User talk:Chick Bowen

To leave me a message, click here.

Douglas Bush

I know that in your original entry you did not list Aharon Lichtenstein (who is a renowned Talmudic Scholar) as a prominent student of Douglas Bush.

I know very little about Douglas Bush but a lot about Aharon Lichtenstein, and I was wondering if, within English Literatue, Lichtenstein should in fact be considered a prominent student of Bush's or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Bush

Tahnks GZee 16:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias

Hey Chick Bowen, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoi khoi 04:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thanks a lot for deleting my page. Couldn't you have waited a while? From: tanjo3 22:30, 28 October, 2006 (UTC)

No. It had already been deleted more than once. If you'd like to contest the deletion, the proper thing to do is to post at deletion review. Chick Bowen 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi chick, how come that you are an admin again? And since then? I´m just a little curious. Greetings 195.93.60.65 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to you, whoever you may be. Chick Bowen 16:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxima

That was an acceptable image. It was from a media site that released to the public for non-commercial use. I guess you didn't realize that. Rarelibra 14:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial use only is not an acceptable license, I'm afraid. Please see speedy deletion criterion I3 and this email from Jimbo Wales. Chick Bowen 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNITO

Hello,

In fact, the image I am trying to upload has a GPL license. I just made a mistake the first time I uploaded it, now I got into this legal trap. Moreover, the second time I uploaded it, the image was actually different, this time with a public domain status, but I guess you didn't notice it.

I hope you understand and we can solve this issue, otherwise there will be missing content in that page just because of a minor technical error.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unitomaster (talk • contribs) .

2

The image is a Logo that belongs to the CUS Torino (www.custorino.it). According to legal standards in the US and Wikipedia's policies themselves, a Logo is subject to fair use (just check the drop-down list in the upload section).

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unitomaster (talk • contribs) .

3

Thank you for the clarification. The image is now tagged. Please let me know of anything else.

best regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unitomaster (talk • contribs) .

Thanks...

...for fixing the featured picture description on the main page. Cribananda 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure--learned something new. Chick Bowen 05:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for doing that, I appreciate it. However, I think it needs one more tweak as "rotation around the Earth" isn't correct, the Moon should get a definite article and a link to tidal locking would really help to inform those who are curious. If you could maybe update that, that'd be great. I'll expand that article like you mentioned. Thanks again! --Rajah 05:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I neglected to mention my proposed change is on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thanks! --Rajah 05:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I missed some drama over this. Now the sentence is gone altogether--it does some like it would have been a bit long with all the info you wanted to add. There are obviously scientific issues here beyond what I understand so I'll have to let other take care of it. Chick Bowen 16:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Networks

I've marked the page Jingle Networks as spam for speedy deletion. The user has argued about the worthiness of this page and now I'm not sure if it's a worthy page or not. Can it be checked on? -WarthogDemon 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved discussion to AfD. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jingle Networks. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Irony

I deleted it. Please be aware of our policy against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Thank you. Chick Bowen 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only conclude then, that if Wikipedia were to have a mission statement, it would, as its first and most crucial point, would be this:

All content is to be pointless.

Cheers mate. -- Chris 01:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be far more tolerant of you if I thought you were funny. Chick Bowen 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time it's happened today, and certainly not over his entire existence here. He archives his talk page (without linking to said archive), apparently avoiding much of the flak. If you don't mind, I've gone ahead an test4'd him. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What happens next is up to him. If he continues to escalate his provocations, a block and probably a community ban is inevitable. He has some good contributions and if he'll figure out what this project is about and stick to those, there's no reason not to keep him around. Chick Bowen 02:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this whole experience has been super ironic.

Sorry for the disruptions though -- won't happen again, I am quite sure.

Chris 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please

I noticed that you have twice deleted the entry I created for the John Paul II Media Institute in Halifax, NS, Canada yesterday.

Can you provide me with some reason as to why the entries were deleted outright without any notice to the creator of the page?

Care was taken to attribute the works of all copyrighted material to their owners, and the article provided external links to corroborating internet resources.

The creation of this entry was an assignment for the students of the institute itself which is due next week on Wednesday.

Some justification for the deletion of the article would be appreciated, particularly since no effort was made on your part to contact the sources included the article that provide the legitimacy of the information it contained.

With thanks, paulwwozney.

As a general rule, we discourage people from writing articles about organizations they are involved with. The result is inevitably borderline from the point of view of our neutrality and verifiability policies. In this case, in my opinion it did not make sense to have an article about something that's just getting going--if it is successful, there will be plenty of coverage of it in reliable sources, and we can create an article. However, if you'd like to dispute the deletion of it you may do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Chick Bowen 23:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern about neutrality in this case, however, you have plenty of articles on Wikipedia (if not most) who have editors who do not have an optimal level of "editorial distance"- pages about WWII battles whose contributors include war veterans who fought in them, pages about lobby groups and corporations whose entries are largely edited by their employees or corporate brass. To exclude an entry on the mere possibility of this basis may seem editorially permissible according to policy, however, it seems woefully out of step with the reality reflected in much of Wikipedia's content.

The information provided in the article provided links to external sources that verified the facts it contained. While I totally understand the burden of providing facts is on the writer and not the reader, it is fairly clear that you didn't follow the links to the corroborating resources in the article. If writers provide sources for verification and they are not observed by readers who delete rather than check them through, how can that be a standard for deletion?

I'm also curious about your assertion that because something is new or in its formative stages and hasn't received "plenty of coverage" from reliable sources as a reason for exclusion from Wikipedia. Must something be "successful" or longstanding and verified by traditional journalistic or scholarly sources to be included in Wikipedia? There are a number of Wiki entries on websites or phenomena that have existed for a much shorter time than JP2MI and are corroborated solely by myspace pages and blogs that find their way onto this resource. I appreciate your opinion, however, the decision to delete this entry seems to have been based more on that opinion than evaluation of policy, especially in light of many content areas on Wikipedia.

I do plan to appeal the deletion. Thanks for your prompt reply to my questions, and for the links to the deletion review page. With thanks, paulwwozney.

John Paul II Media Institute on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Paul II Media Institute. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulwwozney (talk • contribs) .

Havelock

Hello Chick Bowen, Talking about Homer and an oral form of Philosophy; are you familiar with Iman Wilkens' Where Troy Once Stood, which also concerns Homer in this respect? Regards, Antiphus 08:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't familiar with that book, no. How incredibly bizarre. Could have saved Schliemann a lot of trouble, I guess. Chick Bowen 15:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article got undressed quite a bit lately, here's a somewhat larger version: [1], Antiphus 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to send my kudos after reading the Havelock page after seeing it as the featured page. The article is some of the best work I've seen on Wikipedia. lionelag 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your kind words--I'm delighted it's getting so many readers. Chick Bowen 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to delete my comments on another person's talk page.

That person is a friend of mine in real life and my comment was left in jest. Whether it was 'productive' or not was not up to you, who had not considered perhaps it was constructive in creating a friendly environment on wikipedia. To me, sir, you are a cop, a troll and void of humor.Miserlou 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. Naturally I had no way to know he was a friend of yours. Chick Bowen 23:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Blythe

Why don't you (or Chick Bowen) just remove the image? It doesn't bother me, really. Kedar 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]