not responded to the issue, which is to give your rationale for your edits. If you are right, and your version should take precedence, then the guidelines need to be rewritten. Are you just doing this to be annoying? (You have made no contributions to Aquaculture apart from from reverts and eccentric messing with the reference order.) Of course the guidelines don't generally address silliness and lack of commonsense, they would be endlessly long if they did. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul

An article that you have been involved in editing, Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Thank you kind sir! JJB 18:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Torque FKM page deleted, would like to submit revision

Hello, we would like to submit revision copy for the Torque FKM entry that is more encyclopedic in nature and more fitting for Wikipedia. How should we go about doing this? TorqueFKM (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to create a more encyclopedic article on the same title, but the new article would still be subject to speedy deletion if it meets that criteria. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Just wanted to make sure that we did it right this time :D 66.196.241.222 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Links Removed from Aspen Hill, Maryland, Article

Hi, I am just curious as to why you pulled the links to the aspenhillnet.net site. It's locally run and administered and contains fairly up-to-date listings of local businesses, links to extensive property tax, permits status, code violation, etc., for all properties in the main bounds of Aspen Hill, lots of information on anti-crime projects in the area, etc. I read the guidelines and don't really see the rationale.

Please get back to me here or on my own talk page. Thardman22 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the site from Aspen Hill, Maryland specifically because of this guideline under what to avoid: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." I hate to tell you this, but the Wiki is nearly empty, and the main site is either horribly out of date, consists primarily of external links, or is something that can be gleaned from the telephone directory. In short, we don't need your site to look in the phone book, or to link to the county government's site to get property tax information. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Mediawiki is brand new, sorry about that. The rest of it isn't exactly out-of-date and a lot of stuff there is useful as historical data. For example, http://www.aspenhillnet.net/history/ which probably would qualify as a Wikipedia featured article. As for "gleaned from the phone book", why use Wikipedia when I've got Britannica on my bookshelf? You're not making much sense. Perhaps you are overly hurried or perhaps there's some reason other than the stated one which motivates you. In any case, you seem to have overlooked the googlemaps feature that generates on-the-fly information and the "automatic slumlord detector" feature. Thardman22 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Lotus (Jamband) byBKado

Schumin,

Greetings! There are a group of us who are fans of the jamband Lotus that were wanting to have a Wikipedia page about the band. It was deleted because of the following listed reason:

(Speedy deleted per (CSD A7), was an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. using TW)

We were wanting to know if it could be allowed once again for this is a band that is on the rise in the Jamband scene and it is well known that MANY people come to Wikipedia for info on a newly discovered band, verses other sites such as Myspace and the like.

Any advice on what we should do or how we can approach this entry to keep it up wold be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

HARPER —Preceding unsigned comment added by HARPER (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is not the place to establish notability. The article gave no evidence of any form of notability. Come back when you have multiple third-party reliable sources discussing your band. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fansite on Caitlin Hill

The Caitlin IP claimed on the talkpage she has nothing to do with it. In the site's present form, it only serves as a mirror to her YouTube account, so I don't think we'd lose anything. Maybe we could replace it with her blog? Ichormosquito (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, these things get so complicated... I don't know, let me think about it... SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha, no sweat. Ichormosquito (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy Fawlkes mask image

Hi. There was a long running battle over a V for Vendetta mask image on Guy Fawkes, see [1]. It cetred on removal of David Shankbone's image of a scientology protest featuring a guy with the mask, which was argued as unnecessary due to the presence on the article of a better image of the mask, which eventually became the sole used one. On revisiting the article, I see this image has been deleted by yourself as there was a bit for bit duplicate on commons (this version [2] shows the deleted image filename, below David Shankbone's scientology image). (To prevent confusion, it appears a flickr image of it has been added after the deletion it seems, which is a side view of the mask). I can't find the deleted image's proported duplicate on commons, so I don't know if it's been deleted over there, or you mistook the scientology one which is on commons for the image you deleted. Anyway, if you can remember/recall which image it was, and where it was on commons if it still is, that would be great, because the flickr image is a poorer image compared to the deleted one, or the shankbone image, as it was a full face black background profile image. MickMacNee (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to look into it and see if I can't piece together what is what for you. Please stand by... SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you get anywhere with this? MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Not yet. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider joining the WMF DC chapter working group

Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC chapter. Since we have a very active and very community oriented DC/MD/VA area group of Wikipedians, it only makes sense to develop it as a chapter, especially given the recent changes to the Board of Trustees structure, giving chapters more of a vote. Hopefully we will be either the first or the second officially recognized US Chapter (WMF Pennsylvania is pending as well), and hopefully our efforts will benefit WMF Penn as well. Remember, it's a working group, and this is a wiki, so feel free to offer changes, make bold changes to the group, and discuss on the talk page! I hope to see you there, as well as Wikimeetup DC 4 if you're attending. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

answer, etc

The removal was because this is an entirely BS entry. There is not one single incident of an anti-Semitic act, speech or ANSWER-sanctioned belief. ANSWER is founded as an anti-racist organization. The accusation of anti-Semitism, against an organization with substantial Jewish involvement is entirely related to their hostility towards race-based nationalism, including Zionism, Nazism and what they see as other forms of exclusionary and anti-democratic nationalism. If there is a single instance where a member of ANSWER has engaged in anti-Semitic activity, then this should be included. Otherwise it is simply mud-slinging. In terms of the Lerner incident, ANSWER wasn't even the organization that didn't invite Lerner. Again, Lerner is a political leader who simply wasn't invited to speak because he had engaged in ongoing factional disputes with other sponsoring organizations. Accusations are easy, but they must be backed up by some reality. They are an anti-Zionist oragnization, but they oppose Zionism for the exact same reasons they oppose other forms of exclusionary nationalism. I don't even see what the argument is.In the Stacks (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining yourself. Seems rational enough. Next time, however, if it's directly related to the article, please respond on the article talk page, as it's more likely that the most interested parties will see your commentary there, as my talk page certainly is watchlisted less than Talk:A.N.S.W.E.R.. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you have suggestions for how to deal with things like this besides edit wars? There are people who will absolutely insist, and not in good faith, that whatever their pet issue is defines the whole entry on the subject. So in this instance, there have been accusations that someone wasn't invited as a speaker (though the reason is then "disputed") and that they are "anti-Semitic" – but these are of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety and so there's no reason to entertain a back and forth on it... except that there is, in fact, a back-and-forth because there are active and motivated partisans of the state of Israel, and those hostile to any and all socialist-sympathizing groups. It seems like I wiped off the smear and get accused of censorship or something, which is far from my intent. If ANSWER attacked Jewish people or engaged in hateful demogoguery, then that should be noted. If ANSWER had leading members (or even member participants!) who said or did hateful acts, that should be included. But there isn't even the accusation of that, just the smears. In the Stacks (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright wrong?

I noticed you added a FUR to the Captain Midnight screenshot about a year ago, stating it is HBO copyright. But is it? I'm virtually sure it can't be. Please see Image_talk:Hbocaptainmidnight.jpg. Thanks,  Channel ®    23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, lookit that. I'll rework it a bit when I get back home. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Augusta County

I thought the "talk" page would be the place to discuss things before they were considered for inclusion. Did I do something wrong?... "Whats that got to do with the price of tea in china?"??? What's anything got to do with the price of tea in china? Bigtrucksmurf (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You posted the following at Talk:Augusta County, Virginia: [3]
“ I've heard more than once that Philadelphia was the capital, before the Revolutionary War.

Bigtrucksmurf (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 ”
What does that have to do with improvements to the article entitled Augusta County, Virginia? You tell me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no way to verify, nor deny what I heard. But, as a lifelong resident, born in central Augusta County, I have an acute interest in the county's portrayed history. No bounds were given as to a northernmost border. My understanding of a talk page would be to present ideas for discussion, (I took care to NOT post on the main page), but if it is deleted within minutes of its appearance, then no discussion could possibly be had! So, am I to understand that my attempt to shed light on "our" northern reach, is not an improvement? Please forgive my hysteria, but are you serious? Do you really not 'get it'?

Bigtrucksmurf (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Buffalo Scavenger Hunt

Hello. Being somewhat new to Wikipedia, I am little with deleting of the Buffalo Scavenger Hunt. this was an actual event that occured, and now has a website, that of which was not able to be added since this listing was taken down within a day. In fact, there will be a second Buffalo Scavenger Hunt occuring this August, with media sponsorships to come soon. Press releases will be sent out as soon as these sponsors are announced. This event included a professional athlete and donated winnings to a not-for-profit, things I feel are highly relevent. Please think about the deleting of the page and reactivate it, if this is possible. If you want me to write more about this even after you visit my site, www.buffaloscavengerhunt.com, please let me know. Please leave me a message. I'm looking forward to hear about this topic. Thank you! --Bonas44 (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Properly deleted under A7. Rewrite only when you have multiple third-party reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of B&L Associates, Inc.

Hey, I saw that you deleted the B&L Associates article I wrote. Is it that there is nothing remarkable or notable about the company? was that the only reason? If I can make a case for this company being significant, would that help is notability and help it avoid getting deleted? Thanks for your help. Toonartist (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable company, properly deleted under A7. The original nominator tagged it as G11, which is blatant advertising, and so I gave you the benefit of the doubt as far as good faith is concerned, but it's still speedyable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

JHS

The idea is inclusion. The entry as first put in only had a external refrence so it was valid to delete. When you deleted itit had content describing this organization which is mentioned in another article. Instead of just deleting it how about discussing it Saltysailor (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct when you said "The idea is inclusion". However, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and there are inclusion guidelines. This article failed notability, therefore it was correctly deleted under A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Prod

I did intend to contest the PROD. I *might* have created the article so I used the hangon tag :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no such restriction on the article creator's ability to remove a PROD tag. On a speedy tag, yes, but not on a PROD tag. So you would have been fully within your rights to yank that tag down if you disagreed with it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

speaking of prods

I think Galactic Alliance is the sort of general article that might hold up at AfD, so I'd like you to undelete it on my request and send it there. of course, if you prefer, I can undelete it myself, since prods are of course undeleted on request. ..DGG (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All set! Go ahead and point your browser to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Alliance. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Helmholtz Zentrum München

Hi. I don't agree with deleting the page Helmholtz Zentrum München. It is a public non-profit research center, wich is member of the Helmholtz Association. Please think about it and if this is possible reactivate it. If you want me to write more about the research topics, let me know! I'm looking forward to hear from you. Thank's! (Sorry that i wrote so late, but someone wich articel is very simular to mine, edited my articel!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.Meckenstock (talk • contribs)

Non-notable organization, even if the parent organization is notable (notability is not inherited), and properly deleted under A7. The original nominator tagged it as G11, which is blatant advertising, and so I gave you the benefit of the doubt as far as good faith is concerned, but it's still speedyable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Vertices

I have to take exception to deletion of Vertices based on "blatant advertising." Can you please indicate to me what actually in the article was advertising? What part of the article promoted a false claim, used hyperbole, or solicited anyone to do anything? Everything presented was fact and I thought I took great care in providing a neutral point of view. I can find no differences in the Vertices article I wrote than to a number of other articles on a vast number of other software. I obviously want to stay within the rules of Wikipedia, so could you please tell me if there were any specific phrasing or words used that seemed inappropriate. Was it the links on the page (again, I've seen links like these on a number of articles). I want to get more involved in writing these articles and I want to get a handle on this now to save you time from deleting and me time from re-writing. I know you probably have a million other things to do, so I appreciate any other guidance you can give me. Thanks again for your help. Toonartist (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup

As someone who may live or work near Washington D.C., you may be interested - if you've not heard already - about the meetup scheduled for Saturday, May 17th, at Union Station. For details, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4.

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians in Maryland. Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Buena Vista, Va Media

Good day. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I created a new Media section to the Buena Vista, Virginia article in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline. Recently you reverted a similar section which I completely agree included some web sites which have limited use in the subject community (i.e. advertising like you noted in your edit summary). The new section does include external links to non-daily publications, however those publications are local, long-running and widely circulated within the Buena Vista area which makes them noteworthy for inclusion in such a section. If you disagree, lets discuss on the Buena Vista talk page. Thank you and best wishes. Civilengtiger (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Welsh Rugby Club A7 deletions

Schumin, could you give me a guide to how I can avoid A7 deletions on the Welsh rugby clubs. They are clubs who are members of a World sporting body and are recognised in structured professional leagues and have a history of more than 100 years on average. I had set them up as sporting stubs. Hope you can give some advice. Example of deleted team was 'St Julians HSOB RFC' CheersFruitMonkey (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability... establishing notability through reliable sources is key. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags

I have nominated List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sceptre (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Still need a reply on the deletion of WRU rugby clubs

You speedy deleted WRU division six clubs on mass and then deleted my request for help. I understand that I am meant to know what notability is, but this is the most vague of terms ever. Let's take the list of Simpsons blackboard gags; this has no notability, why should it remain? The WRU rugby clubs are connected to a professional world sporting organisation and have decades (100+) years of membership that have been the focus of village life of many Welsh towns. I don't mind if they are challenged, but speedy is too harsh. Could you bring them back and give me a warning of deletion to prove naotability to at least allow me to save these sporting clubs. Thanks--FruitMonkey (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't delete your request - I moved it to the bottom where it belongs. As for Simpsons chalkboard gags, I have no opinion on that matter. All I did was a content fork, and I started a new title, which is why I'm considered the article's creator for purposes of notification on the AFD. I personally don't care about that list, and I have neither that article or the deletion discussion watchlisted.
As for the various sports teams, you were warned on their impending deletion, as the articles were tagged by another editor before deletion occurred. They were properly deleted under A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't see the prior deletion warning on these pages by previous editors, and apologies about the deletion remark, I fly drunk quite a bit and didn't see the movement to the bottom of the page. To be honest I'm putting division six on the back foot to concentrate on the other divisions but will be trying to gain as much notability as possible on the teams in the upper flights to prevent speedy deletion. But I still have a personal issue with A7 and speedy deletions in general. If I'm an expert of the subject or genre then fine but otherwise they are so demoralising when they hit. Thanks for the response anyway.FruitMonkey (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Fire Protection Project

Hey! Long time no hear. I see you're an admin now, congrats! I also did not see you in the referenced project page anymore. I don't really get that project. The list of articles has been there forever and it has always said: NEEDS RATING for every article. Are you still involved with that? --Achim (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about link preferences

What is the policy or preference for Wikipedia links versus external links in the text of an article? Some recent edits to the Roanoke, Virginia article involved a massive change from WP links to external. I'm inclined to revert them, but I want to know my footing first. (Answer here, I'll watch.) –BozoTheScary (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:EL under "Important points to remember", item #3 states: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article; this applies to list articles as well. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox." Additionally, looking at the diff between the current edit and your last edit, personally, I'd roll the whole thing back to your last revision. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Silver Spring Penguin

The Silver Spring Penguin is a hyperlocal news site as is evident by the site content. This is not promotional material and does not even meet the definition of promotional material as stated in the wiki website you linked to. The editor of the SS Penguin is a member of The Online News Association. Your actions are indiscriminate as is evident by your removal of the SS Penguin but you have left the newspaper and organizational groups listed.

BTW- I am NOT the owner/editor of the SS Penguin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverspring (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that almost every one of your edits has somehow promoted a blog somehow, I have good reason to believe that your only goal is to promote these Web sites. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You state that the SS Penguin is a blog but I have informed you that the SS Penguin is a hyperlocal news source as evident by the site content and does not meet the definition of a blog as defined by Wikipedia. Now you have decided that the site is advertising and this statement makes absolutely no sense. The SS Penguin is not promoting any business or product. It contains news. You have chosen to indiscriminately remove this site but you have not removed the newspaper groups (which contains advertising) or other organizational groups. I have informed you that I am NOT the owner or editor of the SS Penguin. You have been disruptive to the site as is evident by the history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverspring (talk • contribs) 02:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not said that the site is in and of itself advertising. The site is a blog, which is against our external links guidelines. I am commenting on your conduct, which has been to promote this blog. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Argo submersible.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Argo submersible.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Life Cycle Hip Hop Group and City Of Rust

I'm confused as to why you deleted these articles. Please dont just site some random policy stuff. I think these are acceptable articles about a group of musicians working in Seattle. Can you explain to me why they are not. PLEASE --BurnOne (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Life Cycle Hip Hop Group was properly deleted by me as a non-notable band under speedy deletion criterion A7.
I didn't delete City of Rust. That appears to have been deleted by Melchoir, and that user gave criteria G12, meaning blatant copyright infringement. I looked at the deleted article, and it appears to be a direct copy of this page. You have to write articles in your own words - you can't use other people's works without proper attribution. However, in looking at the deleted article, it appears that it would fall under A7 as well, so it's not likely that the subject matter has sufficient notability to pass muster. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Offwhyte / Galapagos4

Hi - you deleted the articles on Offwhyte and Galapagos4. These articles were up for years without any problem, and referenced by many people. Galapagos4 is a legitimate record label that has done real business within the music industry for 10 years. Please advise, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galapagos4 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Offwhyte was properly deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 as a non-notable band. Galapagos4 was left untouched. Please do not accuse me of deleting articles that I did not delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)