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)

March 2011
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, 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 (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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Summer camps in Alaska
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
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)