User talk:SchuminWeb/Unprotected talk page
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)
Hey Benny Boy! Did you miss me!
You should know by now Benny boy that I don't give up easily, sure you banning the UMD server from editing Wikipedia was quite a blow, but lets face it, i'm smarter than you, I have a greater time commitment to screwing with you and I am an asshole Republican. So its good to be back and messing with you sorry fat stinky ass. Go to hell.
Twin Clutch SST
Hi, further to the section on your protected talk page here, I noticed you were talked into 'un-deleting' the Twin Clutch SST article. I think this is a big mistake. I was the one who tried to edit it out of the copyright violation issues, and I was the one who added the nomination for deletion tag on the grounds of being a blatant copyright violation. The article was a blatant copy of two of the official Mitsubishi 'press releases' (which both had the copyright symbol on the footer of the web page). However, there is a second reason why the article should be deleted - it FAILS in its notability. Mitsubishi Twin Clutch SST is just a simple 'rebrand' of an existing Getrag gearbox, and this is covered in detail in the dual clutch transmission article. The Twin Clutch SST fails on notability because it is NOT any different to existing articles. I aired my comments on the articles talk page - but this has NOT been addressed.
I have great concerns about the verifiability of a great number of 'technology' articles as listed on Template:Mitsubishi Motors technologies - most are just copies of Mitsubishi Motors press sites, and have NO third-party citations to verify what is just marketing hype - which basically constitutes an advert!
Going back to the comments on your own talk page, User:DeLarge is a blatant 'Mitsubishi Fan' - he even has a 'dedicated' talk page - User talk:DeLarge/Mitsubishi. However, what concerns me regarding his comments on your talk page - he states the page has existed for over two years - and quotes citations to Mitsubishi 'Technical Documents' - well there were only TWO press releases - both of which were clearly copyrighted, and both of which were simply copied and pasted! For DeLarge to state they are NOT copyright violations is beyond me! And just because the article has slipped under the radar for two years is no defence for copyright vios. And of the other now included citations, these are from motoring 'journalists' - who are not reliable sources either! Technical subjects like these need peer-reviewed citations from professional qualified motor vehicle engineers - not journos who are swayed by advertsing revenues, or how big their goody bag from the car manufacturer may be!
Onto his recent edits to 'rescue' the article - he has included an EL from Getrag - which proves that it is a generic transmission, and is NOT unique to Mitsubishi!. Yes, he has now found some third party citations, but these are either copied from the dual clutch transmission article (and do NOT prove that the Twin Clutch SST is unique), or he has included 'blogs' which are NOT reliable sources.
Please allow me to state again - the Twin Clutch SST is NOT unique, it fails notability because it does NOT have any 'unique selling points' over and above what is contained in the dual clutch transmission article! And the article as it stands also fails on the neutral point of view - because it is fundamentally self-promoting 'proprietory' technology as its' own! Please delete it, thank you. Kind regards 78.32.143.113 (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies if what looks like an edit conflict or vendetta has spilled over into your talk page. The personal attacks have been raised at the IP's talk page, especially that of me being a "blatant fan", which I find surprising given the author's edit history as both his current IP, and User:Teutonic Tamer before that—there seems to be a certain lack of self-awareness on his part, but this should not be of concern to yourself. Again, my apologies. --DeLarge (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)