User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 31

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Numbers#Numbers_as_figures_or_words

...your edit here doesn't note that the remainder of the sentence goes on to say "or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)". In the context of Wikpedia, that's distinguishing the integers from one to ninety-nine without introducing terms such as "integer" or "decimal fraction". Outside Wikipedia, it's easy to find more informative sources, which all give the same advice. TEDickey (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power Ranger screencaps

Fine, I get it. The ones on the individual color's pages are decorative. But the ones on Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies are not, as I have told you at least 2 separate times before. Leave the photos there. They are not decorative. They serve an encyclopedic purpose and that is the minimum onus for inclusion as fair use images.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are decorative, as they continue to fail WP:NFCC#8 - they are not the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article, nor are these particular images themselves notable. Non-free content has a very high standard to meet for inclusion, by design, and merely being encyclopedic does not cut it.

Additionally, your edit summary for your reversion was uncivil. Please refrain from that sort of conduct in the future. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of sourced critical commentary has never been a requirement for having a fair use image of any type within an article. There is nothing within WP:NFC or WP:NFCC that has this as part of the site's rules. And the use of these two images within the article is contextually significant, despite your constant accusations against the fact.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be seeking a wider audience for how to treat these images on all of the articles, as I have rescinded my agreement on how the images on the individual color's pages are decorative. Identification of fictional characters by means of a fair use image should be allowed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has been started at WP:ANI under the heading WP:ANI#Non-free image issue, but it may move once someone tells me if we have an NFC noticeboard.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crazy horse memorial

please reconsider [1]. non free 3D art. this was an old rationale that i expanded after nomination, and credit to sculptor. alternatively there are a dozen to choose from here [2] pick one. this is a notable sculpture worthy of one photo. Slowking4: 7@1|x 20:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted due to concerns about sourcing and attribution. Will not be restoring. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so what you're saying is, because he did not tag it "non free 3D art", then you cannot believe it's his own work? well, flickr replacement only slightly differing is now uploaded. [3]. what was the purpose of this exercise? Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what's your problem: it clearly had "Attribution: Mike Tigas" [4] do you want me to elevate this? Slowking4: 7@1|x 17:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sculptor needs attribution as well - not just the photographer, since this is a derivative work due to lack of FOP for sculptures in the US. Source that or else it will be deleted again. Additionally, your threatening tone of "do you want me to elevate this?" is uncivil. Please do not continue such behaviors. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily restored image speedily deleted again

Sorry to bother you, but the image File:Burj Khalifa view from Palace Hotel.jpg has been speedily deleted once again after Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) temporarily restored it specifically so I could work on its fair-use rationale. For the relevant discussion see: User talk:Astronaut#Deleted image and User talk:Jimfbleak#Deleted image disappeared rather quickly. Unfortunately, I have been on holiday and without internet access and only found out about this today. I'm back from my holiday now, so would it be possible to temporarily restore it again? Many thanks. Astronaut (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I have not violated 3RR on any of these pages because I have only made two total reverts, excluding the self reverting I did. The Goranger photo is not free to use, despite the claim that it was released in the public domain. But if you give me around fifteen minutes I can make something suitable using the File:Wikiranger.png templates.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about additions to multiple Massachusetts articles

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

This drama is over. I stand by my decision to block, and believe that this is was a properly-executed block for spamming. Herostratus can say whatever he would like to the blocked user, but I'm not unblocking anyone in this case, and that's the end of it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben. I just stumbled upon that fact that this editor ( User:Jm1106 ) has added the same link (made to behave local to a community) in many articles on towns in southeastern Massachusetts. To wit, see Special:Contributions/Jm1106. It feels like it's commercial, as these links are the only edits by this editor and seem to be fiddly. It appears like a thinly veiled mass mailing into WP articles. Any thoughts? If so, can any admin actions be appropriately taken? Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear... seems we have a spammer on our hands. Blocked. Going in to revert now... SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And reverted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for having a look and acting, Ben. It seemed clear but two sets of eyes are better than one, most of the time. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend you revert those edits back. The link placed in several of those articles I see - and, likely, in all of them - are to southeastern Massachusetts' daily newspaper. This is especially troubling in so far as the editor said what he was doing in most of the edit summaries, and that an immediate indef block was slammed down on him for doing so. It's regrettable that neither of you seem to have attempted to contact the editor to ask what he was about, nor - as far as I can see - sought to determine through any inquiries whether the link had any validity. (Beyond that, I'm rather surprised that Wikiklrsc, whose edit history includes a number of southeastern Massachusetts-based topics, overlooked the probability that www.patriotledger.com is the site for the Quincy Patriot-Ledger) ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 03:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know The Patriot Ledger newspaper well. I didn't overlook that. The nature of the adds, and the multiplicity of the adds into so many southeastern Massachusetts articles, seemed odd given it was billed as "All You Need To Know" with a sub-page of the town. It's perfectly reasonable to cite The Patriot Ledger. It's quite respectable on the South Shore. But look at what was put into so many articles and why. No citation. Just a "All You Need To Know about (town)" and lots of pop-up advertisements, although there was some local information, kind of. That's why I asked Ben Schumin, whose opinion I've sought many times over the Wiki-years, to have a look and tell me what he thought or could do, if anything, about it. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this seemed a clear case of spamming to me, and I'm going to stand by it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me this: 'what is he spamming? Is he spamming the papers themselves? If that's your position, that's crazy. I often add links to the local papers for articles on small towns. Should we not do this, on the ground that it increases the papers' visibility? So what? The same criteria could be applied to any link to the New York Times or any other commercial entity. Right? If your position is that he's spamming a particular product that is advertised by these papers, color me dubious and please, tell me what the product is? Look, we all make mistakes, fine, we're all busy, let's set this right, OK? Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are spamming the newspaper, specifically their "Answer Book" section. Newspapers are great for cites, but when you're adding a link like that en masse all over the place that drops to a page basically advertising the newspaper, you are spamming. Doesn't have to be an enlarge-your-you-know-what ad to be spamming. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facts: Upon reflection, Ben stands by his block and revert decisions as an English Wikipedia administrator whilst Herostratus has prolifically apologized to the user on the user's talk page ( User Talk:Jm1106 ), and also Herostratus has re-inserted the link back into the Hingham, Massachusetts article. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

What's the deal with User:Jm1106?

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

See above discussion close. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with User:Jm1106? I see that he added (what looks to me to be) a perfectly useful and acceptable link at Hingham, Massachusetts, here. Maybe I'm missing something, but a quick look indicates that the link 1) contains cogent and useful information, and 2) is published in the Patriot Ledged, a respected paper in a small city (Quincy, Massachusetts) that goes back to 1837 (or 1916, depending on how you count).

Not only that, but you blocked the user for adding (what, not having checked, I assume to be) similar links in a number of articles. How about giving the guy a note of thanks instead of a no-warning permablock, hm??

Granted, these edits were apparently tagged by a robot as "Tag: repeated addition of external links by non-autoconfirmed user", and while I for one welcome our new robot overlords, the robot didn't make the block; you did, for "spamming or advertising". I recognize that the Patriot Ledger is a commercial, for-profit enterprise and the links may even contain ads, but... this is also true of the New York Times, The Econmist, and so forth. Are we not going to be allowed to link to these entities now, or what?

Maybe I'm missing something, and if so I'm willing to be educated; but if I'm not, don't you think a reversal of the block, a restoration of the links, and an apology and explanation to the editor is in order, along with maybe a expression of thanks for his contributions?? Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I hadn't seen the above thread, where apparently you're declining to set this right. Wrong answer. Herostratus (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reply to your message concerning mu message on twinkle page

As you know I am new and just find my feet my article which I have extensively corrected is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_sexual_jurisprudence and some others which you can check out from my talk page. First I went to twinkle page as it was what I thought was the area to respond in as the page of the article said it needed major clean up by an expert. I felt I could assist. If I am on wrong pages or doing things wrong I happily will mend my ways.Mhakcm (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you added material in good faith, though you were reverted due to lack of citations on the new material. See WP:V and WP:CITE for more on why it's necessary to cite sources, and how to do it well.

As far as the venue goes, every article has a talk page associated with it. Thus if the article is called "Foo", the talk page for said article would be "Talk:Foo". Thus for Islamic sexual jurisprudence, you would go to Talk:Islamic sexual jurisprudence to discuss improvements to that article. For tools like Twinkle, the talk page is generally used for discussion about improvements to the tool itself, i.e. if Twinkle is malfunctioning or what have you, or suggestions for a new feature for Twinkle.

Let me know if that makes sense, or if I need to clarify some points. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that makes sense, but I need clarification on what is twinkle and what is it for?Mhakcm (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Twinkle is a collection of user scripts that allows editors to revert vandalism, warn users, nominate pages for deletion, place maintenance tags on articles, place tags on images, and a few other things that I'm probably not remembering at the moment. More complete information about the tool can be found at Wikipedia:Twinkle, and the easiest way to add Twinkle for your use is by going to your preferences, going to the "Gadgets" tab, checking the box for Twinkle, and then saving your changes. It's a very powerful tool, and very useful to have around. I think I've been using Twinkle for about five years now, and it's a really big help. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You probably want to know that you are being discussed on ANI here.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised about this one. Thanks for letting me know. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly request

Would you consider listing yourself at Wikipedia:Administrator review? You've been an admin for four years now, it'd be beneficial to get some feedback on how you're doing, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I sense a user who has an axe to grind about an administrative action I made that he disagreed with, and I'm not about to be that person's grindstone. Get over it, already. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, your call. I'm not as concerned about any particular admin actions as your refusal to consider or discuss them, and in the most inflammatory terms possible. I don't know you and don't much care how you treat me, but if this is a pattern then that's a problem for various reasons, in my opinion. This is what I'm trying to determine.

Since you don't want to undertake administrator, review, I don't expect this next suggestion to meet with your approval, so I suppose this is a formality, but: I propose to nominate you for WP:RFA. Since you're already an admin, this would be a reconfirmation RfA. Do you accept? And if not, will you accept on the signature of six editors (each having over 500 edits and over one month of tenure) petitioning you to do so? (You're not in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall, but if you were this would be the default standard for triggering a reconfirmation RfA). Since you're not in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall you don't have to accept, but you can if you like. You've nothing to fear from this process if your admin career has been OK, determining which would be the point of this exercise. Herostratus (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am finished playing your little game. So, no. STOP HARASSING ME. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hear you loud and clear. Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tathva

I see that you have recently deleted the article Tathva. Well, i know that the article was so poorly written that it did not even assert its notability. It is the technical festival of a premier NIT. All Other NITs have article on their techfests (Engineer (Technical Fest), Technozion to name a few). None is more or less notable than the other. Either you have to undelete the Tathva article and let me improve it or act by the same principle on the other articles on same line. Let me know what you think.

PS: I know you were acting on a PROD and not solely on your judgment.

Arjun^codename024 11:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a proposed deletion, the article is restored on reasonable request, and so it is done. There's actually a lot of material in that deleted article! I'd say you have your work cut out for you. I'm guessing there will probably be a bit of pruning to do. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will get to the article once i get time. Arjun^codename024 19:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AKEV

The article for AKEV was deleted. I disagree with your decision and would like to reinstate the article. AKEV is an established organization for breastfeeding promotion in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and a few other countries of the former USSR. The article for this type of an organization as well as the field itself was comparable or above the standard for a typical article of this sort. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_West_%28lactation_consultant%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Alliance_for_Breastfeeding_Action, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Leche_League, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Breastfeeding_Association, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactation_consultant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rose_Tully.НаташаВ (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly fit the A7 speedy deletion criterion, having made no assertion of notability. I will not be restoring. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective call. There was evidence presented on the sujbect albeit probably not in the language you can read or assess. AKEV is no different from WABA, LLLI, ABA or similar organizations in the West. Per notability article deletion is the last resort. You should ssk the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources. Place a notability tag on the article to alert other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the expert-subject tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online. Please reconsider.НаташаВ (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image size reduction

Hi there. You recently tagged a file with {{non-free reduce}} or {{reduce}} that was, in fact, within acceptable size for fair use images. Standard practice places the maximum size at 160,000 pixels, which is 400x400 in a square image. However, 500x320, 600x266, etc. are also 160,000 pixels, and are acceptable. DASHbot, the program that does almost all image resizing, actually won't even bother with files that come out to less than 160,000 pixels, so chances are low that the files will ever be reduced anyways. If you really want a file smaller than 160,000 pixels reduced, you can do it easily with the free program Paint.NET (what I use), or ask me directly.

Just letting you know for the future, Sven Manguard Wha? 14:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Highway Police Vauxhall Monterey.jpg

Please consider undeleting this file until it has gone through the full process of {{subst:nsd}}... as it stands, the uploader at English Wikipedia doesn't have any way of knowing what the file name is on Commons or how to source it properly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]