User talk:SchuminWeb

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. You will receive no response if you comment in any of these places. 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.

If you are writing discuss an article that was speedily deleted, please read the criteria for speedy deletion first, specifically the one that is cited in the deletion log for the deleted article.

WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity

Hello! Just a curious question! It isn't my picture, but I put a picture in this article and I think it's really relevant but you buried it towards the bottom where another picture already exists. Before I move it back up I wanted to discuss why you did that? It seems quite applicable to the theme of that article so not sure why you would like to push it down? Thanks for your opinion! Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I put the photo down lower because I'm hoping for a picture similar in tone to the one we used to have. The photo that you added (which is a great shot, by the way) seems to me to be a bit too "charged" for an above-the-fold photo. We used to have one that showed a variation on this sign, which was a little less jarring for a top image, and that's what I'm hoping to put in that spot up above. We lost that older image, by the way, due to licensing concerns (darn!). I'm all for keeping the image you uploaded, however, since I believe it's a great shot. Just not where you had it is all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to sound too aggressive here, it's not my intention, but aren't you being a bit POV to decide what is "charged"? The pepper spray is a historical fact, it isn't trying to brainwash the article or anything. So unless you can offer a better argument for pushing it down, I'm going to put it back up in the lead in. It's historically relevant and helps the reader to connect with the content of the article. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Talkback!

Hello, SchuminWeb. You have new messages on WT:TW/RFA.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

NY Ave as B35

I agree that talking to the train operator is original research, but I thought that checking with Customer Service was a step in the right direction. I originally called, but told them that I would like something in writing as to the correctness of the information. Is there any way that I can use the response (even putting the email up onto the web?).

Also, do any of the other station have where their RTU information comes from? I appreciate that a high standard may be needed, but I'm not sure the other stations have it either. :( I'm adding this page for watching if you want to respond here, or you can respond at my talk page as you think appropriate.Naraht (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We went by John Cambron's information, at his site. Not the world's greatest source, but better than a discussion forum. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I went looking on how to file the equivalent of a FOIA request to WMATA yesterday. Still trying to figure it out though.Naraht (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a directory

While Wikipedia is not a directory. I think you go to far in edits like this. Please desist, pending discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_directory_taken_to_excess. Thank you.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people view these edits as perfectly valid as well. In addition, these go along with WP:V, since these lists have NO citations on them whatsoever, and they also contain a lot of original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure some do - but until consensus is reached, the status quo should pertain,; not least to prevent the effort of restoring all the data, should your view not prevail. I note with some sadness that you've ignored my polite request for a temporary cessation of your mass deletions of content. including the removal of some with citations. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to keep the former locations of department stores. Perhaps instead of deleting them, a tag can be added asking that citations be found. --DangApricot (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Add me to the list of Wikipedians who was offended by these edits. I think you are reacting negatively to content formatted as an embedded list rather than as text. (For example, the list-format content you removed from Miller's of Tennessee included some sourced material about former locations of the stores, yet you left an unsourced factoid that was in sentence form.) Please try to think of this material as incomplete content still in a primitive outline-like format. I've revised Miller's of Tennessee to put the removed content in a paragraph format. Please don't plow through articles removing good content merely because it is in an embedded list format -- that just discourages contributors who find it difficult to write paragraphs. --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice sought

Hello, i have the book at home to varify the citation need for the RMS Queen Elizabeth article but i am not sure how to do it!

I would appreciate it if you could tell me how to add this to the article?

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Use {{Cite book}}. Takes care of all the grunt work for you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do - thanks!

msa1701 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Image workshop: Maas Brothers store

Hi, I did retouch the image (removed the traffic light and the lady) but it seems the image have no source information and it is uploaded only in en wikipedia. Please complete source information and verify the copyright status of this images, then I can upload the retouched image to the Commons.   ■ MMXX^talk  14:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the user probably took it himself and scanned it in, but just to be certain, I've left a message on the original uploader's talk page to that effect, and hope to hear from them before too long... SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the original uploader (BaronPlourde) respond to your message because he/she never replied to anyone and he/she did not contributed since March 17, 2008, it seems he/she is only interested in Maas Brothers, I think we should deside whether to keep this images or delete them or we can simply wait to hear from them.
For your information there are two other images like this (Image:MAAS BROS 02-00-1991-002.jpg and Image:West Shore.jpg) probably both are scan, and all of these three images are on en wikipedia since October 8, 2006.   ■ MMXX^talk  14:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ben, I have an idea for a new Image copyright tag (if it don't exist already) ; There are lots of files on different wikimedia projects that they don't have a satisfying copyright status but they were on here more than two or one years, for example this file was uploaded to wikipedia on October 2006 and since that time no one has claimed its copyright, no one deleted it and no one completed the copyright status;
The idea is to give these files a temporary 'Fair use' / 'Non-free' copyright tag until someone can verify the copyright, the rules should be nearly same to Non-free content Policy, meanwhile if any one claimed the copyright, the file should be removed or we may be able to continue using it as 'Fair use'.
You are an administrator, so if you think this is a good idea we can also discusse it with other administrators, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use Participants and also on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. if we make this new tag we are actually giving permission to use (possible) non-free content on wikipedia and this may make legal problem for Wikimedia Foundation so we should discusse it carefuly with someone who now about copyright laws in US and other countries.   ■ MMXX^talk  09:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a little looking around, and I think the problem is that those kinds of images would have fallen under "GFDL presumed" but are not old enough, and Wikipedia's trying to move away from that. However, it might be worth a shot to propose, but considering it takes inspiration from non-free rather than free, I seriously question how far your proposal might get, though. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

So I'll move my request to Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags, I would like to ask you to participate in (possible) discussion. Thank you very much   ■ MMXX^talk  14:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

you can find it here.   ■ MMXX^talk  14:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Simpson's exterior from Today's Special.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Simpson's exterior from Today's Special.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Talkback!

Hello, SchuminWeb. You have new messages on WT:FRIENDLY.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ballston Common Mall edit

I noticed that you removed my addition to the Ballston Common Mall article on the grounds that it was "promotional material." The inclusion of the DC venue of the international theatre organization, ComedySportz, was written completely objectively and did not include any editorial language about the entity. Many mall articles mention major attractions, including in the aforementioned case of Ballston Common Mall: the Kettler iceplex and Regal Cinema.

This is a branch of a large organization and is a major draw/anchor of this particular mall. What separates it from Regal Cinemas or Kettler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanCole42 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC) DanCole42 (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No reliable sources cited. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Try these:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100711.html http://www.comedyindc.com/dreamer.htm http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2004/08/30/story8.html http://www.comedyindc.com/schtickinmud.htm http://www.comedyindc.com/offthecuff.htm

All reputable news sources that deem this a significant addition to the mall. I would be happy to list all of them as a source to this one sentence, but that might be a bit of overkill, don't you think? DanCole42 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Great work! Cite them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

Do not remove speedy tags from articles you have created yourself. If you are not prepared to establish proper context for DARPA TIPSTER Program then it deserves to be deleted. And cite your sources. (Hint - what organisation runs the program?) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create the article myself. I saw enough context - barely - to keep it. It identifies the organization as DARPA, which is a Defense Department agency. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Grovelling apologies. I think I saw two S... names and looked no further! However DARPA is not enough context (for a non-American) until you make it into a link. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry. Everyone makes mistakes. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is true

VocaLink

Hi Ben,

You have deleted my article without warning. I have tried very hard to meet the MANY rules and regs for submitting information and would appreciate some help to make this correct, rather than just deleting my hard work could you not be a little constructive? VocaLink is like BACS and Link and they remain on the site - why is this? I included links to other areas on the wiki which made the article informative and not advertising.

What do I need to do? Baden Cottage (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

VocaLink clearly met the criterion of G11, blatant advertising. You need to come back with third-party reliable sources in order to establish notability, and write the article in a neutral tone before resubmitting. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your help. Can you send me back the text you deleted so that I can work on it? Thanks Baden Cottage (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Userfied to User:Baden Cottage/VocaLink. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Tonle sap biosphere...

Gidday and peace. I agree with your speedy delete if the article was plagiarised. However, this is a genuine gap in Cambodia coverage. Therefore, leaving us the red backlinks (which were nicely referenced article additions anyway) created by the same author, would have caused no harm and encouraged those of us at the wikiproject to draft up a decent stub.

Also, user Srvandvoly who created the page only joined the wiki today. She/he could have used a welcome and some pointers on wiki-quette - not a copyright infringement smack down template. This person has made some very good edits. Remember we don't WP:BITE newcomers, especially with Twinkle :) --Paxse (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
For shame, and you a fellow welcoming committee member! Ben I'm shocked :> --Paxse (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's first clear the air, since not all that you attribute to me was my doing. Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve was correctly speedied as a G12, as a blatant copyright violation of this page. You correctly identified the deletion, as well as the removal of the backlinks (a byproduct of using Twinkle) as my doing.

However, the message on User talk:Srvandvoly was not my doing, and was the work of Strikeout Sister. So you'll need to take up the talk page message with that individual. I left no talk page messages related to the speedy deletion.

You mean you let someone else tag your victims :) that's kinda scary.--Paxse (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So all in all, I've gone ahead and self-reverted Twinkle's link removals, since after thinking about it, you're right. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Which just goes to prove that you are not only a Twinkle-master, but a nice chap as well - thanks! --Paxse (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

page deleted

I have a wikipedia "Luisa Fortes da Cunha" long time, but some days ago I've made a mistake because I don't work very good with wikipedia and I lost my page. Please can you put my page again that I have before (25 th october) I made changes. I'm a writer and I have a lo of people who read the page. thank you Luisafcunha (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a second look at the deleted page, and I have decided to decline to restore the page. It makes no assertion of notability whatsoever, and so the speedy was correct. Additionally, I highly encourage that you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before you attempt to recreate the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Subsidized housing article

Hello. User:68.40.143.123 is back on the Subsidized housing article. And commenting on my talk page with rubbish. Cf. Special:Contributions/68.40.143.123. :( What to do ... Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even get that far before I saw the need to re-block him, considering he blanked your message here, and so considering his history, I re-blocked him, this time for a month. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's all so unfortunate. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:SS America

My apologies, I should've checked to see whether the link worked before reverting what I thought was vandalism. Jammy (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Protests against the invasion of Afghanistan

Hi. I'm wondering if you could please take at least a little time to explain why you quickly deleted the external links twice for Protests against the invasion of Afghanistan without discussion. I took the time to carefully read the two different links you cited, Good Faith and WP:EL, and do not see why any of the four external links should get excluded, let alone all four.

Protests against the war are highly related to the casualties, both fatal and non-fatal, both civilian and military, of the war. Put it this way - if there weren't casualties, there quite simply wouldn't be the protests. They are central to the protests. The four external links are precisely about those casualties, fatal and non-fatal, civilian and military.

• The first link, Casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq is to a page on a news site that conveniently gathers in one place figures for casualties of the war. It provides a Sources and methodology section and cites its sources.

• The second link, The Afghan Victim Memorial Project, is to the website of Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire who is widely considered to have done the most comprehensive research into Afghan civilian casualties in the last seven years, and who is the academic source most widely cited on that issue.

• The third link, "War Against Terrorism" in Afghanistan, is to a page of research on Afghan casualties by Sarah Meyer, a researcher living in the UK. It puts together numerous facts, figures, details, and other research on the issue with links, citations, footnotes.

• The fourth link, The Reality Page, is to a page by The Royal British Legion intended to show "the reality of the injuries being suffered by British service personnel on a daily basis" in Afghanistan. These are non-fatal casualties, but casualties nonetheless, and also a large reason for those that protest the war.

I don't see how these relevant external links warranted speedy deletion twice without discussion. I hope you recognize that I added these external links to the article in good faith, and implore you to lean toward inclusionism and not deletionism on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.223.187 (talk • contribs)

Let's discuss each one per WP:EL:

• Unknownnews.net: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms 'factually inaccurate material' or 'unverifiable research'."

• Afghan Victim Memorial Project: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject"

• War Against Terrorism: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority"

• The Reality Page: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject"

Please do not re-add these links without discussion on the talk page, or they will once again be reverted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not added the links back without discussion, and it would have been nice if you had offered that same courtesy before deleting my contributions without any discussion in the first place.

• Casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq: Could you please specify exactly what factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research you object to on that page? As is, your objection is still completely vague and unsubstantiated.

• The Afghan Victim Memorial Project: Casualties of the war, especially civilian casualties, are the primary reason for protests against the war. If there weren't casualties, there wouldn't be protests and there wouldn't be this article. This is directly related to the article's subject.

• "War Against Terrorism" in Afghanistan: This research page may be hosted at indexresearch.blogspot.com, but it is far more research than blog. From the Wikipedia page on inclusionism: "Inclusionists call for retaining more content, for higher tolerance of "stub" articles, and for an acceptance of notable blogs and other Web-based sources."

• The Reality Page: Casualties of the war, including non-fatal casualties, are the primary reason for protests against the war. If there weren't casualties, there wouldn't be protests and there wouldn't be this article. This is directly related to the article's subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.180.32 (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome messages

Thanks for the welcome messages...but they are really not altogether that necessary. Barnabas Brown (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night

Hi, why did you remove the "In Popular Culture" section of the Guy Fawkes Night page on Sept 13th 2008?

Kinga01 (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section because these entries are only barely related to Guy Fawkes Night. Whether they should be discussed in the encyclopedia at all is really not the issue here. Whether they should be discussed there is the issue, and no, that's not the venue where they should be discussed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Graphics Lab

Hello, SchuminWeb. A reply to your request at the Graphics Lab has been made.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Graphics reply}} template.

• 18:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Valley Mall (Harrisonburg)

I have nominated Valley Mall (Harrisonburg), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Mall (Harrisonburg). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I should trout you for using your own blog as a source here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous Questions/Responses

Hey there. When will previous questions/responses from late september and early october be archived or posted somewhere? I'm trying to locate something during that range, but can't find anything in your archives. Thanks. sethdillon (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC).

Chris Lukezic

Hi. I think it might have been unclear what I was doing with Chris Lukezic. User:Allo002 had moved this article about an American runner to a title with the Slavic diacritics that may have been used by the runner's ancestors in Europe but that have nothing to do with the way his name is spelled now. I had moved the article back to Chris Lukezic and was looking to have the Slavic spelling deleted permanently—perhaps harmless as a redirect, but truly unlikely ever to be used by anyone. It looks like you interpreted my request as making way for a move to the Slavic spelling and re-made that move. Could you please move the article back to the English spelling and delete the Slavic spelling?—Largo Plazo (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

All set! Thanks for clarifying. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!—Largo Plazo (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Justin Marler set to auto delete

I am curious why there are no articles about Justin Marler and why articles about him are set to auto delete. I want to submit an article about him but I can't because of this. He meet all notable criteria, and is in fact notable as he was a founding member of Sleep, one of the founders of Stoner Rock music. In addition he is a published author who has had a tremendous impact on the lives of many through his writings. Adiostexas (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Justin Marler article was speedily deleted more than a year ago because no assertion of notability was made on two earlier articles by that name. Also, to clarify: Wikipedia does not have an "auto delete" function. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I am amazed at how Wikipedia works. Anyway, there may be some confusion about the article I submitted. I am not the author of the two prior deleted articles. I wrote an article today that was flagged for delete. I don't know what the prior articles included, or why they didn't meet inclusion criteria. However, I did include sources and references in the article I submitted today. Susan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiostexas (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DAWN Epilogue

Hi Schumin,

I just added a small detail about DAWN's link to the Maryland State Police spying scandal (I also added a bit to the MSP entry as well), but somehow the list of references disappeared! Uhoh, what did I do wrong? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteinDC (talk • contribs)

I think everything is fixed? I noticed nothing unusual in the article that indicates that a large error was made to cause something to not appear. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

WHY!

Why did you just move all those pages? A bot and a script depends on them being located where they were. The script is now broken and unusable. MBisanz ^talk 06:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted to the FurMe main talk page about moving it to the Wikipedia namespace, got no objections after about nine days, and therefore presumed that it was okay, and made the move. It still seems a good idea, though, and I did not realize that the move would break the script. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well thre are redirects now, but since AWeenieMan is inactive, I'd advise against moving the pages back to the Wikipedia space since I don't know how to change his code to work off of new pages. MBisanz ^talk 20:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't be too hard to overcome, since it's in the same family of scripts as Twinkle and Friendly. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

RMS Lusitania

I note your recent change to RMS Lusitania. From on line passenger lists, we can see that DUNSMUIR, Mr. James A., Jr. was aged 21. [1] Have you a reference that he was a soldier? ClemMcGann (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to cite that page with the person in question... SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my edit - have you a cite for the soldier? - ClemMcGann (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

More image questions

Hello SchuminWeb. I posted this message to a user who has uploaded a number of images with questionable claims of right or permission. I'm not sure what to do (nor am I an administrator) but the problems seem to be continuing. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've warned Aquitania twice about uploading images with questionable copyright claims. I'm losing my patience for Aquitania's practices, but it seems that despite the multitude of notices, they still have no clue. I believe they're working their way towards a block, but they're not there yet, and I feel badly about having to walk them through the steps, since I honestly believe that they are editing in good faith. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle question

There is a date/time issue that has come up and is being discussed on the Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletionCategory page. As Twinkle has been brought up as the possible cause of the issue I think you might want to take a look and offer input. Thanks! Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but the actual programming of Twinkle, which is what that discussion seems to be about, is out of my domain. I highly recommend dropping a note about this to AzaToth and Ioeth, as they would be capable of offering insight on how Twinkle is actually programmed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory

I noticed recently that you deleted significant content from the AM&A's, Franklin Simon & Co., and Proffitt's entries listing former locations. There are probably other entries that you carried out this action on too. These sections took me and others a great deal of time and effort to compile and are a basic source of research material for those conducting research on defunct department stores. I am wondering why these sections were deleted without notification and what rule is being violated by having these sections included? It would have been helful to have a discussion before single handedly deleting what I would consider a basic research resource on these former department stores. As a historian of business, to know what something was before what it is now is extremely useful in tracing business and local history.--Pubdog (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and revived this discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Ted--Pubdog (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

SDS Members list

I would welcome discussion on the decision to remove the members list I initiated on the entry for Students for a Democratic Society. SDS was a large group, and so I only highlighted prominent members, many of whom have their own biographical entries on Wikipedia. If your concern is about length, I would be receptive to you initiating a child entry for the member list. I would, however, like to link the organizational entry to the members of the organization as they appear on Wikipedia.--Historytrain (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to list notable members, let's list it as a separate dedicated section (not a "See also"), and make sure that there are no redlinks. Such a long "see also" section added all at once with half of it as redlinks was more than I could handle. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Very rad meeting you! Your email's not enabled--email me at delldot at gmail. Do you like coffee? 05:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

MAGHOUND entry deletion

Thank you for sending me the link [[2]] with additional detail regarding guidelines for posting. Your guidance is appreciated. It is certainly not my intention to post Wikispam. In fact, I read other live Wikipedia articles that describe similar fee-based membership services as MAGHOUND. I attempted to model this entry by those postings, which also include: corporate history and structure, consumer pricing, business partners, product inventory, etc... I also tried to draft this language to be as neutral as possible. I believe it's fair to say that all of the points in this article are verifiable facts and not advertising spin. Can you please provide some specifics regarding what you find objectionable? Is it the content or tone? I'm eager to make any changes you deem necessary, but based on many of the other articles that I've read, I'm not sure which changes to make.

Biztechwriter (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)