User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 2

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.

Fresh Prince Style

Um, headings and titles in articles have All the Major Words Capitalized...why waste your time going around un-capitalizing words in titles and headings (as in the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air article?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heliocracy (talk • contribs) .

Uncapitalizing like I did on the The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air article is in keeping with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

En dash

You've removed the en dash (–) twice from the VaultKicks.org link in the Vault article, calling it "unnecessary." The en dash separates the site from its description. Yes, you could probably use a comma there, too, but you put nothing. I see no reason why there shouldn't be something to set off the site from its description.—thegreentrilby 00:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a separator - the blue text ends, plus there's a little link graphic (see?). I see that as sufficient, and the dash becomes superfluous. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Dead malls

I'm old enough that I can remember the Saturday Night Live "old mall" skits, which had the "Tape Store" as one if its dreary specialty boutiques, skits that I found darkly hilarious. I've also watched the evolution of several notable real shopping centers, and now I watch their articles. However I can't join another project, I belong to a couple and am semi-involved in several more. Best of luck, and if I see a problem I'll bring it to the project. -Will Beback 11:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What's your problem

Are you suppressing history because of a copy violation or because you believe the lies your government tells you???? Please restore this page or face the consequences of a SAM7 up your buttEthnopunk 14:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The text in Angolan War was copied directly from the URL cited. Also, please check out Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Copyrights when you get a chance. Thanks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Apoligies for the Ad Hominem attack, but the text was not copied directly from that site. It was saved and then edited online. The result was substantially different and in no way a copyright infringement. Schuminweb is behaving like a boy scout who knows he is in the wrong, the copy should have been moved to the discussion page before being deleted.

Should I report you both as a "Vietnam War" deniers? Are you saying there was no opposition to the Vietnam War? Same thing isn't it?

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.

Ethnopunk 11:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

An only slightly more rational version of this discussion continues on Talk:Angolan War. The discussion continues at that location. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming DC World War Memorial

I would like to rename the "DC World War Memorial" article (which you started) to "District of Columbia War Memorial". I came across this memorial while seaching the HABS/HAER database at the Library of Congress. The latter name is used by the Historic American Buildings Survey in their recent recording project on the structure, and HABS is usually very thorough with their research. Let me know if you have any problems with this. (As you may notice, I just expanded the current article.) — Eoghanacht ^talk 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been working on some lesser known D.C. sites myself. My latest: Jefferson Pier. — Eoghanacht ^talk 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Troll

Kid,

I will try to not make this to personal, but you appear to be a lonely troll. You are going around and trying to cleanup people's entries with your own self style of edit. I agree with one on the earlier posters here on your "talk" page in regards to capitalizing major words in a title. It is improper (regardless of how you interpet wiki) only to capitalize first words on section headings. Also some of your edit attempts leave a lot to be desired. Take some time off and look for a job or get a hobby. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.37.113.34 (talk • contribs) .

Please see WP:MOS. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In recognition of your expansion of Washington DC and Virginia related content on Wikipedia. ßlηguγΣη

Reverse takeover.

No problem. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Angolan War

Just letting you know that I put this article up for speedy deletion. I did this because of the copyvio but more importantly because a good article already exists on the same topic at Angolan Civil War. Have a nice day :). --Strothra 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've closed the AFD. Took a while though it's been ages since I last delt with the process for closeing them.Geni 04:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Norfork Dam

I have replaced the image you deleted in the norfork dam article. It is not a duplicate. While you clearly did identify a misspelling you were the only one to do so. Furthermore, it was obviously a typo and by no means justified your following statement.

"Oh, why don't you creat an alternate reality where you don't have to spell correctly? And I talk like this! And your name is 'Watered Down'!" (fixed spelling of "create" and gave a Strong Bad ref).

As this was my first wikipedia article I do appreciate you fixing a few of the numerous formatting errors. However, there were many editors who did significantly more than you and were much more polite.

I gather from this page that your attitude is an ongoing problem in this community. Please remember this is not a place for power trips or childish superiority complexes, and your work is only apprecitated as long as it is constructive.

Personal attacks on other editors will not be tolerated and further violations will be reffered to the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antares573 (talk • contribs) .

Oh, please - it was meant as a joke. Have a sense of humor. See Strong Bad Email #117 for the original use of the phrase. I even subtly indicated it was a joke in the edit summary. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia become a place of jokes? I thought we were here to share the freedom of knowledge? Matthew 23:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we are here with the main purpose of creating an encyclopedia. And in the articles, that's the case. In the remainder of the project, we can joke a bit. Nothing wrong with a little humor occasionally. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Peace Sign 2.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Peace Sign 2.svg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rory096 02:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem fixed. I'm the one who modified the original image mentioned in the description, which was public domain. I went ahead and released the new image as modified by me as public domain as well, as it's only fair... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

FIY

Hey, you might want to keep your eye on, Nugneant (talk • contribs), it as if he has a bone to pick with metro or something, aney away he put in this statement, i taged it with the fact, and then he gave me his source, I have since removed it on the basis of POV/NPOV and OR tought i suspect that it will just be readded later. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

See you have had your delaings with him as well, what did i tell you, btw he left an intresting comment on my page, if you care to look. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Skyview High School

I appreicate your help with cleanup and orginazation fot eh skyview page, but I would aks you to leave the pictures and trivia alone. I would also ask you to please refrain from editing the page for at least three days. I am not finished writing it up yet, and edits made while I am still working cause probelms for me. Please wait three days for my final version to be up, then feel free to edit as you see fit, ok? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThNik (talk • contribs) .

No, no, and no. It says at the bottom of every edit screen, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I fdont think i made it clear enough. It's just not done yet. Picture it like this. How easy do you think it would be to write a book if soembody kept erasing the first three chapters? Wait for ti to be gfinished, then you can do as you see fit. Perosnally, I don't think you really have the right to edit this particular page, as it is of no personal relevance to you. Leave it in the hadns of the people that know what they're dealing with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThNik (talk • contribs) .

Everybody has the right to edit any page at any time. Such is one of the key tenets of the Wiki format. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

ok look. I know what this is. your life is in the gutter, with no decent job. Your high school life wqas undoubtedly one full of ridicule for your weight and nearsightedness, and you love the feeling of being in control and in a position of power that doing this gives you. I'm jsut asking you to be a little understanding. I knwow hat the letter of the ruels say. I am jsut asking you to do me a favor. Is it so hard to do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThNik (talk • contribs) .

See WP:NPA. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

look, buddy, i didnt mean any perosnal attacks. I went through a lot of that shit, ok? I'm a skinny blind fucker too, ok? I'm just trying to relate, and talk. I know how your mind is working about this, as my mind used to work the same way.

i'm not making a persoanl attack, friend. I'm jsut trying to nopen up a discussion with you. Is it so hard to do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThNik (talk • contribs) .

The moment you start talking about my personal life, that's a personal attack, and it falls under WP:NPA. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Everybody has the right to edit any page at any time. Such is one of the key tenets of the Wiki format. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Are those nto your exact words? I onyl did that to illustrate my point. I am a skyview student, and I know all abotu Skyview. I am working to tell people all about ym school. This is my perosnal life. I am as qualified to edit your page, as you are to edit mine. remember, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I hope you can see just how offputting such behavior can be. Now pleae let me ask you again. Would it be too much to ask for you to do me a favor and leave me to work with what I know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThNik (talk • contribs) .

Correct me if I'm missing something here: You've cited my comment earlier stating that anyone has the right to edit any page, while you ask me not to edit? Seems not to make sense... SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Washington Metro Fluff

Ben - this is ridiculous. I have no problem with you and some other person taking my Metro - critical comments off in the name of POV, but then why should Metro - supportive PR be kept on? --Nugneant 16:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maryland

I know you from the district area but was wondering if you not mind glancing over the the Maryland article especially the cultural identity section, and maybe give your opinion, it seems to be getting out of hand. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I got you now, well i figure that i at least put out a feeler to a "trusted" editor who has some perception of the area, at least you come in with a fresh perspective, i see that you have also noticed our friend that i noted you on above, he also has taken an intrest on the same article. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Concensus voting

Hey Ben, Do you think it's possible to do some sort of consesus vote on whether to include rankings in the James Madison University article? I just don't think that they are ever really academic studies as they are commercial and cannot possibly be comprehensive. I'd like to be able to see if there's a way to vote are argue the point so that there can be a decision made on whether or not we just leave them out of the article altogether. --Strothra 17:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Message from ThNik

then you leave my shit alone ok. i cnat stop you from messign with my skyview page, but dont you dare tocuh my user page or profile again, do you understand me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThNik (talk • contribs) .

What we are trying to get you to understand is that it is not "your" Skyview page, just as it is not "my" Skyview page. Keep WP:AGF in mind, and be a team player, and all shall be well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless. Dont ever touch my user page again, got it? And you mgiht do well to be a team player yourself, and alllow me to edit the page as well. you ahve done some good thigns with structure and formatting. I jsut feel you are deleting too much information.If you would be willing to compromise, I would be willing to talk.ThNik 04:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Thanks for the welcome... It only took someone a year and a half :) Lordwow 15:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Plaza

I notice you changed the time capsule opening from 2008 to 2088, as it was reported in the citation I provided. The reason I initially put in 2088 was because I saw this page which reported 2088, and I figured 100 years made more sense than 20 for a time capsule. Honestly though, when dealing with conflicting reports I don't really know what to do (besides going back later in the week and looking for the capsule itself). Any ideas on how to find out the authorotative date? --Bachrach44 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

headgear

It's commendable that you've changed the headgear template to something less obtrusive, but why are you removing the <! --- for more information see Wikipedia:WikiProject Hats and Headgear; to edit this table, go to Template:Headgear ---> comment? The project may be inactive, but if people don't know about it it's not going to get restarted it is. I don't see that having this comment in the text not visible unless you edit it does any harm whatsover. Jooler 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The template is as agreed for series templates. Your behaviour in unilaterally changing design and pages when there is no consensus behind it is little short of vandalism and will be treated that way. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am being WP:BOLD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Unilateral changes to a template that has an agreed format, and changing vast numbers of articles on your personal whim, can be seen as vandalism and treated as such. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Make my day. I believe that in the end, I will prevail. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 24 hours. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism.

Wikipedia acts by consensus. Templates for projects require consensus, not unilateral bulldozing through the personal whims of someone, especially when an attempt to remove that template was rejected in a vote. Being bold does not mean bulldozing your way through dozens of articles on a personal whim without discussion and debate and leaving others to clean up the mess caused. Next time try working through consensus. Furthermore unilaterally rewriting a project page to justify your unilateral actions is absolutely unacceptable behaviour. It is gross misconduct and shows contempt for the work of everyone involved in that project. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is your "long agreed" in this template? Looking at Template talk:Headgear and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hats and headgear, I find no agreement about the format of this template. Additionally, this is not a "series" of articles, but a cluster of articles related to headgear. That seems to require a bottom box, like Template:Crowns. Your response is appreciated. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

correction the attempt to remove the template ended in NO CONSENSUS. Jon513 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No consensus means no action. It means that there was not a consensus for change. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, per WP:BLOCK: Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was no engaged in a content dispute. I have had no involvement in the project, other than months ago to add a link to the template. All I did was block a user who unilaterally falsified the records of the agreed format for a project on the project page and reverted his changes, which in the way they were done, and given the falsification involved, was vandalism. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

Re: "I was no engaged in a content dispute." Yes, you were, and that's the root of this discussion. There was no "falsification" involved in my work. Additionally, this certainly does look like a content dispute to me, considering that in the Templates for Deletion discussion, you were the only editor to be passionately debating its keeping. All other responses were one or two sentences. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing the wording of a project page to make it look as though the consensus in the project was for your design, when it was not, is falsification. Manual of Style pages, Naming Conventions, Project pages and others are the outcome of debates and of a consensus reached. They are not rewritten at the whim of an individual who then uses their unilateral change as "policy" which they then unilaterally enforce without a modicum of debate, much less consensus. That is not how Wikipedia works, as well you know. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no intention of making it look like that was consensus. I'm not on the participant list for that project. The project had been inactive for some time. Edit history shows a lot, and in this case, I stated exactly what I was doing. Additionally, you still haven't responded to my assertion that you were the only one to be passionately arguing its keeping, and why that earlier involvement doesn't make this a content dispute and a violation of WP:BLOCK. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked

After taking a look around, I came to the following conclusions:

1. Schumin, being bold is nice, but when you're doing mass edits and told in a civil fashion to stop, it's best to do so until you two can communicate. However...
2. Jtdirl, you were not civil. Your first comment was to accuse him of vandalism.[1]
3. There were no 3RR violations here; there was no simple vandalism; I cannot, however, determine whether or not Jtdirl was involved in the fight before this started, so I cannot determine if it is a simple content dispute either.
4. Therefore, I unblock Schuminweb (with less than 20 minutes left on his block, so it's a symbolic thing I guess), but do not suggest any large sanction against Jtdirl. However, I sincerely suggest civil discourse begin here, and accusations of vandalism, threats of blocking, and mass edits cease until then. Also, Jtdirl, please be more civil when opening conversation in cases like this. That could have prevented a lot of trouble. --Golbez 18:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

SS America

Excuse me, but the data on the West Point that I inserted into this article is not copy protected by HazeGray. That is the data from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Here is the link: http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/w6/west_point-ii.htm. Most of HazeGray's data is likewise just copied DANFS information. As the West Point's history is a valid part of the history of the ship I have reinserted it back into the article and I would prefer you not to delete it again. If you wish to discuss this further please contact me. Zurel Darrillian 13:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, then by all means, pardon me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Actually, I did list that page as a reference, it is the one that you moved (I think during your second edit) and I believe that it is link number 4 at the base of the WWII segment. If you wish the link the reference differently, then by all means feel free. Zurel Darrillian 13:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Valley View Mall

Thanks (belatedly) for the praise on the Valley View Mall article and for improving the photo placement (and adding the copyright tag). It was unusual to see an article on Tanglewood with nothing on Valley View. I'm slowly adding articles and links about the Roanoke area since it seemed like more attention was needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VaGuy1973 (talk • contribs) .

Hi

You must be a good guy. You have received a special service from both Jdirl AND Golbez. Me too... That makes your a definite friend of mine. By the way, expect some "help" from Demiurge and Kiand too, but watch them carefully. Where Jdiri and Golbez go, so do they. Remember, don't get annoyed, plan your next move! You are young, and have plenty of time. Good luck! Wallie 14:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... sure. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Reo Hatfield

Put the ix-nay on him. Hope you agree that he's very NN. He's now a redirect to the feud. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Grapette

No problem the more I read this the more I thought it has FA potential which was why I was a little bit harsher on rejecting GA status. Suggest some advertising(yuk!) images as well. If the info is available some more detail on the naming competition.

Anytime you want me to have another read/comment just drop a note I'll be more than happy to. Gnangarra 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Space Quest

Please take a look to my reply in my talk page. I am not vandalizing Space Quest, and please don't restore information that has been already moved; by doing so you are actually duplicating information that exists elsewhere. Just take a time and look at the links I created (linking to each game in its separate article) before I moved the bulk information. Pictureuploader 10:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Retailing

Hello, thanks for showing your support for my proposed Retailing WikiProject. Sorry it's taken me so long to post something on your talk page in response, I have been busy setting up the project and irl. Our current collaboration is to rewrite the Criticism section of the Wal-Mart article (draft). You can help out by improving the draft article, taking part in discussion, asking questions on my talk page, and getting other users to petition their support for this WikiProject. Once I get two more names on this list, I will launch an official Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing page and mark it as being active. Once again, thanks for your support. Tuxide 02:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello Schumin thank you for your greeting.. (A) --HarisX 05:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Ooh, a Barnstar! I've never received one of those before. You just made my day.  :) I'm a bit of a one-woman army when it comes to cleaning up and expanding the articles on women's colleges, so this is pretty spiffy. (I guess I'm my own personal WikiProject?) After a few years on Wikipedia, it was starting to feel pretty thankless, so again, thank you.  :) Beginning 23:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Block

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 24 hours for spamming users' pages for votes, contrary to Wikipedia policy as laid down by the Arbitration Committee. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 10:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock denied. You did the crime, you do the time. Vote-stacking and talk page spamming is simply unacceptable. The only way I would even think of lifting this block is if you admitted it was unacceptable and swore never to do it again. --Cyde↔Weys 17:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Schuminweb, do you agree not to spam talk pages for "votes"? If you want to get the attention of people in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war, why not just post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war? Ah, I see that you did.

Cyde is correct that talk-page spamming is not ok. We're happy to explain why, if that helps, but you have to agree not to do it. If you agree to that, I'd support your being unblocked. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree not to, so long as you explain why. That's what I don't get, as I don't consider it "spamming" to send or receive messages pertaining to a WikiProject to participants of that project. This isn't random users by any means, which is what it seems like I'm being interpreted as. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Spam" may be something of a misnomer. We define internal spam as crossposting substantially identical posts to lots of talk pages. (See Wikipedia:Spam.) The problem isn't the posts being random, quite the contrary. We've had problems with people using "internal spamming" to flood deletion discussions with "keep votes" that are based on POV and not on policy. This undermines the purpose of deletion discussions, which is to determine the correct application of policy, not the most popular option. Our response to this form of abuse has been to decide that notifications of deletion discussions count as spam, and are strongly discouraged, with blocks if necessary. There's been some discussion of rewording the Wikipedia:Spam guideline to reflect this reality, though it hasn't happened yet.

I realize that you were careful to phrase your notification neutrally, and I'm not assuming that your intention was to stuff any "ballot-box"; furthermore, I don't assume you were aware of this particular aspect of Wikipedia culture. Now that you know, and have indicated a willingness to stop, I'll contact the blocking admin and see about reducing your block. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl has indicated that he doesn't oppose your block being lifted, as long as you don't spam. I'm going ahead and lifting it. Please let me know if you have any other questions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The spamming rule, IMHO, is crazy here. I don't see the problem with neutral invitations to contribute. However the arbcom (who set the rules) interpret it differently. There has been ungoing issues over such messaging, including rigid application of blocks where messages were left. I will be trying to get the rule changed but in the meantime as an admin I had to enforce the rule. Leaving messages on project pages are fine, but leaving messages saying come and vote, no matter how neutral, leads automatically to blocks. We need to get this crazy rule changed, or perhaps develop some automatic system whereby contributors to a topic in the past get an automatic bot message saying a vote is taking place on an issue they were involved in previously. Wikipedia seems to presume that every user automatically checks every page to see if someone of interest to them is taking place. It doesn't seem to have grasped the fact that with so many articles and deletion pages people cannot check everything. It was easier before when everything was on one deletion page, but with the number of articles multiple delete pages are necessary. We should have to find a neutral way to let people know votes that were going on. Because I don't agree with the rule but had to enforce it I set it for the lowest timeframe for such incidents, 24 hours, because most of that time you would probably not be on WP anyway (unless you are one of the Wikipedians who don't go to sleep and write day and night!). It wouldn't have been as harsh as a 36 hour or 48 hour block which some users use. We do need to try to find some methodology to enable communication with users. The current rules, as I said, IMHO, are crazy. But unfortunately they exist, for now at least. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Spam is a good place to start. Establishing an actual correspondence between what's written and what's done would be cool. The current guideline is antiquated and hasn't reflected the last 18 months' developments. When I suggested an update, we got bogged down in philosophy somehow, but once there's a critical mass... -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

One idea might be a neutrally worded template which would mean users would not be using their own words but an automatic agreed set that, say, could be put on certain pages. Re the block, Sch, I deliberately asked others to intervene but no one was available to do so. I left messages on a number of pages asking for intervention. Unfortunately when 20 users in instant succession are "spammed" as defined by WP an immediate block was called for. If no-one else was available then it fell to me to do it, but I deliberately put it on the ani page with an explanation so that other admins when they were available could review it and revert if necessary. My intervention was a last resort when no-one else was available. Other users automatically intervene to abort votes where what WP defines as spamming are occurring, and in effect start the process again after a delay. I chose not to. All I did was leave a note on the vote informing whichever admins were dealing with it that spamming had occurred. I didn't cut of the vote, revert the spam, or intervene in any way other than the minimum required: a block and a note at the vote. I wish someone else could have done it, but no one was available. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that in the past I have seen this user do this in other afds regarding webcomics and agree with the block. Just my two cents.--Jersey Devil 23:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism template

Aha, so that's what the pixel.gif is for! Didn't know that and didn't wanna disturb anything, sorry for that. Learning a new thing every day. I was wondering, are you sure you want it this way? My browser (IE) shows a complete white line (bout 15px height) between title and sign. See for example Christian anarchism to compare two templates. Well, I'll leave it up to you. Adios, amigo. -- ActiveSelective 04:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, IE on XP and on Win98 university computers show Christian anarchism like this:

-- ActiveSelective 08:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Great Stalacpipe Organ

I'm curious about your revert to 'History' as a heading in The Great Stalacpipe Organ. Lots of things are "fine." What I'm looking for is good, excellent, intriguing, and maybe just descriptive. Is there anything in a Wikipedia style guide about why 'History' is more appropriate than 'History and Conception' when that section encompasses (what I feel to be) both? --Markkidd 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EPCOT concept drawing.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EPCOT concept drawing.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles 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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

O'Malley page

The O'Malley comment in the ICC page is far from campaigning, it is an honest statement shared by pretty much every light rail supporter that I've come in contact with. It isn't saying that people should vote for O'Malley if they want the Light Rail, it's saying that "activist" supporters of the Light Rail see O'Malley as their best/only chance to resurrect the project. To me that's a clear difference from actually advocating O'Malley's election. On a larger scale, it's like saying that abortion opponents are tying their hopes to electing a conservative Republican to follow George W. Bush in the White House, so that a conservative appointee can be nominated when John Paul Stevens retires. It's not advocating votes in that direction, it's just making a statement about the advocates of a certain position.

testing on Neal Boortz

Hey, please don't do tests on real articles. I'm a-gonna revert it and I know it's not intended to be vandalism, but it kinda is anyway. If you need to test, show a preview and don't save, or use the sandbox, or use your userpage or something, not real articles. Thanks. Karwynn 19:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahem... never mind, misunderstanding. Karwynn 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Strikethrough done. Thanks for your correction. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

Are you on fire? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hahahaha... but I managed to bungle the move out of my userspace so much that it was easier to just remove the old redirects entirely than to fix it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPLICE

Hey there, I posted a query at WP:SPLICE about your recent request, and will perform the history merge once I hear your response there. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well I just went ahead and did it. Read over my post on WP:SPLICE and let me know if I missed anything. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of {{stub}} is no longer recommended

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! -- Where 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa!

It's bizarre, i'n't it?, how people who'd otherwise never meet have intersecting lives on the 'net. I'm sorting out an editing question with you on Talk:Kerchief, which may well be the least important page on Wikipedia, clicked your Talk link, and discover you were born in Glassboro, which is where I was living when my youngest child was born, lo those eight years ago. You now live in Washington DC, and I live in Washington AC (Above California). Perhaps I'm your real mother? <grin> Anyway, trot back over to this silly page, won't you, and have a word? -- The Editrix 17:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greengate Mall

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greengate Mall. Some people feel that most dead malls are not notable and that articles about them do not belong in Wikipedia. TruthbringerToronto 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Not that it's a really big deal or anything, but I gotta say I really don't like adding "...and take care of things" to the page. It sort of takes away from the solemnity and brevity of the rule. I think its just more of a concept whose brilliance is in its shortness of wording. I think the "take care of things" is implied and unneccessary. What do you think? AdamBiswanger1 20:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Credit of other's work

Hey. I was just wondering where you got your info from the Dixie Square Mall and for the TurnStyle store chain? Also, did you happen to give credit for the logo for TurnStyle that you have on that page, because it is not originally yours...it is from www.dixiesquare.com. Am I right, or did you magically recreate it with cloning technology? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackthomas (talk • contribs) .

First of all, regarding the info for Turn Style, I did not write the text for the article. I just cleaned it up a little bit - all of one, maybe two words. As for the Turn Style logo, it is properly credited. See Image:Turn Style.png for source information, where the site you cited is indeed listed.

Also, please don't forget to sign your posts using four tildes when leaving talk messages. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please remove this then, if you do not want me to do it. Thank you. Jackthomas

No, I'm not going to remove it. That's the point I'm trying to make. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Street Medic photo

Was wondering if we could use this photo you took of some of us street medics for the Street medic entry.-JeremySavage

Absolutely not a problem. I'll even upload and place it myself. And for future reference, material on The Schumin Web is available under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license, so it's always fine to use. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fellow traveler

Schuminweb,

Why was "Fellow Traveler" not "close enough"? 90 percent of the people who are ensuring the list is biased have self-proclaimed Socialist or Commumist worldviews that are their "sources of opposition". The term "fellow traveler" seems to be the best descriptor to capture this wide ranging source of opposition. Thank you for your time.

Have a great 4th of July and enjoy the fireworks in D.C.

V/R

160.149.77.68 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not specifically anti-war, but seems to be much more a general thing. I would, however, consider myself a "fellow traveler" for a number of anti-war and activist organizations in the DC area, but as it's not specifically an anti-war concept, it's not template material. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Schuminweb,

I would propose that if being a "fellow traveler" is the "source of opposition" for large portions of the Anti-War proponents, then it fits. For the listing to be neutral (as many people have used for their reasoning) then it should list all the primary motivating factors in the "source of opposition" list.

For example, if you look at the "User pages" for those in the "history" editing list, almost all of them are self-proclaimed Socialists, Communists, followers of Trotskyism, etc.. All the edits they make could be what wikipedia calls "vandalism" since they have a set agenda in only showing one side, versus listing the other links that would not be a palpable.

For example, "consciencious objector" is listed, however "draft dodger" is not, nor is "deserter". "Anti-imperialism" is listed, however "Socialism" doesn't get the green light...and yet "militarism" does? "Peace movement" can be listed, and yet the Socialist leadership behind many of these organizations is never addressed?

Again, I would propose (for neutralities sake) if we are going to have an Anti-war list, it is only fair to address the 'fellow traveler" angle under "sources of opposition".

Let me know what you think.

V/R

160.149.77.68 05:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repost the whole thing to the template talk page and put it to the group. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Schuminweb,

Thank you for your consideration. Admittedly when I first came across the "Anti-War" links page, I was thrown aback by my precieved bias in the list. As such, I did make a few changes that were admittedly out of line and for that I can only apologize. At this point, I am trying to contribute and ensure the content is is balanced and neutral.

Have a great 4th of July.

Thanks again.

V/R 160.149.77.68 06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Metro

I just came back from a few days in DC (I was staying in Chantilly, just outside Dulles; the nearest metro station thus was Vienna [and no, I started riding the metro in 1993, I refuse to use the new names. I still get confused with "red line train to Glenmont" rather than "to Wheaton"; Largo instead of Addison Road is even worse]). I took it to Bethesda to see some friends, and a couple of questions came to mind:

1. Some stations are center-platform, some stations are split-platform; why? What was the criteria? It tends to be that center-plat ones have one exit, but Farragut North and Union Station break this; and that split-plat tend to have two exits, but Pentagon City breaks this. Are these simple exceptions, or is there a deeper reasoning to this?
2. Why are the Maryland stations so deep? Is the land just higher up there, so they kept the train tunnel straight, or do they have to dive under other things?

--Golbez 04:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"I've also been told at one point that center platform stations are deep-bored while side platform ones are cut/cover." Farragut North breaks this soundily, as it's probably the most shallow station in the system that isn't at grade (Union Station is virtually street level, IIRC; if you must, then Farragut North is the second most shallow station). I thought about this too, but Dupont Circle is very deep, while Farragut North is very shallow. --Golbez 04:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Carla C.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carla C.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. User:Angr 09:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Space Quest

Apologies for my spelling changes on this edit of Space Quest. I shall make sure I brush up on my American spellings before spellchecking any more documents. Jibbles | Talk 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Jibbles | Talk 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Schuminweb! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. - Glen 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to cutting of bus information for Hampton Roads Transit

The main reason I put it here is because no matter how much I beg and plead with HRT, they refuse to update any of their information. For example, refer to this Transit Gram. Then compare to the schedule of Route 2 (Hampton Blvd). The schedule does not include the seperate Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday schedules.

--RaggieSoft 13:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Then it seems like this borders on original research, which is all the more reason to not include it, since Wikipedia prohibits the inclusion of original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)