User talk:Chowbok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Bahaus

Was getting Wikimedia Foundation error messages. I meant to add the unreferenced tag to the top.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Whelchel

Keep adding a link to your flame blog and I'll keep deleting it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LUKEjaywalker (talk • contribs) 21:40, June 26, 2007

If anyone adds a flame blog, I'll delete them, so don't feel too special.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LUKEjaywalker (talk • contribs) 22:01, June 26, 2007

Too funny! Someone posting a flame blog tells me to be more civil. 65.54.155.41 04:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rfu

Hi Chowbok. I process a lot of "rfu" images, but there are some I shouldn't deal with, either because I was involved with the debate/discussion, or because the uploader is likely to distrust my impartiality. There are a few left at Category:Replaceable fair use to be decided after 26 June 2007 and Category:Replaceable fair use to be decided after 27 June 2007. Could you take care of these for me? (It goes without saying that I trust your judgment in these, and I won't contest your decisions whatever they are.) Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crowning moments

Greetings. I'm contacting you because you have experience in dealing with our non-free content policy as it pertains to images. A so-far unresolved issue deals with "crowning moments" for beauty pageant contestants. This specific issue is heated because of previous disputes between the aptly named User:PageantUpdater and the obscurely named User:Abu badali, but the same issue could apply to many other classes of images as well. All parties have made their cases adequately, but consensus is still elusive, so the issue remains open long after other problems have been resolved. Could you go to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_18#Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg and give your opinion? It would really help us to finish this issue and move on. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
(This message was copied to several other image-wonks at the same time.)

[edit] Ford Torino

Chowbok, I appreciate all your hard work eliminating all of my images that I spent hours scanning for my article. Since I have no "Free" images to replace these with, now we can all become more educated with the lack of photos. Thanks for your tireless efforts!

Caprice 96 18:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A favor

Hi, could you help me? See this and my talk page. Good night, – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Quadell, please do not try to carry your wikistalking campaign against me to other users. I ask that you apologize immediately and try to undo your destructive actions. M.

[edit] Steve Pence.jpg

Yeah, it is a Commonwealth of Kentucky publicity photo. I doubt that it is copyrighted, but I guess we'd better take it down to be sure. I don't have any way to verify the copyright or lack of same right now. Realkyhick 05:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lena

I have explained my reasoning for removing the tag on OsamaK's page. Please feel free to add your comments there. Cheers. Abecedare 15:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No apologies needed. Your thinking was clear from your edit summaries. I left the note on your page only because you clearly understand the significance of the image, and I thought you may like to add to the comments on Osama's page. I don't think there is any risk of the image getting deleted though, especially given the previous deletion debate. Abecedare 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angela Lansbury

It is felt that pictures taken by users are more appropriate than using loopholes in the law. Also, the picture that you insist on being used is older and not as, well...easy to associate with Angela Lansbury. The image taken at the Emmys is more appropriate as it is how Lansbury looked when she was, arguably, best known-while starring in Murder Shw Wrote. Also, would you put a picture of a 7-year-old Adam Sandler or another person if there was another one that was more up-to-date and accurate? Dalejenkins 13:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I will also post this on User:Dalejenkins's page as I have reverted the image, but Chowbok, I'd also be interested to know what you think.
To Dalejenkins: Firstly, it is not a loophole in the law. Images that were never copyrighted are free to use, and film trailers were not copyrighted prior to 1964. It would be a loophole if we were somehow twisting the law to suit our purpose, and that's not the case. "It is felt that pictures taken by users are more appropriate" is just plain incorrect. We choose free images over unfree images but there is nothing to say that one form of free image is preferable to another form of free image. As for the image itself and the article - firstly Angela Lansbury had been a notable actress for more than 40 years before doing Murder She Wrote. Looking at the images from a purely aesthetic viewpoint, the Dorian Gray image is a crisp, clear, in-focus image. It illustrates a key moment in her career, and is in a role for which she was nominated for an Academy Award. I could understand that if it was just some random shot, it would be jarring, but that's not the case. The article should represent her entire life/career not just the latter parts of it, regardless of your opinion of what constitutes her fame. If the earlier part of her career can be illustrated with a free image or images then not only can we do this, but we really should do this in order to be comprehensive and there is certainly enough room in the article for all the images that are currently there. The Emmy Award photo is not bad - but she's not looking at the camera, and she's clearly been cropped from a larger image. It's just an opportunistic image grabbed when she wasn't looking and it doesn't represent anything in particular except what she looked like on that particular occasion. It's a satisfactory image, and very useful to us, but it's not an excellent image. If she was looking at the camera etc, I would be more inclined to agree with you. An example of an excellent (IMO), candid, more recent image can be found at Betty White. Compare that to the rather inferior Angela Lansbury image. If we had as good a recent image of Lansbury, I'd be thrilled, but we don't. Also, we would never put an image of a seven year old Adam Sandler on his page as the lead image even if we had a really good free one. He wasn't famous when was seven, but Angela Lansbury was famous when she was twenty.
I notice your last edit said "shall we meet halfway" so I'm glad you are at least looking for a compromise instead of just shooting the Dorian Gray image on sight. That's good. Mind you, I thought I was already meeting you halfway, by not removing the older image in the same manner in which you, more than once, removed the Dorian Gray image. I prefer the Dorian Gray image - I think it's a better image - but I'm happy to discuss it with you further. Rossrs 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] E-mail

I did get your email, however for current privacy concerns prefer to not reply. I may reply later though. I did get your message and am currently researching. Thank you for expressing your concerns! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bela Lugosi

How is the image of Bela Lugosi replaceable, I don't think a picture of his corpse will do the trick. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bela Lugosi list

I've restored and moved it to User:Chowbok/Bela Lugosi, so it won't get CSDed again before you're done with it. Natalie 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Fischer arrest.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fischer arrest.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Alan Light photos

I noticed that you uploaded a picture of Jack Kirby from Alan Light's flickr account, on which he gives permission to use the images pretty much anyway people see fit. I'd like to upload some more of his pictures. Is it assumed, by the way he worded the site, that everything there is under a CC attribution license? Should I seek permission to upload specific photos? Is there anything else I need to do? Thanks in advance. Stilgar135 03:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hello,
User:Geno requested the mediation cabal to help resolve your slight dispute at Talk:Linda Hamilton. I will be taking the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-06 Linda Hamilton--Phoenix 15 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Facebook about to be deleted

Hi, as one of the people with a picture on Wikipedia:Facebook, figured you might be interested in knowing that it is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination). - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erin Moran photo

Yes, the Erin Moran photo was taken at Comic-Con in July, 2007, regardless of what the photo's metadata says. Whatever the metadata says would be because we've never set the date in the camera. Wryspy (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Weill operas

Hi. This is to explain why I have had to revert your edits. First of all the Songspiel is not an opera. Second the navbox, like all Opera Project ones, goes top right on the page so it's important to keep it as narrow as possible, otherwise it's obtrusive. Regards. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you have reverted instead of replying. That's called edit warring, you know. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coasters

You are very welcome, and thank you for your acknowledgement. I enjoy a good hunt on the net! SaundersW (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next step of recall

You voted for Mercury's recall to continue; please note this RFC, which is where Mercury has chosen to continue the recall process. Ral315 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sarah Palin.jpg

I got the image from ak.gov, which is under the authority of a federal agency, so I had the copyright license listed under the federal government, which is in the public domain. Thank you. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that too once, but I looked it up (.gov), and it says that anything under the domain name .gov is regulated by a federal agency. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Carol Lay.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Carol Lay.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Powerhouse Pepper 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Powerhouse Pepper 3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Taiwan flag

If you think Taiwan or the ROC is a sovereign state, then tell me the difference between it and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and North Cyprus and the State of Palestine etc.. Why aren't they in the list?

And I don't see either Taiwan or the ROC in the list of sovereign states. In the list it's just a state claiming sovereignty. Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

However, even if you think the ROC is a state, but Taiwan isn't a state, do you agree? Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the flags of the SADR, North Cyprus and Palestine etc. in the gallery article, and tell me why. What's the difference between them and Taiwan? Why should Taiwan be particular? Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that'll be better. Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Muhammad

Chowbok, I strongly suggest that you leave Talk:Muhammad alone for a while, or at the very least refrain from commenting on the image issue and especially refrain from making any comments that might be interpreted as inflaming the dispute. Your comments thus far, several of which I have now removed as having no evident function in improving the encyclopaedia, are disrespectful to people of ardent religious faith; it really doesn't matter how misguided their requests are or how unlikely to be granted, that talk page is part of Wikipedia's public relations, due to the profile of the debate among Islamic forums, and it is important to be fair and to be seen to be fair, even while standing our ground. Please try to be onside here. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 23:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This comment [1] is ignorant. I live in the GMT time zone, your original message was posted at 23:19 and you accused me of not considering it worth responding to at 02:12. In common with most people, my level of Wikipedia activity is generally low when I'm asleep. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Cartwright

Hi. Despite my request in an edit summary to provide references if re-adding the contentious material to this biography of a living person, you went and added it without doing so. The publicist has contacted Wikimedia (via OTRS ticket#2008022110001593) and indicated that she considers this material to be incorrect. If you persist in restoring unsourced contentious material about this living person, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy for more information on this. - Mark 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think to explain further until it was too late. Please accept my apologies. - Mark 02:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Muhammad/images

Hi- the section you put back in [2] gets a bit ragged at the end as User:Rtwise continues to attack me for having "censored" him and for having used inapprorpiate language ("damn"?, "hell"?). I've responded in his TP a couple of times to explain to him why I was justified to do what I did, but still he persists in the article's talk space. HS nuked it because the train has run so far off the rails as to not be helpful any longer. Perhaps and archive would be better?-MasonicDevice (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with archiving it, that would be a fine compromise. You can do it, or I'd be happy to as well, let me know.—Chowbok ☠ 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I fear it would cause rtw undue constrenation if I archived it, as I'm rather involved. It would probably be better if you did it. -MasonicDevice (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Stamos

Hi-Can you please put back the original photo of John Stamos on his page? I know you did it again today, but someone has vandalized his page again. Thanks! IndulgentReader (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB error

While you did some AWB work, an error was accidently introduced. A ref was incorrectly converted. Please inform AWB developers. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why remove ® trademark symbols?

On what basis does your bot remove the registered trademark symbols? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Chowbok, I completely agree with removing the registered trademark symbols. They have no place in Wikipedia and are a major eyesore and add no value to the article. Andrew73 (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree in general too, but in the article Sunseed the sentence in question was noting the presence of the symbol, and I'd consider its removal a false positive. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wendy Carlos citation

I agree with you, but the problem is...let's say an innocent reader clicks that citation's link...and then, well, look at the page you get. Since it's Playboy, there's a rather...let's say, controversial image, on that page. Not exactly an appropriate thing for an encyclopedia to be linking to? — Wackymacs (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

You have gone through and removed what you call trademark crap from several articles. Please don't, these are being used to show intellectual property rights for those products. If you read the articles, you would see that the ® and ™ symbols are only used to show how the company is seeking to project the product.

If you think trademarks are crap, try looking at Apple Corps v. Apple Computer. They are as much part of a business as the product itself.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop, again

Unless you can show me a valid WP policy based reason for your deletion of this information, stop. If you are thinking about the policy regarding the ™ and ® symbols, that is not pertinent as that only refers to usage within an article (WP uses Whopper not Whopper®) and not the actual description of the status of corporate trademarks. Because I hate simple lists of extraneous facts, I chose not to create a Trademarks of Burger King article and include the data in the articles themselves, unlike McDonald's and the List of McDonald's trademarks article. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you keep doing this?

The trademark is as much part of the product as the ingredients. I understand why we remove the ™ and ® symbols from text descriptions as stated before. Your edits constitute WP:Idontlikeit. Please stop. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My reason is in the first line, as bolded, and if this is not an explanation as to why not delete these sections, I do not know what is. All companies have trademarks and copyrights which are the backbone of intellectual property. Companies spend millions developing the products, the markets they target, and the name. It is as much as part of the product as the very ingredients that make it up. Companies also spend billions of dollars a year protecting their intellectual property and to claim the inclusion of this information is extraneous and does not apply is simply foolish.
I am including this information to show that the articles are more than a simple description of the products, but that they are describing a whole business concept that happens to be in the fast food restaurant industry. That is why they include the data on market demographics, advertising, financial and intellectual property information. Step back and do not look at them as menu items at a local fast food place, but as a product no different than a car, tv, clothing or any other product in the marketplace.
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Hilton

Hello Chowbok:

I'm puzzled byyour edit summary. It does not seem to belong with the edit.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional books

I'm confused by this diff on List of fictional books. Your edit summary gives a substantial list of changes, but they're not shown in the diff. Matchups 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think you should bug the AWB guys, as you mention. I'm in the software business, and every once in a while we hear "this has been a problem for years, why didn't you fix it?" because nobody had ever reported it as a problem.Matchups 12:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] html entities

I notice that you have been replacing hyphens with & ndash; in many articles. It's not such a big deal, but would it be possible for you to replace it with the unicode character – instead? Makes the edit window just a little less user-unfriendly (it's already all too often filled with all kinds of not particularly user-friendly coding). older ≠ wiser 17:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Talk:The weather in London

Before just recreating the page, you should probably review (and consider commenting in) the Deletion Review discussion currently going on at WP:DRV. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Mad11.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Mad11.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for helping tweak my essay; yes, I think it's better your way. What do you think of the essay in general? *Dan T.* (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)