User talk:Summer Vacation
Now that I have everyones attention, I would like to make a point about respect. The procedure here at Wikipedia is to destroy and justify. Not a single person asks the author first, or tries to reach a consensus about a large change first, prior to undoing a lot of work. Do you people really understand the impact that this has on an author or someone who is trying to help clean up Wikipedia. You slap someone in the face, and then expect them to say thanks. SchuminWeb and Themeparkgc know that I posted my purpose and scope on my user page first, and they could have contacted me at any time about the changes that I made. I also made it clear that what they are doing is arbitrary and that the rules are not being applied evenly, especially in summer camp and amusement park articles. All of these articles are ads, and have no educational value whatsoever. Amusement park articles, like Adventureland_(Iowa), have surplus photos that should be deleted exactly as the Public Domain photos were deleted at Belvoir Terrace. Amusement park ride descriptions should be deleted exactly as the activities were deleted at Belvoir Terrace. This is absolute proof that SchuminWeb is targeting me, and vandalizing my work. The owners of Belvoir Terrace also contributed to the Wiki article, and SchuminWeb has vandalized their work as well. Make no mistake, Themeparkg will fight to the death to prevent any cleanup of amusement park articles from happening, since this is his hobby. A strict application of the rules would wipe out all amusement park, waterpark and summer camp articles, as they are nothing more than promotional ads. And they duplicate what is on the park website. And the photos are not educational. So, until you people get your act together, and show some respect for others, Wikipedia is not worth my time. Summer Vacation (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- AFAIK no public domain photos were deleted from Belvoir Terrace. Images of dubious copyright status were deleted. If you are able to get permission directly from the copyright holders to release the images under a free license, then it should be know problem getting them to email that permission directly to wikipedia, as you are asked to do when uploading photos. Also your claims appear inconsistent as you are now saying these photos are in the public domain but you earlier claimed they were released under a free license by the copyright holder (after it was pointed out your claim they were your own work wasn't true). By and large we don't delete surplus images except in some special cases, we may simply remove them from articles. However at all wikimedia projects, we take copyrights very seriously and generally are therefore not able to trust someone's word that they got permission of the copyright holder. In this particular case given your conflicting claims, I would also be concerned that it is uncertain precisely what license the copyright holder agreed to release their content under or whether they simply agreed to allow the content to be used on wikipedia but did not agree to release them under a free license (which would allow anyone to use them for any purpose including criticism and modifying them in any way they please; all without worrying about copyright issues). From experience I think many contributors can attest that many copyright holders while fine with allowing our use of their images are often far less willing to release them under a free license. And when they do, they usually have no problem with e-mailing us directly to give permission and fully understand our need to be certain we really have their permission. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you actually know what the hell you are talking about. Did I, or did I not, say that the owners of the summer camp edited the wiki article? They know that the photo has to be public domain to be on Wikipedia. Your subtle way of calling someone a liar, and your condescending attitude, and your failure to look at the history of the article to see who added input to the article, and your refusal to address the primary issue of vandalism by SchuminWeb, proves my point. The editors and administrators are all about destroy and justify. Respect for others is totally missing, which is why I take issue with the procedures at Wikipedia personal. BTW CC3.0 is the most restrictive, and it is what I used for Belvoir Terrace "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially." CC3.0 Summer Vacation (talk)
- The question is, do you? Commons cannot take CC3.0 licensed images - images on Commons must be available for all uses including commercial, and modification must be permitted. Images can be loaded to Wikipedia under more restrictive licenses. However, when you first uploaded all those images, you said that they were your work, which is just plain not true. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- In addition to what Elen of the Roads has said, there is no requirement for images to be in the public domain to be on wikipedia. Please note as I hinted at in my first post, there is a very big difference between content being in the public domain and being copyrighted but available under a free license appropriate for wikipedia. If you don't understand that, there are plenty of places which will explain that to you, I suggest you take a read of some of those resources before getting so worked up when people try to help you. There is no way we can know what the summer camp owners do or do not know about wikipedia copyright requirements, no any way we can guarantee they have actually edited anything unless they are willing to verify their identity thru the established means. This should be easy if they have already edited wikipedia and are already aware of these requirements so we can presume are already aware they are required to verify their identity thru the established means and also fully understand our copyright requirements. I presume when you say they fully understand the requirements you mean they understand we don't allow NC-ND and they also understand what public domain means. If they share the same confusion as you do, this demonstrates even more why it is imperative they themselves give us the appropriate permissions. P.S. I have no idea if you said the owners of the summer camp edited the wikipedia article. I only tried to help from what I read and I never said I'd read everything you'd said. I also have no idea what vandalism of SchuminWeb you're referring to. Again, I do hope you understand what vandalism is. Removing content you feel doesn't belong in an article is not vandalism and note this applies even if done against consensus. There is plenty of article editing which while unwelcome is not vandalism and I prefer it when the term is used correctly as I have often expressed before. It definitely doesn't help when people say something is vandalism when it's not even if that editing was unwelcome or unwarranted. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you actually know what the hell you are talking about. Did I, or did I not, say that the owners of the summer camp edited the wiki article? They know that the photo has to be public domain to be on Wikipedia. Your subtle way of calling someone a liar, and your condescending attitude, and your failure to look at the history of the article to see who added input to the article, and your refusal to address the primary issue of vandalism by SchuminWeb, proves my point. The editors and administrators are all about destroy and justify. Respect for others is totally missing, which is why I take issue with the procedures at Wikipedia personal. BTW CC3.0 is the most restrictive, and it is what I used for Belvoir Terrace "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially." CC3.0 Summer Vacation (talk)
March 2011[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)It has become clear to me that you are unwilling to edit collaboratively on Wikipedia right now. Your refusal to listen to others, your certainty that you are right and a dozen other people are wrong, your battleground mentality, and your aggressive reaction to every single person trying to help make it clear that you and Wikipedia are not a good fit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Summer Vacation (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have had a few spare minutes to look around, and I found an author that User:SchuminWeb pissed off, and who left Wikipedia with an excellent explaination User:Alkivar. I say Bravo and Ditto for me. I then looked at the history of SchuminWeb, and I am amazed that you people let this nut-case run rampant at Wikipedia. This is so damn funny it makes you wonder if everyone running this show is another SchuminWeb. This guy pisses people off with edits that are clearly destructive to the person, if not the article. He is like a nagging wife who eventually gets her head blown off. I remember a teacher who used to do this to students, and they finally fired her sorry butt. Perhaps those of you who supported SchuminWeb should read his history. And then re-read the page at User:Alkivar. I understand the need for civility, but you may want to investigate both parties first, and not assume that the long term Wiki-Freak is always right. I offer no apology to anyone. If you support a nut-case, then you are just as guilty of the damage that he is doing. He deleted the article for Camp ASCCA, a camp for children with special needs, just to piss me off. And I noticed that he has been accused of stalking other authors, as well as leaving remarks on their user pages that intentionally pisses them off. This guy is out of control, and I have no doubt that other Wiki-Freaks support him because they have the same psychological profile. What more is there to say? BTW, CC3.0 is one of the options when uploading a photo, and anyone can migrate a CC30 photo, and does not have to be the author. Wiki has conflicting rules, standards and procedures. Prior to correcting someone, please try it yourself. Summer Vacation (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Since you haven't addressed your block or the reasons for it, there's nothing here to review. Please, only use the unblock template if you're asking an administrator to review your block; if you want to discuss why you think some other user should be blocked, you can simply make your comments on the talk page with no template needed. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Summer Vacation (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
OK, let me put it another way. SchuminWeb, acting on his own and without consensus, vandalized a tremendous amount of work that I was doing to clean up the mess of over categorized articles. You will notice that he posted a note of what he thought about my effort, then 2 hours later announced that he had undone everything. Not only did he make certain that I would not have enough time to state why it was important to clean up the categories (I am not logged on 24/7), he then rounded up support for his vandalism after the fact; instead of reaching a consensus with patience and deliberation. The point is not what he did, but how he did it. He has a history of inciting anger by his approach to editing, and a history of vandalism and stalking. So, how do you expect people to react to this person? Not one single administrator offered to help me stop SchuminWeb, who then went on to vandalize ALL of my work. He tries to cover his tracks by quoting wiki rules that are not applied evenly amongst other identical articles. For example, he has not edited other summer camp articles to eliminate the list of programs as he did with Camp ASCCA. He uploaded a photo of himself to commons, which is certainly not educational or of value to Wikipedia. He only vandalized and deleted MY articles. The proof is absolutely crystal clear. So the hatred for SchuminWeb becomes hatred for Wikipedia and its administrators for allowing him to continue, and the proof is in his history and in the excellent user page of another one of his victims at Alkivar. Please take a look at what he is doing, and try to understand how you would feel if he did this to you. If you rounded up all of the people who are pissed off at him you would have a lynch mob, and I have a feeling that he loves the conflict and attention. He has the psychological profile of someone who edits articles just to get a reaction, and someone who has a total lack of creativity. I have written two books, and I build articles instead of tearing down the work of others. Which one of us does Wikipedia want? I do what I can to rescue articles from deletion. He does his best to destroy what he doesn't like with petty attacks on the writing style of others. If you do not believe me, read his history. I try to make Wikipedia more user friendly and he makes it more confusing. I have 35 years experience building user-friendly computer systems, and am now retired from the computer consulting business. So, if I do not get support in stopping lunatics like this, who have been repeatedly scolded by others at Wikipedia, then I will certainly NOT contribute anything more to Wikipedia. Again, I ask everyone to look at his history and see what he is doing and HOW he is doing it. My anger and disappointment with a few Wikipedia administrators is justified, and needs no further explanation.
Decline reason:
Again you have failed to address the reasons why you were blocked. Further inappropriate use of this talk page or the unblock template may lead to your talk-page privileges being revoked. EyeSerenetalk 12:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Summer Vacation (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yikes, how many times do I have to explain this. Contrary to what Floquenbeam stated, I was NOT blocked for continual disruptive editing. I changed the waterpark categories because it would result in a more user-friendly listing, simplify research, and encourage more cleanup of duplicate articles, and this was done in only one period of time, without any feedback from anyone. THEN, SchuminWeb vandalized my work. I did not revert what he did, nor did I knowingly engage in any disruptive editing. If 10 people get together and decide that they want 1.5 articles per category, then I will let it go. It is not important to me. What happened is that SchuminWeb then began stalking me and began vandalizing all of my work. He has done this before to others, and he will do it again. My editing is positive, creative and constructive. I was never disruptive. I was blocked because I got pissed off at SchuminWeb, and unlike others who have left Wikipedia because of SchuminWeb, I decided to fight back. That is why I was blocked. I have made a few mistakes along the way, as we all do. But my point here, and those of so many others, is the destructiveness in the criticism of authors by some editors and administrators. My intent is to improve Wikipedia by exposing people like SchuminWeb who are destructive instead of constructive, and who motivate people to leave in frustration. His vandalism and stalking of authors of articles absolutely fits the continual disruptive editing criteria. All that I did was respond to the abuse as best I could, but NEVER by attacking articles or the work of authors. Hence, there was absolutely no disruptive editing. If you want to punish a victim of abuse, then I truly think that Wikipedia has sunk to the lowest level possible. For example, instead of waiting for me to get an email authorizing a CC30 license allowing modification of photos, or possibly uploading alternative photos, your administrators deleted the photos and then deleted the article. That kind of destructive behavior violates the cooperative nature of Wikipedia, and is not civilized behavior. I objected to the HOW and not the WHAT. That is why I was blocked.
Decline reason:
Once again, you have failed to focus on your behavior and have instead shifted the blame to other editors. This will not get your block lifted. Since you have continued to blame others, despite warnings from others (above), it's only fair to warn you that posting similar unblock requests may lead to the loss of your ability to edit this page. TNXMan 14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Summer Vacation (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continual disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:Summer camps in Alaska has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Category:Summer camps for children with special needs has been nominated for renaming[edit]
Category:Summer camps for children with special needs has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)