User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive13

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

Comment
Thanks for your comment here. Does File:DollywoodBaldEagle.jpg have a feature picture chance? Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Probaly not. It has that light in the lower left of the photo. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right about the lens flare, and there's also this rather similar one already featured. Chick Bowen 15:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I can look at a photo and say, hey, that's nice. I would really like to be able to understand in detail what makes a good photo. A future goal for me is to hang out at Featured picture candidates and see if I can pick up the ropes. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the discussions there--particularly about the nominators' own photographs--are often pretty good about the technical differences between good and very good pictures. A few things to look for: there should be a smooth range of brightness from the highlights to the shadows, with detail visible throughout the range.  For example, the highlights on that eagle picture you asked about are a little too bright, and in places they're completely white, so that you can't see the details of the feathers.  Resolution should be high enough to print, not just to look good on the screen (how high that is depends on the amount of detail in the image).  Other things, like composition, are more subjective, but generally people like a photograph that draws attention to its subject and presents an interesting, preferably original perspective of it (the chief goal is to illustrate the encyclopedia, after all).  Here are a few pictures of different kinds of subjects I think exemplify these ideals: File:Haematopus fuliginosus Bruny.jpg, File:CTA red line rerouted.jpg, File:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England Crop - May 2009.jpg.  So, keep looking for pictures, and have fun! Chick Bowen 16:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hi, You recently closed a deletion review for the article Ian Erix. I was a contributor and I provided several sources includinng clear and verifiable proof that the article passes the Entertainer guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. Could you please explain why your decision was not in favor of re-instating the article since it does meet the criteria set forth by Wikpedia for inclusion? Thank you very much. Brokeradar222 (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that was a very clear-cut discussion. The question in a DRV is whether the AFD was closed properly, and there was never any reason presented to suggest that it wasn't.  Please see in particular the comments by 4meter4 and Tarc in the DRV.  Chick Bowen 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Response Thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying but it was my contention that there was new reasoning to keep the page, I wasn't challenging in-partcicluar the proper closure of the AFD, but I was pointing out new reasoning for the page to be kept. Did I take the wrong action with a DRV? The article was originally challenged for not meeting criteria for a musicaian even though there are published sources such as All Music Guide []and MTV []that claim the subject has had top ten hits in several countries and I don't understand why that is not suffiecent,after all they are independant and verifable sources and that is all that Wikipeda requires. But regardless of that, I do believe the article also meets the criteria setforth under WP:ENTERTAINER as the subject has been featured in several television projects and has a sizeable fanbase and/or "cult" following. That argument was not made in the AFD and there are sources to back the facts up and that is the challenge I was attempting to make in the DRV as I think the page should be kept on the basis that it clearly passes the Entertainer guidelines. Can you please recomend a course of action I can take now. Should I re-create the page? I am not a pro on Wikipedia but I am working in good faith and I do feel this article has been judged harshly and unjustly. Thank you again for your time and help. It is much appreciated. Brokeradar222 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You should not recreate the page. If you do it will be deleted.  You should work on a userspace version by clicking on this link: User:Brokeradar222/Ian Erix.  If you can write an article there that establishes the points you are making through citation of reliable sources, then you can open a new DRV and ask for review of your draft.  However, I want to warn you that so far I have not seen anything that is likely to change people's minds.  The sources you have put forward simply are not reliable by our standards. Chick Bowen 00:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chris DeRosa
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chris DeRosa. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 98.14.146.247 (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several references to support keeping this article some of which are: http://www.moderndrummer.com/md-blogs-archive/300001252/Chris%20DeRosa and http://www.moderndrummer.com/md-blogs-archive/300001352/Chris%20DeRosa

He is listed on many recordings and is also in several national/international music videos: http://wn.com/Melba_Moore_Phil_Perry_Performing_Weakness
 * I did not delete this article. I believe it was closed "without prejudice," indicating that an article that contained sufficient sources would be acceptable. Chick Bowen 15:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:500000cruzeiros.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:500000cruzeiros.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. Chick Bowen 19:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Dynasty
The princes and other members were all deleted. I find that very sad An outrage Just as well, the Wikipedia has a bad reputation. Anyone can delete as they wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the way to improve our reputation is to provide cited sources for the information contained. This is particularly essential if that information relates to living people, as explained in our biographies of living people policy.  Chick Bowen 21:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Albert Scott Crossfield
Thank you for your comment on my photo. Wondering if you feel that the picture would be better served if the background was removed? --WPPilot 17:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Digitally? No, I don't generally approve of that sort of thing, except perhaps with a scientific subject or something like that.  As you can see, though, not everyone agrees with me.  We should always remember that these are subjective judgments.  Keep shooting! Chick Bowen 23:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Foundation doing the same thing right now? Chick Bowen 03:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)
Hi Chick Bowen. You participated in Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has been amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara Project
Hello Chick Bowen. I would like you to settle a problem about the Wiki project of Western Sahara. The founder of this project (User:Koavf) claims publicly that he's a pro-SADR (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic) and anti-Morocco. He also says, since he's the founder, that he owns the project and has the right to write anything he wants in it. That's why the project holds the flag of the SADR. But the UN states that Western Sahara is a territory under dispute and therefore UN does not recognize any sovereignty (either Moroccan or Sahrawi) on this territory. So, there must be no flag for the project or at least the flag of the UN. The presence of the flag of the SADR as the one of Western Sahara is complete non-neutrality. Would you like please to settle this? I would be most greatful if you could do something. Thanking you in advance. Moroccan Sahara (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend that you either pursue the dispute resolution process or contact the WikiProject Council through their talk page. Chick Bowen 15:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (re:DRV)
Thanks for creating that redirect.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a little comment
Hi! I saw the page 'User:Chick Bowen/Why I am opposed to community deadminship' after I read your comment from two days ago, regarding the admin flag thingy. I was thinking after reading, if the rules are quite strict and complex, it gives nasty, but technically knowledgeable admins an unfair advantage, something I know well. I think if the rules are (and I know this will seem crazy) a little more 'fuzzy', but still based on the community opinions, as held in the minds of individual 'crats, then that's a good thing. Nasty people won't sit on the fence and exploit the rules if the fence is shaky. They'll blooming well stay away from that fence and come play nice with the rest of us. I think it's better for people to choose a direction to travel, rather than draw lines on the ground and live in boxes. Just a thought, I hope you can understand what I mean, I'm not looking for agreement, just offering something for you to possibly consider. Penyulap  talk 14:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mário de Andrade
Hi, Chick. I uploaded a photo of Mário de Andrade that can be used in English Wikipedia. I believe it's a very nice one and it has been added to the article. Since you're the editor who most contributed to the article I thought you should know. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very nice, indeed, thanks. Chick Bowen 15:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 census of India sticker
Do you think cropping the pic and fixing it with Picasa may help? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Help!
Hi there Chick Bowen! I saw that you are amazing with restoration work. Could you please help me get this picture promoted? I know it has a good amount of EV, but believe the technical issues can be fixed. Help is appreciated. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe you that there's no avoiding artificial lighting, but I'm afraid I still think it needs to be retaken. You took it at 1/60; you could probably get down quite a bit from that—maybe to 1/15—with a tripod (if there isn't enough room for one, just keep the legs together and use it like a monopod, to brace your camera against the ground).  That might allow you to take it without flash, or at least to stop down the aperture a little so the screen won't be so out of focus.  Also, as I said at the nomination, I'd recommend taken it with the camera parallel to the sticker and to the ground. It's definitely a valuable and interesting shot as it is; the issues here are about technique. Chick Bowen 14:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Would cropping it to just the sticker help (I mean does just the sticker stand a change for promotion)? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, the context is important. Chick Bowen 16:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How 'bout Retouch 2 and 3? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Capture bonding
Hi Chick Bowen. You nominated capture bonding for deletion in November 2007 at Articles for deletion/Capture bonding (2nd nomination). Deletion review/Log/2011 August 21 concluded that the page "has been restored to mainspace this is closing as relisting [at] AFD at user discretion". I don't see any nontrivial changes since it was userfied on 7 December 2007. I have asked, the DRV closer to review the article to see if db-repost is applicable. If it is not applicable, would you review the article to see whether it should be renominated for deletion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After so long a new AfD is probably the best way forward. I'd rather not file it, if only so that this thing doesn't keep circulating among the same group of crusty old admins (in addition to starting the AfD you link, I had also already declined a G4).  You are welcome to file one, but if not I suspect this will end up at AfD pretty soon. Chick Bowen 02:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I intend to file an AfD if Spartaz does not speedy it under db-repost. The current version of the article looks identical to the deleted version, save for some formatting changes. Cunard (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)