User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 6

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

Woodlands Church

Can you explain why it is not OK to have an article on Woodlands Church in Swansea. I see you recently deleted it entirely. I guess it may have been too promotional, but a page about the church is surely in the community's interest as it has a significant place in the city of Swansea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcampo (talk • contribs)

That was deleted through the proposed deletion process, whereby an article is tagged for deletion, and if the tag remains on the article for five days, then it is deleted. However, the same policy also covers undeletion. If a reasonable request is made, the article is undeleted restored, which I have done. This, however, does not mean immunity from deletion, as it can still be brought to AFD and discussed, and possibly deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

McFarland & Company, Inc.

I'm curious to know how large a publishing house needs to be, in order to be considered "notable". Obviously, there is a page for Barnes & Notable, er, Noble. I have no financial connection whatsoever to the McFarland company and am not interested in getting into some kind of dispute about it. It's merely a source of some good baseball books that I have cited in various articles. Specifically, the reprint of Ernest Lanigan's Baseball Cyclopedia from the 1920s, as well as one of my "bibles" of ballpark info, Ballparks of North America, by Michael Benson, 1989. Baseball Bugs 15:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your best bet, since this was speedied under G11 as blatant advertising, is to read WP:CORP, which is the notability criteria for organizations and companies, and also WP:CSD, the criteria for speedy deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You deleted it. You must have had a reason. Don't be sending me to some page to read. Do me the courtesy of telling me specifically why you deleted it. Regarding the Bush comment, you've got an anti-Bush-administration picture on your user page, so my response to it (and in support of it) has every bit as much to do with wikipedia as that picture does. Baseball Bugs 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you probably deleted it just because it was marked for deletion. However, I don't know how to find out who did mark it, since it's gone. :( Again, I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this, I just want to know what the threshold is between notable and not-notable for a book publisher. Baseball Bugs 22:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pkk1978.png

Please undelete. You are right the license was bad but it can be used under fair-use. I will make the necesary adjustments on the image description page. Thanks. Oh, please let me know (on my talk page) that you read this. :) -- Cat chi? 18:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of EDDIE_VH.jpg

I noted that you deleted this image. I'm sure you noticed that after it was tagged, an effort was made by multiple authors to improve the fair use rationale and to discuss the issue on the image Talk page. Could you please explain on the image Talk page why you decided to delete despite the improved rationale and discussion? Thanks --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly clear-cut. It is possible to create a freely-licensed replacement for this image. Therefore, this image is considered replaceable and is ripe for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Good edit

This was well done, in my opinion. --John 19:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

photo copyright RMANCIL 01:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

All the images you deleted had rational and fair use copyright tags. They also were photos in the public domain created for publicity with complete copyright information in place along with details of who owned the copyrights and all have links both to their web sites as well as to the Charger web page. All of the photos were relevant to the subject matter. If we disallow all photos even when every effort is made to meet the stated criteria then why do we have the format in place that allows for free use photos from publicity shots. In the end history is not being served. Which is a major reason to be a part of this community. No copyright violations were in play at all every photo that I have was sourced. Pictures help tell the story. RMANCIL 01:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they (A) didn't have fair use rationales, and (B) they were NOT in the public domain. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Coach Ross : historical publicity head shot Chargers N.F.L. football wireimage. These photos are used in publicity kits and are on N.F.L. web sites for expressly the purpose of allowing a photo request to be filled companies that are paid have free accounts that provide the pictures. I know as I am a member. (Wireimage)

I await your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMANCIL (talk • contribs)

You should have added the fair use rationale to the image description, then. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

They were in place I have strengthened them and I will upload them again. Thank you for your reply. Hopefully this resolves this and I won't have to duplcate my work nor waste my time or yours. RMANCIL 12:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, as long as you follow all the guidelines regarding fair use, you'll be fine. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Carrier Ethernet Deleted

I just returned to see that my posting on Carrier Ethernet was zapped. What is it? Carrier Ethernet is a ubiquitous, standardized, carrier-class SERVICE defined by five attributes that distinguish Carrier Ethernet from familiar LAN based Ethernet.

To be frank, I'm baffled. It represents a massive worldwide development of the latest form of ethernet and is actively supported by the inventor of this ubiquitous technology, Doctor Robert Metcalfe. The technical development of the standards are fully supported by 125 major telecoms technology equipment companies (Cisco, Alcatel-Lucent, Nortel, etc., every major worldwide telephone company, (AT&T, BT, FT, DT, China Telecom, Korea Telecom) all the MSO /cable Companies (Time Warner, Cox, etc.,)

It was not promoting sales, of any company's products. Neither, was it even promoting the non-profit industry association that defines the technical standards for this important worldwide development the Metro_Ethernet_Forum. The posting of this entry was with the full support of this standards body, which already has information posted on Wikipedia. The principal analyst firms are predicting that installations of Carrier Ethernet Services will exceed $25bn within 2 years, which certainly makes it commercially notable.

The posting was providing a clear definition of what is likely to be the next generation of the Internet so as to avoid confusion and provide information. Deleting this reference piece was like deleting ITU, IEEE, IETF or Ethernet itself on the grounds that they represent a group of members. Indeed the defining international standards body for Carrier Ethernet has long been present on Wikipedia. What is been lacking was the clear definition of Carrier Ethernet and the way it connects many different technologies and standards bodies. I am at a loss as to what the deletion has to do with CS11? Perhaps I made a technical mistake in the posting.

When it was tagged for deletion after I posted it, I duly explained on the discussion page all of this, but it seems to have been ignored.

Although this all new technology started six years ago in a limited way focusing on Metro Ethernet, the worldwide expansion of interest of technology that spans Cable_Modem, Wireless, SONET, Frame_Relay, DSL, Ethernet itself, Metro Networks, Free_Space_Optics, Metro Ethernet, Meshed WiFi, Passive Optical Networking is now encapsulated in a service known as Carrier Ethernet. If Carrier Ethernet has been deleted then so should all of these entries.

Disallowing this entry while certainly not affecting the march of technical progress of the Internet, does deprive those followers and students of the communications industry finding the definitions on Wikipedia.

I'm not sure what appeal there is to this, as I'm new posting anything on Wikipedia? As a former Chair of several telecomms industry associations, I'd be happy to add further explanation.

- Mark Fishburn--Marketword 01:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was speedily deleted under criteria G11 as blatant advertising. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Blatant advertising of what? .... It's a technology posting.. There is no product to sell?... You should delete Ethernet and SONET too!! If you're not familiar with Network technologies defined by the ITU (International Telecommunications Union), IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force), IEEE 802 committee (Institute of Electrtical and Electronic Engineers), than I strongly recommend that you check these out. You are actually using most of the technologies defined by these standards bodies right now in this dialog. I request that you carefully reconsider, or at the very least please help me understand why this is viewed as blatant advertising when non of the previously approved submissions have. Thanks you. --Marketword 02:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, an article already exists on this technology at Carrier ethernet transport. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 03:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually not. Carrier Ethernet Transport is unfortunately a marketing hype cashing in on Carrier Ethernet.

I do appreciate that it is not always straight-forward to distinguish between some of the terms. This is exactly why the posted definition is required. Carrier Ethernet as defined by the Networking industry is a SERVICE NOT a transport.

It is specifically designed to be agnostic to the supporting transport technologies, so that any Ethernet network anywhere in the world can be connected to another and be provisioned with a certified service. Although this is a relative recent concept (It was defined in May 2005) you will find 1.3m Google hits on the term Carrier Ethernet.

To distinguish this further, The transport of Carrier Ethernet is being jumped on by many people as a way of getting on the bandwagon without understanding it. Referring back to Carrier Ethernet Transport (CET)... I quote from the Google search on CET:... "Xxxx Networks earlier this year announced its entry into what it calls “the emerging carrier Ethernet transport market” On the back of Carrier Ethernet, marketing spin offs are occurring. The posting in question in turn does promote some other proprietary technologies (e.g. PB-T). I have no axe to grind but "Carrier Ethernet Transport" requires further investigation as a promotion of a specific marketing term and unlike "Carrier Ethernet" has no backing in technical specifications nor is quoted by other Industry Standards bodies.

Even despite the massive interest some of the top analysts firms don't understand yet. This is why it is why it's very important to bring clarity with the simple posted definition of the term. Rather than create marketing hype, it's intention is to help stop companies confusing people generating confusion with their own hype.

Further References:

Carrier Ethernet Technical Specifications published by the Metro Ethernet Forum

A series of presentations on Carrier Ethernet

Carrier Ethernet defined --Marketword 05:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Spike. I responded to your note on my discussion page: User_talk:Marketword#Article_deletion and I'm going to have a crack at an encyclopedic entry as you suggest. I'm also going have the copyright notices on the Metro Ethernet Forum site replaced with something more sensible. --Marketword 23:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Animal House

Hey, no problem. Every now and then I'm brave enough to be WP:BOLD. :) I definitely agree with you regarding WP:NOT#INFO, and have been enjoying the backlash against trivia/goofs/in popular culture sections and articles as of late. Ahh, the cleanliness. María (críticame) 12:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image, Protest flag.png exists as Image, :ICS_Bravo.svg

The image, Protest flag.png exists as Image : ICS_Bravo.svg Pete.Hurd 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

List of people named Title

I noticed that the page list of people named Daniel was deleted, with the history showing "Expired PROD, concern was: There is no useful content here that is not located at Daniel (disambiguation). A list of people whose first name is Daniel would be endless and unmanageable, and not encyclopedic anyway."

While I am inclined to agree that such a list would be endless and unmanageable, and am not personally inspired by the content of such an article, there are two other concerns salient in this case, one specific and one policy related:

• Such a list was actually intended for people with Daniel as a surname

• The bigger problem of endlessness and unmanageability, from what I have seen, is people with a disambiguated term as only one of their names being listed on a disambiguation page when disambiguation is not needed, resulting in bloat

MOS:DP specifies that longer lists of "John Title" should have a new article created. I would have thought that this applies to Daniel (disambiguation) in current form. Does the deletion of list of people named Daniel reflect that this policy is deprecated, that an inappropriate title for such an article was created, that the list of people is not long, that the deletion was an error, or some other situation? ENeville 02:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While I can see that this may have been a difficult question, as I myself saw it worth seeking insight, I am disappointed to have received no response. Absent such, I have created Daniel (surname), per my best interpretation of guidelines and suitability. ENeville 00:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Demonoid

Why did u delete the demonoid article. I believe it was relevant :( Copycat989 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It was speedy-deleted under criteria A7, as an unremarkable Web site. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It meets the notability requirements from it's recent mention in De Telegraaf, the largest Dutch daily morning newspaper.[1] I propose a full undeletion. Maged123 05:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. This proves you are not an inclusionist, as is stated on your userpage. Maged123 05:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
No, inclusionist means leaning toward including it so long as it is verifiable, and this has no sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
"Inclusionism is a philosophy...favor keeping and amending problematic articles over deleting them...generally less concerned with the question of notability, and instead focus on whether or not an article is factual." -http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism
Surely by this philosophy the page can be restored and edited to satisfy any of the issues with it? Besides, with over 100,000 users in the forums alone, surely this makes Demonoid.com notable compared to, for example, the town of Admont which has a population of less than 3,000? Or the swedish band Demonoid which currently occupies the name page anyway (which whilst referenced is not perhaps the search object of most people who type Demonoid into the search bar)?Moe 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Inclusionism also doesn't mean breaking the rules. The article had no assertion of notability, and therefore was speedied by more than one admin as an unremarkable Web site. That's A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I am seriously laughing at the premise that this is an unremarkable website. It is one of the most well know BitTorrent trackers, far more well known than many, many articles here on Wikipedia, and it does seem to fit the notability requirements. Furthermore, the P2P scene is following the recent events of the site very closely. I say the article should be undeleted IMO. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 01:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Any reliable sources? SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

June 10, 2007 anti-Israeli occupation protest

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article June 10, 2007 anti-Israeli occupation protest, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Agamemnon2 17:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Ongoing Edit Wars

Generally, I've found that anarchism, socialism, and various secondary related pages come under edit wars, including disputes over the use, as we discussed, of primary sources. I would suggest drafting guidelines for sourcing pages in the appropriate projects. Thanks. Jacob Haller 00:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Welcome

Hey, no problem, just doing my part...(whoa...that was so cliché =). Peace. Spartan-James 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Zedd2.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Zedd2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Lande again

I though we were still in mid debate. Why was the article deleted before we had finished our discussion, I was adding more sources, honing the page etc. I guess in laymen ubiquitous street slang - What gives? Do I need to talk to Walton as well? Andman8 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The AFD discussion period expired. Consensus was to delete. You had a number of days to get the article set, and you spent more time arguing with people over trivial matters than in actually improving the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking for advice on See Also Links

I can't find the Wikipedia policy or MOS standards for what to include in/exclude from See Also sections. I'm not sure there is one. However, other editors keep adding additional See Also.

My basic position is that if X is relevant to Y, then Y should have a see also link to X; and if X is not relevant to Y, then Y should not have a see also link to X. Others seem to hold that if X is relevant to Y, and Y is not relevant to X, then X and Y should still both have links to each other. Jacob Haller 19:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also is where the "See also" section is described. It, however, doesn't cover content that much other than that links that are already in the text shouldn't be repeated here. My feeling is that in a perfect world, there would be no "See also" section at all. Everything would be linked within the text. Therefore, my feeling is that if A is relevant to B, but B is not relevant to A, then B shouldn't contain a link to A in a "See also" section. In that case, A probably ought to carry a short explanation for its link to B. Or better, remove them both, and find a way to place the link to A in the text. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Neal-boortz-751876.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Neal-boortz-751876.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You may delete at will. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Refimprove

Thanks for replacing my {{unreferenced}} with {{refimprove}}, which I hadn't known about, in Space Shuttle Enterprise. Learn something new every day, eh? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a fairly new tag, only dating back until March. It was much needed, though, if you ask me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks

for the welcome note Bigglove 13:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of FlyLady. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

PassAlong Networks

PassAlong Networks is in the middle of a DRM controversy that thousands of artists and millions of consumers are very interested in. In looking across Wikipedia on how weak the "digital music" is in general, coupled with how self-serving some of the corporate pages that already exist are, I'm having a hard time undertstanding how you could make this judgment, unless this this was simpley a BOT making a sweep of markeed pages.

What is the best way for me to appeal?

Sxfranklin 15:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'm going to do for you, then. You want to improve it? You may. You have five days in which to do it, because I'm restoring it, but I'm also nominating it under articles for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk Page:JJGD

I noticed you deleted the above page as a user request, but looking at its history, this appears to be the user's talk page. It was moved just prior to the requested deletion. So long as this editor is still around, I believe the content of this page needs to be restored in its proper place (User talk:JJGD). JJGD doesn't appear to be invoking the right to vanish. - auburnpilot talk 18:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

All Ballots

Can you please tell me how this article was promoting the site and other social networking sites in the list are not promoting their site. I posted content that was informative.

re: Reverse takeover

Hi, I'm a long-time Wikipedia user but I haven't contributed before. I see that you're an editor of the "reverse takeover" article, so thought I'd run the following past you.

The article as currently written is inaccurate in several respects. To mention two:
- For a takeover to be "reverse", it is not sufficient for the acquiring company to be the smaller of the two. What is essential is that ownership control of the acquiring company has to change as a result of the transaction.
- The acquirer need not be a "shell" company.

For more detail and an example on these issues, please take a look at a recent Q&A on Askville in which I was involved (check both "Answers" and "Discussion Board"): http://askville.amazon.com/askville/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=2410153

If you agree, please feel free to revise the Wikipedia article accordingly. Thanks. Gbognar 20:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Askville" itself is not sufficiently reliable to use as a source, but the Investopedia link on that page appears to be. If you see something inaccurate, though, you're more than welcome to fix it until it is right. Be bold, as they say. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I think you misunderstood; I wasn't suggesting to cite Askville as a source. The source is my knowledge of market terminology as a professional investor, illustrated by the example of a recent transaction I gave on the Askville discussion board. Naturally, I accept that this may not satisfy people looking for citations in an academic sense.
I would suggest not citing Investopedia since, as I mentioned on Askville, I think their definition is also inaccurate. Gbognar 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Magnum Marine

A couple of days ago, you correctly deleted Magnum Marine under g12, however, OTRS has since lodged permission to use text from their website. If it’s not to much hassle, would you be able to review the article, and see if it warrants undeletion, or if it should remain deleted, so I can let the guy who contacted OTRS know? Thanks SchuminWeb, Brian | (Talk) 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ticket number duly noted in restore summary. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Do you think this is a reliable source? http://www.newteevee.com It's related somehow to GigaOM. I ask because it keeps popping up in Google News searches related to YouTube and would make a good resource. Ichormosquito 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like you ought to be okay using this. I looked at their about page, and it appears these people are all professional journalists, but if you can also find a second source for this information, please do. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Alain Frecon

So the reason this post was deleted was because the person was not significant? The Person won France's highest distinction and is not significant? Can you tell me sir, why Greg Packer is significant?

LaserActive

Hi SchuminWeb, I am confused by your removal of the LaserActive link to the virtual LaserActive museum. Did you have a chance to explore that a little (like on the left, check various sections)? Cheers, Cyberroach (Talk)

I did look at it at the time (more than a month ago), and in looking at it again now, it is still heavily under construction, and contains a big copyvio (the whole user manual?). SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Street photography

I don't have an issue with where you moved my photograph or how you edited the caption, but I do have an issue with two chess player photographs on the page. Can you upload a different street photograph to give the page some more diversity? If not, I have plenty. --David Shankbone 04:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you want something other than more chess on there? Sure, I can go dig something else up. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Metro Wiki

It was nice meeting you Saturday. I hope that I'll see you contributing to my Wikia [2] soon. -- BRG 19:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dartmouth Crossing

Hi. If you have the stomach/patience for it, could use your help on this article. A couple of editors seem to think that an article made up almost entirely of tenant lists is appropriate because "it's useful". Skeezix1000 22:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist, and I'll tell you one thing... that gallery has GOT to go. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha, ha. Yes. DGG said the same thing. I just did not want to ruffle too many feathers by removing the tenant lists and the photos at the same time. Skeezix1000 11:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the photos just need to go to Commons and then be linked with the {{commonscat}} tag. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I had also suggested that on the article talk page. I wasn't sure how well that would go over, so I initially held off. But except for Shorens, no one seems too up in arms over the changes, so perhaps I was being overly cautious. When I get a chance I will move the photos to Commons. Skeezix1000 17:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Principlism

? how could the article violate Copyright? This is a word, words have copyrights now? I was in holidays when you tagged this article for speedy deletion and I don't have any backup of it... so anyway... thanks mate! Gilemon 23:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

SDLV

Being part of the amateur space community, I feel it is appropriate to add something to the SDLV article about the many shuttle-derived launch vehicle proposals that are out there. You can see I have made it clear that this section is about amateur proposals, and not serious designs. I have also changed the reference material from forums to normal webpages. I'm sure if you did a google search for 'SDV' you would find many more similar amateur proposals. 60.234.52.146 05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You still can't use those, since they're not reliable sources. Therefore you have been reverted again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
They are amateur proposals, clearly labeled as such, and therefore should not need such strict reference material. The very nature of amateur proposals is that they are not written or evaluated by professionals. If there is a more appropriate Wikipedia guideline article you can point me to, this would be appreciated. 60.234.52.146 11:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
See verifiability, no original research, reliable sources, notability, and what Wikipedia is not. Amateur proposals, when not written about in a reliable source, have no place on Wikipedia. Now that it has been explained to you on multiple occasions why this content cannot be kept, further addition of this content will be viewed as vandalism, and the appropriate steps taken. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If I revert again, and this is labelled as vandalism, will that mean that people other than you will be prompted to review this quandary? Having looked over those Wikipedia guideline articles, I am no more enlightened than before... You tell me I can talk about 'amateur proposals', but I have to site professional sources...? How is that supposed to work? Although I am sure there are a few mentions of proposals by the amateur space community in more professional articles, I doubt I will be able to find them easily. But why would they be needed, when I already have the actual proposals themselves as reference? 60.234.52.134 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The actual proposals themselves are published on what appears to be a personal site [3]. Such sources are not reliable. The bottom line is that unless these amateur proposals are given more than a trivial mention in a reliable source, you cannot use it in Wikipedia. Reliable sources are necessary because of the fact-checking that goes into their creation. Otherwise, any Joe six-pack with a freebie site can cite himself in an article and compromise the reliability of Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

the (FAST-SLV-like but published four months LATER) "Direct Launcher" proposal (that has several links on Wiki pages and a FULL Wiki article!) actually IS a non-NASA "amateur proposal" so, why did it still is on Wikipedia?

also, if we want to follows entirely the "gold rule" (non-NASA = amateur) we can't hide the fact that ALSO the famous Zubrin's "Mars Direct" is ONLY an "amateur proposal" and not even one of the "best" since the NASA engineers have found many design flaws and suggested to change it from a two-launches to a three-launches architecture (to add to the return module enough propellent to come back to earth...)

then...

Gaetanomarano 21:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to respond further to comments made on this page about this topic. Please take your discussion to Talk:Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle, where all may feel more welcome to debate the issue. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Schumin

I have provided my fair use rationale for Image:Liaodi Pagoda.jpg, I hope it is now suitable. If there are any problems please let me know, and I will address them immediately.--PericlesofAthens 06:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just on a side note (I hope you take no offense), but in your photo you totally look like the comedian Bill Hicks. Lol. Take care.--PericlesofAthens 06:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing fair use rationale. However, it does appear to fail criteria #1, since it appears to be replaceable with a free image. "I can't find anything else on the Web" isn't a good enough reason, since the idea is that if someone (not necessarily yourself) can get off their fanny and go take a picture of it, then it's replaceable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but, when am I going to go to Hebei in China? I live in Fairfax, Virginia. Lol. Plus, I don't know anyone who lives in China! This seems kind of unfair, although it is not impossible to take the picture (well, on my budget it is, heh). If you look around the internet for pics of the Liuhe Pagoda, there are virtually dozens of them. I don't know what's up with this pagoda, it's like bug spray to cameras or something.--PericlesofAthens 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's why I said someone, not just you. It's a big Internet out there. As for location, I feel for you - I live in Silver Spring, Maryland. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Renaming ship articles

Hi. I see you renamed the page on Angelina Lauro as Oranje, as that was the ship's first name. Should then the article on the Achille Lauro be renamed as Willem Ruys, as that was the first name of that ship? I know the Achille Lauro is best known for its hijacking, but shouldn't there be consistency in the naming of the articles - people can get to Achille Lauro through a redirect. Many thanks Jasper33 18:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The jury seems to be out on that. On one hand, Flandre was originally Carla C, and was changed as Flandre is the ship's original name (along with a HUGE expansion of the article). Then I similarly had no problems with renaming Angelina Lauro as Oranje. However, I did run into resistance renaming the article for the Empress of Scotland to her original name of Empress of Japan. I renamed, and I was later reverted. Go fig. I would have no problem renaming the article for Achille Lauro as Willem Ruys, though I would recommend getting more consensus first before going there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects pointing to non-existent page

Hi, I saw you removed the redirect of page Gleamd because the target page has been deleted. In this case, since there is no interesting history in the article, you can directly nominate the redirect for speedy deletion (CSD R1), for example using the template {{db-redirnone}}. Hope this helps, Schutz 09:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The same thing just happened with FilZip (which I will nominate for SD in a second); is there anything you can do to avoid this ? Broken redirects are easy to find using Special:BrokenRedirects; redirects with backlinks removed can stay for a long time before being discovered, and they are confusing for users. Thanks, Schutz 21:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle deletion of image

  • 11:22, July 31, 2007 SchuminWeb (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Alan johnston button.png" (Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. using TW)
If you used Twinkle, I expect that you did not look at the talk page discussion, where it was agreed amongst a few of us that it was an acceptable fair use because the tagger was not aware of its exact use. You really shouldn't use twinkle to delete stuff because it's automated, it's always better to delete stuff as a 'human' and not with the help of a 'bot'. I believe that if you read the talk page you would agree that it should not have been deleted. Could you please review the talk page and consider undeleting the image, or do you want me to send this to DRV straight? Thanks. – Chacor 02:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Two-part response: First of all, I'm sticking to my guns on the image. Take it to DRV if you wish. Have fun. As for TWINKLE, it's not a "bot", and the reason people use TWINKLE is because it automates some of the more mundane tasks. To forgo TWINKLE in order to make it look more "human" defeats the purpose of having the tool. So no dice. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Alan johnston button.png. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – Chacor 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bethesda Metro article

Thanks for the heads up!

Cadsuane Melaidhrin 04:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what exactly did I give you a heads-up on? SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pentagon Metro Stop clarification. Cadsuane Melaidhrin 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of an article

Hi there. I had an article up on Wikipedia entitled Gregory Magarshak which included a brief biography. I saw that you deleted it today. Can you please tell me whether you deleted it yourself, or whether you just ran a script and the page happened to be marked 'article... that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject.'

I wonder if there is I can do to bring back the article in the future, and perhaps improve it? If it asserts the significance of its subject, but its significance is only to hundreds of people and not the entire world, does it deserve to be on wikipedia? The article was a biographical page (about me :-P) but it was significant to many people in my community. So what is Wikipedia's stance on this stuff? I'm just curious. I should edit wikipedia more, and become more familiar with all these rules. :)

Gregory Magarshak 19:00 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The article, Gregory Magarshak, was nominated for proposed deletion on August 4 (today) by 125.225.108.187. The reason given was "no evidence for most claims, possible hoax, questionable notability even if true". However, in browsing proposed deletion candidates, I found that it also met speedy deletion criteria A7, for unremarkable people, websites, organizations, and companies. Considering you provide no third-party sources to establish notability, it fits the criterion. Additionally, it is considered very bad form to create an article about yourself, as that goes against Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography. I am not going to restore the article. As for what you can do to bring the article back in the future? Not much, since it is strongly discouraged for people to work on articles about themselves. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand you. Writing an article about yourself is discouraged for several reasons, and I've read through them. Regarding the unremarkableness of the subject, what are some reasonable things I could do to not be considered unremarkable? :) I'd appreciate some positive advice here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.179.103 (talk • contribs)
Best place to look is Wikipedia:Notability (people). SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, great. Now I understand the situation better. I suppose appearing in news stories on CNN and talk shows and entertainment tonight and having stuff written about you in magazines and newspapers qualifies as some kind of notability. As for musicians I read this:

[Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. However, an article that fails to assert that the subject of the article is important or significant can be speedily deleted under criterion A7. A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, requiring a full proposed deletion or Article for Deletion process to determine if the article should be included in Wikipedia.]

The article did assert the notability and talked about the accomplishments of the subject but it did not cite TV, radio and other primary sources and it did not give an account of all the concert tours and performances of the subject, listing only two venues (Carnegie hall & Alice Tully hall). It could have been more specific and listed more sources I guess. If this article was submitted later and these things were corrected, then am I right in saying it wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.179.103 (talk • contribs)
All that needs to be cited, then, in an article written by a third party. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your explanations and advice. And by the way kudos -- I checked out some of the edits you did :) - Greg

Headmasters' Conference

A page for the Headmasters' Conference of the Independent Schools of Australia was created on Friday and probably didn't sufficently explain its significance. The English equivalent body has a page and when you consider that everyone who was chairman of the Conference was shown to have been a headmaster of a school that Wikipedia profiles I believe the speedy was a bit to speedy. A major history of the Conference has been published and it was listed as a reference. I would like the opportunity to improve the introduction so as to show the importance of the conference in the history of Independent schools in Australia. I think the origional contributor just posted it too early - it really just needed some work. Thanks for your consideration of this matter. Archifile 01:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All righty, then, as you wish. You have five days to improve it, because I'm restoring it, but I'm also submitting it to AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Eveline Fischer image deletion

I recently noticed that you deleted the image of Eveline Fischer in the article about her. Your edit summary cited "CSD i7", though I do not understand how the image in question was in violation of anything stated. You also stated that I was "notified… using TW", but I was never aware of any notification. Please help me to understand how the image was in violation of any policies. Thanks. --— Poga — 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, photos of living people do not qualify under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines because a free image could reasonably be created. As for the message regarding notification with TWINKLE, could you provide a link to the diff for that edit? I'm not finding it, and I'm interested to know. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
As I had stated in part of the rationale on the image's discussion page: "Only two photographs depicting Eveline Fischer were ever publicly posted by the company she works for, Rare, Ltd. No other public photos of her at Rare are known to exist." One of those photos was, of course, the one I had used for the article. I had also supplied the location of the image in its original context on Rare's company website.
As for the Twinkle diff, it can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Eveline_Fischer.png
— Poga — 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'll get with the TWINKLE people to get that tag changed, because presently, the tag says just two days, not two days after notification. So something needs to get fixed on that front. My apologies if you feel like you got the shaft on that one. But the tag had been on there since July 14. However, generally speaking, fair use photos of living people just to show what they look like are not considered valid for fair use on Wikipedia. I didn't come up with the rule, but as an admin on Wikipedia, it is my responsibility to enforce it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike

I noticed that your Twinkle script deleted a {{cleanup}} tag from Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike overnight, with a reason of "This tag doesn't go on talk pages. using TW." The instructions on Template:Cleanup say:

For articles needing major clean-up, place at the top of the main page to alert readers. For articles needing minor clean-up, place at the top of the talk page to alert editors.

I'm sure there's some policy somewhere that I'm missing. Could you please help me to understand this? Thanks, --Clubjuggle 14:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll be. Learn something new every day. My apologies. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
No worries! Besides, isn't learning something new what Wikipedia's for? ;-) --Clubjuggle 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Whammy (New).jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing WP:SNOW, I've just gone ahead and put the poor image out of its misery, along with the one listed directly below, under CSD criteria G7, as I'm the only one who made substantial contributions to either. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Whammy.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Filzip

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Filzip. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mikeblas 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey WP:WPDC

Welcome, your the first new member besides me, wonder where we can get our project advertised to get more members. T Rex | talk 06:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You've just put out fifteen bazillion tags for articles covered by the project, which have shown up on a lot of people's watchlists. That's some really good advertisement right there. I'd let that have a chance to "work" first. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, ok. I hope. T Rex | talk 03:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of locations which held February 15, 2003 anti-war protests

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of locations which held February 15, 2003 anti-war protests, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations which held February 15, 2003 anti-war protests. Thank you. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep! And I endorsed deletion, too. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Article on Patrick De Santos

I have submitted some evidence on Talk:Patrick De Santos page that supports the importance or significance of the subject (Patrick De Santos). Please review and let me know if the argument is sufficient. I also understand your concern about similarities of this article to other copy you have found on the Web. The explanation is simple - they all come form the same source, myself. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman.works (talk • contribs)

I never got a chance to put one with the other - it was speedied as a blatant copyright violation (CSD G12), which is an entirely different can of beans... SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)