User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive11

This is an archive. Please do not edit it.

Baba Sehgal undeletion

Hi, thanks for undeleting the article. But most of the history is still missing. Please restore the history from the beginning - 19 December 2005. Jay (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the copyright situation; please see my comment at the AfD. Thanks. Chick Bowen 16:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obanheim

Hi, Chick. (Hey, I'm doing Lou Costello lines!). I haven't seen the deletion discussion (do you have a link?), but I do see that Boyd, Jim, "Rockwell Illustration 'The Runaway' Turns 50", TheBostonChannel.com / WCVB-TV, September 19, 2008, indeed says its state trooper Richard Clemens and not Obanheim.

I'd added the image based on information at Alice's Restaurant. I've now removed that uncited Runaway claim from that article.

Good eye! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of college towns

I saw your post on Talk:College town and am in complete agreement that the list of college towns part needs to be sourced or be deleted. I'm leaning towards the latter as "college town" is far too ambiguous and subjective for many cities to be definitively defined as such. I was wondering if you think we should give more time to reference that section or if it should simply be deleted? There's a grand total of 1 reference on the entire page and it's not even in the list section. A section could possibly be created to describe some obvious college towns (like Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, etc), but I just don't see the need for a list. I'll add to your objection on that talk page as well so others can be made aware that you're not the only one who thinks this way. I just don't want people to get all upset at me for deleting it and was wondering if I had someone to support me on that. bob rulz (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there (and I've gone ahead and done it). Thanks for your comments, and for reminding me of this problem (which I'd entirely forgotten about). Chick Bowen 16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alured Ransom

A while back you closed out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alured Ransom but you did userfy the article for me to User:Paulmcdonald/Alured Ransom. I've been working on this article off and on and have found some more very interesting and unique information from an offline source--the now defunct Pittsburgh Press ran an article in 1958 about how this gentleman was an advisor to the minister of education in Afghanistan for two years, helping set up the country's physical education programs for secondary schools and colleges. WOW, neat! Also, the "precedent" quoted in the AfD has since been restored (because it was learned that Walter J. West was also a professional football player).

Can you take a few moments look at the article in my user space and tell me what you think?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a big improvement, and that is a great find about the Afghanistan gig. One thing that makes me somewhat uncomfortable is those links to RootsWeb--it's useful of course for them to copy small-town newspaper articles on the web, but by our standards (which are admittedly a lot tougher than the web in general) it's a copyright violation. Is there any other way to verify those McDonald Record-Outlook articles--even the existence of them, if not their content? If you can verify that the articles were published in the paper on a particular date, you can just cite the original publication and leave out the link.

As for moving it back into article space, there are a couple of ways you can go about it. If you just moved it, I personally would not consider it a WP:CSD#G4 recreation and I wouldn't delete it, but of course I can't promise somebody else won't. The more secure way is to list it at WP:DRV. But you might want to just move it back in, wait and see if anyone challenges it, and then open a DRV if they do. Chick Bowen 22:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! I've removed the hyperlinks for now, but I do need to verify the articles. Might be difficult as the paper is now defunct. As to me importing, I would rather have you as the deleting admin do it because it shows that I did check with you first and it is recommended to do that before going to DRV.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you can find some way to verify those articles, that would be ideal. Chick Bowen 00:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I read your essay User:Paulmcdonald/West precedent. As a longtime DRV closer, I've observed, and have indicated in my closing statements a number of times, that AfD doesn't—and can't—work by precedent. Consensus about a particular category of articles can certainly develop over time—so any debate can have a bearing on others as part of a larger discussion—but (unlike in a court of law) the order of nominations shouldn't matter; previous debates indicate but never define consensus, and it is inevitable that as consensus emerges over time AfDs on fairly similar articles will be decided differently (virtually identical articles, like lists divided up by year, decade, or other arbitrary method, are a different matter of course). So I'm sympathetic to your arguments. Chick Bowen 00:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{unref}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed , (e.g.Methodist Rome). See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 19:51 22 October 2008 (UTC).

Noted. Chick Bowen 23:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)

I have nominated Rob Miller (South Carolina politician), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia: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. Blueboy 96 02:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Blueboy 96 02:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. Chick Bowen 03:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of drag queens

Nice job of enforcing homophobia with the close of the DRV. Otto4711 (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Chick Bowen 16:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bill Cunningham (photographer)

On 26 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bill Cunningham (photographer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royal broil 05:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Waldseemüller map

A non-composite image has just been uploaded, so I'd love your support if that remedies the problem you saw. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

btw

Great work on Bill Cunningham (photographer)!! I love this guy. I didn't know how old he was, though--wow! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much--I love his work too. The appearance of the new "On the Street," I'd even say, is one of the little highlights of the week. Chick Bowen 03:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion

Hi!

I've been working on compiling numerous Dungeons & Dragons-related articles into longer articles so that there aren't as many short, stub-length pages, and I was wondering if you could restore the edit history of Faerie dragon so that I could merge the old content into another article. For now you could redirect it to Draconic creatures. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Chick Bowen 04:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the humanity

Individual wikiprojects are deleting infoboxes from articles, who'd a thunk it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks for the link. Chick Bowen 17:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Free book covers

Hi, I just saw this project. Good idea. I checked some out and removed some fair use images. Now I am looking for some PD images. What is the best option for books already having a pd image? Right now they are striken, but I actually prefer to remove them, or at least to an archive, so that is easier to check which ones are still missing. After checking them, unfortunately for some books I saw that the public domain image was replaced by a fair use image.... Any preference? Since you currently seem to be the only member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garion96 (talk • contribs)

I know, it's frightfully disorganized, isn't it? I'd welcome some organization--yes, an archive would be good, or even just moving them to a separate section on the page (if we still want to keep it all on one, which of course it doesn't need to be). Whatever improvements you feel like making, go ahead--as long as it's clear to me what's done and what's not, so I can dive back in when I have time. I'm glad you're interested--it's been a slow process, but I know there are still a lot of replaceable fair use book covers out there. Checking them is a great idea, too--I've been worried that some might have reverted. Thanks! Chick Bowen 01:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh--the reason we kept the ones that are done is that some of the links to external images haven't been uploaded yet, and might still be useful (e.g., if we found multiple links). Of course, since the page is now two years old some of the links are dead, but whatcha gonna do. Obviously putting them in an archive would solve that problem. Chick Bowen 01:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Di Cavalcanti's cover to Pauliceia Desvairada

Dear Chick Bowen, I noticed the disclaimer Paulicea Desvairada.jpg|here that says that we are not supposed to move this file to commons. But if you check at [template], I understand that this cover was disclosed at 1922 and therefore is in the public domain. Can you verify that? Cheers, Editor br (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template you link refers only to audiovisual or photographic works, whereas this is a print of a drawing. Thus, it is protected for 70 years after the death of the author (see Commons:Commons:Licensing#Brazil), which in this case is until 2046. It is in the public domain in the United States, because it was published before 1923, but not in Brazil. For that reason, it's acceptable under Wikipedia's rules but not under Commons's. Sorry this is so esoteric! You can upload it on to pt.wikipedia, though, if it's not there already. Chick Bowen 01:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Soggy biscuit

Hi, this is back at AfD, could you undelete the talkpage? -- Banjeboi 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has done so already. Chick Bowen 19:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that, I posted to AN when I realized it was deleted a while ago. -- Banjeboi 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron McVan

Hello, some time ago this page was deleted. Please see deletion log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Ron_McVan I would be very interested in knowning what it said. I known this information can be retreived from the very latest deletion so please could you do this for me and display i on my talk pag or somewhere. Many thanks and for in advance. AWT (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd request, since if I'm not mistaken you are FK0071a, the article's creator (and recreator), following two renames. Given that this article was deleted in part because of neutrality and bias concerns, I am not comfortable undeleting it, even in userspace. If you wish to pursue this further you may file a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Chick Bowen 18:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steward Election

Dear Chick Bowen , from observing your contributions, I found you to be a very reasonable person. I have voted against Mardetanha nomination and I appreciate if you read mine and other comment there. whether you decide to change your vote or not, but please keep in mind that this particular case is a very serious issue which can affect real lives of some wikipedia users. --Kaaveh (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the comments, and they are indeed very serious accusations. I will watch the nomination closely and see what develops. Most of what a steward does is routine, and ultimately being able to communicate with users from a number of different languages currently under-represented on meta will be very important. Obviously it's essential, on the other hand, that political disagreements from one wiki not spread on to meta. Chick Bowen 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston Tower

I have found more sources for the Houston Tower at http://www.google.com/search?q=Krahl+Houston+Tower&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS278US278 and have included a few to the external links. I havn't incorperated them into the article yet as the AFD is preventing me to spend time on writing and expanding it (as the Deletion Votes hold majority right now so there wouldn't be any point of expanding an article that has a majority vote of deletion even thought i found a way to fix the problem and even recreating (due to the AFD red tape) it will cause problems if I used the sources.) I am contacting you to determine that I believe that you should change your vote based on the new source results I found. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.

It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi I am curious as to why the 'CAGE CANADIAN DICTIONARY' wiki was taken down in FEB 2006, the page www.cornerstoneword.com cotains no information now, I am wondering if it could be placed back up thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamoldgregg (talk • contribs) 10:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article Gage Canadian Dictionary three years ago because its contents had been copied from elsewhere, and thus it was a copyright violation. To restore it would still be a copyright violation, even though the original source page has since been taken down. However, there is nothing to prevent someone else from writing a new article on the same subject. See Wikipedia:Your first article for more information about how to write an article. Chick Bowen 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_nb

Thank you for seeing clearly. I have now looked at the text of these category pages, and I have had another look at the pages that already existed. For this to make sense, changes must be made to some of them. I wonder if it would be appropriate for me to edit them, or if there is someone I should discuss each edit with first. I am taking the liberty of asking for your advice.--Gamlevegen (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry. I posted this before I saw your message to me. I will try tomorrow as it is getting late in my time zone. To really make it perfect some of the other categories could be changed, too, not just the three. I will see if anything can be done without moving into controversial territory and creating difficulties for existing users.--Gamlevegen (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama's first 100 days

I have never seen an AfD solicitation in a DRV close before. How common is that. It seems to be contrary to the 8–2 overturn responses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an AfD solicitation, it was a prediction. Given that only some of those overturn arguments were based on content and some on the previous of the AfD a relist was quite reasonable. For the reasons I explained, I elected not to relist it myself. I think the article is reasonable and I hope it is kept, but my own position is not relevant here. Chick Bowen 01:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello! Regarding Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_18#List_of_units_in_the_Age_of_Mythology_series_.28closed.29, would it be possible to note the DRV at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (2nd nomination)? I ask because in the past in instances where a history undelete and redirect was okayed after the AfD some have re-deleted the history thinking it was recreated in bad faith or the admin forgot to delete, etc. and thus to prevent any confusion it would be immensely helpful to add a note to the AfD regarding the DRV or linking to the DRV. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable--done. Chick Bowen 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated; have a great night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eleazar (painter)

Hi, thanks for giving me the chance to recreate my article. I have read your comment and the problem that I have is that I don’t know any other editors to ask for do the rewrite of the article. Furthermore, I don’t speak much English. So, can you recommend me any editor that would rewrite my article?

Thanks again. A greeting from Spain,--Eleazar1954 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend that you talk to the editors who argued for restoring the article, User:DGG and User:Yandman. Thanks for dropping by. Chick Bowen 01:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutty Sark

The {{clear}} template places the text under the image, and prevents a narrow column of text appearing between the image and infobox. To my eye, it looks neater that way. It's no big thing, so I'm not going to edit war over it. I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not you replace it. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using an 800x600 monitor? On mine the in-between text isn't particularly narrow. But it wouldn't be edit warring to put it back--I invited you to revert me in my edit summary. It's just that this is not the usual situation in which the template is used. If you ask me, the real problem is that {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}, which is the underlying code for {{Infobox Ship Begin}}, sets the width of the infoboxes at 315px, which is wider than most. That creates problems on many articles, but changing it would require wading through a minefield of Wikiproject politics, and doesn't really seem worth it. Chick Bowen 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight at the glassworks

FYI: I posted a new edit at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Midnight_at_the_glassworks, with less contrast and more original colouring. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Warren Tolman

On March 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Warren Tolman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American public officials convicted of crimes

Hmm, fair enough, but are there any issues in particular that you feel my close did not address? Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could the article be renamed to tighten the scope? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I'll try to come up with a solution. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]