User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 25
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)
You reasonably enough deleted this as an expired prod; however I found multiple good RSs, and undeleted. See [1] for background. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent that you found reliable sources for the article! I'm going to claim TL/DR on the ANI discussion, though. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
You've been following? Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Kinda sorta. Looks like at least one article may now pass muster, but the others still need work, and some of the comments are WP:ITSNOTABLE without further explanation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can we narrow the field a bit, then? Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, I do not withdraw AFDs. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that you speedily deleted this despite the clear claims of importance/significance, i.e. starring roles in multiple films. Please reconsider. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I looked again and determined that the subject does clear A7. However, I have left the BLP PROD tag in place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation with no proof
I know what to do if I see a page that I know is violating copyright. But what if it's a huge mess that just seems as if it is violating copyright but I have no proof? Such as the entirety of Manly Daily. See the link at the bottom, I think someone copied it right out of a non-fiction book. Not cool. Lots42 (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I rolled it back and indicated exactly why I was rolling it back - suspected copyvio and unreferenced to boot. No one says you can't remove it when that little voice tells you it's more than likely a copyvio. Especially in this case, when, after locating the edits where the material was added, I discovered that the entire block was added at once, plus it was the editor's first edit ever. Put two and two together and I have enough reason to roll it back on intuition. I won't speedy delete on intuition, but I will roll it back. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Australian Association of Live Steamers
An editor is questioning your deletion of Australian Association of Live Steamers (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Australian_Association_of_Live_Steamers). In reviewing it, I'm seeing a good faith claim of importance, namely "The Association is probably the first truly national association of live steamers in the world." I'm going to be bold and undelete it, but if you have an objection feel free to drop me a line and we can discuss it. (No objection to it going to AfD if you think notability isn't there -- I haven't taken a look at that, only the importance issue.) Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
GlassesDirect
Hi - I wrote an article on this company as part of an overview of the UK retail opticians sector. Your claimed reason for deletion was CSDA7.
This is incomprehensible to me as (and the article stated all of these things) GD is the major player in the UK online optical sector, forced a change of strategy by the major players in the market. probably the only interesting retail optician likely to get a floatation, the project of a guy who is almost certain to become a UK cabinet minister (he's already a senior government advisor, one of the closest friends of prince willian or harry - not being a teenage girl I can't tell them apart), and one of the few profitable UK based internet retailers. Also you've left the articles I wrote on the UK optical sector and its major personalities with an irritating orphaned link to the GD page, which they rely on. Thus messing up a collection of articles on a multi-billion dollar industry that is far too boring for anyone to usually write about. (I wouldn't have done unless I'd done the research already.) And, much. much, MUCH worse, ruining the story of one of the [b]funniest[/b] business feuds I've ever heard.
(If I can make a suggestion to an obviously hard-working fellow wikipedian - always remember that this is hypertext you are editing, and be extra careful about deleting articles that are relied on by others.)
Otoh, an analyst I barely knew got my phone number off a mutual friend (my number yet - not even email!) and phoned me to complain that the article was gone. Ok, it was a complaint, but it still shows that people in the real world use wikipedia for important stuff, not just looking up anime characters and cheating on homework. I feel so validated that I might come back and start the series on the UK waste disposal and land management industries that I was planning! It was an even better feeling than one of the other "optical" articles being featured on wikipedia's front page.
So I'll restore the article tomorrow and check in one my user page for a few days in case you want to talk.
PS Really nicely word user page blurb - very non-confrontational.