User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive2

This is an archive. Please do not edit it.

Edit wars at IfD

So thats a good thing right ;) --Admrboltz (T | C) 05:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Licencing image 091lute.jpg

Thanks for helping with the licence on this. I uploaded quite a few images of Caravaggio paintings from Web Art Galelry for use with the article on Caravaggio (or rather for articles on his paintings), but didn't know how to put them into Wikicommons. Can you help with that? PiCo 06:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tragedy of Cymbeline

My understanding is that The Tragedy of Cymbeline is the play's official title. I had a look and got 121,000 google hits for that exact phrase. I also understand that Shakespeare's plays broadly fit into either of two categories: comedies (the ending is a ahppy one), and tragedies (the ending is not a happy one). Please correct me if I am wrong. -- Francs2000 22:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK -- Francs2000 23:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sig

Thanks for the heads up about my sig on Haukurth's RfA. Dsmdgold 21:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mitchell Miller

Thank you for your response, one never knows if an inquiry on an article discussion page will be answered or not, let alone in a timely fashion. Your article is rather interesting, neo-platonism is an interest of mine; I myself added the article 'Actual Idealism' on the subject of Giovanni Gentile's neo-platonic idealism. Nagelfar 23:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

420moonshine

No problem! Thanks for posting the alert at WP:AIV. :) Regards, Sango123 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to revert when I can! --Lightdarkness 02:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:RogerEMoore.jpg

If you will look at the description, you will notice that I give credit to his wife for taking the picture. This was told to me by Mr. Moore. But please remove it as I no longer wish to have my work posted here. --Drmike 17:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop the vandalism. Any more and I will be happy to report you for such. --Drmike 17:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What vandalism? Because I asked you to provide copyright information for images? Good grief. Chick Bowen 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

FWIW, I wouldn't make a good admin either; largely for the same reasons ScottyBoy900Q wouldn't—but then, I'm not nominated, and wouldn't accept if I was :-)..

It's true. I wrote that. Since October, several editors have urged me to accept an RfA nomination; and I had generally told them "No, or at least not yet". Actually, Jossi seems to have forgotten it or not noticed it, but I said as much to him earlier on my talk page. I wasn't really anticipating the nomination (I might have asked someone to nominate me a couple months later than now)... but after Jossi went ahead and did so... well, I changed my mind. I've worked on some things where I developed a better deference to other editors, even ones whom I disagree with. In fact, my first encounter with Jossi was rather strident disagreement; but the fact that turned into a close working relationship convinced me that I actually would be pretty good as an admin. Take it or leave it though. All the best. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

216.174.135.154

I'm not sure - my block was a bit premature as

1. The warnings on his talk page were from days ago and
2. He added nonsense to the bill gates article then reverted himself a couple seconds later

So yeah, it is kind of bizarre - perhaps he's just experementing. I will add that he removed my block notice from his talk page seconds after I posted it, which is odd as well... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

tillie olsen

My apologies. The sandbox page I blanked was linked from this live page: Category:American_short_story_writers under "O", just before Tillie Olsen. I see now I should have just tried to delete the link.

re your message: Hello--you just blanked User:Chick Bowen/Sandbox. A sandbox is a page set up solely for testing; it need not be edited. It's common for logged in users to set up their own sandbox in their own userspace in order to test formatting. If you'd like to create an account, go to Special:Userlogin. Please don't edit other people's user pages, however. Thanks. Chick Bowen 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

tillie olsen

That was in response to your message: "User talk:71.2.168.80" Sorry, this is a bit confusing. I'll not edit until I understand this sytem better.

carchap..

Official released police photo taken from the crime scene. The copyright is fine I assure you. Also I posted the website which I received it from.

JJstroker 20:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

np. I just took the picture from this website. They stated that it was a released pubic photo from the investigation. http://www.ytedk.com/

JJstroker 02:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That Old Bibao

Thanks. I had written that bit way back when to try to enunciate a set of principles that guided my own considerations, and then I was planning to take it down, but it gets read surprisingly often. Thus, the sloppy example that was, at first, just the sign of jotting, became an actual mistake as time went on, so I appreciate the correction. If folks are going to read it, it might as well be correct. Geogre 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

mathbot

Oleg, the Bot seems to still be a little under the weather, as you can see from this edit at RFA. Got your screwdriver handy? Chick Bowen 03:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chick. Thanks for letting me know. This RfA script of mine turned out to be rather buggy, although I was not drunk when I wrote it. However, in this particular instance I believe it was Wikipedia's fault, the server probably failed to satisfy bot's request for information. I told my bot to recount, and it gave the right answer. Thanks again for the heads up. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem--I'm glad it's not a serious problem. I was editing around that time and (now that I think about it) getting some weird incomplete pages and so on, so I'm sure your explanation is right. Chick Bowen 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if I think about it, I believe my bot's original answer was right. You tried to intimidate my bot! What's got a poor bot to do, it delievered the 100% edit summaries, poor soul. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting!

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Death threat vandal

Let me know if you want to go to the police with this. I am in US and doubt the local police can take action against a Can user, but what the hell. or if you want to add my name to the ISP complaint. Jwissick^(t)(c) 02:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Complete

The request you made by email is complete. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

finding images uploaded by a user

You can go to Special:Log/upload and enter "Darkgrammer" in the User field. The results can be found here: [1]. -- Curps 02:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For your kind support of my Rfa, which passed. If you should ever have any complaints about my admin actions, please let me know. Also, should you ever need my help with anything, please do not hesitate to ask! Thanks again! All the best Banez 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Whoops

Thanks for reminding me to sign there. It's nice to see that going on, he's been through alot, something I can relate to. Karmafist 16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Morse Code Updates

Thanks for the message; I appreciate the kind words. The paralyzed "Morse blinker" was from a brief article in the amateur radio magazine QST of some years ago. I can try to find it but that will be difficult. The speed for fastest Morse is from the Guiness Book and will get that when have a moment at the library. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Weil (talk • contribs) .

Richard Weil 16:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Thanks Chuck, I'm still learning how to use all this. I updated Morse as best I could.

Curious about your username

Hi! I just got finished voting at your RfA, and saw your note on your user page about the significance of your username. I'm a huge baseball fan, and was curious why you chose to use a (very) obscure baseball player as your username; was he your high school baseball coach? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know my article needed referencing. I just assumed that they were doomed to deletion, but now I am hopeful they might be salvageable. I hope I have done an adequate job. I realise that these articles are very local, but they would provide local students at least a source to do local history researches. GK —Preceding unsigned comment added by G K (talk • contribs)

Japanese government images?

Carnildo, do you happen to know the copyright situation for official Japanese government portraits? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I'm concerned about the images on this list. Any advice would be appreciated--thanks. Chick Bowen 00:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No clue. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain; everything else is very complicated. --Carnildo 08:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I see you created the first edits for the first non-libelous, non-copy vio article about John Seigenthaler Sr. For that, I award you this barnstar. -- user:zanimum

Thanks! My first-ever barnstar, actually. It's kind of a funny story--I'd completely forgotten about it when the news broke, until a couple weeks after the fact I went into the archives and read the Signpost article, and was quite taken aback to find myself discussed in it. Eventually it all came back to me--I was pretty new at the time, and looked up Seigenthaler by chance because I had him confused with his son. As soon as I read the article it was obviously a copyvio, and being new I didn't yet know about WP:CP, so I just blanked it and rewrote it from scratch. I never checked the history; I had no idea what was lurking back there. It's interesting--on the one hand, I would have approached it differently if it had happened a month later and I'd known more about policy. On the other hand, it all kinda worked out in a way, and as you point out, my version was the first-ever legitimate article him (and is now the first edit in the article history). Such is life on the wiki, I guess. Anyway, thanks--I appreciate the recognition! Chick Bowen 22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm glad you went ahead and wrote the article, against policy. In unique situations, guide yourself through instincts. -- user:zanimum

Conceit

I was doing a wikilink from the T.S.Eliot page for "metaphysical conceit" (i.e. just to "conceit"). I realised it was not possible to quickly check out "metaphysical conceit" on the "conceit" page without reading all the way through it. It seems to me it needs headings to make clear different aspects. I don't intend to fill it in myself, but I feel it should be, and now it has a structure that makes that possible very easily. Tyrenius 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC) It's more confusing now, because the definitions and the history are muddled, i.e. you can only find out what a Petrachan conceit is if you read the history. It is not immediately clear. My aim was to have a page of headings that allowed someone to find immediately what they wanted! But at least they can find a Metaphysical conceit. I will leave you to sort it out! Best Tyrenius 02:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

James Batchelder

Thanks for the cleanup. I'll catch on eventually. I'm wondering about one thing. I thought you weren't supposed to link things like Boston or South Carolina. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Reilly (talk • contribs) .

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 05:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Impressive voting CB. Not one oppose or neutral! That's quite an achievement in "modern RfA"! Congratulations and welcome to the mop squad! Redux 12:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A very solid showing in the recent RfA. This is the first time I came across a user having a perfect score. Congratulations on your new role. My sincere regards. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too! Mushroom (Talk) 15:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect score! Congrats! --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Great work so far chick. :) Keep it up. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian copyrights

First off, congratulations from me, too, for your getting the mop and bucket :-) On those Russian copyrights, you asserted that 1954 date. Can you be more specific? (See my commment at the TfD.) I'd really like to get this whole issue clarified. Thanks. Lupo 08:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've found now that decree from 2004 changing the copyright law here (in Russian). I think I've figured out that 1954 business now; see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Link_to_Russian_Wikisource. Lupo 10:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:CP

Hey, congrats on the mop. Disputes seem generally to arise only on images. I suppose this is because we insist on a PD or GFDL license for all text, but are ok with non-free images. Basically, you really just have to read the copyright notice yourself, read the debate and then decide for yourself anyway. People are often under the impression that copyright infringement is a matter of 'consensus' when it's not. There are a few classes of images we simply don't allow, and no amount of debate (no matter how uncivil the debate becomes as in the case you cite) changes that: if it's non-commercial use only, with-permission only or orphaned with only a fair-use claim or an implausible fair-use claim, they go, unless there is a viable fair-use claim. The end. People will scream, but that's up to them. Jimbo has also made clear that he personally will be pretty harsh in dealing with copyright infringement issues and encourages 'boldness' in excising them — he will back admins that do so sensibly.

For less clear cases, consider whether there might be a fair use claim. You may find WP:FU useful (or not), and WP:FUC is reasonably authoritative. I found this useful. It's something you pick up by watching and listening to others. If you think that an image might have a FU claim but has clearly got the wrong tag on it at present, you can tag it {{nolicense}} to wake the uploader up, with a message to their talk. Then it's an automatic delete in 7 days, with no further questions unless they act on it. Watchlisting such cases is useful. People get upset when red boxes appear. If you are confident that there is a FU claim, you can add the relevant tag yourself. If you cannot reach a conclusion, add a note about your questions to the listing on CP and leave it for someone else. Often enough someone eventually offers a second opinion or just handles it themselves.

That image of the crown is tricky. Certainly, the terms of the Crown Copyright attached to it are unacceptable as they stand, it doesn't matter how....loud....some people are about it. The no-reuse without permission means we don't want it under its own terms. So is there a fair-use claim? Probably, in an article about the crown: St. Edward's Crown and Coronation Crown of George IV. But WP:FUC is explicit that the use of FU images is forbidden in Template: space ("They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes)"), which is where nearly all the usages of this image are. So the image should be removed from the template, which will remove it from nearly all the articles it appears in, but allowed to remain in those two articles I mentioned. The copyvio tag should be removed, and replaced with {{fair use in|St. Edward's Crown}} and {{fair use in|Coronation Crown of George IV}}. Feeling bold? -Splash^talk 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You probably will just need to make null edits to update the database without changing the articles. Oh, and for The Road Hammers, I think this was a derivative work on comparing the article to the webpage (it even includes the same "truckin'"), so I deleted it. -Splash^talk 22:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome for the cleaned-up version: I've had a guilt complex regarding not doing anything about that image for quite a while now, so I was very happy to see you presenting a smart solution. I've done a bunch of null edits to make the what links here more accurate. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I keep meaning to take it off. However you are incorrect re the crown image in the template. Fairuse usage in templates is debatable (in fact most lawyers disagree with WP policy and say that it is factually wrong). However crown copyright makes it explicitly clear that it has far wider application than fairuse. A crown copyright image can be used anywhere subject to two provisos:

1. Its source is acknowledged, which WP always does in the download page.
2. It is not used inaccurately.

As the template in question is exclusively used in British royal templates it is 100% legal, as has been confirmed to me by a British lawyer on the issue. It would only be in breach of crown copyright if, for example, we abused it by claiming it was, say a French crown, or a Russian crown, etc. Once its use is accurate we can use it anywhere. It was specifically downloaded on that basis, after legal consultation, for use on occasions where the fairuse image of that crown could not be. So it is perfectly legal to use it in templates. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

king template

Sorry, didn't mean to change the image. ed g2s • talk 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

temps

Thanks a lot for creating a temp replacement for Devil's Due (TNG episode)--it's now in place as the article. By the way, it would be helpful in such cases if you could make a note at WP:CP, since we sometimes miss them (though we try our best not to). Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didnt nominate the article and thought it was already listed there. I merely saved uncopyrighted knowlege from delete. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I wasn't clear. It was listed there; I meant to make a note that you'd created a temp to make sure we don't delete it accidentally. Anyway, yes, you saved it, and thanks again. Chick Bowen 03:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

^_^' I wish copyrights were processed with same care all the time. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

images by banned users

I've created a tool that should scan for these. Please add User:Catapult/Images to your watchlist, I'm going to sleep now. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:44, Feb. 15, 2006

It choked on an image title in the middle of the night (the title contained a % sign and it wasn't prepared to deal with that). But it processes the images alphabetically and I set it to resume at that image, just strike out the ones that are okay. Put the <s> after the * to preserve the bulleting in the list, otherwise it will ignore the single linebreaks. I will be stepping away from the computer again. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:31, Feb. 15, 2006

When you strike them out as "checked" does this simply mean they are tagged, or that you are confident that they are tagged correctly? I haven't looked closely but I'm a bit surprised at the rate of okayness so far. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:23, Feb. 16, 2006

Hello, I've changed my sig. Yes I agree that less publicity would be better, especially as having more people around wouldn't help much, because the list is generated so slowly anyway. This will take a long time. — Feb. 17, '06 [05:06] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

bio

Most such bios are written by their subjects, at least in part.

I won't miss it though.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Gayathri

Well, in this particular case, the additional text is also copyvio from [2] (at least; Google finds fragments in other places suggesting another original source), so the whole thing just needs deleting. To answer the more general question: well, if it is possible to retain some of the history which is non-infringing work, then it is ok to delete only the infringing revisions (i.e. delete the article and selectively restore). Supposing the additional material in this case were original, we'd still have to nuke the revisions it appears in since they also contain the (other) infringing material. Once or twice, I have used the 'Articles for Creation' mechanism. There, they copy the new material into an article and credit the author in the edit summary. So in copyvio terms, then, copy the material to your computer momentarily, delete everything, then recreate it with just the non-infringing material and an appropriate edit summary. In fact, some people do this in reverse quite often: they just chop off the offending material, leaving the article fine. In those cases, I personally delete the history until the copyvio is gone. This may or may not be necessary however, since we actually revert to pre-copyvio if it is possible, thus retaining infringing revisions in the history absent a specific request to remove them. I guess it's a technical-ease thing: delete the history if it's easy to do, but, if the revisions are mixed up in the middle of everything, just revert because it's easier. -Splash^talk 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Images by banned users

Hi Chick, thanks for helping out. I've only had a few minutes on-line the last few days and haven't had a chance to go through all this user's edits and uploads. (I should have some time this weekend). And thanks for the tip about User:Catapult/Images. --Duk 03:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created a page with suspected accounts and IP addresses being used by this user User:Mike Dillon/Kiop clones. Mike Dillon 16:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kiop socks

The problem with the SikhiWiki site is that although it is nominally licensed under the GFDL, they appear to be pretty lax on their sourcing. So if the article on SikhWiki itself is a copyvio, then so is the copy. I didn't research the status of the Mata Tripta article specifically, but I looked at some of the other ones copied from there a week or two ago and the source SikhWiki articles seemed to be copyvios (unfortunately I didn't keep track of which articles). Also, I believe that copying the text from SikhWiki without using the "Permanent link" feature or using some other method to identify the original contributors is a violation of their license. Mike Dillon 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't really looked at the Mata Tripta article before, but the one on SikhiWiki seems to be a slightly edited copy of its source. It cites allaboutsikhs.com as the source and I found the article at http://allaboutsikhs.com/women/mata_tripta.htm. That site states "©1999-2004 Gateway to Sikhism, All Rights Reserved" on the bottom. I wouldn't assume that the copyright status of that site was clean either.

Where do you want me to post this information on WP:CP? I don't see an entry for the Mata Tripta article. Mike Dillon 18:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Kalsi after indicating a willingness to stop uploading copyvios. I'm going through the sock's uploads now. --Duk 20:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

East German leader

Hi there! The image itself was edited from the previous low quality one that was uploaded before my modification. I used ACD See to put it in a better shape. I dunno if that is enought explanation, let me know. Messhermit 18:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)