User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive7

'''This is an archive. Do not edit it.'''

Shorter warning template
As a bit of an experiment, I've created replaceable short. It's intended for experienced users who have uploaded a lot of fair use images (perhaps over a long time) and may get snowed in with warning templates. It's short, to the point, does the job. I don't know what would be involved in adding an option to your image warning script, and if it's not worth it then so be it, but I thought should at least come by and mention it (if people are interested, of course, I can create more like it). Chick Bowen 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding. This sounds like a great idea. I can pretty easily make the script do this. Let me know when you short versions of all the warning templates. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Chick Bowen
This is me so I can vote in the thing. I wanted to register a general anti-bug vote, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do that. Chick Bowen 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My block of DLX...
Thanks for the tune-up on ANI.

While I'm able to connect the dots mentally and justify to myself that I'd have done the same thing had I witnessed the events instead of being party to them, I'm also able to admit I'd tell someone else they shouldn't have done what I did. You're exactly correct "take it the noticeboard" is what I would ahve said.

Oh, and thanks for unblocking him as well, I now look at the timestamps and see he'd already issued the asked-for retraction when I logged off, making me ever-so-slightly-even-more red faced.

brenneman 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your graciousness and good humor. I've made an ill-advised block or two in the same situation, I'll readily admit--it's always easier to give someone else advice.  Cheers.  Chick Bowen 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Narcissus Luttrell
Re: your query: Your edit summary here said that Luttrell was an MP. I wasn't aware of this--do you have a source you could point me to, so I could put it in the article? Thanks. Chick Bowen 15:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Only Leigh Rayment 1, but he's generally reliable - lists a Narcissus Luttrell as MP for Bossiney 1679-81, and the birth and death dates match - there can't be two of them! Found him while setting up the MPs' list for Bossiney. Rgmmortimore 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1300 René-Lévesque Ouest
Just to let you know that your prod of 1300 René-Lévesque Ouest has been contested. QuiteUnusual 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And has unanimity to delete at AfD. Thanks, though. Chick Bowen 03:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You said to stay away from
He has started with me already I'm staying clear and he up in my shit again. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 18:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

heres the original == redirect deletion discussion ==

Please see Redirects for discussion. — coe l acan t a lk  — 06:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He should leave you alone, yes. But that redirect was pretty clearly not within policy, and I don't think you can defend it.  I'll leave him a message, however. Chick Bowen 19:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant nothing offensive with the Swastika in fact it was a referance to (Hinduism) my own self spirituality. Thank you. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 19:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be, though I'm sure you can understand why others were bothered by it. It's still a cross-namespace redirect, though.  Chick Bowen 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly a cross-namespace redirect, which I was not but now I'm aware of existence. My only problem was the User bringing this to my attention. I have no need be involved with User:Coelacan at any point. He is unproductively going through my contributions in attempt to keep me motionless on Wikipedia. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 21:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked him not to do that. You have to settle down, work on articles, and put this all behind you, however.  Chick Bowen 00:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mário de Andrade
Would you explain to me what the hell is wrong with this sentence:

I am very disappointed with your brusque fair use policing here. Every image in that article has been thoroughly vetted for fair use concerns, as you can see at Featured article candidates/Mário de Andrade and Peer review/Mário de Andrade/archive1. Chick Bowen 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the sentence is that it's not a critical commentary on the copyrighted artwork, and as such, does not justify it's use in the article. --Abu badali (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the sharpness of my comment. But I'm afraid I still have no idea what you're talking about.  The article discusses Andrade's relationship with the landscape, and asserts that the photograph demonstrates that relationship by showing his own body in the landscape.  The photograph is necessary to illustrate the point.  This is as clear fair use as you can get.  Chick Bowen 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * About the shadow picture, I confess I overlooked the passage on the text that mentions the work (maybe because it's too brief to deserve an image?). I'm still concerns about either we need/can use such a copyrighted image just because it's mentioned. But it's surely not that straightforward to deserve the removal i did. Sorry.
 * About the Lasar Segall painting being used to identify the biography's subject as the lead image, I would say it's a clear copyright violation with no fair use grounds. As a rule of thumb, we use works-of-art images to talk about that specific works-of-art (or it's style, school-of-art, etc), and not to take advantage of what's depicted on the work-of-art. See the counterexample #4 on #Counterexamples for a very common case.
 * For now, I would suggest removing the leading image. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please give me a few days to see if I can find more info about the painting. It's an important painting, one of two iconic paintings of Andrade, and it certainly belongs in the article.  You are right that it is too sparsely treated right now, but let's see what I can come up with. Chick Bowen 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

BoxingWear
BoxingWear is back. He’s doing revisions under a few different IPs, , , , , and leaving me messages posing as an administrator and “warning” me that I’ll be banned. I’m not sure what you can do, but I thought you should know. MKil 00:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)MKil
 * Thanks--I figured he would be. As you can see, he's able to change his IP very easily, so there's not a whole lot I can do about that.  Please do let me know (or post at WP:AN/I) if you see a logged-in account that fits the pattern.  If any particular article needs to be semi-protected, let me know or post at WP:RFPP.  This applies to your talk page as well, if it becomes absolutely necessary. Chick Bowen 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this. The only pages he seems to be hitting are the Rocky Marciano (as well as Marciano's talk page), Nino Valdez, Bob Baker (boxer), and Floyd Patterson. Semi-protection may be in line for those pages if he continues to visit them (which I'm sure he will). MKil 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)MKil
 * They're open proxies, except for the 64.107, which is at Triton.edu. I blocked them.  Interesting:  he hasn't used proxies since he was the "Squidward" vandal, as far as I know.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh--yes, that is a change. Thanks. I'll start looking for open proxies as well. Chick Bowen 02:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm terribly confused with, for two reasons: I have had no prior involvement in the dispute, and frankly I have NFI what is going on (and that long comment on my userpage does nothing to alleviate this lack of understanding). I'm only asking here as I saw Chick Bowen protected the userpage on Feb 3, and when I came here I saw this thread which, using the bare minimum of understanding I got from that IP comment, I believe to be related. Could someone swing by and give me a quick run-down of what this actually is (and what's actually going on), and if I am in some way involved, which was is that? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers page.
Why was the "this page may not be created until $date" removed and protected as to never allow recreation? It was decided by a Wikipedia admin that the page may not be recreated before Feb 2007, and if it's still popular then, the article may be allowed, to prevent it just being a fad. Starblazer 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo Wales, who is a hell of a lot more than an admin, decided it should not be recreated before February 21, 2007, and that it should be discussed, not necessarily allowed, at that point. The appropriate venue for that discussion is Deletion review.  We've asked Jimbo recently to clarify his feelings about this, and he said he would allow a deletion review discussion.  So that should take place some time after the deadline.  As for the change in the format, that's just part of our general revamping of the system for pages protected against recreation.  It's no more permanent than the old system--that is, it can be reversed by admins at any time, if there's consensus to do so. Chick Bowen 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Chick in your opinion
Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is this article a NPOV? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, after just a brief read, I'd say it could be. I looked over the AfD too, and it's clear that the consensus is to keep it, so it needs to be improved from its current state.  A controversial topic like that needs to be better sourced--many times better sourced.  A source for the poem is desperately needed.  The lead isn't so great; I might recommend adding a sentence like, "Since the word "homosexual" was not used until after Lincoln's death, however, it is not clear to what extent modern concepts of sexuality apply."  That could be sourced using footnote 1 at homosexuality. Note that this is just my opinion--which is all you asked for--it's obviously not an admin issue, as a content problem, and I'm speaking here as an ordinary editor. Chick Bowen 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I enjoy the article. After my first read, I found it cogent. On such a contentious topic the reader should not be convinced by its context. I uderstand the infancy, and would like to improve the article. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

John F. Sandner
Thanks very much for your assistance in getting that cleared up and fixed. Perhaps you can offer some advice, as there is another subject requiring administrative attention and again am not sure if I need to put this in the noticeboard or just leave it be. It is the deletion of Regulation SHO, which I proposed some days ago. --Samiharris 17:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, done. You can just leave these, though, we always get to them within a few days of the 5-day deadline. Chick Bowen 17:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Deletedpage
Template:Deletedpage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  01:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin harassment
Please check your email. 141.213.212.87 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I got the e-mail, but I don't think I can help you. I have no authority to do what you want me to do, and I am not comfortable with the idea of a secret investigation.  If you have a complaint, make it on-wiki. Chick Bowen 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Camp Miriam
Why was the Camp Miriam page deleted and protected? Was there ongoing vandalism? If possible, I'd like to reopen it and make it into a proper entry (it is a member camp of my Habonim Dror movement). Can you unprotect it? Redzuny 15:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Camp Miriam (second nomination). Is it notable beyond its association with Habonim Dror?  The original had no assertion of notability beyond saying it was one of seven camps in the movement.  If you can make a specific assertion of notability, my advice would be to start a listing at Deletion review.  However, they're pretty tough there; you're going to have to be able to cite independent, reliable sources to back up the notability of the camp. Chick Bowen 16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Cube
Please restore the Doctor Cube page. With out without the picture if you like, I had permission from the photographer but may have mistakenly filled out the image information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MEGABRENTX (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I listed it at Articles for deletion/Doctor Cube for discussion; you can comment there. As for the picture, we actually can't accept images by permission; they have to be explicitly released by the photographer as public domain or under the GFDL.  See Image policy for more information. Chick Bowen 19:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You Will Fail Deletion
Hi, maybe you can help me understand the logic behind the deletion of the You Will Fail article. I think I grasp the strict sense of the policies (and agree that there's no evidence cited that speaks directly to them) but wonder if there's anything that can be done to restore the article. The irony is that the reason there is so little that can be said, is that I have complied with the wishes of TfL, and am really not in a position to say more than has been said. If I had been less respectful of copyright, I could easily make the case that has been asked for. As it stands, there is now no explanation on Wikipedia for this site's appearance (consistently since June of 2005) as the top hit returned by Google for (the common English phrase) "you will fail". Surely there is also a spirit to the rules and goals that is being ignored here.

Just curious, whether there's a general peice of Wikipedia philosophy I'm not grasping here -- thanks for your time. AmbientArchitecture 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by the copyright issue—any source that we could use would have to be widely available; any source that's under copyright restrictions would not be widely available and so we couldn't use it. The point is pretty simple—if we can base our article on mainstream media, scholarship, or other reliable sources, it'll be fine, but if not, we have to consider it unverifiable.  WP:WEB is probably the most useful guideline about this issue.  As for the spirit behind the rules, I think that's something that's constantly being debated.  To some, everything that we know by instinct to be notable (and that's really what you mean about the google issue) should be included unless there's a good reason not to.  To others, what we know by instinct is irrelevant, and we should only include things if and when reliable sources have been provided.  The zeitgeist of the project as a whole, I think, has drifted from the former position toward the latter over the couple of years that I've been here.  I suppose my own opinion falls somewhere in the middle, but as an administrator my job is interpreting the consensus of the community as a whole about what the policies mean.
 * As for the question of what you can do now, it comes down to research. It sounds like the BBC may have blown this one, but are there other news sources that covered it?  Did you try a Lexis-Nexis search?  Has it attracted the interest of scholars?  With something like this, if it matters, reliable sources will collect over time, and we can build a maintainable article at some point in the future.  Hope that helps; let me know if you have any more questions. Chick Bowen 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that clears things up. I guess I lean far towards the "former" position, and am concerned that the growing zeal to implement the latter is removing all kinds of information that people (readers, not editors) expect to find here, and (increasingly) can't. AmbientArchitecture 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion
Chick, please don't wheel war over this issue. It's being discussed elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I most certainly did not wheel war. It was a redirect to a deleted page; whatever is done with the page, it certainly shouldn't be that, nor would I consider my deletion of it to be a reversal of earlier admin actions. Chick Bowen 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An admin recently undeleted it after discussion with Jimbo. You deleted it again without discussing it with the admin. Or am I missing something? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Having examined the logs, I realize that I made a mistake, although once again it was never my intention to wheel-war. I thought that the underlying revisions had been moved to the target and deleted there, and that I was merely deleting a redirect.  It was not my intention to delete the underlying revisions, and I've restored them.  I still don't like it as it is, but I don't really care--I came upon this by going through broken redirects, not because I have any involvement or interest in this particular case. Chick Bowen 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for restoring it, Chick. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
You recently deleted my article on Exillon, an electronic musician. Citing WP:CSD#A7 for its deletion. I have reviewed the notability requirements [] for music and believe this deletion was wrong for the following reasons:

1. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

This artist has released one album and is working on their second album for Ad Noiseam, a very popular independent electronic music label based in Europe. []

2.Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.

This artist has been a guest and performed 2 seperate one hour performances on Digital Nimbus, an influencial electronic music radio show on 88.9 FM in Irvine that is broadcasted globally through streaming audio. []

3. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city.

This artist has a major representative of the genre Breakcore and is popular in the San Francisco electronic music scene.

Basically, I don't believe your deletion was correct. Several musicians of the same or less notability in the same scene and genre as Exillon currently have wikipedias up and have not been deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heliophlex (talk • contribs) 00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I've restored it and opened it up to the community for more discussion; see Articles for deletion/Exillon. You can comment there. Chick Bowen 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Tensor tympani
The middle ear map is impressive and a great addition, but can you do something about Tensor tympani, where, at 1024x768, the template conflicts with the gallery on the page? Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the compliment; I'll look into the overlap issue. What browser are you using?  --Selket Talk 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Firefox 2.0. Thanks.  I remember there was some kind of spacer template that was written for these circumstances, but unfortunately I can't remember what it was. Chick Bowen 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It turns out that it was not a problem with the map and happened at very low resolution with just the infobox.  If you find another please add the Clear template with  be fore the "additional images" header.  Thanks.  --Selket Talk 05:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the template I can never remember. Thanks--now I'll have it handy. Chick Bowen 03:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats Rude
Why did you block me? You keep vandalising my page and you do this. I've other people with images on their user page. Yet you and those stalkers won't leave ma alone and you protected my page you're sick you know that?Master Cheif 001 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We have explained this to you many many times. There is a difference between putting copyrighted, non-free images on your user page and putting self-taken, public domain, GFDL, or otherwise free images on your user page.  Screenshots of video games are copyrighted by the manufacturers of the games and are not released under a free license.  You may not put non-free images on your user page.  If you know of other people doing this, please point them out.  Chick Bowen 16:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Master Cheif 001 2 --Iamunknown 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Deleted, and I've blocked him indefinitely.  If you spot an obvious sockpuppet please let me know or post to WP:AN/I.  Chick Bowen 19:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, considering your earlier involvement
I was hoping that you could take another peak at the discussion at:. You should also know that I posted a request for an apology at one of the involved admins talk pages, here:. If it is inappropriate for me to be making this request of you, please forgive, and do let me know. Tiamut 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking for. If you have differences with Slim, they need to be worked out with her or through dispute resolution.  If you're blocked again, I'll be happy to investigate the circumstances, but since you're not blocked, there's really nothing for me to intervene in. Chick Bowen 17:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

IP sock puppet being used by User:Master Cheif 001
n.b. All external links are diffs. I just noticed an anonymous user perform User:Master Cheif 001's characteristic non-edit at Image:Arbiter kneeling naked (see [], c.f. Master Cheif's edit []), then realized that Master Cheif originally edited under this same IP at the IFD (see []) but later signed it while logged in (see []). Furthermore the IP's contributions at Special:Contributions/24.168.152.60 indicate an editing pattern similar to Special:Contributions/Master Cheif 001. --Iamunknown 01:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, blocked for 3 days. Looks static, though, so if he comes back and continues to edit disruptively I'll block it for longer. Chick Bowen 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum (of lesser importance): Wuld it be okay to put Indefblockeduser on the User:Master Cheif 001's user and talk page? And if so, would you do it on the user page, because it is still protected? Aside: I think it should stay protected though, given []. --Iamunknown 06:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see how he responds to the messages you and I have left for him. Thanks for your diligence on this. Chick Bowen 06:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Camp Miriam
please take a look at this and get back to me when you have the time i'd like to hear your opinion and re-open this website. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.219.184.42 (talk • contribs).
 * I agree with what Mailer Diablo says at the talk page; give us reliable sources and we'll allow it. But there's no need to bug me about it; you can list it at deletion review if you think you have a case. Chick Bowen 17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi from Mikho Mosulishvili
Dear Chick Bowen, You ask, please, here is here - Zangala - http://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%9B%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9B%E1%83%AE%E1%83%9B%E1%83%90%E1%83%A0%E1%83%94%E1%83%91%E1%83%94%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98:Zangala

Or here is here - http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8

Who I, and editors You will say all on me.

And if after these consultation You will again consider me doubtful persona, then I itself delete, remove all and leave thence... :((((

Thank For attention...

--Mikho Mosulishvili 06:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I said you could remove it, but I specifically said you could not move it back to article space. I have protected it. Chick Bowen 16:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... ;)
You are a great editor! :)))) But nothing do not be aware of Georgia...

Goodbye...

--Mikho Mosulishvili 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)