User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 7

User:SchuminWeb/Talk template Please leave any Wikipedia-related messages to me on this page. Please do not contact me via The Schumin Web, Email, instant messenger, or any other private communication venues for matters regarding Wikipedia. I will be happy to discuss issues related to Wikipedia with you on my Wikipedia talk page, or any other Wikipedia venue. Likewise, please do not use this talk page to discuss my personal Web site and non-Wikipedia-related matters. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Deletion of Quiksigma

The article titled Quiksigma, which you apparently deleted, was a simple, neutral, informative statement. I believe it's something that Wikipedia readers might want to research.

I was trying to be considerably less commercial than the entry for Minitab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denton (talk • contribs)

The article was tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, and was subsequently deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So, under the same rules, are you going to delete the entry for Minitab? It has been there for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denton (talk • contribs)

I haven't seen a response from you yet. If the entry for Minitab is OK, why is a much less commercial entry for QuikSigma not OK? Do we have the same rules for everyone?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denton (talk • contribs)

No one has tagged Minitab for speedy deletion yet. I'm not hunting for candidates, just processing the list of articles that others have nominated. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of ClickTime

I have never seen the previous entry for ClickTime... I started an article on it yesterday, didn't even get a chance to expand it, and it got deleted because it was a copy of something that I have never seen? Anyway, it doesn't really matter to me that it got deleted. I am just a bit frustrated that Wikipedia doesn't have a button for "Save but not Publish," because really, what are people supposed to do when they start an article? It is hard to fully finish an article in one sitting, but there is only three button available - "Save", "Show Preview", and "Show Changes".

I am a Sophomore in college taking a marketing class. One of our projects was to assess the effect of the internet on consumer demand by analyzing a product that was affected. Our group chose to do timesheets. ClickTime was one of the first people to provide entirely web-based timesheet service, I thought that was interesting and I hope that people using timesheets in the future can know more about it's history. Afterall, timesheets did start off with paper. The information was hard to find for our group, and I believe that it will be even harder to find in the future if it is not documented.

Today, even companies from 1999 claim that they were the first to provide online timesheet service, but ClickTime was founded in 1997, entirely 2 years ahead, isn't this notable? So, instead of thinking that the year 1999 is the year that electronic timesheet went hosted, people will know that it is 1997. There is currently no other place on Wikipedia that addresses this problem - even the "timesheets" page doesn't address it's history.

While I think that Wikipedia really do need strict adminstration, I also think that people should get a chance to finish they are working on before it is judged. I would still like to write about ClickTime in the light of history of timesheets if that is okay with you. Anyway, please let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilellieyo (talk • contribs)

It had already been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClickTime about whether or not to delete the article, and consensus was to delete. This was also marked in the deletion log. Recreating deleted material satisfies criteria G4. The fact that this article was deleted through AFD was visible to you when you created the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi SchuminWeb, I understand your concern. I did see that the previous entry was deleted when I visited the page, but the previous content was not displayed. At the time that I created the article, I felt that whoever wrote that article, and for whatever purpose (advertisement?) has nothing to do with me, since I have a different intention. G4 states that it must not have addressed the reason why it was originally deleted, and what I am trying to say is that I am writing the article for a different purpose, and upon completion, it would address the reason why it was originally deleted. It's not like I am going to advertise, I just want to put it down in the history of timesheets for people to reference in the future. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, and that is why I chose to come here to write about something I think should be documented before history itself forgets it. Can't you wait until I am done with the article to delete it? I was originally (since I started on it yesterday) going to finish it today, but I woke up and the article was gone, and I'm only asking permission to finish it up. Why is it that when I care to make Wikipedia better and more inclusive as a normal college student I have to be mistaken as some company trying to advertise? Although our identities are not known over the internet, I still feel tainted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilellieyo (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia disappoints me. People are not even allowed one more day to finish their entries when they request it. I don't think I'll try to add anything again... good luck to you in the future. See you! Lilellieyo 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Space Shuttle?

I don't understand why exactly my changes were identified as vandalism. nihil 11:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Jokingly referred to as a flying brick"? SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is even mentioned in another wikipedia entry: Shuttle Training Aircraft nihil 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Or so much the better, in a NASA article: [1] nihil 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to cite it, in that case. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Surge

{{helpme}}

User will see new message header when he next log in and visit Wikipedia. No need to tell everyone else via {{helpme}} you want an answer from him. Thanks! KTC 00:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"An title cannot redirect somewhere when it is already on that title"

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. What's wrong with having "Surge redirects here?" I put that there so people would know that "Surge" would redirect to that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelliguy (talk • contribs) 00:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That didn't come out right when I wrote it. Basically, a title cannot be a redirect and a full article at the same time. "Surge" doesn't redirect to Surge. The article is on Surge directly. Thus it's wrong to say "Surge redirects here" because it's inaccurate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free reduced images

Hi SchuminWeb! When you delete old revisions of rescaled unfree images, could you make sure you remove the {{non-free reduced}} from it? Otherwise it remains in the category. Thanks! :) ~ Riana ⁂ 08:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure - no problem. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning DISC Assessment

Ben, I am relatively new to wikipedia and have no intention of vandalizing your work. I made some changes to the "DISC Assessment" page because there was some misinformation on it. I removed your paragraph that stated: "In 1983, Dr. Sanford Kulkin, Ph.D., founded The Institute for Motivational Living, Inc., a training and publishing organization designed to help people communicate better and work together more effectively. As a licensed pastoral counselor, Sandy has trained thousands of pastors and counselors in the use of behavioral and consulting techniques. Because of his experience in behavioral understanding, he has become an internationally recognized expert in developing individual ownership of corporate goals through the use of DISC Assessments."

I have certified in DiSC and Extended DISC, two versions of the DISC Assessment and it is very misleading to refer to Dr. Kulkin and The Institute for Motivational Living, Inc. as anything more than a commercial site. From my understanding Dr. Kulkin was at one point an Inscape Publishing, formally Carlson Learning Company formally Performax distributor and he went off and started his own company and created his own version. Just so you know I do use and distributor both the Inscape and Extended DISC version and for some clients I will get them the TTI (Target Training International Version) through a colleague. It is important to realize the Marston never trademarked DISC and the DISC model and it was Geir who developed the first DISC assessment.

Also the footnote #1 in the article is to a commercial site and is really a reference that could or should be applied to your second footnote, Marston's book. I added a like to a White Page on the DiSC profile from Inscape Publishing in the discussion section of DISC Assessment.

I meant no harm just clarification.

Regards,

John C Goodman, MSOD, LCSW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Internalchange (talk • contribs) 03:33, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Okay, sure. I actually already agree with your changes to the article. Also, please see WP:OWN re: who "owns" these articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Cosby Show

hello i just want to say first hand i respect all the contributions you made to wikipedia and hope you add more but that edit i made was not for the sake of vandalism it was to add on to the statement where it tells you the first instance on swearing in the cosby show i was wondering what the other instance was so i decided to watch the pilot on youtube where it is split into three parts and at the very end at the episode cliff turns over to clair and to my hearing said oh shit so i thought this was the second swear word in the series so i decided to post it so people would know what the second was i ment now harm and i can prove it if you got youtube and type in the cosby show pilot part 3 and wait till the end when where cliff and clair are in bed you will see that it sounds like hes saying oh shit but if he isnt can please tell what he is saying and if so please exuse me and it was not an act of vandilsm so please dont consider it one please respond back. thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.31.98.172 (talk) 10:48, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was vandalism, without question. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it? The Cosby Show Pilot Part 3 of 3 uncut and unedited. Scroll to the 48 second mark and listen for yourself. I don't believe this "uncut and unedited" version is what aired, but I can see how a reasonable person might have believed in good faith that it was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clubjuggle (talk • contribs) 04:15, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

No doubt you missed this in all the ocmmotion yesterday. Did you get a chance to look at this? Thanks, --Clubjuggle 11:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically

Technically, you're wrong (you still missed the point about actionability), and why on earth could a page look "naked"? Are you aware that the vast majority of pages in Wikipedia namespace are not "tagged" in any way? >Radiant< 10:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANC

See User talk:Skeezix1000#?. I'm tryng hard to not be obnoxious here, but I honestly can't tell on what basis Radiant is claiming this is not an essay. Am I totally missing something? Skeezix1000 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Radiant appears to have a problem with WP:POL, which only became apparent at the very end of our discussion. He is pursuing that issue over there rather than at WP:ANC.Skeezix1000 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please edit MediaWiki:signupend

Can you please do me a favour? I'd like you, who is an admin, to edit that page, by adding a sentence saying that if the person who wish to register found that the desired name is already been registered, he/she/it may go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations to request for using that username, if that username has no log at all (Except user creation log). I make this request because once I've changed my name from Edmundkh, then re-register with that name. Now I'm regret for doing that, so I'd like to help the person who wish to register with that name.
Thanks for helping! --Edmund the King of the Woods! 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to politely decline on this one. I don't feel comfortable up and changing it without some serious discussion on the matter. I personally don't think that usurpation should be mentioned right in the initial signup process, but regardless of what I think, it really needs to be discussed first. Go to MediaWiki talk:Signupend and bring it up and see what others think. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?

[2] [3] and other edits using TW. There are no problems with the images. They look fine and are tagged properly. Is there a bug in TW? or what's going on? --Aude (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working on clearing out an all-image category and moving it to its proper place on Commons. First step was to clear out some "shell" pages that people had created for images from Commons just to populate the Wikipedia category. I speedied those as I2 (empty image) using TWINKLE, and that automatically removes the links. I thought I'd rolled back all the unlinking, but I see I missed one. Thanks for letting me know. So basically, nothing wrong with the images, just doing a little housekeeping. Thanks for keeping me on top of things. Tomorrow I'm going to start moving images to Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Please just make sure everything is on commons, so nothing is lost. Thanks for cleaning up the category. --Aude (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Definitely don't want to lose anything. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Gene Shalit.gif

Replaceable fair use

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 17Drew 07:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete away. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "redboy"

What do you think you are doing to the Redboy article? Myself and a friend were in the process of improving it and adding references. I thought there was supposed to be a 'due process' period for issues like this when someone places a fecking {hangon} Johnjoecavanagh 10:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the {{hangon}} tag. It states, "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon. This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template." Therefore we reserve the right to still delete it if it obviously meets the criteria. I deleted it under A7, giving you the benefit of the doubt that it might on that off-chance be a real person, vs. the "patent nonsense" reasoning it was nominated under. It stays deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your actual problem with the page? It is in progress, so why delete it? Do you not have, oh I dont know, a life of something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.147.178 (talk • contribs)

Seriously, we were working on it... Thats why I made a message on the talkpage and put up the hangon. It is as relevant as the scanger article or bogeyman article. Johnjoecavanagh 11:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The person is real. I suppose you know the town of monaghan personally? Ridiculous. Your power is legenday. Think of your legacy on history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.147.178 (talk • contribs)

'we do not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia. As long as the a topic can be verified, then why not clean it up and include it? '

Your words sir. One thing has to happen here - either you remove that section from your bio or you restore our article. Johnjoecavanagh 11:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mind my manners says you? Oh, I'm so very very sorry sir, please accept my humblest of apologies. And thanks for putting stay cool as a link, I would never have understood what that meant without it. Thanks so very much again. And I must re-iterate, a thousnad apologies. You are a most sterling gentleman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.190.147.178 (talk) 13:18, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

So when are you going to restore our page? I had an explanation in the talk page - you obviously didn't look there because you like getting your kicks by blocking people for no reason. Johnjoecavanagh 13:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want an apology or something? The reason we were angry was because quite frankly you were being rude. An explanation was put up, but you deleted it anyway. I'm putting this page back up tommorrow if you haven't done it by then. Johnjoecavanagh 14:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why wont you reply and give us your reasons? Probably too busy chasing beautiful women I suppose. They're just too damn fast! laters Schumin. Reply when you get time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.147.178 (talk) 09:47, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Who did I attack tell me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.147.178 (talk) 10:29, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Dixie_Square_Mall_Interior.jpg

Replaceable fair use

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dixie_Square_Directory.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dixie_Square_Directory.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

speedy gon Shumi

don't you hate that, you've been on Wikipedia for 3 years contributing every three months or so an article or correcting something, and then one night you decide to sit down and write a new one. You put effort in to it and orientate yourself on an existing article e.g. PERI GmbH and then some speedy gon Shumi deletes your effort without researching whatever he is deleting. I think admins are a good thing, but such g&% $##m speedy gon Shumi’s are just plain frustrating. D$mm#t.

I guess Schumi you're just speeding to fast to take the time and ask whats up with an article. Now I ask you to slow down to gears backtrack and look at what you just deleted. Compare it with other similar articles. Then maybe you’ll find the decency to restore the article EFCO Corp..

--Lumber Jack second account 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedied under A7. With no references cited, the article was properly put out of its misery. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And who says I was finished?

--Lumber Jack —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:11, August 24, 2007 (UTC). )

Deletion of PUREDECAY

I feel your deletion of this article without discussion was unreasonable. As the article points out, the artist in question has been featured on several Uk indie releases and one US release, has received considerable airplay in Europe and provided soundtrack material to a film which is in production. One member of the band was also a member of an earlier critically acclaimed act with an international release and a great deal of press behind them. This was to be the first in a group of articles I was hoping to complete on the acts on the london rock scene, or at least those who have had music released for national/international distribution. The article cross referenced with related articles and where ever possible cited it's sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonkick (talk • contribs) 12:20, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Puredecay was speedily deleted under criteria A7, which is for "unremarkable" people, organizations, bands, and Web content. The article was nominated for speedy deletion by RHaworth, and I agreed, thus carrying out the deletion. The article cites no reliable sources to establish notability, and thus is subject to A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Propellerhead Software

This article was restored only yesterday by james086 after I requested that it be restored so I could work on it. I spent all day yesterday adding reliable references and the page became excellent. This page has been deleted before because it was a poor article; however, the page that has just been deleted was a good quality wikipedia article. I request that you re-restore this article.--Mrtombullen 16:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not restore the article. The article was previously deleted through Articles for deletion, and recreation of deleted content satisfies criterion G4. Additionally, another admin has salted the article, and I refuse to override the other admin. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

G4 states that articles which are "substantially identical" to the original article may be speedily deleted. However, I recreated the article from scratch - I think it was on 12th August, although I can't be sure because it's been removed from my contributions. As far as I know, the articles deleted before this were very short and poor quality. However, it would seem the article that I created and worked very hard on were simply not read, and assumed to substantially idential. The article was deleted, but restored. The article was then well referenced, but deleted again.

I have asked Ihcoyc, the admin who salted the page, to restore it as you said that you did not want to override his decision. I have given the reasons why the deletion was unfair on his talk page, although it would seem he has not been available to reply. I would appreciate it if you could take a look. If you agree with me but still do not wish to override another admin I will completely understand, however I would greatly appreciate your support on the matter. I do not consider the article at all abusive or misusing wikipedia, and as I have worked very hard on it I would really like to see it restored.

Thanks very much--Mrtombullen 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Restraint

Dear Ben Schumin,

In the most polite and sincere way that I am able to, I ask if it would be possible for you to assert more restraint by speedy deletions? --Lumber Jack second account 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And I sincerely second that. Johnjoecavanagh 22:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[Image:JMU Aerial view.jpg]

Hey Schumin, this image has been listed for IFD. Do you have time to look into this? The image comes from the historical photo collection at [4]. JMU copyright info is at this link: [5]. Could you e-mail them at library-special@jmu.edu and see what can be arranged? Either way, I still feel that the image falls under the fair use category per its inclusion solely in the "History" section of the article. --Strothra 22:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrysy?

'we do not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia. As long as the a topic can be verified, then why not clean it up and include it? '

Look, all I want is at least an apology for not giving us a little time to improve redboy, after I asked you specifically to do so. That sir, is not the actions of a gentleman. You need to show restraint. If your overzealous attitude that is sparking this: http://www.upetitions.com/petitions/index.php?id=195

Johnjoecavanagh 23:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)