User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 9

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

Kenneth Haney

I am fairly new to wikipedia. I can see you are a pro. So, hey, I need some help, please! Smile. Tell me what needs to be done to make the article relevant. Rev. Haney is the leader of the 2nd largest Pentecostal group in America. Thanks (Seenitall 17:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

Your best bet is to make the article more compliant with guidelines established in Wikipedia:Notability (people). SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

TorrentFreak.com

I feel that my entry TorrentFreak.com was deleted in error. It was nominated for speedy deletion, and I provided several non self-referencing links that showed it's significance. The original admin or proposed the speedy deletion never responded again in the talk page. I believe the article is sufficiently significant to be features. Please get back to me on my talk page. Richiemcintosh 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ocean liners

Hey, I'm cleaning up ship categories, and I noticed that in this old CfD, you said "there were only fourteen four-stackers ever built". The relevant category, Category:Ocean liners with four funnels, currently contains 16 ship articles, and I rather doubt any of them are new ships! Feel inclined to try to sort out the mystery? Maralia 06:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ill considered deletion

You deleted a previous version (by another editor) of an article about HD Supply, a $13 billion dollar company. Please stop and think before hitting the delete button in future. Thank you. Carina22 10:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The article, as then written, clearly fit A7 criteria. This is what I deleted. Your new article is far better. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Toyota Previa III

Toyota stopped selling the Toyotas Previa II in Europe last year (2006). There's not been any announcement about NOT importing the Previa III, but then there wouldn't be... And certainly we're used to getting 'new' Toyota models some months after Japan and the US. But it's beginning to look as though they won't bother importing the third generation Previa to Europe. The Ford equivalent, recently introduced, is competitively priced and Volkswagen will come to the market with a new contender in a couple of years: that is likely to squeeze the (no longer rapidly expanding) market in these things both for the weaker existing players (especially Peugeot / Citroen / Fiat / Lancia) and for any Japanese equivalents arriving without a strong story and a hefty slice of advertising spend. However, here in the UK we still drive on the 'wrong' side of the road, as do the Japanese. With the first generation Previa there grew up a massive trade in grey (unofficial) imports of Previas and of the narrower Japanese market versions that get sold off very cheaply in Japan when only two or three years old: in UK that can offer a cheap way to obtain a second hand mpv with plenty of life left in it. These became particularly popular with private taxicab businesses. Given the number that got imported, they must have been profitable for the importers too. I imagine that in another couple of years the same may very well happen with the Previa III in the UK, but not in the rest of Europe simply because the Japanese originating grey imports are set up (steering wheel but also lights) for driving on the left side of the road. Well, you sort of asked, if only in a throw away line...Charles01 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And I appreciate it - that was quite helpful. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Latitude Group

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Latitude group. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Guest9999 12:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

109th Battalion, CEF

the stub isn't specific enough? it still needs to be categorized? --Brewcrewer (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It still needs a "real" category as well as a stub category, because once it's no longer a stub, that stub category goes away. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
But shouldn't that be something that we should worry about later (when the article gets expanded). In addition, if the article gets expanded enough, can't we assume that the expander will expand the categories as well? --Brewcrewer (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, every little bit helps, and many might not even realize it is uncategorized. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Blockade (disambiguation)‎

Hello there. Why did you remove a blank line in the Blockade (disambiguation) page? I always place two lines between the disambig tag and the end of the article. I makes it look nicer. I do the same for all the stub tags. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 02:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be nice and tight without any extra blank spaces. Only time I ever leave an extra blank is with the stub templates and other templates where without the extra space, they mash up into the bullet points. This template does not do that, therefore we can safely leave that part out. Most dab pages omit the space as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that it "should be nice and tight without any extra blank spaces". I reckon that, for the smaller pages anyway, it is nice to have some white space to give the page a bit of padding foe a light airy feel.... -- Alan Liefting-talk- 20:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Patricia Stoddard

It looks to me like Patricia Stoddard's notability was indeed asserted in the article you speedied. Could you merge the history back in, so it doesn't look like I created it from scratch? Thanks. (note: original location was Patricia Sttoddard)--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Gracias. --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

West Midlands Search and Rescue

I'd like to restore this and will clean it up. Also, note this wasn't a valid speedy, it does indeed assert its significance per WP:CSD A7 which states No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

Being a search and rescue group is quite clearly an indication of significance. Notability doesn't come into it. I'm not interested in wheel warring, so I hope you will agree. Hiding Talk 13:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it, and yeah, wheel-warring no good. I'll be interested to see how you manage to fix it up. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Meh. The sources I had weren't relevant. A quick library search had turned up a West Midlands Search and Rescue team being sent to help in Turkey, Mozambique and 9/11, but it's not this one. I've cleaned it up, but feel free to do as you will, it's not the one I thought it was at the time of my above message. Hiding Talk 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Charles Anthony Silvestri

Wow. Speedy deletion really means speedy. Before I could add a hangon tag, it was gone. Since the page had been speedied once before, I'd already added a comment on the talk page in hopes of buying myself a few minutes. I re-added the page because, after reading Eric Whitacre's article, I was curious who Silvestri was. Since he's linked from a couple of significant articles, I think it's at least possible that his presence adds to the database. Can we bring this back so that some discussion and opportunity to expand the article is possible? Thanks. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 14:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'd do if I were you, since the processes are working themselves out a bit too fast for you keep up (the process is fine, you're doing your thing, don't worry), would be to create the page in your userspace for now (say, User:SteinbDJ/Charles Anthony Silvestri), and flesh it out there, and then move it to the article namespace using the move function once you've gotten everything together with references and what have you. No one ought to bother it in your userspace, and then once it's built beyond speedying, then you might want to move it in. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Richiemcintosh (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Aw, thanks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Friendly

I've installed the friendly script onto my computer, but it doesn't seem to work. None of the new links at the top of the page seem to work for me, maybe you could help? -Razorflame (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I copied your monobook.js file into mine, and took it for a spin, and everything seemed to work properly for me. The Friendly tabs show up before TW's tabs, right next to "watch", and then "welcome" shows up in diffs. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I click a link, nothing happens. -Razorflame (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits and stuff

I feel like I can't do anything to help around here because every single time I think I am reverting a vandalized edit, while the page is loading with my reversion, some other user comes in and reverts it using some god dang script. I just want to be of some help here, but it feels like I'm not helping at all...-Razorflame (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please leave replies to this message on my talk page. -Razorflame (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't give up the ship. If others are reverting the same vandalism as you, then that means you're on the right track, and doing the right thing. I have the same thing happen to me from time to time. Likewise, as an admin, I've had pages speedied out from under me - people speedy a page while I'm in the process of speedying it. I find it somewhat amusing, but it's confirmation that I made the right decision, even if it's not my name tagged on the actual act. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Liz Cosson (MAJGEN).jpg

Please help me. I need to stop the bots from deleting this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs)

I hate to tell you this, but in the case of Image:Liz Cosson (MAJGEN).jpg, you haven't a leg to stand on. Except under very limited circumstances, photos of living people are generally not permitted under Wikipedia's non-free image policy, because it is possible for a free image to be created. This does not mean whether one is or is not currently available, but rather whether it is possible to create one at all. If one can be created, then the fair use image is not permitted on Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Express Animator

Fair enough not to delete it. I tagged it with unref and uncat instead. I hate it when articles are created and no thought was put into what category was going to be used. Cheers, Sting_au Talk 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Computer LINGO: STIDS Definition,

This Definition needs detail edited by computer people. I wish for the Definition to be left for editing. I myself will add to this page and build on the reference points if no other participation from other users.

The article needed CLEANED up, and a Wiki GURU did that. Give the Definition time to build! - Thank you Outboundglitch (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Earl

Why do you think, placing a backlink to Laura Cortese would somehow involve copyright infringement as stated in CSD G12? Krautmaster (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Automatic function of TW, with the rationale being that if the article goes, therefore the links go, too. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Framingham

Hello, That info box was a template for a series of articles on the town of Framingham, Ma created so that they would all have an identically formatted info box. The box was created in accordance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) and Wikipedia:Infoboxes, so it was fully within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I went to edit the main article to insert the new template, realized the error in naming of the template, went to rename it and found you had deleted it. The template was not even up for a minute. Why didn't you look at the history, maybe asking me why I had created it before you deleted it? That would have been a little better than what you did.

Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

I've restored it and placed it in your namespace as User:Jerem43/Framingham. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I appreciate that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Emogame

I came here looking for information about the creator of Emogame and was surprised to see there was no entry. I started to create one and saw that two previous entries had been deleted, most recently by you. Given that you've devoted extensive space to commercially distributed games of very little consequence, I don't understand your rationale for excluding flash games as reknown as Emogame. The Anti-Bush Emogame was referenced in numerous publications. The soundtrack for the next Emogame will be commercially distributed by a major label. The game creates a compelling universe, effectively satirizes the platform game format and incorporates countless elements from popular culture. It's as deserving of inclusion as most of the movie, tv show, music and comic book entries here, and certainly as deserving as *any* entry for a TV commercial. jmarianich 11:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion dispute

...was my message regarding Emogame deleted? Why?

(edit: Sorry...just realized it was relocated to the bottom of the page...newbie)

References that attest to the 'notability' of the game:

http://www.starvingeyes.com/archive/press/

This collection of documents archives the press coverage the game has received in Rolling Stone Magazine, SPIN Magazine, the New York Times, Magnet Magazine, the Alternative Press and on MTV News.

Additionally:

Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Online game ferrets out those with bad taste in music", November 15, 2002 (subscription only)

http://www.motherjones.com/arts/feature/2007/09/all-your-political-base-are-belong-to-us.html

http://www.harpmagazine.com/articles/detail.cfm?article_id=4457

This article mentioning the game was distributed on the Associated Press network:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-01-web-parodies_x.htm

And here's a list of articles on Wikipedia that are trying to point to the non-existent Emogame entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=emogame

Is this not the place to have this discussion?

No content in Category:Puppets Who Kill episodes

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Puppets Who Kill episodes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Puppets Who Kill episodes has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Puppets Who Kill episodes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot 23:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology for Vandalism

Hello, this is Bmrbarre. My brother has just recently vandalized your page under my name, and I would like to apologize for his extremely rude actions. It seems that he made an account, User:Dikfore, and edited an image and place it in Midge Potts, which you reverted. He was angry, and used my account to vandalize your userpage. I request a block on User:Dikfore, I'm not sure it will affect my account, but no matter. Please accept my sincerest apologies and his...I detest vandalism, and try to fight it at all times. It's what brings Wikipedia down in the eyes of the world, and I would love to see Wikipedia vandal free. Again, I apologize, especially if you have been offended: If so, please don't let it trouble you, just write it off as the ravings of an angry 12 year old boy. My password has been changed, hopefully nothing like this will happen again. Benjamin 03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and thank you for letting me know what's going on. I'm not offended. If you look at the page history, you'll see I've semi-protected for varying periods on a number of occasions, all for similarly childish edits. It's an annoyance, but nothing that will offend, since it's lost its kick.
As for blocking, I can't block Dikfore without another vandalism edit from that account. Even though I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of your request, I can't hand out a block based on someone else's word. They have a "last warning" message on their talk page, so the next vandalism edit gets the block. However, we still have to let them "fall into the trap", so to speak, before we can block them. So that's how I see it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem that you've taken your fair share of vandalism. Personally, I've only had 2, but that's been enough for me, and the first time I was shocked that people would actually be that cruel. I don't think you have to worry about him making another edit: I've made it quite clear to him that he is not to make any more edits from that account, or any other for that matter. Vandalism is, as you say, childish, and it only leaves a mess that someone else must clean up. Thank you for understanding, Benjamin 03:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion candidates

We don't nominate public domain or other freely licensed images for deletion, we move them to Commons and tag them for speedy deletion using the {{nowcommons}} template. Nick 23:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've noticed you're nominating the images for deletion based on their quality or usefulness to Commons, please ignore my above comment. Nick 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bertazzoni-Italia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bertazzoni-Italia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertazzoni-Italia. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 04:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

non native student work on wikipedia

Hi. I'd like to discuss an issue that has arisen with the work of a student of mine. Below is the message I posted to the two admins, but they seem to have been following your initial deletion of User:Satoe2158. At the end of class, we added a hangon tag and a smaller excerpt that was changed to indicate the target subject as your note suggested, but User:Dlohcierekim claimed that hangon tags are not permitted on user talkpage.

message posted to two admins

I'd like to discuss the multiple deletions of my student's work (Satoe2158) in her user page. I am teaching students for whom English is a second language, so am asking them to use their user space to construct their articles which will then be moved to the namespace. The first deletion was by User:hmwith and occurred approximately 20 minutes after she had copied a portion of the Uzbekistan-Japan_Center, while she was still logged in.

The second deletion by User:Dlohcierekim occurred after a smaller section had been inserted and the inital process of converting the explanation so as to provide a template for an appropriate article, which was done at the end of class to give the student some basis to complete the first steps of the assignment. There was no warnings or discussion for the Uzbekistan-Japan_Center, so it certainly appears to be an appropriate model, but if there are problems, they should be addressed in the authentic namespace and not going into a student's personal user page. I appreciate the problems with spamming and vandalism, but for constructing an article and having it proofread by a native speaker, the sandbox is not a feasible alternative. Furthermore, the Minamata Open Center is an non-profit academic center, established by the Japanese Ministry of Education, to research Minamata disease, so I believe that it fulfills the requirements of inclusion in the wikipedia.

Please advise if there is an alternative process to this, the other students who are working with wikipedia are utilizing the same process and do not seem to be having the same scrutiny applied. Tomeiter 08:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that in the Speedy_deletion section it specifically notes that

Testing is permitted in the sandbox and in users' own user space. If this is not official Wikipedia policy, please let me know.

end of message

I am only appending this message because your user page indicated that you are a member of the welcoming committee. I am committed to teaching my student how to not only use, but participate in the wikipedia, so your help in clearing up policy in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to take any discussion to my user page Tomeiter 10:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kmart Logo 1990-2004.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kmart Logo 1990-2004.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

old populations

I can't find any historical populations for anything. I tried looking for old census records on the web, but I couldn't find anything. Can you give me a link?bob (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You will probably have to do some gumshoe work. Search ValleyLibraries and you will find material going back to 1840. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Pentel

I am wondering why you deleted the P207 Page and removed the links on the Pentel Page. Please explain. However, in the meantime I have replaced them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamanator (talk • contribs) 04:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I merged, not deleted. Secondly, the reason I merged was because the individual product is not notable on its own. Pentel as a whole is notable. The individual model is not notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

American Star

why you deleted my edit to American Star? Dare to comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance Rolf (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to SS America (1940), because, as I indicated in the edit summary where the revert occurred, the photo, as presently placed, blocks a row of text in the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hello

I am writing regarding a message I recieved this morning regarding "vandalism" of the Wikipedia page- "Arson". I would like to express my disagreement which this act was labelled.

What I did was remove a piece from a page relating to Nick Glegg, the recently elected Liberal Democrat leader in the UK. He, when he was young, was involved in an act of minor arson. Having his picture on the page and naming him a "convicted arsonist" was nothing more than a cheap stab by people who do not support him in order to make him look bad. He is totally irrelevant to be included on that particular page. It serves absolutely nothing to explain the term arson or to give an appropriate example to arson, there are many more prolific arson attacks/attackers which have been committed which would better serve as examples. Thus, it was the right thing to do, to delete the part of the page with him on it. Having it called vandalism is shocking and grossly inaccurate.

I would like to think that wikipedia is not a forum for political fights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.169.42 (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops... I thought it was the same IP that also added the photo as well (very similar addresses). My apologies! SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Aw, thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

dablink in Montgomery County, Maryland

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that Maryland's is now the only Montgomery County that does not have the dablink, out of 18. The reason I added these is that Montgomery County used to redirect to Montgomery County, Texas, which seemed a little too random to suit me. I agree with you that the dab is rather obvious, but shouldn't we make them consistent? Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 20:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, none of those other Montgomery Counties have any links pointing to them that would be ambiguous, and the titles are all fairly non-ambiguous. With the Montgomery County title now pointing to Montgomery County (disambiguation), this eliminates the need to have all those little dab links at the top of eighteen different articles, since the only potentially ambiguous title points to the disambiguation page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Mauretania-2-6.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Mauretania-2-6.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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:Non-free content, 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

reporting misuse of Wiki protocols

I found your name as someone who is better versed in the use and editing of Wiki than myself. I wish to report Cumulus Clouds for using Wiki to promote his/her own personal opinions. He/she has been repeatedly informed that he/she has acted heavy-handed in his/her editing of the Paris Hilton article and he/she still insists on making continued edits in violation of protocols and guidelines. This is someone who acts without waiting for consensus. Could you look into it? More pointedly, please review the various talk pages where this person is repeatedly scolded for acting out-of-hand. What can be done? Thank you, L.L.King (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean User:Cumulus Clouds? SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Sadly, he/she seems to be reading only part of the Wiki guidelines in order to promote his/her own opinionated agenda. Can you help? Advise? He/she complains about information being trivia when it was in fact not, being organized, related, and pertinent... and then by removing these facts made it dis-organized and unrelated... creating just the situation he/she erroneously tagged in the first place. L.L.King (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
One can turn any article into a disjointed list of unrelated facts by removing the cohesive pieces of the article. It has been several times suggested that he/she improve the article instead of making it worse with poorly done edits. L.L.King (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you have access to checkuser, I would recommend running a check on the following users as sockpuppet accounts: User:AnotherSearcher, User:L.L.King, User:SomeSlasher, User:ExtraordinaryActor, User:ZeeToAaa and User:ManicAttack. All accounts were created within a small period of time, have similar editing patterns, have left nearly identical remarks on my talk page and all support each other in trying to form consensus. If you wish I will forward this request to WP:RFCU, but it might be useful in establishing a context for this complaint. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to checkuser. Only certain users have access to that, and I am not one of them. If you want to have a checkuser run, you will need to file your request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eclipse cigarettes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eclipse cigarettes.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 (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the headaches....

I wish to thank you for the advice and the assistance... though now that we've exchanged words he may start thinking of you as a puppet as well. I am sorry I ever mentioned my problems with this person to anyone... as I strongly suspect that a few associates and/or neighbors from my apartment complex are now on Wiki and giving him a rasher of shit... though they aren't admitting it to me. They came on to support me and now I'm accused of being a puppeteer... sheesh. I'm sure he's gonna love it when checkuser shows these users all originated from my apartment's local IP network. The positive of all this, despite his being rankled, is that their contributions, although narrow in field (and that is no crime), have all been worthy of Wiki... and his questionable editorial practices have been brought to light. Again... thanks, and sorry to have been a bother. - Leon. L.L.King (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think you have anything to worry about when it comes to Checkuser. Those with Checkuser rights are very careful about when and how they use it, and also are careful to adhere to Wikipedia's privacy policy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Thanks for the kind words re Kerchief. Hey, what's your interest in the Dixie Square Mall? I lived near it for a time as a child.  :) -- LisaSmall T/C 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My interest in Dixie Square is mainly because I find the histories of shopping centers themselves quite fascinating. I actually founded WikiProject Shopping Centers, and have worked on a number of shopping center articles around here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ANSWER page

Just a question based on procedure. I logged onto Wikipedia to go see the ANSWER page, and saw that you froze the page for the time being. What now? I am one of many Jewish anti-war activists who works with ANSWER, and can say that the group's anti-Zionist position has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism. In the past, the page at least referenced the ANSWER statements about anti-Semitism. The Coalition has frequently denounced anti-Semitism and frequently has Jewish speakers -- Mr. Lerner's experience notwithstanding. It made my stomach turn to see that the coalition -- full of honest, hard-working activists, who devote their after-work hours to stopping the war -- could somehow be compared to Nazis!!! And this stayed up on the page!! I don't know about the validity of the sources mentioned (they look like pure slander to me), but on the two occasions I've seen anti-Semitic signs at ANSWER rallies (in over a dozen rallies), I've seen ANSWER security forcefully remove them from the protest. Either way, how can the coalition be blamed for these people showing up? For all we know, they could be planted there by pro-war forces. The pen (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been a lot of back-and-forth edit warring between a few people, and now that the page is protected, those individuals are working out their differences on the talk page. The page will be unprotected eventually, but first there are some issues that need to be settled. You're more than welcome to join in the discussion at Talk:A.N.S.W.E.R. if you feel so inclined. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Req for Assistance

I'm new to Wikipedia. An artist that I know, Marc Awodey, was, in my opinion, being bullied by a user here who calls herself CarolMooreDC. I made an edit to his article that was intended to better contextualize his position. As a result of what I found I made edits to a related article and what followed was what I thought was a biased exchange. When I saw her Talk about my edits in SVR (Second Vermont Republic) and her comment seemed indicate that she had begun investigating me in some way, I looked briefly into her own background and was disturbed by what I have begun to find. She has also now started making claims about me that I don't think I need to answer. In a way, she behaves prosecutorially, from the point of view of someone new to Wikipedia. Her tone seems intended to discourage participation in Wikipedia by those she may not approve of in some way.

I'd asked in my restoration of my edit in the SVR article that an administrator look into what she is doing in her many edits to secesssion articles. I think it is fair to raise the question since it can be stated that she is not merely pro secession, she is a secession activist. She blogs regularly for the sister organization to SVR, a publication called VTCommons. I'd just googled "Carol Moore" secession, and then Vermont Republic. I also just found that she has edited an article on Kirkpatrick Sale that apparently she has or is being paid to do web work for.

I don't really want to get into the war she seems very inclined to wage over this, but I think someone needs to take a look at the totality of her activities in secession articles. By that I mean, being no expert, I could easily find parts in the SVR article that had no substantiation, like the piece on a flag in a cartoon strip that bolster the public perception/view of SVR, that escaped her attention in her many edits. Yet when I made an edit with much more documentation (a piece about comments made by the Vermont State Archivist) that she construed as having a negative consequence to the SVR article, she focused in on that like a laser beam and deleted it in its entirety.

Thanks for any help or assistance that you may be able to offer. User:PeterInVT

I'm kind of hesitant to get involved in matters relating to Carol Moore specifically, mainly because Carol and I are acquaintances off-wiki, and we run in some of the same activism circles. However, you may want to consider going to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and filing an RFC about the dispute you're having on Marc Awodey. That would be under the "Request comment on articles" section. This invites previously-uninvolved editors in to give their own opinions on the discussion. Since from what I can tell, you all aren't getting very far on your own, and an article RFC kind of gives everyone a little perspective. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. As I said I'm new and appreciate your honesty. It may take me awhile to get farther along on this but that's okay. Moore's aggressiveness and partisanship on behalf of her pet issues is becoming more apparent the more I look at this. I've watched her edits since this began and it appears that she's now engaged in disappearing a controversy that is well documented here in Vermont, both in the press and on many blogs, including the one that she blogs for, VTCommons. Apparently she working on behalf image control for her group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterInVT (talk • contribs) 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, one thing to note, though, is that when it comes to blogs, blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. So as Wikipedia is concerned, what the blogosphere says is fairly irrelevant. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Electric Company

You speedily deleted a wikipedia entry I created on Electric Company, the band. They are not a corporation, and are considerable significant considering they are on the well known Electronica Label Tigerbeat6 owned by IDM artist Kid606. Both of which have wikipedia entries. Please consider putting the Electric Company (band) page back up so more people can add to and expand the knowledge about this great musician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraviolentfilm (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And undeniably speediable, even if I did hit the wrong TW option by mistake. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Jacqueline Honulik

I wasn't the author but can you please revert the speedy deletion of Jacqueline Honulik? I have no idea what state it was in when it was deleted but I can work on it to bring it up to scratch. Honulik is notable as she is Miss Connecticut USA 2008 and will be competing at Miss USA 2008. I'll find refs and stuff when it is reverted. Thx. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

All revisions restored, moved to User:PageantUpdater/Jacqueline Honulik. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources written in a Different Langauge

Thank you for the welcome message. So far, I have enjoyed my time on Wikipedia and am learning a lot! I did have a question for you though. What is the protocol for adding a source that is written in a different language and has not been translated into English? Thanks for your help.--Neyoung (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neyoung (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I went digging around for the applicable policy, and I found it at WP:RSUE. Basically, in short, an English source of equivalent quality is preferred over a non-English source, but there's nothing wrong with using a source written in a foreign language. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I appreciate your prompt response. That is exactly what I was looking for, just wasn't sure where to find it. Thanks again.--Neyoung (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Code Pink Neutrality

I don't think there is a neutrality dispute at the Code Pink page. The three paragraphs I added are in an appropriately titled criticism section. I could see if they were inserted under history or recent events where one could question the neutrality, but it is, instead, under the criticism section. I advance the idea that criticism is supposed to be critical it is not supposed to be the lightest possible argument opposing something. I also advance to you that the criticisms that I included of Code Pink are the most frequent leveled against the group. To ignore such criticism is to ignore the reality of the criticism that is out there. The disputes of the bias of the article are unfounded because a criticism section is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL because criticism does not masquerade as anything other than what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talk • contribs) 03:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But the criticism must still be presented neutrally. However, I will not entertain any more discussion on this matter at this location. If you wish to discuss the neutrality tag, please do so on Talk:Code Pink. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Refs

On List of Governors of Alabama, you changed template refs to use the ref tag. Unfortunately, this was done for a reason, to have two different classes of references, one for footnotes and one for references. I reverted, please check for the existence of other refs in the future. Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Finbar Prunty

Your logic for nominating Finbar Prunty for deletion is immature. Look at Monaghan United players, they all have articles. Finbar also requires one. I noticed you probably did this because I nominated many of your articles for deletion today. If your articles were relevant, they wouldn't have been nominated. Please be professional and at least rational in your conduct. And why did you remove my smile towards you? Mickylynch101 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is not a compelling keep rationale, and in fact, if you follow that link I just provided, you'll see that's part of a larger list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Otherwise, though, you have not established any notability beyond the average joe footballer. As for the remainder of your comments, please keep your personal attacks to yourself. You've already been blocked once, and if you continue, you will most likely be blocked again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Care Bears image

Hello there. I've noticed that you removed two images at the page The Care Bears Movie and I wanted to tell you that I've created the images myself. How do I point out accurately that I own the rights to the images?? I found certain criterias when it comes to uploading:

Description: Source: Date: Location: Author: Permission: Other versions of this file:

Do I have to fill in everything? Further explanations (and maybe a fitting version as an example) would be greatly appreciated! Wikifan87 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, since your images were of the Care Bears Movie, you don't own the rights to them. They are owned by the organization(s) that created the movie. Taking a snapshot of a video that someone else created does not make it yours.
That said, you will need to be very specific as to why these non-free images belong in the article. You will need to write a fair use rationale for each image that includes the specific reasons that the image should be on Wikipedia, with links to the article(s) that the rationale applies to. Additionally, you will need to include in your caption in the article what the picture is illustrating. Non-free images serving primarily decorative purposes are not permitted under the present guidelines. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

AfDs

Something stinks. Markanthony101 was created today, but his only contibutions are to competently AfD articles you created. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I smell that rat as well. I think it's possibly related to Mickylynch101, who recently tried to speedy a whole bunch of articles that I'd created. As I just got back home, I'd have to investigate further, but I certainly smell that rat... SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Per that "fishy" comment, I've started a sockpuppet case. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
See here, I've indef blocked both of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenandoah Acres

Please see my comment in the AFD. Thanks Secret account 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Grumpy Bear

ShuminWeb, thanks for your help with "Grumpy Bear", I now understand the rules better as I am quite new to Wikipedia. For the record, the whole point, I thought, about "Grumpy Bear", is that he is grumpy. In the existing picture in Care bears and the List of Care Bears he looks remarkably cheerful and I thought the screen capture I found did the character more justice. Anyway I am now duly repentant, I requested WP:Speedy delete and my grumpy "Grumpy Bear" is no more. --Frank Ness (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)