User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive12

'''This is an archive. Please do not edit it.'''

Recreated redirect
I have recreated a redirect you deleted a couple of years ago. I don't think it is misleading, and it seems to be sometimes useful --Rumping (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

reagan alzheimer letter
I don't care about Reagan. My intention was to point out that the speedy deletion was inapplicable. The proper approach was to delete the text of the letter and then proceed through AfD for the remaining article. - Altenmann >t 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Endorse but relist
You can always ask if you are unsure. It means that I endorse the decision but believe the category should be relisted. The existence of the category has no bearing on whether it can be relisted, as the D in CFD stands for discussion, not deletion. A debate does not need something to exist to happen. Hiding T 16:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point. In that case you are welcome to start a debate at any time, and it does need to be relisted by the DRV closer. Chick Bowen 19:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Deadminship process
Hey. If you'd like, I can explain my thoughts more in-depth here on your talk page. Would that be satisfactory? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to, I'd certainly be quite curious to hear what you have to say, although others might be as well--it's up to you. Chick Bowen 20:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

FPC
Hey; in case you didn't notice, I responded to your question. Best,  ceran  thor 00:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Still thinking about it.  Also as you suggest I'm planning to read up a little more on thermography when I have a chance and see if I can get a better understanding of the colors.  Also, let's see what others have to say.  I actually mostly comment on historical FPCs, but I was curious about this one. Chick Bowen 00:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:FFD
I was going to start a talk page discussion and then thought to hell with it and just fixed it. Let's see if anyone reverts me. Feel free to amend further. Chick Bowen 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll think about how it might be further tweaked.  —David Levy 15:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Chick Bowen! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Stephen Orgel -
 * 2) Gerald Moore (scholar) -

WP:MAD
Any specific concerns? I'd like to try to keep it up to date, since it's still gets cited from time to time. I still haven't read the new license (but am planning to), so I certainly believe there may be issues, but if you know of anything in particular let me know. Thanks. Chick Bowen 16:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Main issue is that CC-BY-SA doesn't require a history, only proper attribution. Therefore, an edit summary when merging such as "merged content from foo by users Bar, Baz, Qux, Quux, Corge, Grault, and Garply".
 * So in short, it should be more explicit that merge and delete is valid if proper attribution is maintained. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes; feel free to make more. It's always been a tricky business, because the technical requirements of the license are one thing and what most admins consider acceptable something else entirely, as the early talk page discussion makes clear.  So, legally speaking, it's never going to be as clear and simple as it could be, given that nods have to be made to local culture and precedent.  But I've done the best I could. Chick Bowen 18:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sculpture date
Did you get a reply concerning the date of the sculpture image File:Saint Anselm Statue at Saint Anselm College.jpg? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll reply at PUF, thanks. Chick Bowen 21:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you for making me aware of this at: Arbitration/Requests/Case


 * Thank you very much. I've added some more to User:Chick Bowen/To do and will get to them tomorrow night (have to go to bed now and to work in the morning), but you're welcome to 'em if you get there first. Chick Bowen 06:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ambarish Srivastava

 * I am grateful to you for restoring this article. Thank you very much.Spjayswal67 (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2
Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve

 * I am delighted that someone noticed! Thank you so much. Chick Bowen 22:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!
 * If you have the time to do something similar to File:Charles Anthon - Brady-Handy.jpg, it will be very nice, too. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Great picture! I haven't run across too many Brady photos of academics.  I did a bit--like a lot of Brady stuff, it has a lot of annoying little pockmarks and things that would take forever to clean up entirely.  So far I haven't done anything about the water damage at the top--if I have a chance, I'll experiment over the weekend some time and see if I can do anything with it.  Very interesting challenge.  Chick Bowen 02:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2 results
Hi, because you contributed to FPC's recent review, I'm letting you know that the results of the poll have been posted. We appreciate your contributions to the first stage and hope you take part in this next step, here, to move towards implementing several changes to the process. Regards,  Mae din\ talk 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Louis Skidmore, Nathaniel Owings & John O. Merrill
You posted an inquiry about the image of the three founding partners of Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM). The online source is explicitly provided. Moreover, it is a clickable hyperlink to the specific SOM website page with this digitized image. In this very, very clear context, I don't understand what more could be wanted? --Tenmei (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Helen Gray Cone
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)
I have nominated Rob Miller (South Carolina politician), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Student7 (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mário de Andrade FAR
nominated Mário de Andrade for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 (Talk) 07:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC
Please note that there's a new discussion at Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year. Roger talk 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I emailed you about F and A. Tony   (talk)  04:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and trust. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Vokab Kompany
Hello there,

I'm trying to re-create the Vokab Kompany wikipedia page and I have a lot more information and references on the band and what they've been up to in the last 2 1/2 years since the first page was taken down due to notability. Some notable things are: the kia commercial,the San Diego kick gas festival, newspaper publications, San Diego Chargers theme remix: blue and gold, work with LuckyIAm, work with Del The Funky Homosapien,work with the Mutaytor (Johnny Avila from Oingo Boingo's band), The Lightning in A Bottle festival, connections to The Do Lab,The Emergen C festival in Oregon, Bridgefest in Oregon, Symbiosis, Burningman, work with Pep Love, work with March Forth marching band on the album, work with BLVD, work with Souleye, San Diego Indiefest, Elysium fest at the La Jolla Indian reservation, shows at the MontBleu Showroom in Lake Tahoe, shows at the boom boom room in san fransisco and the Roxy in Los Angeles, playing the official comicon after party in San Diego, shows at canes, wavehouse, house of blues, hardrock hotel, petco park for the padres, flagstaff arizona, las vegas, nevada city, chico, portland, seattle, boise, ,articles in san diego happy hour magazine, nug magazine, AOL spinner website and more! Thanks!

Programchaos32 (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Programchaos32
 * Undeleted at Vokab Kompany. The article needs a lot of work, though.  Please add the sources you mention as soon as possible. Chick Bowen 23:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Kgositsile If I Could Sing.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Kgositsile If I Could Sing.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. By the way, there's really no need to use these full-length templates on the pages of oldtimers.  Years ago I wrote missing rationale short for this sort of situation; a similar version of disputed rationale could easily be written.  Chick Bowen 17:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Washington Metro thin line map
I noticed you deleted the Washington Metro thin line map for the "consensus" reason that it isn't free. It was additionally tagged with a fair-use note in the case that it isn't free. There was never any discussion about whether its use on the page qualified as fair use, yet you deleted it anyway. The page discusses debate and press treatment that developed when this particular rendition of the map was released. The discussion doesn't apply to the general routes or structure of the Metro "system" -- the discussion is about the specific image (map) that was displayed. I urge you to restore the image with the fair use template until and unless there's some consensus that its use is not fair. Jkatzen (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored it and listed it at Files for deletion/2011 January 31 per your request. Chick Bowen 21:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Persons convicted of fraud
I'm totally confused by this close. I think this category should exist - there certainly has never been a consensus to delete it. You are suggesting I open a CFD to rename the "fraudsters" category - but my problem is that I don't want to rename the fraudsters category. I'm happy for the category "fraudsters" to exist for people who people who have made a career of conning and defrauding. However, for living people with incidental fraud convictions, labelling them "fraudsters" is a BLP problem, which I and others (including J.Wales) have opposed. The problem with your closure is that what will now happen is that the "fraudsters" category will be re-applied to a number of BLPs and a BLP edit war will ensue. Given that "Persons convicted of fraud" was created to avoid that, and allow an undoubtedly more neutral and factual title to be applied to a small group of BLPs, can I put it to you that a no-consensus should certainly default to keep. Where there's BLP doubt, we err on the side of caution, and the onus is on those saying otherwise to find a consensus that their version is fair and neutral. They've not done that, have they? There's disagreement here, so we stick with the safest approach. Can you reconsider this close? If not, what do you suggest I do? As I say, I've no desire to rename the whole of the fraudsters category, which does have reasonable applicaiton to some articles.--Scott Mac 19:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Scott, are you saying you saw consensus for "restore" at the DRV discussion? Or are you simply rehashing the argument about the AfD (and the category itself)?  Note that in this instance I agreed with you (though not for the reasons you gave) -- all the same, I do wonder why you would expect the DRV discussion to be closed differently given the contributions there.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * DRV normally needs a simple majority to overturn. Except where the deletion has been on BLP grounds, then it requires a consensus to overturn. Because where something is disputed on BLP grounds, we keep the questionable matter out unless there's a consensus to do otherwise. If you work that logic here - then the category was created to minimise BLP damage by questionably calling living people "fraudsters", ymmv here but there is no consensus that it is fine to callliving people fraudsters on the strength of a conviction for expenses fiddling - thus we don't call living people "fraudsters". In order to stick with that "safest line" we need to keep this category, absenting a consensus that it is unnecessary to do so.--Scott Mac 21:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * DRV definitely doesn't need a simple majority to overturn. It works by consensus just as other venues do.  In fairness, even though I endorsed and Chick Bowen's close has given the outcome I thought was right, I had thought the discussion was going the other way and I'm somewhat surprised by the "no consensus" close on this one.— S Marshall  T/C 21:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your view, Scott, but I'm sticking by my guns here--the best venue for discussion of optimal categorization is CFD, not DRV. CFD has frequently considered cases exactly like this one--in which what is desired is not to delete the current category but to change the categorization scheme.  That's what it's for, and that's where this discussion belongs.  I could have closed it "no consensus and relist," which would have amounted to the same thing.  The only difference is that this way you can make the case instead of me, and I assume you can do so better than I can. Chick Bowen 21:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've appended a further explanation to my original close. Chick Bowen 22:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there's a HUGE difference between "No consensus and relist" and what you've done. Had you gone for overturn and relist, then the onus would have been on those objecting to "persons convicted of fraud" existing as an alternative or (indeed) a subcategory to generate a consensus to delete it. You (and the closing admin) have effectively reversed that onus, in that it is people who want this category to exist that now need to get the consensus. That's a total reversal of the normal and despite the fact that any BLP considerations push in the opposite direction. With the muddied waters here and the several conflicting issues, it will be almost impossible to get any clear consensus. I've no intention of going to CFD, since I've no objection to "fraudsters" existing - and stand no chance of any clear result there anyway. I will just continue to remove the category from the offending BLPs, which will probably lead to increasing conflict with a vocal minority who can see no BLP issue here. Oh, well - it may well end up at arbitration eventually.--Scott Mac 22:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Scott, I think given this discussion you really should take it up to CFD. It's clear that the admin who closed the DRV thinks it should be discussed at CFD.  I think that's the same as a relist. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I've no intention of doing that. Since when did one go to CFD to get an improperly deleted category restored?--Scott Mac 01:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Chick Bowen. Just another question (I'm not here to complain). In the close you said "please don't create another new category without a CFD". What do you suggest we do with the fact that during the DRV a user created ? I tried to temporarily close this CFD by deleting the categories pending the DRV results, but the same user's repeated re-creation of the category made that course impossible to continue without reciprocating in a 3RR war. Do you have any suggestions at this stage what to do? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to delete a category try CFD, and get a consensus. It is really that simple. That particular one was created as a refinement of the longstanding Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. It has (for now) served as a compromise in the BLP dispute. It was raised subsequently on ANI and seemed good to everyone. So, what would you serve by deleting it? (Actually that's what you can explain in the CFD nomination if you want to go down that route.) --Scott Mac 09:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have no intention of deleting it. I was asking Chick Bowen for his opinion on the issue. His comments below have answered my question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am also rather perplexed by this outcome. As S Marshall pointed out above, there seemed to be a consensus for "overturn". I think the fact that S Marshall commented "endorse" yet still made a point to offer that opinion should be considered with some weight here. Where does one go to review a DRV close? I'm also confused about how to proceed more generally given the unprecedented manner in which all of this has unfolded. There is no consensus on record anywhere to delete the category. What is to stop me from simply recreating it? We respect deletions, and don't recreate deleted pages, because they are ALWAYS done per consensus or in a more emergency situation per some policy or another (BLP, etc.). When there is no such policy violation and no consensus, we don't delete. I cannot personally figure out how to respect a deletion which was not done to remove a policy violation or to respect a consensus. It becomes, at that point, only the say so of one or two administrators. The day that Wikipedia is ruled by the unilateral say so of some administrator or another is the day I quit. So with all due respect, how am I to take your warning not to recreate this entry in any other way? Please help me understand.Griswaldo (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Both these closures overturn established precedent by saying that you need a consensus to keep a contentious category. So we've now got a status quo without consensus and no process to take us forward. A CFD won't help, since  the likely outcome is still going to be "no consensus". I am actually wondering about recreating the category and immediately nominating it on CFD - on the understanding that if there's not a consensus to delete it, or merge it to/with something, then it stays. However, that amounts to "overturn and relist" which is how this DRV ought to have been closed. The other option is to go back to DRV on the basis that the closure of this debate is mistaken in policy. --Scott Mac 17:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Either of those actions would be fine with me (and I have struck out the part of the close that would seem to prevent your first suggestion). However, I continue to think that your first suggesting--relisting it at CFD--is the correct procedure, because what is needed is a debate that considers the circumstances, not the previous actions.  I don't understand why you're convinced a CFD can't be opened for a category that doesn't currently exist--it has been done many times.  But if you're more comfortable with a CFD for an existing category, I don't see as that makes much difference. Chick Bowen 17:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you don't need a debate or consensus to create something on wikipedia. The onus is on the person wanting to delete something or merge something to generate a consensus. They haven't done that.--Scott Mac 17:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Recreating something that has previously been deleted usually requires consensus at DRV. Recreating something without that consensus would be unusual.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, except deleting something at AFD usually requires consensus, and when deleted without one, DRV is supposed to overturn. It is the rogue closers' decisions which have created this very unusual situation.--Scott Mac 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Deleting something requires a consensus or the emergency fix of a policy breach.  In other words, yes one should not recreate content against consensus or recreate content that is in gross violation of policy.  Neither applies here. While there was a close that resulted in a "delete", this close was not done on the authority of a community consensus or on policy.  It is the unilateral decision of an admin.  Respecting that kind of authority is, if you ask me, against our core principles. We ought to resist it actively in fact.Griswaldo (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Since Scott has declined to relist this per my suggestion, I have done so. I continue to think it would have been better had Scott opened the discussion himself, but it doesn't much matter. Chick Bowen 23:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the opening of the CFD: now you're getting guff for doing that. You can't win. My condolences for having involved yourself; I know I have regretted having done the same. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't regret it--this is what happens when you close DRVs (which I used to do with much more frequency, but haven't the time now). But thank you for your comments. Chick Bowen 00:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Undelete and relist is the correct action. All is well now.--Scott Mac 01:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg
Thank you for wading through the extensive debate and closing the discussion concerning this image. I had hoped that User:SchmuckyTheCat would be able to produce the proof that I had been unable to find myself but it turned out that it was not to be. I felt your closing statement was both even-handed and educational.

Thank you very much, Veriss (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. Chick Bowen 20:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted file history
Hi! Way back in 2007, you [ deleted] a file named DSCF0006.JPG and stated that it had been moved to Commons under a different name, but you didn't state which name, and one reference to the file on a talk page was apparently never updated. Now, four years later, some bright individual apparently thought this would be the perfect name under which to upload a penis photo (apparently, commons:MediaWiki:Titleblacklist is broken at the moment). In the interest of maintaining the integrity of the discussion on the talk page (and not unnecessarily upsetting the good people of Lecce by claiming that their basilica looks like a penis), would you be able to tell me what the deleted file description said about the file's new name on Commons? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did one better--I restored it. Now it covers up the penis (always a worthwhile goal).  Once you have the file history sorted out, and assuming the penis is deleted (which it should be according to current Commons policy), just tag it with nowcommons. Chick Bowen 20:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I replaced the link on Talk:Lecce to point to File:Santa croce.jpg. (The file was uploaded to both the Italian and the English Wikipedia editions in 2004, then to Commons in 2006. The Commons transfer was made from the Italian Wikipedia, where the file had the more sensible name.)
 * I'm not sure which Commons policy you refer to regarding the penis photo. If you mean commons:Commons:Project scope, I agree, but ever since Jimbo decided to go on an indiscriminate deletion spree to keep Fox News happy, some users get quite passionately defensive every time someone suggests that we might not need more blurry genitals – even if the one requesting deletion is the uploader. Case in point: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eigenner samenerguss.JPG (by the same user who uploaded DSCF0006.JPG).
 * In any case, even without the Commons file being deleted, it should be fine to delete File:DSCF0006.JPG here again, now that all references have been properly updated.
 * Thanks for your prompt assistance! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, done. And yes, I was referring to the Commons project scope, and discussions like the ones you link are exactly why I don't participate that much there. . . Chick Bowen 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)