User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 17

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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.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)

ANSWER

Please refer me to the rules where it says that people can be accused of "supporting terrorism" when they don't. Or that its okay to call Jews anti-Semitic because they don't support an openly racial government in their name?In the Stacks (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The passages you are continually removing have citations, and the prevailing opinion on the talk page seems to be against your point of view on the matter. As I said in this warning, your actions are looking very much like disruptive editing, and if it continues, you may be blocked to prevent continued disruption. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. The prevailing opinion of two individuals, including one with an edit history that accuses people who sell arab clothing (!) of being anti-semitic, is that opposition to Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism. Factually: ANSWER has a far larger percentage of Jews in it than the general population, has never caused or advocated harm to any Jewish person and has positions against anti-Semitism. In other words, recycling "accusation" which are themselves unfounded (that is to say include no examples or documentation) is not verifiable, and is slander. The ADL is not a neutral party. The other news sources make no special claim about ANSWER except that they oppose Israeli actions and have Arab speakers. I fail to see the controversy. If the ADL (or whoever) believes that opposing the actions of Israel is hatred of Jews, then that should be included under the entry for the responsible parties. Further, words such as "terrorist" are ridiculous in general, and all the more so when the two parties (Hezbollah and Hamas) listed are elected in recognized elections. It's just propaganda, which I am removing – and then being accused of being disruptive. Since ANSWER is not in fact anti-Semitic, has never harmed or advocated harm against anyone based on their ethnicity or religion, and since the only people who seem to have an issue with it plainly are partisan and highly POV (to the point of calling elected political parties "terrorists" and saying that legal, American organizations "support terrorism" – I see no option but to remove the pejorative and false "allegations". What would you suggest I do, since these claims are lies?In the Stacks (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Stalinroosblwh.jpg

Hi. I requested that you delete the picture I uploaded as I need to check the copyright permissions, but you put it into Commons instead! I have had two pics with the same copyright permissions questioned recently, and subsequently deleted, so I was being very cautious and very wary. On another issue, if I can sort out the copyright problem, I was going to re-scan and do a photoshop clean-up job on it. But now that has gone by the wayside as well.--Tufacave (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well, my apologies in that case. You're still more than welcome, however, to sort out the permissions, and if it turns out to be different than you thought, change it, or if incompatible, request deletion from Commons. Likewise, you can also overwrite the existing file with the improved version on Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The file at Commons has now been deleted. I certainly hope this was some kind of misunderstanding, moving a file to Commons is really not a way to solve a deletion request at en:wiki.Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SchuminWeb. You have new messages at Wuhwuzdat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Query

Hi Ben. This is a particular query about an editor, Robert Grant, working under his stage name of "Omega Red" (WP article OmegaRed) as a hip-hop artist, who has seemingly added himself to the notable people of Dorchester, Massachusetts, etc. He has been in the Boston Globe newspaper and featured, so that's okay. But if it's him, is it okay he wrote himself into some articles ? Maybe so. I had to correct his links. The user in question is Special:Contributions/Robertgrant1976 ... Maybe nothing is to be done since it's okay. Just checking. People do self-promote on Wikipedia sometimes. But he is the nephew of Donna Summer and an established artist. It's just who wrote him into the article. Minor point. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And an article that really makes no assertion of notability. Tagged A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben, for your attention to this puzzling matter. We'll see how it resolves. It does feel a bit fiddly, the motivation for the original article. Best. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the Dorchester, Massachusetts article, Robert Grant (or the person with the editor tag "User:Robertgrant1976") appears to have added himself as a notable person from Dorchester. Does this follow the same guidelines ? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

At the rate the AFD is going, it looks like this might take care of itself, so I'd just let the AFD run its course first and then remove based on that (but yes, I think it would apply). SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Beschloss

Michael Beschloss is NOT a historian and while I can understand though strongly disagree with) that change being reverted, I think it is obscene that I get tagged as committing Wiki vandalism for making that point. I've made my argument on the "Talk" page and I'm going to change his status back. He does not have a Ph.D.; therefore, he is not a historian. He writes histories. There is a big, big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.148.5 (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Neoplan 440/3

if you have avid knowledge of transit buses then you should know about the scrtd/lacmta neoplan 1100 series an440/3. there built especially for them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.182.10 (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, sure, but I'm not following what you're getting at here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

re: How Much Do You Love Your Kid? (The Twilight Zone)

I tried to salvage this, even though I agree it started as not particularly notable rubbish. See How Much Do You Love Your Kid? (The Twilight Zone)Porturology (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Evergreen Terrace not natable but their albums are?

Really? 121.45.57.173 (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was the one who CSD-tagged Evergreen Terrace (band), which you deleted. Paul foord (talk · contribs) has brought it to my attention (here) that all of the citations and assertions of notability that should have been in the band's article actually seem to have been hiding out in the articles on their albums. Would you be willing to restore the article so that it can be built up to the point where it will pass WP:BAND? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 11:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Restored. Best of luck in your work on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art: DC

See:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be having a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. (Note: The SAAM is located in between Metro Center and Gallery Place (closer to the Gallery Place/Chinatown metro), and is convenient to all 5 metro lines.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

you have an apparent fan

User:ShamenWeb I suppose it could be a coincidence... Beeblebrox (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help renaming a page to "European Chemicals Bureau".--Christopher King (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, SchuminWeb. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fred M. Levin

Hi. I beleive that you did a "speedy deletion" of Fred M. Levin due to a copyright infringement. Can you help me understand this. The page is perhaps not terribly important, but Fred Levin is a highly regarded professor, doctor of medicine, and author of several books. Thanks Mwalla (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

I already answered at the user's page, since there was a similar question asked at WT:TW. --Amalthea 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is now gone to DRV. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I recreated the page and fixed errors. Any comments? I hope I am in compliance this time. Mwalla (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

So it looks like everything's taken care of? SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not a Vandal

I am not a vandal! I was not saying I introduced incorrect information, what I really did was I deleted information I thought was incorrect on Medical Center (Washington Metro)

Thank you, Us441 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Us441 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The information was still factually incorrect, and this is not the first time you have done this. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Us441 (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry. Everything I've done I thought was right, and I have never tried to vandalize Wikipedia.

Thank you, Us441

Silur Shakhtarsk

OK. The article was about one of the soccer clubs that played in the lower divisions of the Ukrainian championship. No body explained me why this article seemed to be of no importance. The reference that you have provided makes non of any sence. Silur, appearently, is some German rock band or something, that is correct. But Silur Shakhtarsk has nothing to do with it. It's not an album of that band, but rather a former organization that paticipated in the professional sport event. The sources, I agree, were somewhat doubtful, but what if there never were anything written about that subject. Does that mean that it should be forgotten or what? I do not see the logic. Can you, please, give me more details in that regard? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

FC Silur Shakhtarsk was correctly speedily deleted as an article that made no assertion of notability. See WP:CSD#A7. A rereading of the deleted article confirms that it was about a soccer club, and only a soccer club. No musical acts involved. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hello Ben. Im a new user... and as Im from Switzerland I will mainly contribute articles to the german and to the french Wikipedia. Two days ago I wrote my first article (about a ship: the full rigged sailing vessel West Point). I think that this article could also be interesting for american readers, as this ship carried tenthousends of migrants to the new world. Thats why I translated the article into english, but unfortunately I just have poor english language skills. Now Im looking for somebody who is a native English speaker with a profound knowledge of shipping subjects, that is willing to correct my article, right after I upload it. I think it will be a lot of work! I saw, that you wrote the article about the SS America, thats why I'ld like to ask you, if you could help me? --Rectilinium (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Translate it and then let us descend on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ben. Thank you very much. Finally my first article West Point (ship) is online! I suppose there are many, many mistakes in this article. Feel free to edit whatever is necessary. If there is anything you dont understand, because my english was too bad, you may ask me in the articles discussion page and I try to explain in other words, what I tried to say. --Rectilinium (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: If you still want to edit the article... we renamed it into West Point (1847). --Rectilinium (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ben. Im not sure if you saw my postings here on your discussion page, as you didnt answer. I just wanted to ask, if you are still interested to edit my article, or if I shall ask someone else. With kind regards --Rectilinium (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies! Yes, I did see it, and it is quite well-written, though I've not yet had an opportunity to go through and do any necessary cleanup just yet. I do intend to go through it, though. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot! Now that I know, that you'll be going through I feel reassured. The article actually had been rated start-class because of the grammar (and also because of referencing and citation?? - I actually dont know what is missing). Im not surprised, that I didnt get an A-class rating with my first article (written in a language, that isnt my mother tongue). But making it at least a B-class - for the moment - would be nice... Ok then, Im looking forward to your revision :) --Rectilinium (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ben. Once again me. It seems you asked a user named Brad to look over my article (what he actually did). But still the article needs some editing. Brad wrote: It still could use some copy editing for grammar and flow. It would be great, if you could make this additional editing. --Rectilinium (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Bgb (band)

Hey there SchuminWeb - I noticed you deleted the talk page of Bgb (band) under g8, but not the page itself. Just wanted to point that out in case it was a mistake. Thanks! FlyingToaster 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! Appears Twinkle missed that... SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew it! Twinkle is beginning its resistance against its human captors! FlyingToaster 04:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

KTAA

I just wanted to follow up on your declining my request for a speedy to facilitate a move to this article name. I'd agree with your assessment of the KCCV-FM article, that the list of the affiliate stations for the network of which it's the flagship overwhelms the content on the that station itself. That's not the problem I'm trying to solve, though. KTAA is a member of that network, and there's a redirect from that to the KCCV-FM article. However, there's also a separate article about KTAA, which is misnamed KTAA-FM. All I'm looking to do is delete the redirect, so that the KTAA-FM article can be moved to its correct call sign. Long-term, the best approach might be to just have an article on the Bott Radio Network, if all the stations are a straight simulcast, and redirect all the stations to it. In the meantime, however, I think it makes sense to have this article at its correct name. Mlaffs (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now that makes more sense! Request fulfilled. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Much thanks! Mlaffs (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Company

You did a speedy deletion of adenin Technologies Inc. claiming blatant advertising. I created the page based on facts using other company wiki pages (still up) as an example. In fact, it was much shorter than most. There was no "marketing" speak such as "great" "premier" "leading company."

The company had listings in other pages -- to show it was not an orphan. Yet its competitors (look at Sharepoint -- it has many of its own pages) retain their wiki pages. Appreciate your help in how to get the company back online fair and square. We followed wiki's recommendations. Thank you.

Merylk (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Merylk

I contend that Adenin was properly deleted as blatant advertising. While the call on what is blatant advertising is somewhat subjective, I agree with original nominator 16x9's judgement that the article meets the criterion laid out at WP:CSD#G11. However, speedy deletions are generally made without prejudice to a neutrally written and well-referenced article being created in the future. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How about pointing to several company pages as examples of Encyclopedic and acceptable entries? Also, why not just remove the link where the company was fairly mentioned by name as a provider or competitor of the product instead of deleting it altogether? In other words, instead of deleting all of Adenin, change it to adenin (without the link). Because the entire name was deleted -- it gives a negative impression.

Merylk (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Merylk

Dotster

Why did you delete Dotster? If GoDaddy, Name.com etc get their own article, Dotster should to

REPLY

Domainer11 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You may want to see the comments made here User talk:16x9#Dotster 16x9 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, 16x9, thank you for your providing of valuable background information regarding this matter. I appreciate seeing that you've already discussed much of this matter with Domainer11.

Domainer11, I contend that the article was properly deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7, as the article made no claim whatsoever to even a shred of notability. Additionally, please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically this section, as well as taking a look at Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

GET A LIFE. WIKIPEDIA SUCKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domainer11 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Depiction of the Queen Elizabeth

Well spotted!

Should this picture not be replaced with a correct one of the actual ship?

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC) 09:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As you probably gathered, there is a story behind how we ended up with this photo. We had a succession of non-free images on the article previously, but all had various issues related to sourcing. None of them had good sourcing for use, and so we had to nominate them for deletion. Then in order to have an image, a user took File:RMS Queen Mary Long Beach.jpg and did some heavy editing to it, to make it look like the Queen Elizabeth, and that's where we stand today. Honestly, I was shocked to find out that it *wasn't* the QE in the photo, since it is definitely dead on.

Thus unless we come across a free image of the actual Queen Elizabeth in Cunard colors, the photoshopped depiction will definitely work. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Coquitlam, British Columbia‎ category

The problem with that leftover category (Coquitlam, British Columbia) is that I can't figure out how to delete that entry. All other entries moved over to the new category, and even that entry moved over. But if you go to it (Westwood Plateau), it doesn't actually list the category! Any ideas? Greg Salter (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this got resolved already? If so, what ended up happening to fix that one? I'm guessing the category was in a template or something? SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WMATA Bus #2320.

Wmata bus #2320 IS painted in the new "Local" paint scheme. This picture [1] proves it. I posted the same link on the article and you claim its not a reliable source. How is it not a reliable source when the picture CLEARLY shows bus #2320 in the new local scheme? You're not really making sense. Lamborghini man 21:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That article doesn't explain how a picture is not reliable. You're still not making sense to me. Are you trying to tell me that the picture of #2320 in the local paint scheme, doesn't mean that its in the new local paint scheme? Because if it is your not making sense. How is it not proof? Lamborghini man 1:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Ardra Super Bowl 2007.jpg

Obviously wikipedia does not check their e-mails. I uploaded the file myself, I DREW it, I gave it it's license to be on Wikipedia, AND the writer and I sent our permissions. Hilarious. --Fesworks (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No evidence of permission was provided, and so a reasonable person would conclude that the image is likely not free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh certainly I understand, I'd have e-mailed Wikipedia instead, but obviously they don't check their permission e-mails, as previously stated. I don't really blame you, specifically... unless it's you who's supposed to check that e-mail :P Anyway, I'm not going to make any big deal about it.--Fesworks (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Faith in Place rewritten

Hi, this article has been rewritten, if you could please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith in Place to see if your concerns have been addressed. If not I would be happy to address any outstanding issues. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 10:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I guess I did see you arrive. It was so late that there wasn't much chance to say hello. -- BRG (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe article issue

Hi Ben. I was wondering if you could help out on this one. I had read briefly a book by Peter Ackroyd on Edgar Allan Poe called "Poe: a life cut short". I tried to add it as Further Reading to the Wikipedia article on Poe, since it's topical and new, but User:Midnightdreary keeps reverting it out saying the book is full of inaccuracies. I'm no Poe scholar, but I checked reviews in the London Times and Christian Science Monitor and there was no mention of inaccuracies in the book by Ackroyd. User:Midnightdreary is obdurate on this matter and leads up to a 3RR problem which I don't wish to involve myself in. I asked him for scholarly citations for the inaccuracies as found in respected reviews or journals but nothing has been provided. Might you have a look at the Poe article ? Best wishes and many thanks. I assume good faith with the editor but I'm not sure of the claim. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. I'm not sure why this user is campaigning for support already. I'm already engaged in discussion, quite civilly, and wasn't trying to be obstinate. "Keeps reverting" is an incredibly loaded word choice; In fact, we weren't close to a 3RR violation. The first revert was accurate (removed from list of references since it wasn't referenced). The second was because the book is not a good source worthy of inclusion as "Further reading". The discussion then started. Not sure why you're choosing to re-insert disputed material as the material is still under dispute. At this point, we should probably talk it out first before we decide what to do. In the meantime, it would have been more appropriate to leave the article as it was! Sorry if sounded obstinate, but that's how these discussions work! --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look, Ben. I'd tend to agree with you but I will keep the community peace on it if we can't reach a consensus with User:Midnightdreary. I'm a bit befuddled on this one. Ackroyd's book on Poe is being read in the popular world. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Article: Measured quantity

Hello, today I noticed that a deletion process has taken place concerning the article Measured quantity. Since I do not remember the contents of that article, would you please send me the file for further inspection? (Could it be a useful procedure to automatically send deleted articles back to the originator(s)?) Thanks so far, UserXresu (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As the article was deleted through the proposed deletion process, Measured quantity is restored, no questions asked. Best of luck in giving the article some much needed attention. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article's (Measured quantity) talk page should take care of that. If there remain unclear points please contact me! UserXresu (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of: Burpee's Seedy Theatrical Company

Hi there, I'm not a regular poster, so I don't tend to log on to check what little I've edited. Could you let me know who the article for Burpee's Seedy Theatrical Company (from Denison University) was deleted? There was no advertising intended, the article was created to help acknowledge a few important organization in the improv comedy world. As the oldest college improv troupe (and one of the oldest at all), and one that saw the launching of a great many careers, I feel like it at least deserves it's place as an outgrowth from Denison's main site. I am asking you to consider un-deleting this material. If you want parts of it re-written or added to, I am happy to make that work out, I just don't think that an organization like this should be ignored. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMTyler (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G12, which is blatant copyright infringement. Because of this, I am unable to restore the article, but the deletion is without prejudice to the creation of a new, non-infringing article. However, considering that the article had been deleted four times prior to my seeing it, you certainly do have an uphill battle in establishing notability for this organization. Regarding the G11 deletion (blatant advertising) that I made on the article, that was made in error (G11 and G12 are next to each other in Twinkle's deletion box). That is why the article was restored and then immediately deleted again as G12. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see what part you were talking about, and I apologize for it. I received that from another source, not realizing that it was previously published. I'll take some time before I try to repost. I'll see if I can back up my claims a little better with a little more solid evidence. Thanks!

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith in Place

Just a note that an article you nominated for AfD is now the topic of a Deletion for Review discussion. Deor (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing redlinks

Um ... when removing a redlink that form the entire entry in a see-also section [2] [3] [4], disambiguation page [5], or other list of notable things [6], it is often better to remove the entire link item than just the link brackets. An unlinked see-also item serves no purpose at all, and partial cleanup such as removing the link just makes it more difficult to find places that need to be cleaned out. –Henning Makholm (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul Martin Andrews

I'm a little disconcerted that this article has been speedily deleted. The Google cache shows me a well enough referenced article to assert notability. References could be improved and are simple to find. an easy example is here and the Ghits here.

Please can you reconsider your speedy deletion?

If you prefer, please drop it into user:Timtrent/PMA and I'll take it from there Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way you seem to have collected a troll. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul Martin Andrews definately has established some notability. If any thing he deserves an AfD not a speedy delete. I found numerous sources regarding his advocacy. If you want to put him up for AfD that fine just not a speedy delete. [www.spock.com/Paul-Martin-Andrews], [7], [www.dartcenter.org/dartsociety/], [www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_top_053006_venable.394737e4.html], [www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101339_pf.html] there are a whole lot more. Please restore. Thanks Valoem ^talk 13:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted because it appeared to have claimed notability for the predator, and not the victim who was the subject of the article. A re-read indicates that perhaps I was a tad hasty with the deletion, and so I'm restoring Paul Martin Andrews. And yes, I'm aware of the troll. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll have a go at unwinding the link removal to the article unless you have done so already, and add better citations for the subject. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is by no means a perfect article, but the citations are now better. It does seem to retain a balance that is towards the perpetrator rather than the victim and activist, but it can be seen clearly now that the article is about Andrews. Over to others now. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom Avery

Hi ShuminWeb,

I am the personal publicist for Tom Avery. You recently deleted his page, please reinstate the page so i can update it with the correct information. Thank you! Skiexplore (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)skiexplore

As the article was deleted under proposed deletion, it is restored. However, I have listed it under Articles for Deletion. As Avery's personal publicist, however, I highly recommend that you read WP:COI before attempting to edit the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi ShuminWeb - thank you for restoring Tom's page. As you can see i am working on it and will continue to do so on Monday. I am studying WP:COI and feel i am on the right track. Can we please take down the Articles for Deletion boxes? thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiexplore (talk • contribs) 22:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

regarding

hello, i would like please to be guided, and create global trip project properly, because has been canceled.

thanks and best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.198.100 (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

User_talk:74.67.71.228 is what happens when I forget to log in (or my cookies expire and/or session times out and I don't notice). Thanks :) --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 00:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy SchuminWeb/Archive 17's Day!

User:SchuminWeb/Archive 17 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as SchuminWeb/Archive 17's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear SchuminWeb/Archive 17! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering when Rlevse would get around to you. Congrats! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ughm.

I am not even a member of Wikipedia, so blocking me is fairly useless. Unless you want to hack through my freaking browser. Chill out. Peace :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.168.151 (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

FUZE

Thank you for stepping in regarding FUZE Meeting article and stopping it's deletion. You are awesome. I wonder how can I make it look like not an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.157.172 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Tom Curtis content

Hello, I have been watching a controversial video on the origin of AIDS and have found a journalist Tom Curtis who wrote on the subject. Trying to locate him on Wikipedia has brought me to your site. What was the reason for deleting the site? Surely he deserves to be mentioned. Best regards, Ann.

Rottrevore

Hi SchuminWeb. Just letting you now that I reverted your deletion of Rottrevore. You can piece together my rationale from my talk page comment and my comment to the first editor who tagged it after re-creation. [8] Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Magnus Wolff Eikrem

Hi there. Thanks for speedy deleting the above article. However, I don't believe that your decision to salt the article was correct. While it is true that the article has been deleted eight times now, it had not been created for more than 18 months before today. I believe that the chances of it being recreated again before the player reaches notability are fairly small, and so I believe that it should be unsalted. – PeeJay 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree, because the creation and deletion again indicates that the problem still exists. If the person reaches notability, we can address it, but until then, it should stay salted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Restore Serv-On

The article you just deleted is about an artist who had three straight charting albums including a #1 album in 1999, how is that not notable? I think it be best if you restore it. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding QuestionPro

Hi, I really want to create an article which gives people information about this awesome software I've come across. How do I make it comply with Wikipedia policies? I have tried going through the 'help' but didn't find anything unambiguous. Should I include link to the site of the software, or its blog, or the site of the clients? Or should I include another paragraph about the need of online surveys? Please help me. This is my first article on wikipedia and I would hate to see it deleted. Unitedopinions (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Obstacle Course

I'm sorry, but maybe you didn't know about this. The 99-second Obstacle Course run by Marc and Harvey was in a Super Sloopy Double Dare episode, and was only a flashback in the Double Dare: The Inside Scoop VHS. I mean no harm to the article. --99.158.136.26 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I had no idea that was actually aired outside of the VHS tape! My apologies, then. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Congress Matters

Sir, you deleted an article on the site "Congress Matters", likely because of the miscommunication another admin and I had earlier that evening. Please recreate this article, it was plenty notable and certainly did not warrant speedy deletion. I'm sorry, the Wikiproject Blogging has over 200+ articles in the que to work on, I wish you'd have given us more than a couple of hours to work on it. Heck, this site pops up as a source from Google News- meaning if you go looking for news on Congress, even Google News cites this site- please see SB Nation, which was created at the same time. Please rectify this and let me know when it's done, I'll be happy to work on it some more. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As I'm not in the mood to get into a big discussion about it, I've restored it, and there is now an active AFD discussion about it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

re Arlington Cemetery

I kind of did; I think his picture may be marginally better, but that doesn't excuse the incivility he's showing. I almost filed something on ANI or something; someone neutral needs to talk to that guy. --Golbez (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility

Hey, I know it's long. In fact, the name is ridiculous :-) You should see it's acronym (ABCPMMMFLF)! But it's still a proper entity of the U.S. Federal Reserve, and may actually one day have it's own article. Thanks for removing the CSD for me though. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

deletion of Coffeedonkey

Hi, I noticed that you deleted the article I tagged under a different criteria (G1 instead of G3). Was I in error, or do you feel that the article could have been deleted under G3 as well? I no longer remember the contents of the article so I can't tell. But I seem to remember that there was some sort of "context". Thanks in advance. decltype (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing between G1 and G3 is kind of a judgement call, because what is "patent nonsense" to one user is "pure vandalism" to another, and vice versa. G3 does have some additional criteria, but those didn't apply in this case, since this was an either-or. All in all, I wouldn't sweat it, since the two criteria do overlap a bit, and I'm personally inclined to delete all the overlap as G1 (and this was in that overlap area where both applied). SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification. decltype (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Userpage deletion

Uh, why did you delete my userpage? G11 says criteria for speedy deletion includes "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Well my userpage didn't exclusively promote some entity that was unencyclopedic (how encyclopedic do I need to be? It's my personal userpage). I used it to talk about the things I've done; there wasn't even a direct download link to any music I've made so if that's advertising then fine, it must be something I'm horrible at. A company or product (which in this case is really just underground music) was not the only content of the userpage, as I went on to describe my personal interests and such, and as G11 goes on to explain, "simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Well if that's the case for articles with nothing more than a company or product as its subject, then you shouldn't have speedily deleted my userpage, which was not strictly bound to a product (again this is an awkward word to call it since I'm assuming you deleted the page because of the one paragraph that talks about underground music I've created that doesn't cost anything). Kraid (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)