User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 29

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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.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)

Old Man Murray

Just splat it. There are only about four "keep"s from legitimate accounts and half of those accounts don't even have page of edits. At this point, the page is just meat-puppet bait. We're talking about a page that's effectively been dead for ten years here... HalfShadow 21:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The page is nothing but meatpuppet-bait, and once you clear out the meatpuppets and personal attacks, you end up with no legitimate "keep" !votes and no sourcing on which to build an article. However, as the nominator, it would be untoward to close the discussion, but it has officially been seven days since the nomination was made, so someone should be around shortly to put the discussion out of its misery. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(In response to a now deleted protest that suggested the Slashdot coverage has anything to do with the article's notability)

That's because most people won't be all that familiar with how notability works on Wikipedia, and will just rally against the "stupid neckbeard Wikipedians with their deletion complexes". The article shouldn't be restored just because people are upset about it, and the predictable "well it's notable now it has press coverage" argument that we all know will get trotted out soon isn't reason enough either (the only notability you're showing there would be for a "2011 Old Man Murray controversy" article!). As it happens I think the article probably should remain (a very weak keep vote on my part), but let's not base an argument for it in "/. is tearing you a new one". I doubt that many of the outraged messages there have any clue about Wikipedia or the subject matter. It's just the usual groupthink outrage. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the fact that it has past media coverage?

• The Toronto Star – 4 January 2007
• Montreal Gazette – 8 April 2006
• The Edmonton Journal – 3 March 2006
• The Edmonton Journal – 24 February 2006
• Xbox Nation – 1 November 2004
• Sunday Herald Sun – 17 June 2001
• The Guardian – 18 January 2001
• Computer Gaming World (via ZDWire) – 1 July 2000 Paul Moloney (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm on the fence about the article and am leaning towards weak keep. If you can provide the links to those articles and they are about the site (rather than just brief mentions) I'd want to keep for sure. This isn't the place for that, though. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

An article called 2011 Old Man Murray controversy... now that would be funny. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought wikipedia exists for the Group? ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, if enough people complain about something, surely that will create notability? Hackbinary (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread

Someone's started one about you. Reyk _YO! 02:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

These people don't know when to move on. I took my own advice in WP:GETOVERIT and am moving on from this issue. I can't afford to lose any more hairs (or have them turn gray) over this... SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the whole frivolous complaint seems to have been laughed out of court. Finally, some sense at ANI. Reyk _YO! 09:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And again

Sorry to start sounding like a broken record on some of these but - Sinead rips into the Pope.jpg - yet another clear policy that you say is "no consensus". If could take a moment to look over the nom and look over the "keep" opinion (singular) and show me how it accurately reflects policy (as opposed to "very good points"). My post this time is long but this is the third such image you have closed as a "no consensus" and it is starting to bother me as all of these have been non-free content, policy based, discussion where policy is pretty explicit. (And please don't misunderstand me - I think your summary's in such cases are getting much better and more detailed and helpful but it is the "no consensus" part that bothers me)

The first, and most obvious policy based issue, is that the image itself - not another one like it, not "why not just take the screenshot ourselves" as a comment inquired, but the actual image in use - is from a commercial content provider. How does taking this image, that another entity would have to pay to use for exactly the same thing Wikipedia is using it for, not a violation of policy of "Respect for commercial opportunities"? And how is this not an even more blatant violation of CSD F7 - Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately.? One of the questions always is with such material "Well can we get another image that is not going to be in violation of policy? even if it is another non-free image?" In this case yes we can - which was part of the conversation. If that is true the image should be deleted on that concept along - however the CSD was declined based on it being the "subject of sourced commentary" so even another still-unfree-but-not-as-unfree image may not solve the problem - I clearly addressed that as well.

In respect to commercial content from Getty, AP, Corbis an so on the "subject of sourced commentary" requirements have always been higher - in plain English it has always been the norm to use the material only where the material itself is discussed, not the content (or what is going on in the image in this case). There is no article *about* "Sinead rips into the Pope" that is *about* this single frame. I always say see The Falling Man for an example of accepted use. So in the context of F7, as well as "Respect for commercial opportunities", this fails...epic fail.

Now, as I asked in the discussion, if one forgets about the commercial content for one moment than, based again on the policy for non-free content, how is "she tore the photo into pieces" not clear? The burden of proof is always on those who want to keep such material and there was only one (repeat one) "keep" and they based that "keep" opinion on the fact "Getty has just taken a screenshot of the show", however that is not a relevant argument based on the portion of policy I cited. So the only other valid opinion of why to keep would be to explain why "she tore the photo into pieces" in not clear and requires not only an image, but a non-free image (from *any* source) to illustrate it. So I ask you directly - is this reason for "keep" based on policy? This* *This* *This* *This* *This* *This* *This* *This* thinking is, I believe, incorrect.? How about As to whether it can adequately be described by text is why we are each expressing our opinions here now.? Per Wikipedia "burden of proof" that does not fulfill the policy based question I asked, it avoids it. And further more Please respect my opinion, there is no need for you to personally challenge it, that is for the closer to weigh. further ignores policy by asking to simply respect an opinion that is not based in the policy. The question I asked more than once *was*, and is, firmly based in policy. Again, just setting aside the source of *this* image for one moment, the "Contextual significance" in this case is very important, and also the "No free equivalent" criteria as they go hand in hand. It clearly says that one needs to ask two core questions, one of which is: Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all? That is exactly what I asked in the nom and it was not only not answered it was tossed aside. As the one "keep" basically placed their burden of proof upon the closer, who was you, than I turn to you and say that the policy is clear that if the answer is "yes" to the question of if this image illustrating "she tore the photo into pieces" could be "conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all" than is the policy comment that the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion true of false? If it is false than explain why. "Contextual significance" is based on the same idea, which is if its use "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - so, again, show me where in the discussion anyone explained how is the text that says "she tore the photo into pieces" not clear? Or "Why do we need to see an image of this action?" Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Soundvisions1 - there was a 3-1 majority agreeing that this particular image (sourced from Getty) is inappropriate. I'm not sure how that's not a consensus to delete it. Further, nobody in the discussion refuted the point made by Soundvision1 and Thparkth that there is not a good justification for using any fair use image here (from Getty or otherwise) because "does anyone truly *not* understand what 'she tore the photo into pieces' means?" WP:FAIR says, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". While that doesn't mandate necessarily that "no consensus" of a "fair use" image discussion result in deletion, it does mandate that there needs to be some really good reason to keep the image. There clearly was not here. --B (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Signpost

I'm writing an article for the Wikipedia Signpost about the Old Man Murray deletion and I'd like to ask you some questions for the story. If you agree, we can talk in the manner of your choosing (email, gmail chat, etc.) My deadline is Sunday evening. If you wish to respond off Wikipedia, please email me. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion...

I've noticed that most (if not all) Metrorail stations list their "connections" to Metrobus. I just modified the Tenley-AU Station's infobox to list the specific routes that serve the station. I trust your judgement and was wondering if you think that it would be worthwhile to expand this idea to every Metrorail page? [1] <-See link

Thedofc (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Kitten

Carolmooredc has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Recent AWB edit

I removed the Persondata template added by your recent AWB edit to Stock Aitken Waterman- My understanding is that Persondata is supposed to only be used for individual persons, not a group (which SAW is). Thanks, OSborn ^arf_contribs. 05:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TCO (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SchuminWeb. You have new messages at Elen of the Roads's talk page.
Message added 20:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I gather you two have some history..... Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Rollback rights?

Hi Ben. I was turned down for "rollback rights" by User:Coffee who I don't know and never had any interaction with. Is this just? This admin User:Coffee seems to turn down a lot of rollback rights requests if not all he got involved with. I don't see his approving any, just denying. See: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, in reading the discussion, I hate the attitude of "I don't think you need it" that I read over there. To me, it comes off as highly patronizing. Personally, I think that evidence of need shouldn't be the standard here (no one absolutely needs an automatic rollback function for Wikipedia to function properly), but rather a well-founded belief that the user in question will not use the function incorrectly. That said, however, I am not going to override or otherwise challenge the other admin on it, because I really don't want to go there with them.

The whole thing about being so careful about awarding the native rollback function is also amusing when you consider that Twinkle is open for all to use and does the same thing. For now, I would recommend giving Twinkle a spin, and revisiting the native rollback in a few months. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Ben for your kind looking and advice. I'll go down that path. I do agree with your insights, too. So I was befuddled. But we'll let it roll. Best Wishes always. --- ( Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks also, Ben, for the idea of archiving my talk page. I had been putting the whole issue off for years now. I'll look into it. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your suggestion for the archive. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

AWB Edits

Just going through a few of your edits now from AWB changing decades indiscrimately from the format from 70's to 70s. This is grammatical in many places (possessive) and in particular was the actual name of the albums http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk_a_Mile_in_My_Shoes:_The_Essential_%2770s_Masters which you changed in text to be incorrect throughout.

Please be careful with mass changes. Ice-Wolf (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I take offense to your comment that I indiscriminately changed these formats. If I were to have done this indiscriminately, I could have finished the whole change in one night. I checked every edit, and filtered out many cases where it was indeed a possessive. If I missed any, I apologize, but I did my due diligence.

Regarding the example you cite, I made a deliberate decision to change things in the specific situation where titles used were grammatically incorrect. I took the advice given in WP:TRADEMARK and kind of extrapolated it to this case. In this instance, the trademark guidelines say to basically normalize things, and so I normalized it textually. Especially when you consider that this is not a possessive, and that the makers of these albums most likely inadvertently fell into the same trap as many others do about apostrophes, but unlike many, their mistake got published. However, it still does not make it correct. Remember: "From 1960's Album XYZ" is correct, but "Album XYZ, an album made in the 1960's" is incorrect. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of History of Maryland Route 200 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Maryland Route 200 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Maryland Route 200 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dough4872 23:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Red Trillium.png

Why did you close the File:Red Trillium.png discussion as "move to commons"? No one said that, I thought the discussion was leaning to just delete. 117Avenue (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to make absolutely sure that everyone's backsides are covered. This followed on with Magog the Ogre's comment where he said, "That said, commons really frowns upon deleting alternate images[.]" Just as a little extra insurance that the SVG files don't get deleted on Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Aghh! I don't see the point of keeping low res graphics. 117Avenue (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop deleting my pictures to commons

I saw you massively deleted a bunch of my images off of English Wikipedia because they are on commons. I REQUESTED that that bot a logn time ago do that for me, as I don't bother with commons and I need to know if some idiot wants to delete the pictures I worked so hard t get, and I won't know if they are off Eng WIki and are only on Commons. So please bring back.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 08:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find any evidence that you did in fact make that request (and believe me, I looked), but as you have confirmed that the tagging does indeed reflect your wishes, that's fine, and so no more of the tagged images that you uploaded will be transferred to Commons. That said, however, I see no reason to locally reinstate the images that were transferred, as they are entirely within Commons' scope and thus will not be deleted there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Now I'll never know if someones decides to try to delete them again or not.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And thus you are going on a tirade against me, trying to attack anything and everything I might have done. Pretty much says it all.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 14:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Shopping Centre anchors

Where exactly does it outline: "no mall anchors to be included" - in a Wikipedia policy? -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC) The policy you showed me, and I quote: 4.Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Directories, directory entries" from same policy. There you go. You just answered your own question. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I may be young, might not undertstand many thongs around here, but this is crystal clear. No mentioning reguarding Shopping centre/mall anchors. These should not be removed, as they are major parts of the centre. They do not change every week, month, year, in most occasions decades. The only time you will see an anchor removed, is when the shop decides to leave (rarely), the shopping mall is under redevelopment, or the centre is closed down. Instead of being a little too hasty, please go on to the shopping centre articles talk pages, and talk it off there, maybe even get consensus. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And what you are basically saying is, that we might as well just remove all shopping centres, buildings, suburbs, cities etc. off Wikipedia, because some of their "important" information is considered a "directory" to you. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think that an article with shopping centre anchors is a directory, you must be sorely mistaken. If you think I will back down on this issue, you are still sorely mistaken. Reguardless of your position on Wikipedia, you still have to discuss before removing a section off an article. Basic rules. I may sound a little harsh, but being "hasty" about things is not the way to solve them. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sokka article

You might what to look into this. Can it possibly be restored? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Lightpeak-cables-february-2011.jpg

Why did you delete this file? The conclusion of the discussion was to keep the file. "Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timl2k4 (talk • contribs)

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as a replaceable fair use image. This is also why you should take any comments that a bot makes with a grain of salt. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

False. There is currently no suitable free replacement image. You should not have unilaterally deleted this file. Please restore it. TimL (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Toronto G20 summit addition

Hello there,

I have included a section regarding a documentary produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the police brutality during the Toronto G20 summit, in 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_G-20_Toronto_summit_protests).

You removed said section on the basis that "Reverted 6 edits by Astragale (talk); Completely unsourced. using TW"

The section that I added is an accurate and objective description of the documentary in question, which is referenced in said article and available on the Internet. As for the references of the documentary, they comprise video footage, interviews and other research sources mentioned in the documentary itself. This is a documentary produced and aired by a Crown Corporation of Canada, part of the "Fifth Estate", which is a reputable and renowned documentary television show. It pertains specifically to the events surrounding the Toronto G20 summit riots and the police response thereof, and is thus absolutely pertinent to the page in question.

I do not understand why you find this information "unsourced", as you can find the source in question on the CBC website, in it's entirety, if you bothered to look. Before you remove contributions from other wikipedians, I suggest you read the material in question again, take the time to watch the documentary; in general, in the future, before you arbitrarily play Wikicensor like you seem to have a propensity for, look up the sources in question before you make such an edit on the basis that it is unsourced.

Here is, for reference, the source for said documentary, in context of the section I wrote:

<original text> In February 2011, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's investigative journalism show "The Fifth Estate" aired a documentary entitled "You should have stayed at home" , that reviews some of the events of the G20 summit. </original text>

For more information on the documentary itself, you can check out http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/youshouldhavestayedathome/

I will be glad to discuss this issue further and will wait a few days before I put the section back in the article in question, so that we can put this matter to rest and not have a controversy over something that does not warrant it.

Sincerely,

-- Astragale

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Astragale (talk • contribs) 01:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please reverse your closing on File:Vanna Venturi House Postage Stamp 2005.jpg

I think your closing of the deletion request was wrong and should be reverted.

Please note that the nominator said that there was too much text in the article "it is already well described well in the prose."

I responded by saying that while there is some text, as is required, the text could not fully describe the honor conferred by the stamp. These were the only two comments posted.

As closer you, you inserted your own opinion (not policy), that there was too little text in the article "there is no discussion of any elements in the stamp that would require a visual aid." If you want more text, of course, I can provide it, but I hope then that nobody would come back and say that the image should be deleted because there is too much text!

I do feel that, by inserting your own opinion, that you improperly closed the discussion, a discussion that did not have a consensus to delete. Moreover, the decision to delete was not a matter of policy, only of how much text needs to be included to necessitate including a non-free image.

Do feel free to list the picture for deletion again, and to include your own opinion there, but closing based upon your own opinion, which contradicts the only opinion to delete, was clearly improper.

Smallbones (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When I have to close a discussion based on a policy with legal considerations (as WP:NFCC is), it is very important that (A) I read the discussion carefully, making note of all arguments firmly grounded in policy, and I also must be careful to not close it in such a way to violate policy. A deletion discussion's close still cannot override policy, and WP:NFCC#8 is policy, and therefore if an argument advocates breaking policy, then it must be discounted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I most assuredly did not advocate breaking policy - only that the photo could be used in accordance with the fair use policy, since text alone could not convey the honor of the stamp. I still think you should revert the deletion and re-list the pic for deletion, where I can reply to your opinion, or rewrite the text in the article to meet you requirements. As it stands, you were putting forth an opinion and saying in effect "my opinions enough - no more discussion, delete it now." Smallbones (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

deletion of: Goodwill Flight Russia-Australia-Russia - Suggestion: use the Template: {importance|grade|category=category}

Thanks for that c.f. diff. I believe that resolves the incident.

I am thinking that articles be tagged as a lesser important article, but to delete one outright - esp. after only 7 days - was a mistake. Suggestion: Instead try Template:{{Importance}}, eg.

• {{importance|grade}}

  Where grade is the classification of the article.

• {{importance|grade|category=category}}

  Define an alternative category link.

• {{importance|grade|impn=priority}}

  Allows the template to be used with the priority scale.

Of course potentially the actual importance is still objective, but it could be discussed and changed on the talk page. This {{Importance}} template means that uninteresting and unnoteworthy pages simply fade into obscurity.

Best of luck in your editing. NevilleDNZ (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Hi. Could you please explain why you have deleted the four images tagged by another editor in my article Sheriff Hill? The deletion is noted here. As I explained twice, these images are public domain images in the public archive: they are outside of copyright as they are hosted by Gateshead Council, an arm of the UK Crown, and they are free to use. I have the word of the head of Libraries and Arts at Gateshead Council for this. The only problem with the images is that they were incorrectly tagged as I couldn't find an appropriate one to use. When I asked someone to assist in tagging the images, I find that you have deleted them... Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The image was deleted because it was an uncontested nomination at possibly unfree files. Why didn't you comment there? SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All four images were listed, one after the other, on the page I have linked in my OP here. I added this message to the first of the list:

This picture, and all of the pictures listed below used in the article Sheriff Hill, falls under the public domain use but I do not know how to tag this properly- none of the tags I have looked at seem appropriate and I would be grateful for guidance here so that they can be tagged accurately Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I also added a comment to the talk page of each image, making the same point and suggesting a possible tag for each. What more could I have done? Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

weasel words

Hi. Am I on the right talk page for Yoga Mat? I'm curious which terms are considered "weasel words" in the article about yoga as alternative medicine.[2] Thanks Octopet (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Most likely, the best place to raise your question is Talk:Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine. The editor's talk page is User talk:Yoga Mat, though if you want to bring up a full discussion about it, bring up the topic on the article's talk page, and then notify Yoga Mat of that discussion on their talk page (use the {{talkback}} template). I took a look at the article, and I didn't see anything particularly weaselly, but would be interested to see what Yoga Mat thinks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SchuminWeb. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 24.
Message added 00:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI, a file you were closing admin on previously is up for debate for a third time. Veriss (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Some people (not you, Veriss) just can't resist taking slams at closing admins... SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I know. I have concerns I would like to discuss with you but will wait to see if you intend to post to that discussion to avoid appearances of lobbying. I added a comment to try to turn the discussion in a constructive direction so we don't have to keep revisiting this issue a fourth or fifth time. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of posting in the discussion, because I'm not that interested in the image. I'm more interested in reading a discussion and trying to determine a consensus out of these discussions than about the images themselves. So far, the discussion seems fairly straightforward, but of course, the discussion has only been up for a few hours. I'm most likely going to recuse myself from further official input on this matter, either through !votes or closes, and so feel free to bring up your concerns. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted my immediate concerns in my comment on the discussion. Thank you for your quick response. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Image deletions

Hi SchuminWeb,

You have nominated a lot of images by one user for deletion. Obviously, for the vast majority of those images, you are correct to do so, and I have (or will) !vote "delete" on most of them. I can understand that a user who uploads one image with an invalid copyright statement is likely to have uploaded others, and so going through their contributions can be highly efficient and productive.

All the same, isn't there a possibility that it might make that user feel under attack? Particularly since the images were obviously uploaded in good faith and with good intentions. It might be very discouraging for them.

I don't really have any specific point or request for you here, I just wanted to share the thought.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruggles Prize

Please restore the Ruggles Prize and take it to AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I will let you make the decision about whether or not to take the article to AFD (I have no opinion), but I will take your request as contesting the PROD, and have restored it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Erm ... the prod went its seven days, no one contested it, you deleted it ... and only when someone several hours AFTER deletion decided to "contest" it is it restored? How is that possible? Do I get to go back through the list of admins deleting expired prods and retroactively contest them, without reference to WP:UND? I note that in the week this prod was active, Richard made nearly a thousand edits; if this article had been on his watchlist, he ought to have noticed it, and cannot claim that he was AFK for a week. One can only conclude that he's instead doing exactly that, retroactively seeking out expired prods to "contest." At the very least, he should have gone through the process at WP:UND; taking it to you directly was improper. I urge you to reverse this decision, and am more inclined otherwise to take it to DRV than to AfD.  Ravenswing  03:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you want my why-PROD-is-a-worthless-process discussion, do you? I personally hate PROD, and never use it myself. Here's why: first of all, if anyone contests a PROD and someone still wants to delete it, it has to go to AFD anyway. Then if someone objects to the proposed deletion after the article is deleted, I am required by policy to restore it, and then it has to go through AFD anyway if anyone still wants to delete it. So why have it? I'd rather just put the article through AFD to begin with, get a consensus one way or the other, and be done with it on the first go-around. Then if anyone objects, we have a discussion to show how we decided the article's fate. As an admin, I get too many inexperienced editors who yell at me thinking that I just deleted whatever article out of the blue and assume I deleted it because I didn't like the topic, when in truth, I probably don't care one way or another about the article and probably just glanced at it in the process of processing uncontested PRODs.

So in short: my hands are tied by the PROD policy. I have to restore it. I hate PROD with a passion, but changing PROD is a whole different can of beans that is outside the scope of this discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it is gone now. AfD said 'DELETE'. -- Avanu (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Mira I photo deletion

Dear sir, I am new to writing on Wikipedia, its true. I am drafting an article for something I feel is very important, and so am donating a large amount of time and energy to the project. I would much appreciate any guidance in how to make that image acceptable, as it is an illustration of their mixed media work, and therefore applicable to an encyclopedic entry. As far as I know, no one holds a specific copyright to it. The image comes from a slide given to me by Contraband member Lauren Elder, with the express intent that I use it on the site. How do we keep it up? --Jennifer.Marie.Hoff (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)User:Jennifer.Marie.Hoff

First of all, I am not a mind reader, but doing a little research, I am going to assume you are talking about File:Mira1-b.jpg. The file was deleted after it sat out a waiting period for a speedy deletion criterion based on WP:NFCC#1, which, in short, prohibits the use of non-free content in cases where a free equivalent can reasonably be found or created. If the copyright holder (most likely the photographer) wishes to release the photo under a free license, they will need to Email the OTRS team in order to record the permission. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As I titled this section Mira I... your mind-reading skills are clearly not being called into question. If there was some more techy way of referencing it, apologies: I am a writer, not a programmer. I am learning Wikipedia code as I go, in order to put relevant material up. That photo is relevant material. You could be a bit more understanding of a newbie, as this is supposedly a communally-oriented endeavor? However, if you are proposing to get snarky with me over some detail, rest assured I can keep up, irregardless of my technical expertise. --Jennifer.Marie.Hoff (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)User:Jennifer.Marie.Hoff

User:Bridgette Anderson

Congratulations, that was the speediest speedy deletion I've ever seen! -- John of Reading (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"Zero energy design" was improperly deleted by Dymonite - based on a false statement of Copyright infringement

Escientist IS Larry Hartweg - I have already told Dymonite this before. I have always questioned Dymonite's motives in trying to block valid input from me in the past. Dymonite seems to spend many hours each day on Wikipedia (as though someone is paying Dymonite to filter Wikipedia input through a lobbyist's bias.

I have had to escalate previous energy issues to overturn Dymonite's unjustified inaccurate authoritative abuse of Wikipedia.

I hope we do not have to keep dredging this up, and escalating Dymonite's abuse of Wikipedia again and again.

I am the owner of the registered trademark "Zero Energy Design" U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Serial #77676226, Registration #3727589) AND all copyrights for www.ZeroEnergyDesign.com, and www.EmeraldEcoCity.com. Emerald EcoCity is NOT in any way a commercial website. It is 100% totally free, with no way top gemnerate any revenuse from it. It is a pure gift to a needy world. My ZEDmaster@ZeroEnergyDesign.com email address is openly published on all of my websites.

I have granted Wikipedia the right to openling publish the materials that I have freely placed on Wikipedia myself. My "Zero energy design" entry is NOT an advertisement or a solicitation for work. We are no longer designing any individual homes. Our effort is focused on our $77 Billion Emerald Eco-City proposal. I added this precise 1979 definition of "Zero energy design" for historical reference, and to point out what "Zero energy design" really means for those who abuse the term today.

PLEASE IMMEDIATELY REPREMAND Dymonite yet again, and ensure that Dymonite stops blocking my valid input, based on false statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escientist (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If this is in fact the case that you are the copyright holder for this material, and agree to release it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, send an Email to OTRS at permissions-en@wikimedia.org providing the permission. Otherwise, the material will continue to be deleted for copyright infringement. This does not, however, guarantee that the material will not be deleted for other reasons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I submitted the Creative Commons CC-BY-3.0 license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org - NOW WHAT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escientist (talk • contribs) 17:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I happened to see the discussion here, and went ahead and inserted an improvement tag in the above referenced article and began a Talk page. Just because you (Escientist) released some material for use by Wikipedia does not necessarily make it a qualified reliable source for all cases. What is needed is some review of the material and some supporting third party commentary on it. OK, getting back to work. -- Avanu (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

First Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union

I want to move the "First Deputy Chairman of the Soviet Union" page to "First Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union", but to do that I need to delete the other or even better, an admin can move it for me. --TIAYN (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, wanted to make entirely sure before I did. First Deputy Chairman of the Soviet Union is now located at First Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can you do me another favour. It's entirely for the same reason as the above one, can you move List of Premiers of the Soviet Union to Premier of the Soviet Union? If so thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

All set! Moved as requested. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! :) --TIAYN (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help guide me!...

Hey- I noticed that you were involved in some pictures I posted being deleted (unless I'm reading it wrong - I'm relatively new to contributing). Anyway, I really want to be a welcomed addition to Wiki editors and I'm trying to do everything right, but I'm super stuck on the photo part of things. I've contributed few articles and noticed the profile pics (?) were outdated, so I went online and found what I thought were usable images,but they gotten deleted.

Also, I started an article about this guy Victor Pineda who I got interested in because of his work in Syria in 2010. I post a picture of him from his website, ref it, and it still got taken down.

Can you please help guide me, or at least point me in the right direction for easy to understand instructions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what happened. You fell into a common trap - uploading a non-free image of a living person. In most cases, if a real person (as opposed to, say, a character in a work of fiction) is still alive, it is assumed that it is possible to create a free image of that person, and thus any non-free image of that person would fail the first criterion of our non-free content criteria. For more information on non-free content, see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Wikipedia:Non-free content, and Wikipedia:Image use policy. Please note, though, that the bar for the use of non-free content is intentionally set very high, in order to encourage the creation of free content. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Heyyy- I tried uploading a photo again. I hope i did it right. Thanks again for your guidance. Akrumoftruth (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

George W Bush bullhorn 9/11 speech

I'm writing in response to your notice that the video of George W. Bush's 9/11 bullhorn speech does not have any explicit copyright status included in the description, I have now included a link to the original website at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911groundzerobullhorn.htm instead of youtube, which details the current copyright status of the video as in the public domain. Is this sufficient to remove the copyright tag and the unfree images tag or do more links and permissions need to be required? Thanks for the help in advance as I'm sort of figuring out how to do this as I go. Jackknight28 (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the new source provided for File:George+W.+Bush+-+9 11+Bullhorn+Speech mpeg4.theora.ogv, I am still troubled by how that site indicates the source of the movie. Specifically, it says "public domain" without itself revealing the source of the video. My issue is this: It could be public domain as a work of the Federal Government, or it could be a privately made video. I have no way of knowing. That's the problem. Unless it's absolutely verifiable that the material is in fact definitely public domain, we can't use it.

Otherwise, I'm not too concerned about the removal of the "evidence of permission" tag. The PUF tag, however, must remain until that process is complete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The website says that the source is http://www.whitehouse.gov Jackknight28 (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Greek myths deletions

Hello, I see from your intro that you prefer I fix the problem, but I am not familiar with the process and it seems unfair that I spend the time to learn when you could have easily avoided the issue by investigating a bit before acting as you did. Please be so kind as to restore the Greek myths ogg files you deleted from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_(mythology) and other mythological characters. They were posted with my permission, I am the holder of the copyright. Calimach (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, the deletion discussion is located at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 30#File:Narcissus - wiki.ogg. That shows why the file was deleted, which basically was for evidence of permission along with three other files. If you are in fact the copyright holder, you will need to establish that by sending a permission in to the OTRS team at permissions-en@wikimedia.org, explicitly releasing the material under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Some seemingly curious articles

Hi Ben. I ran into these articles after some were under review: Anjli_Jain and CampusEAI Consortium. They seem to be written by a very few people, and there are very few links to the articles. One wonders if they were originally seeded and written by people perhaps with COI from Cleveland, OH. Just wondered if you had a take on it. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It certainly does make one wonder, that's for sure. The thing that stuck out with me is that most of the major editing (other than a large chunk of material that was oversighted) was done by editors where their only contributions were on one or both of these titles. That doesn't automatically mean a COI (for all we know it could be someone who's just really, really interested in it and wanted to write about it), but it certainly does get my attention seeing that kind of editing pattern. Anjli Jain might not pass notability, based on the references. On that one, the references about her seem pretty trivial. Of those references, the first has the most promise, but it's mostly about the company rather than her, using her name as an intro. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Ben, my sentiments exactly. It felt fiddly. Many thanks and best wishes. I'm inferring that no particular admin action on your part need be taken. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help

If you need any related assistance, please drop me a line, either email or my talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

your edit to satellite sentinel project page

hi, i want to credit digital globe for photos. where is proper place to do that? i do have them listed as author on licensing pg. thank you Nell 19:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespah (talk • contribs)

Regarding the edits made to Satellite Sentinel Project, the correct place for author credits, as you correctly did, is the file description page. The file name itself should be brief, clear, and descriptive. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Universal Express article

Hi Ben. Ran across this article Universal Express. It looks as POV as one can get? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That to me went beyond POV. I reverted it like vandalism, and issued the user a strong warning. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben. I didn't want to say literally what you said but it was what I was thinking. Then again, there's the now tangled article, Naked short selling which is correlated. Best. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop and Examine

Stop & Examine is a column in the large circulation industry magazine RAIL (magazine) in the UK, and alludes to a well known phrase is the rail industry.

The phrase Stop & Examine applies when say a train produces strange noises, which need to be examined after stopping to see what is wrong and whether the train can safely.

An example was with the Norton Fitzwarren accident when the guard of the second train heard some strange noises and pulled the brakes to stop his train, and on finding nothing proceeded. The first train had in the meantime run off the rails and 27 people were killed.

There used to be a thread about Stop & Examine but User:SchuminWeb deleted it without giving others a chance to vote on delete/keep. This thread has to do with safety, where normal people err on the side of safety, which would be a reason for keeping this thread alive.

Accidents

• Eschede train disaster - jobsworth guard fails to heed strange occurance as reported by passenger, and fails to implement any Stop & Examine (railway) leading to 101 fatalities.

See also

• Glossary of United Kingdom railway terminology

Tabletop (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I found the article at Stop and examine, and as a PROD (which doesn't require discussion), I will restore it. I have no opinion on the content itself. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your info. Fu Manchuchu (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ben, I added some citations to the article Stop and examine after doing some research. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, cool! SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ! It also included an undocumented discussion I had on the topic with a working train conductor. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

22:56, 6 April 2011 SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) deleted "Kasun Kalhara" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (band/musician) using TW)

is this not and explanation? Kasun Kalhara Jayawardena (Sinhalese: කසුන් කල්හාර) is a SriLankan singer–songwriter, composer, multi-instrumentalist, record producer. He is best known as one of the best young vocalist in Sri Lanka. is this the only article with short description? please look at his article in local language? (you guys can't read it right?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapa123 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at Kasun Kalhara on en.wiki again, as well as the Sinhalese article at si:කසුන් කල්හාර. I can't read Sinhalese, but I don't see any references over there, which doesn't help your case. And I still don't see any claim to notability in the English version. I don't see any cause to take any action on it at this time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "Finney Ross" Master Leathersmith

Dear Sir,

First off, I apologize if I mess this up, as I am a computer idiot.

My page on Finney Ross ... Master Leathersmith, was removed and I believe that to be an error.

Under section A47 it states "It does not indicate how or why the subject is notable".

Finney Ross was a South Texas Pioneer in leathersmithing for the R.C.A. (at that time the Rodeo Cowboys Association. It has since been changed to the P.R.C.A.: Pro Rodeo Cowboys Association)

His works graced the likes of Larry Mahan, Freckles Brown, Jim Shoulders, Casey Tibbs (just to name a FEW and most are now P.R.C.A. Hall of Fame inductees.)

During Ross's leathersmithing days in the 50's, 60's and 70's ... it was unheard of in the rodeo world to have one leathersmith dominate an entire state. But Ross's works were so sought after, that famous cowboy after cowboy would only reccommend Ross.

To this day, not only are his works highly collectible and valuable because of WHO he was and WHAT he did, but Larry Mahan who is on the board of trustees for the P.R.C.A. still retains all of his Ross items and still speaks of his works and contibutions to the R.C.A. to this day. (You may contact Mr. Mahan to verify)

The old days of Rodeo and all the history behind it are slowly fading away. I would much appreciate you putting the page back up. I know that it doesn't seem like much of a statement to the world, but in the world of rodeo...it actually is.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

T. Kiefer DavisVintagedirtbiker (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) vintagedirtbiker@hotmail.com

P.S. Again my apologies if I did not fill this form out correctly. I basically know how to send an email, and that's it.

Finney Ross has been restored as a contested PROD. However, I have immediately nominated it for deletion on the same grounds as the PROD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 25 Markers

I've left a note about the markers. However, I think for the others, you might need to seek out help elsewhere on Wikipedia. Might I suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places to start?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ahmadinejad at Natanz.jpg

Hello - I'm curious why you deleted this article, despite four objections and no support for the nomination. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Contextual significance, i.e. WP:NFCC#8. Reading all the arguments as well as taking a look of the relevant portions of the usages with fair use rationales, the case for contextual significance was not made, i.e. no one made a compelling argument that the picture was absolutely positively necessary for understanding of the concepts presented. As WP:NFCC is a policy with legal considerations, I will not close a deletion discussion in such a way that violates that policy. If this were a free image, this would have been an easy keep, but as a non-free image, it is subject to strict criteria, and must meet all of them to remain. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Refimprove!!!

Are you sure this change is OK? The template was marked as deprecated but I find no discussion on the subject and till now the trend was to use the subject specific templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

See for example {{Unreferenced section}}, {{BLP unsourced section}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely sure that the change I'm making is okay. This process is only removing the specific deprecated template and replacing it with what the template says its designated replacement is. I'm not worried about the other tags that you mentioned, because they're not deprecated. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the discussion that the template is deprecated? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Template_talk:Ref_improve_section#Merge_to_.7B.7Brefimprove.7D.7D. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion took place in 2009 and didn't have much support. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking of opening a centralised discussion on subject specific templates. Can you please postpone your edits for a day or two? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what one has to do with the other. Additionally, I'm almost done, so I might as well finish. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A reason is that your version of AWB does one thing and the next release will be replacing back to Ref improve section causing edit wars. The next time an AWB bot will touch an article it will do the opposite of your work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I revoked your AWB access temporarily until the subject is cleared. Please check Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SchuminWeb_and_consensus_in_ref_improve_section. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you are proven correct, but I think we should be cautious on the matter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Another favor

Can you do me another favor? Can you move the List of Ministers of Defence of the Soviet Union to Minister of Defence (Soviet Union)? If so thanks! Regards. --TIAYN (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. However, you should also consider building out the article further, to include information about the histories of the various positions, similar to what's at Secretary of State for Defence. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Due to the large amount of photos owned by Associated Press were uploaded to Wikipedia. I suggest creating a new page Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Photos of Associated Press for a well organized discussion about the rationale of these files rather than scatter the opinions in separate FFD pages. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am split on this matter. On one hand, a mass-nom would handle them all at once and get a single consensus. On the other hand, I'm concerned about lumping too many of these things together, out of concern that the discussion will end as a no consensus on account of the images' being too numerous or something along those lines, and then having to list them out individually anyway. I personally lean towards individual listings, because those treat the individual files as individuals, and particularly for non-controversial ones, it could be very open-shut. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, what's your opinion on reasons like "critical to the subject" and "irreplaceable" (in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 12#File:Tianasquare.jpg) that the keepers oppose? I'm not sure if these rationales could override NFC about "Respect for commercial opportunities" and AP's letter to WP. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm here about your nomination for deletion of File:The Falling Man.jpg. From the little bit I've read here, there seems to be a larger issue involved. However, the nom itself doesn't give any information as to why the file is being considered for deletion. As I don't recall running across you before, I half expected your edit history to include little more than complaints that the image is "disturbing" (which it is) or "inappropriate". Unless there is an issue involved that I am unaware of, this one is a clear fair use case (the article is about the photograph, not an event). Assuming there are other noms out for this case, if they have no rationale given, they might need notes explaining the situation. My !vote on this file was a speedy keep based on failure to present an argument for deletion. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted David Lee Powell Entry

I noticed that the David Lee Powell page had been deleted because it "doesn't assert" that the individual is worth noting, or words to that effect. I followed the link from the Lucinda Williams page, where it states:

David Lee Powell petition

"Williams's website featured a petition by Amnesty International to stop the execution of David Lee Powell in Texas. Powell was convicted in 1978 for the shooting death of 26 year old Austin police officer Ralph Ablanedo during a traffic stop. He was tried twice since the death penalty came in to effect and was sentenced to death both times, in 1991 and 1999. Powell was executed by lethal injection on June 15, 2010.[6] Williams's website stated it was cruel and unusual punishment for Powell to serve a life sentence and be executed afterwards. She wrote a song in honor of Ablanedo and stated that the proceeds would be donated to Ablanedo's family."'

I personally don't know Mr Powell from Adam's off aunt, and have no opinion on the Amnesty International petition, nor on Lucinda Williams' involvement in the case, but it would seem that it generated sufficient controversy and heat that it might be relevant to persons interested either in the history of capital punishment in the USA or in Ms Williams, and the fact that he was tried twice and executed after serving a "life sentence" for his crime seems notable, at least. If you tell me about it, I'd be glad to clean up the article a bit, but have no present clue what it said, since it's gone.

Thank you,

Lee-Anne (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)