User talk:Rubohcity

Removal of content
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Diff §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  01:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverts explained
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". You can also leave a message on my talk page. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --Avant-garde a clue- hexa Chord 2  00:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture
My apologies for removing the image, that was not my intent and I thought I had stopped the revert before it went through. Sorry again. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations
Please read WP:COPYVIO - you have been adding text which is copyrighted and several of the images you have uploaded on Commons are also apparently copyvios or do not adequately state their source information. In general, things you find on the web are not free and cannot be uploaded or used on Wikipedia. Text must be rewritten in your own words and the source cited. Images are trickier.

For an example of a problem image, see File:CountyofSummit.jpg which you uploaded. You can not just list "web" as its source. It just so happens that it is a low resolution version of a map I made from US Census sources and is already on Wikipedia as File:Map of Summit County Ohio With Municipal and Township Labels.PNG. I have tagged it for deletion as a duplicate file.

Or File:Goodyear.jpg and File:GoodyearHead.jpg are lovely photos, but they are identical versions of each other and should not both be on Commons - one needs to be deleted and I have tagged one for deletion.

Several files appear to copyvios, for example File:Marathon pt 02.jpg and File:Akrons Art Museum.jpg both say they are from the Akron, Ohio website and thus are not free. I have tagged them for deletion. Many other images you uploaded to Commons also appear to be questionable. Please ask if you have other questions, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You keep uploading images to Commons that you do not have permission to do so. Please stop. Look at File:Metro RTA Transit Center aerial view.jpg, which is clearly taken from the Metro website here. There is no indication of any free license here. Or look at File:AkronRoadRunner.jpg which is clearly identified as the work of an Akron Beacon Journal photographer, and thus not your work and thus a copyvio. You alos already uploaded the same photo before and it was deleted as a copyvio before, so don't tell me you didn't know it was not a copyvio. FInally, just because the Akron Public Library has a photo does not mean you can use it here. Please read WP:COPYVIO, thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Undo
Hi there, I'm not sure I understand why you undid my edit. Of the two images the one I added is clear and a dayshot, which allows correct colors to be seen; it also reflects with the article about the buidling. The image you put back was taken at night, blurry, much less of the building, and didn't have a good exposure time or angle resulting in the streaking of the lights on within the building. I'd really appreciate it if you could bring your problems with my edits to me or the article talk page instead of just undoing them, communication is key. Thanks. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:SummitCountyMeh.jpg
The file File:SummitCountyMeh.jpg has been tagged as not having a proper source or license. Only works by the U.S. Federal Government are public domain; not works by state, county, and local governments, which this file falls under. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See this diff for the edit on question, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:SoapBoxDerby.jpg
Hi there, I didn't want to move your comments, but I figured I'd let you know. Hangon states The person placing this notice intends to dispute the speedy deletion of this article on this page's talk page, and requests that this page not be deleted in the meantime. Your message is on the File: page over the File talk: page. §hep  •  Talk  02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey
just intrested why you never put the townplot picture up, please feel free to keep adding to the article and i will help and see if we cant get i done faster...ive been roaming the city with my camera and other friends ever since the last on here, you could also help by telling me places in the city that give a great view of Akron landmarks lol --66.61.87.219 (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

greetings, my schedule was bussy today and actually i didnt want it up until i could find more pictures and apply them all at once after previewing to see if looked right. But your spot not so bad and yes i'd like to participate with you. can i ask of you if you attend Akron University???--Rubohcity (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

oh then sorry for my wrong and yay for my right...im glad and who and why did they take off the FirstMerit Tower picture??? last ive gotten word that topograhpy needed more than just that building to be posted do you agree? and why yes im a freshman at the U of A :).--66.61.87.219 (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. §hep  •  Talk  23:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you care so much about images Sleepyak3 uploaded? Modifying a free image doesn't modify the copyright, it stays the same. As it is the excess sky makes the image look worse. You're also verging on 3RR at both images. §hep   •  Talk  01:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

because he/she obviously put it the way they wanted to, if you dont like it get your own camera and you take it as should be then.--Rubohcity (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

--Rubohcity (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo
Sorry man, I don't think Step is out of hand. He is an experienced editor and you already know I think the picture needs to be cropped anyway, though in all honesty, I'd rather see an entirely new picture used in the infobox since both have problems. Also, a cropped version of the cityscape photo could be uploaded just for the infobox and the long version could be kept for the cityscape section if using it is so important to you. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

duplicate photos on a single lowers the value of an article, the page has been viewed by the masses and been accepted adding to your statement that both are flawed. so it should be kept as is until other more updated photos arrive.--Rubohcity (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it makes that much difference honestly if there is a cropped version of a photo on the same page, though I would like to see a better skyline photo taken in the daytime. While both are "flawed" in my opinion, the daytime photo is far less flawed since it's a far larger and clearer photo of the skyline.  Night photos are cool, but they can't show as much detail architecturally.  --JonRidinger (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

but also if you do a building count, the night picture features more of what its suppose to which is Akron.--Rubohcity (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, but who would notice something like that? The main issue is a good view of the skyline, not necessarily a complete view...even Cleveland's pictures do not contain all of the downtown highrises; they contain the most prominent ones. The night picture of Akron's skyline is so low-resolution and it's at night, so most of the buildings are pretty indiscernable anyway.  The daytime photo gives viewers a pretty good idea of what the skyline looks like and that's what we're after.  --JonRidinger (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the day time photo only shows 2 or three prominent high rises while the night time photos shows all and landmarks included which are all identifable. That is infact what wikipedia is after.--Rubohcity (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The night photo may have more visible, but they are hardly identifiable to someone who is unfamiliar with the Akron skyline since the picture is of such low resolution. You and I know what they are because we have seen the actual skyline and know where certain things are.  Most readers, however, have not, so the current night photo really wouldn't give them an idea, say, of what the First Merit Tower looks like.  The daytime shows far more than three and Akron really doesn't have many more prominent high rises.  And Wikipedia isn't about giving readers every little detail; it's about giving them a good idea about something; the general idea.  It's an encyclopedia of important and notable information, not everything.  See WP:NOT. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

By saying that then your also saying that Quaker Square, Polymer Tower, Canal Place are not prominent, which is untrue. Exactly wikipedia neeeds a picture including those building in it which the night photo offers.--Rubohcity (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I never said those weren't prominent, however, there is no picture that can fully feature every prominent building in a given skyline. Plus there is a way to get a quality picture while still showing as many buildings as possible.  Even then it's a moot point because this photo is so low resolution those landmarks are barely visible to me and I know the skyline fairly well since I live in the area.  People who aren't familiar won't be able to make them out simply by reading the caption since the caption, by nature, is brief.  Back to the Cleveland example, both Progressive Field and Cleveland Browns Stadium are prominent and visible parts of the skyline, but no picture can fully feature both along with the most prominent buildings-- Key Tower, the BP tower, and Terminal Tower-- since each stadium is on the opposite side of downtown.  On an even bigger scale, think of cities with very large skylines like Chicago and New York.  Any photo that featured the entire skyline would be so small on the infobox it wouldn't be worth having (that's where a panorama would be needed).  So, skyline pictures of cities for the infobox feature the most prominent buildings, not necessarily all of the buildings.  The skyline picture isn't to give readers a detailed view of everything in the skyline; it's to give them a general idea of what it looks like, which is why a daytime, high resolution photo is preferred.  Most readers don't care about every prominent building.  If they care about any, it's usually the tallest and most visible ones.  --JonRidinger (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also the all-american bridge, with the day time photo you wouldnt even knew they existed judging by the picture if you never visited here. the progressive field and browns stadium arnt sky scrapers. All in all the needed requirement are mostly met best in ratio by the night picture for now.--Rubohcity (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to make this any clearer to you as it seems English is not your first language. First, a building does not have to be a skyscraper to be prominent.  It simply needs to be highly visible and well-known, which both stadiums in Cleveland certainly are.  As for the bridge, it isn't very visible in the night picture (certainly not enough to even know it isn't anything more than a regular, non-important highway bridge) and by your very definition isn't prominent since it isn't a skyscraper.  Further, it is NOT part of the Akron skyline anyway.  Honestly, it isn't critical that EVERY prominent landmark be included in the lead picture as I have said multiple times.  Cleveland has FAR more prominent and well known bridges than Akron and you don't see any of them in their lead picture, nor do you even see a picture of every prominent landmark in the article.  Please look at that picture.  It does not show the entire skyline (it shows the most prominent part of it) and is also high resolution, daytime, and is centered both left to right and top to bottom (not too much sky or too much lake).  The Akron skyline photo should be of a similar orientation.  It allows readers who have never seen the skyline to be familiar with it.  You need to understand that most of the people reading this article won't be familiar with Akron at all like you are, so it isn't important to include every tiny detail.
 * Also, in regards to your edits, I would recommend you use the Sandbox article that Step has created to try some of your expansions or modifications. They are unfortunately full of misspellings and grammatical errors which another editor will have to go re-write and fix.  Using the Sandbox will help all of us help you write more encyclopedic articles.  --JonRidinger (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this any clearer to you as it seems as your eyes are not your strongest tool. The Akron night photo also dosnt show too much sky or water(trees) and is in porportions to cleveland's, the cleveland article dosnt have bridges(beside the amtrak) simply because noone has took such a picture and partly due to landscape. Plus you contridict the prominent bulding statement and high resolution with your so it isn't important to include every tiny detail statement. Also i cant work with shep(not refusing, just saying) i started a "sandbox" on wordpad already and also i dont take offense to your language remark so please dont take offesene to my eyes remark.--Rubohcity (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would hope you didn't take offense because English doesn't seem to be your first language judging by the high number of spelling and grammar mistakes in yur edits; that's just the way it appears. As for your remark, it is completely out of line because this has nothing to do with my vision, it has everything to do with my opinion on what makes a good photo and what is appropriate for a good lead.  The current Akron night photo is completely inferior to the Cleveland photo because of it's low resolution (taken with a cell phone) and the fact it is at night.  Only after you have cropped it does it center the picture, but it does not provide the resolution needed for a quality photo.  Next, by "details" I don't mean high resolution, I mean a picture showing everything in a given skyline.  Cleveland's is high resolution AND gives a good idea of the nature of the skyline without including EVERY prominent landmark.  And yes, there ARE pictures of Cleveland's landmark bridges (most of which are far better known than the All-America bridge), but many of them aren't in the article.  "Every detail" is in reference mostly to written comments, but also to a picture that includes EVERY building, which isn't important.  Look at the pictures of skyline shots in other featured city articles.  ALL of them are high resolution and include the center of the skyline; enough for the viewer to get a general idea, not a super-detailed view.  True, someone could take a picture of the Cleveland skyline which featured most every major building, however, it would be so far away it would be very difficult to identify the buildings in the photo because the camera would have to be so far away (which is the case in the Akron photo).  If the Akron night photo had been taken with a higher resolution camera and cropped differently (more square versus panoramic), I wouldn't be so against it.
 * As for working with Step, that's tough. Part of Wikipedia is working together to produce a good article.  Step wants this article to be quality so it can be featured.  Right now it is nowhere near it.  The sandbox isn't Step's sandbox, it is the sandbox for the Akron article (anyone can and should use it...it's a tool to help fix the problems in the article).  For now, I don't think there is much more to say here.  I have gone in circles trying to explain my viewpoint and use examples of other pictures and articles which experienced editors have identified as top-quality.  I am not the only one who thinks the Akron picture at night is not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article in its presnt form.  You are more concerned with your photo being included than if it is best for the article.  I am through discussing this. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Then be through, the facts remain that in all around whats needed, the night picture satisfies all bases most. Also "yur" is an incorrect english spelling, is english your first language?--Rubohcity (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So it is, but remember, this is a talk page, not an article. I'm not saying we have to be perfect (we all make spelling and grammar mistakes), but if you're going to go after my one spelling error, I could make a lengthy list of yours.  There are several grammatical errors in your last statement that indicate lack of understanding, not simply rushing (which is the biggest cause of spelling errors). --JonRidinger (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I lied...one more thing
One suggestion for a better photo would be to make a montage of the public domain images available of Akron. That way you could include your photo as part of the montage, plus it could include other landmark photos. See the leads of New York City and Washington, DC for examples. Just make sure the photos used in the montage are public domain...someone made a montage a little while ago that used copyrighted photos.--JonRidinger (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

But should a montage be reserved for "super cities"??--Rubohcity (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so...montages can highlight the prominent skyline and include other important aspects. I think the largest cities have used them simply because a simple skyline shot leaves a lot out (like New York or DC).  For instance, if free images are available of Canal Park and the Inventors Hall of fame and even the Polymer building at UA, those could be included along with the night shot.  That would also solve the resolution problem of the night picture as it would be a bit smaller as part of a larger picture. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the info agreed, currently cold here and snow wont make for a good picture so if you have any or can find any could you make it? also i added the citscape section if you see any errors please correct and tell me.--Rubohcity (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Instructions can be found here. The first step is you need to create a Userpage. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look on the Commons for Akron-related photos. I will look too when I have more time.  I am currently out of town just checking here and there.  As for the cityscape section, I'll let you know right now you better find some sources for it (especially in things that quote racial makeup percentages) or it's going to get tagged or removed if it hasn't already.  There are several grammatical issues that need be addressed as well, but nothing that major (the opening line of the downtown section, for instance, should say "Financial and legal offices, hotels, hospitals, government and other civic buildings are predominant in the downtown area.")  Predominant is a better choice and is an adjective.  I put "in the downtown area" since that section is about downtown, not the whole city.  Outside of the downtown, financial and legal offices, hotels, hospitals, etc., are not predominant.  I'll have more suggestions when I have some more time to read it more. It's a good start, but I wish you'd use a sandbox so we could edit stuff like this before it gets put into the actual article. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ok will do and thanks for warning, by the way if it bothers you to keep having to come back and see if i commented then i'll start replying on your page?--Rubohcity (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are free to respond on my talk page if you want. My account is set up so every time I edit a page, it is automatically added to my watchlist.  I check my watchlist pretty regularly, so it isn't s problem to see when you have responded. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i should dive deeper in wikipedia it seems to be more intricate that i thought, i added one refference so far.--Rubohcity (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick warning...as I examined the source you just placed for downtown, it is too close to what is written in the article to not be considered plagiarism. Plagiarism isn't just copying word for word; it's copying the general idea.  Simply removing a few words here and there doesn't eliminate plagiarism.  Look at the sources and do what you can to summarize the important points.  If you are unsure, use the sandbox and we can help!!  Someone is likely to remove it for plagiarism if it isn't changed drastically. Basically, I shouldn't be able to tell that you got all your information from a specific source.  Make sense?  Good luck.  I will help when I can.  If you would like, you can post the links to your sources here or on my talk page and I can have a look at them. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

right i shouldnt of had to be warned, but from what i seen so far it seems that only one sanbox can be made? plus the existing sandbox is missing alot of information and i dont know how to make one. what to do?--Rubohcity (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)