User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive. Please do not edit it.

Contents 1 Douglas Bush 2 Muchas gracias 3 Thanks. 4 Question 5 Maxima 6 UNITO 6.1 2 6.2 3 7 Thanks... 8 Jingle Networks 9 Super Irony 10 Clarification please 11 John Paul II Media Institute on deletion review 12 Havelock 13 You have no right to delete my comments on another person's talk page. 14 Betty Blythe 15 Falcon Studios 16 The Pardoner's Tale 17 Patricia Columbo 18 User:Moe Epsilon/Semi2 moved 19 Re: Translation request 20 Jason Lee 21 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 22 Images on talk pages 23 Regarding User:Noahlaws 24 "Image:Heart of darkness cover.jpg"

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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, —Khoikhoi 04:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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) .

[edit] 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) .

[edit] 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) .

[edit] Thanks...

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

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

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)

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

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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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:

1. All content is to be pointless.

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

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

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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.

[edit] 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) .

[edit] 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)

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)

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

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

Huh? I am Chick Bowen. In any case, thanks for being obliging; it's deleted. Chick Bowen 20:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Get a life Chick Bowen, I am out of here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kedar63 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Falcon Studios

I would like to courteously invite you to relook at this article. Falcon has been widely regarded among the gay population as a leading producer of gay pornography for quite some time. Although currently, many of their competitors are producing content that is at least as good as Falcon's, certainly their powerful presence throughout the 80s and 90s warrants them an article. It can be very difficult when writing an article about a company that is at least as popular as Falcon to write it without making it sound like an advertisement; if upon further review, you still feel it is blatant advertisement, please restore it to my user page so that I can make the proper adjustments to it before restoring it. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive004#Falcon Studios speedy for a lengthy discussion of this issue. Since two admins have concurred on this article, your best bet may be to list it at WP:DRV if you'd like to pursue the issue. Thanks for being polite about this. Chick Bowen 20:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pardoner's Tale

I don't agree with your reason for not speeding this article. It may be a "standard name" for something else (which is why it exists as a redirect), but the actual article is not under this name.

Where as The Pardoner's Tale (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode) should really be named as "The Pardoner's Tale" as per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Our existing guildlines say to not disambiguate unless there's another article of the same name, which isn't the case here.

Let's just say, if "The Pardoner's Tale" had been created as an article for the L&O episode before someone came and created it as a redirect to The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale, would anyone (and would there be any guildlines supporting them) come and move the article to a disambiguated form and turn it into a redirect for The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale?

For those reasons, i think you should reconsider this speedy request. If you still do not agree, then do you know where i can take this to? (I'd assume AfD would be inappropriate, but i don't know of a place here to deal with cases like this). --`/aksha 06:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Columbo

You deleted this article without knowledge, right or even proposing something. No wonder these people above do not take you seriously. By definition of law you CANNOT libel someone who is serving 300 years for murdering her mother, brother and father. And the case was one of the most notorious of the 1970s. People like you give Wikipedia the laughable reputation it has. Return the article forthwith. ---ColScott---

The article must cite reliable sources to be included. It's that simple. Provide them and I'll undelete gladly. Chick Bowen 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay Mr. Flintstone, I'll bite. The Newspaper okay with you? Columbo, DeLuca guilty Jay Branegan; Jane Fritsch Chicago Tribune (1963-Current file); Jul 2, 1977; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Chicago Tribune (1849 - 1985) pg. W1 AND Miss Columbo offered sex, cash for slayings--witness Jay Branegan Chicago Tribune (1963-Current file); Jun 3, 1977; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Chicago Tribune (1849 - 1985) pg. 3

Send me your email and I will send you the PDFs you can have them read to you.

Then there is MOM DAD MIKE AND PATTI THE TRUE STORY OF THE COLUMBO MURDERS by Bonnie Remsberg. Bantam Books 1992

and LOVE'S BLOOD by Clark Howard ST Martin's Press 1993

Of course BOTH books are written up in detail at AMAZON.

but being a wikifool you may just want ONLINE sources, lol.

[2] [3] [4]

1- Reliable sources- check 2- Notoriety- check 3- complete inability to be libelled because no reputation exists to be damaged after triple murder conviction of own family. Check

Of course there is always the option of not deleting or editing or even meddling in something you know NOTHING about. Try it it works for most people not on a power trip. Now undelete the article. --ColScott--

[edit] User:Moe Epsilon/Semi2 moved

As suggested I moved User:Moe Epsilon/Semi2 to Template:Sprotect2 so others can use this on articles now :) semper fi — Moe 17:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Chick Bowen 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I answered your message and rang rings around you so now undelete. Col Scott

[edit] Re: Translation request

Hi Chick Bowen. Not at all. It's already done :) . I formatted it so as to make it clear that it was a translation of your comment, but feel free to alter it in any way that you feel might make it better. Cheers, Redux 03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Lee

FUCK YOU!!! The article on Jason Lee was ALL FACT1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.64.51.99 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Marko Petkovšek Egg magazine National Library of Serbia WCWM Roz Weston Nilakantha Somayaji Stari Grad, Belgrade Julie Wagner Gloucester County, New York Flag of Belgrade Scott Ferrall Kraljevo Enigmail Genex Tower Obrenovac Mario Testino Jackie Woodburne Malaspina University-College Savinac

Cleanup List of Indian corps in WWII List of marine reptiles Woodfield Mall Merge First League of Serbia and Montenegro John Prescott Pah Wraith Add Sources Treaty of Belgrade Andy Hurley Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. Wikify Stefan Dennis Jessica Savitch PoPoLoCrois Expand National Institute of Technology, Silchar List of Serbian companies Ejaculation

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 12:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work (yes I know I'm talking to a machine). My interest in Serbia lies mostly in removing images I've deleted, my interest in malls in deleting the articles themselves. How ejaculation got on there I really don't want to know. Chick Bowen 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images on talk pages

Thanks for the tip. Do you mean that images cannot be used on talk pages? I haven't seen this restriction. The reason I've added this inTalk:List of Greek words with English derivatives is to help some users to type Greek text conveniently.--Odysses (☜) 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know. I guess the image should be deleted. Can I use this one instead in the talk page?.--Odysses (☜) 18:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--Odysses (☜) 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding User:Noahlaws

Um, have you read his latest responses on his talk page? I'm aware he's already blocked, but if this guy is serious, he's not going to listen to logic and if he starts putting that POVscreed into researched pages, he's going right back to AIV. Is there something to be done about this, besides waiting for him to edit war? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I've posted at WP:AN to get more people into it. Chick Bowen 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Image:Heart of darkness cover.jpg"

I'm not sure what speedy criterion you deleted it under and I'm not sure I think your actions were helpful considering the discussion I'd initiated, and I just want to register that frustration. You just chipped away at my faith in Wikipedia one little bit more, but there's no value in going any further with this, and you just chipped away at my faith in Wikipedia one little bit more. Anyway, see you around and happy editing. Steve block Talk

You're right to be frustrated. Though I do not think such use of book covers is fair use, I acted too quickly and I apologize. Chick Bowen 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)