User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 32: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:43, 9 November 2011

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

It's hard to say goodbye to a community that I have been a part of for seven years. During my time as a contributor to Wikipedia, I have grown tremendously as a writer, and have added in many ways, large and small, to countless numbers of articles, and have participated in countless numbers of discussions. However, I have come to realize within the past year that I have reached both the limits of what I can accomplish within the Wikipedia community, and also the limits of my patience in interacting with other members of the Wikipedia community. Thus I feel that it is time for me to move on.

While I still believe in Wikipedia's mission to amass the sum of all human knowledge, I fear that the project may fail because the community will, over time, destroy itself due to what I perceive as constant infighting, the holding of long-term grudges by many users, and general rudeness and incivility on the part of many, which has an alienating effect on other users, both new and seasoned. As an administrator, I received more abuse than I would ever wish on anyone that is doing volunteer work, and this often extended beyond Wikipedia to my website, my Facebook, my Twitter, and my personal email, despite my best efforts to direct all Wikipedia-related inquiries back to Wikipedia. Because of this, I was never really able to escape from Wikipedia, even when using it for research, and it took a toll on me, turning what might otherwise have been an enjoyable activity into a chore, causing me to dread seeing the orange "You have new messages" bar come up, because it inevitably meant having to listen to more whining.

I soon found it increasingly difficult for me to justify to myself why I was still doing volunteer work for a project that I no longer found enjoyable. When I logged out of Wikipedia by choice and left it logged out, I soon came to realize that by not participating in Wikipedia, my stress levels went down, and I generally found myself to be much happier.

I believe that my best days are still ahead of me, but now it is time for me to forge my own path, endeavoring in new works and projects separate from those of the Wikipedia community. I wish all of you the best in your future endeavors, and perhaps our paths will cross again some day. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jab7842

Hi SchiminWeb. I came across User:Jab7842 yesterday when I found some very strange redirects from this user, such as [1] which i reverted. I also warned the user on their talk page. I see from my watchlist that further odd redirects are happening today, which you have been reverting. And that the user moved their user page and talk page to article space. These pages were then deleted, along with their user and talk pages. Now the user has effectively erased their histories on those pages and is continuing to make suspect redirects to a lot of articles. Is this normal? I'm not clear why Jab7842 has not been warned for this continued behavor and potentially even blocked? Many thanks for any light you can shed on this, Sparthorse (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I've encountered, it would seem like this user is trying, but hasn't a clue. That's why I was disinclined to block or even warn - because I'm still assuming good faith on their part, and hoping that maybe they will figure it out on their own without outside assistance. If it keeps up like this, then, of course, we'll need to say something and possibly go up the warning ladder, but I'm still hoping they'll figure things out for themselves before we have to go there. But I'm not ready to throw AGF out the window just yet. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask about User talk:Jab7842 too, since seeing the redlinked "talk" link I was about to give him a {{welcome-belated}}. It's not usual to lose the user talk page history, is it? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let me resurrect that... SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all set. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and the restoration of the talk page. Sparthorse (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FFD

Please redact the recent "borderline creepy" comments you've made on a number of FFDs. They are irrelevant, "borderline" incivility, and are more likely to inflame the situation than help. If the policy basis for your !vote is sound, adding a comment not based on any policy is pointless. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean it - making a shrine to another user like that on one's userpage is a little creepy. I am entitled to my opinion on it, and that's putting it quite civilly. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you're entitled to your opinion - however, that doesn't mean that expressing it publicly is a good idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Flyer XDE40

The new 2011 Xcelsiors been out since April of this year and wondering if you can upload a image of the fresh buses for the Metrobus fleet page — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJofLakeland (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any yet, unfortunately, except for a really poor cell phone photo that I took at a red light (that's so bad it's not worth uploading). When I get some decent WMATA Xcelsior photos, I will *definitely* upload them. I will add this to my list of things to do, so please do stay tuned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lenna.png

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I have explained on multiple occasions about the policy-based reasoning for why the image was reduced. I see no reason to waste any more of my time with any of you on this matter when you all won't listen to what I have to say. Good day to you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you deleted the fair-use test image and replaced it with a lower resolution version. The test image is not copyrighted, so it does not need to be reduced. What we have now is a low resolution copy of a low resolution copy of an image. The test image is a low-resolution scan of a copyrighted image, but the scan and the test image have special and historical significance. The test image qualifies for fair use, as indicated on the discussion page for the image. I am not sure how to restore the original test image since it has been deleted, any help would be appreciated. PAR (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NFCC#3b. In short, as a non-free image, we must reduce the image to as low as we can get it for our purposes. Since the image was rendered in articles at no more than 220px wide, that's what it was reduced to in order to comply with NFCC. If it were a free image, then we could keep it at any size we wanted (or better, just move it to Commons). But lacking concrete evidence that the image is in fact free, we have to assume it's not, and thus it has to comply with all the applicable policies and guidelines. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion at File talk:Lenna.png. I think most people will agree that for the standard test image purpose, anything other than the original 512x512 cropped low-res image will not suffice. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with the discussion at Lenna.png, can you restore the image, I am not sure how to restore the original test image since it has been deleted, any help would be appreciated. PAR (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To restore that image requires an administrator to do since it involves deletion. No administrator with a healthy understanding of WP:NFCC would be willing to do so. In short: it is against WP:NFCC to have the larger image. So please do not ask me again about restoring the image, because it will not happen. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least respond to the points made on the talk page at File talk:Lenna.png to indicate that you understand that the image is not copyrighted, is already reduced, and has a special history, and the reasons why these do not alter your opinion? Thanks. PAR (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my response: You are dead wrong on the copyright status of the image. Lacking documentation via an OTRS ticket of a release of the image under a free license into the public domain, we have to treat the image as non-free. If you would like to contact Playboy magazine and ask for them to release the image under a suitable free license or into the public domain and then forward that permission to OTRS, then we'll upload the image in as high of resolution as possible to Commons, since we'll have documentation that the image is freely licensed. Anything short of that, including whether Playboy is "OK with the use", is not free for our purposes (i.e. Playboy's opinion on it short of a full release is irrelevant), and falls under WP:NFCC, which requires low resolution. So you need to either produce written documentation that the image is in fact freely licensed, or get over it already because no administrator is going to violate WP:NFCC for you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an abuse of admin powers - and I won't allow that to pass without considerable effort on my behalf to redress the matter. In all my (many) years here at Wikipedia as an established and well-respected editor, I have never seen such an egregious error in deleting an important image or such ridiculous stubborness and refusal to listen to rational arguments as you do here. This is utterly outrageous. Deleting the image against prior consensus and without following the discussion is abusive - and I'm prepared to take the matter further if you do not re-enter the debate and speak coherently to the points raised on File talk:Lenna.png. Your role as admin is to enforce consensus - not to blindly overrule it. You are a servant of the editing community - not the master. You are severely mistaken about the status of this important image - that is perhaps acceptable - but your blind refusal to listen to debate - or to address the points made in previous debates about the deletion of this image are unacceptable actions for a Wikipedia Administrator. We have debated the issue at least once before and the answer is quite clear and supported by consensus. We are not violating WP:NFCC - and I'm most certainly not going to WP:GETOVERIT (which is frankly insulting when an active debate is still in progress and not a single one of the pro-keep points has been addressed by the pro-delete lobby). If you think you can just hand-wave this one away, you are mistaken. Address this matter - NOW! SteveBaker (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how the same people who are claiming that I won't address their concerns conveniently refuse to acknowledge that I have in fact addressed their concerns, multiple times ([2] [3] [4] [5]). Bottom line, as I've said before, I refuse to perform an administrative action that blatantly violates the WP:NFCC policy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now you need to respond to [6] and [7]. This debate is far from settled...and you have a prior consensus to consider here that you've simply ignored. Just because you're an admin and you have magical powers that mere mortals can't undo doesn't free you from the need to properly overturn one consensus with a new one. You don't have a new consensus...far from it. Your change is an abusive edit in direct contradiction to prior consensus and lacking anything remotely like consensus now. Furthermore, evidence has been presented to show that you are incorrect - and you have made no effort to respond to that - instead simply claiming that because you're an admin you can make this change and that nobody will ever contradict you. So - live up to the responsibilities you took up when you got your shiney red admin badge. You are here to serve the needs of editors - not to impose your own opinions on them. SteveBaker (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you need to remain civil at all times when discussing this. Understood?

That said, just because you have been mistaken about the application of our non-free content policies for years doesn't make it correct. I have told you what the policy is about. I can't do any more for you if you refuse to understand that you are wrong on this. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as we need to remain civil, you need to directly address our objections. Understood?

Every one of your responses fails to address the objections. In particular, every one of your responses fails to address the fact that the test image is already reduced, and that your action results in a reduced image of a greatly reduced fair use image of a copyrighted image. You justify this by repeatedly making the error of (apparently) believing that the test image is itself copyrighted, which has repeatedly been explained to you that it is not. Your response is to simply repeat the error as if you had not even read the explanation. You do not demonstrate any understanding of what a test image is, i.e., that if you modify a single pixel of a test image, it is no longer "the test image", and if you replace a test image with a further reduced copy of that image, it is no longer a test image, which is the very subject of the article. You need to engage in a constructive discussion if you are going to unilaterally destroy valuable content. If you have a near complete mastery of Wikipedia policy on this subject, you need to demonstrate this by sharing your reasoning on the objections made, addressing the points made in this and previous arguments on this subject. In each of these previous cases, consensus was reached to keep the image. These discussions have occurred about once every six months for the last few years, since the image was first uploaded. In short, you have administrative powers, which you exercise freely, but you also have administrative responsibilities, which you have been neglecting. PAR (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained on multiple occasions about the policy-based reasoning for why the image was reduced. I see no reason to waste any more of my time with any of you on this matter when you all won't listen to what I have to say. Good day to you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Andy Harter.jpg

This was deleted as invalid fair-use claim. I spoke with Andy who agreed to release it under a free licence and has since emailed the appropriate address about this. I'd like to re-upload the image. Can I just do this to the same address? Thanks! Janderson99 (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Don't forget to cite the OTRS ticket number in the file description page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blanker

Hi Ben. I hope this is a low-key request after that other matter mixup. Anyway, User:216.3.102.114 keeps blanking out a valid and sourced section of the Like Crazy article. How does one stop it? Might you have a look and take some steps? Best wishes and thanks in advance. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that PeterSymonds got to it before me, and blocked the miscreant. Seems a sound solution. Hopefully that block will make them recognize the error of their ways, but we'll see, I suppose. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ben. Peter seemed to have gotten on it from a Wikipedia IRC chat I was on. Best Wishes, always. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dirkhising

Hello. Care to explain why you nominated and deleted the image of Jesse Dirkhising and not this File:Matthew Shepard.jpg and this File:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg? Those last two are not free images so why keep them and not Jesse? If you can delete Jesse then you must also delete the images of Matthew and Larry for the exact same reasons you successfully nominated Jesse for. Caden ^cool 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I look forward to seeing your image nominations for deletion on Larry King and Matthew Shepard. Thank you. Caden ^cool 22:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting to hear back from you. I see by your recent edits that you are currently online but appear to be avoiding me. Are you? Caden ^cool 23:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find that you continuing to avoid my posts is unacceptable behavior for an admin. Caden ^cool 00:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You saw the nomination. That is why. Now please stop messaging me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw it and there was no consensus. Furthermore, why did you not delete the Matthew Shepard image or the Larry king image? Both are not free images but yet you have no issue with those images only Jesse's. Why is that Ben? What is the real issue here because at this point I question your deletion of Jesse and not those of Matthew or Larry. Why the double standard practice? What's going on Ben? Caden ^cool 00:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Wow, you're quick! Thanks for renaming all the Metro station articles and updating the wikilinks! :) --Aude (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palace Hotel Silver Teapot c1900.jpg

Please have a look here. We can't know for sure what is "right" of "wrong" here as this falls under several policies. I only ask you, as an admin, to show some courtesy and understanding to the creator. To repeat, this is a conflict for changing one image in a gallery of 20, risking to lose a dedicated editor, who spent much time on this hotel article. There are millions others around to fix, and we are too few for that. If you're wondering why do I spent so much time on this, I saw good photographers leaving the project for such silly matters. We are all protective of our work. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 ::I have explained on multiple occasions about the policy-based reasoning for why the image was reduced.  I see no reason to waste any more of my time with any of you on this matter when you all won't listen to what I have to say.  Good day to you.  [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 19:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>
-=== Conclusions ===
-Hmmm - so it looks like the consensus on size reduction was not to reduce below 512x512 and there was unanimous agreement (actually, unanimous 'strong keep' agreement) against your request to delete the image.  This means that you were not just a tiny bit wrong - you were a million miles off the mark as both PAR and I tried to tell you.  That's OK - we all make mistakes.  But your dogged refusal to listen to experienced editors with a long history in that article - and your inability to address other people's arguments in the matter - combined with your unilateral decision to act using admin powers in such a way that other editors could not fix your mistake...and all this despite strong prior consensus was (as I said) an egregious abuse of admin power.  I trust that you will be more humble in future debates of this kind, and I think, perhaps, an apology is in order.  Admins are the servants of editors - not their masters - and they are held to a higher standard of accountability.  This, I hope, is a lesson you will take away from this sorry fiasco. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 15:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 == Andy Harter.jpg ==