User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive3

This is an archive. Please do not edit it.

Kiop/Kalsi

Huh--which is the sockpuppet? I see that Kiop is still blocked. I'm not against a tentative unblocking, but I am concerned that this user does not understand our image copyright policies. I've deleted, tagged as copyvios, or listed at IfD virtually all of Kiop's images. Would he agree to a moratorium on images, perhaps? Let me know your thoughts. Chick Bowen 21:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalsi left the note promising not to upload anymore copyvios, so that's the account I unblocked (even thought User:Kiop seems to be the older account). As far as the user not understanding our copyright policies, I agree that's probably the case, as it is for a lot of new users. He certainly doesn't seem to be malicious in any way. So I'm willing to spend some time keeping an eye on the user and helping, if possible.

Also, I initially blocked the accounts indefinitely which isn't approved in the blocking policy (although Jimbo set a precedent on a similar case a while back). So I'm a eager for a trial unblock , especially since I promised as much. If the copyvios continue then I'll re-instate an indefinite block (if nobody else does it first). --Duk 21:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my "squid letter"

thanks for improving it, it does look better now. im not a great leter writer and thanks for supporting my letter!Benon 23:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where you stance is wikipedia policy

Mr./Ms. User:Chick Bowen please show me where on wikipedia deletion of all Time Magazine covers has become wikipedia policy. I have begun a Category talk:Fair use TIME magazine covers RFC on the issue.

I will continue to revert User:Ta bu shi da yu deletions until someone can show me where this has become wikipedia policy. I feel that more people should be involved in this important decision before one wikiuser User:Ta bu shi da yu, begins deleting 200 pictures from wikipedia. Has a consensus been made? If so where?Travb 00:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments will be addressed on Category talk:Fair use TIME magazine covers RFC on the issue.

You ignored my questions. I am familar with fair use policy.Travb 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Hejlik AfD

Hi! I notice that you've made an AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigadier General Dennis Hejlik. I've started trying to clean up the article to address the concerns listed at that discussion. I hope that you'll consider keeping an eye on the article and possibly changing your recommendation if your concerns are satisfied. Thanks! -- Jonel | Speak 04:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Yep, you got it right! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chick Bowen

Go to this page to see authorship of U.S. Fish Commission. You can see that I wrote it with my volunteer, Grace Angle. Why is there a controversy regarding my authorship?

http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d8256.htm

Robet S. Harding

Gyokydo Kawai

It was actually all done by me. I had just wanted to switch over Kawai Gyokudo and Gyokudo Kawai, so that the one with the surname it the beginning was the main page and the other one was the redirect. I left a mess tho. Zargulon 11:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rez image since replaced

I have replaced the image Image:Shahrukhkhan 20041011 time.jpg with one that is of a lesser resolution. There was one more image Image:Shahrukhkhan_200502_ng.jpg which too was having a higher resolution which has since been resized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Premkudva (talk • contribs) .

Image:Xavier Mertz.jpg

You deleted . The image in question was NOT in copyright violation and I explained why. Please tell me why you acted as you did. Ross Uber - Talk - Contributions - 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I told Fred.

I do not liek beign attacked, btu if I bakc downthey will be encoruaged. I cnanot allow Acharya S and her disipes to harrass and bully htier way to a victory.

By the wya, I am elsewhre, my alst article was on a BilL SHatenr STar Trek Novel.

ZAROVE 05:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images by blocked users

I played around at the bot page you posted. Of the few images I looked at, most seemed to be reasonably tagged. Is this right or am I missing something? Also is the list ending at C? When I click on D or other later letters, my page does not change. Thanks -Nv8200p talk

Inanna

I noticed you blocked Inanna for 24 hours. Just wanted to let you know that she is evading her block using the sock puppet 81.213.103.68. --Khoikhoi 22:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now she's using 81.213.101.96. It never ends.... --Khoikhoi 22:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, thanks for helping out. :) --Khoikhoi 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the advice. I'll try to avoid her. --Khoikhoi 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orpahnbot

Thanks for the reply, I know what Orphanbot was doing was correct, but it was outside the guidelines set, and the last thing we need is a wayword bot, just wanted to make sure he knew it was doing it. I know SWD316 was using the same graphic in his signature too. Mike _{(T C)} 02:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

sorry, I was reverting the blanking of the whole page that came from that IP address a second earlier. The next edit was legitimate, and it got caught in the revert by accident because it was from the same IP address. the kind words in the RfA are still true, and I like that painting on your user page :-) keep up the good work.--Alhutch 02:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, and the site seems to be incredibly slow today for me at least. see you around--Alhutch 02:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got an okay from time magazine

I did something that administration didn't do:

I asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the cover photos.

Subject: RE: AskArchivist

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500

From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

To: travb****@yahoo.com

Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.

Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com.

You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.

Best regards,

Bonnie Kroll

Ask the Archivist

http://www.timearchives.com

I've asked Tony (admin) to contact her himself to confirm this.

Signed: Travb 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parys Sylver...a Hoax?

I read your comment and i am wondering... how do you figure that it is a hoax even after the constant sourcing. Including images from the official IMDB site of Parys himself, and it is the ONLY picture availble from the very real Freedom Writers film. Firegirl223

I would hope you wouldn't flipflop. I now realize at this point, Parys is not qualified for a wiki article. Maybe when Freedom Writers is released. Which he is apparently in. Firegirl223 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Thun

Hi, thanks for that. I wasn't sure what the rules are in that case. Does the 3 revert rule hold for re-deleting pages? Is it approproate to protect a page after speedying it to stop it being re-created? Or is it better to step back and let an admin with a second oppinion deal with it? --Martyman-(talk) 05:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Alanmooredc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alanmooredc.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 14:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image was uploaded by indefinitely blocked user Marvelvsdc; I merely substituted a lower resolution version to comply with fair use. Chick Bowen 17:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL

Well, if you're pissing off AOL trolls you're probably doing something right. I keep mine protected just so I don't have to think about it, doing as much RC patrol as I do. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright status..

All of the pictures I listed under http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ are free for use. They are free to use for anyone and are released to the public domain by spartacus school.net although its not stated on its website but if you ask they will let anyone use it. That is why they dont have a copyright listed because its free for use. If you can please remove the copyright violations I would appreciate it. I make sure to comply with the copyrights as you can see for many of my political photos I upload I will put "library of congress" or federal gov released picture etc. I always put the right copyright on. I would hate to see all of my work be deleted for a misunderstanding.

Thanks,

JJstroker 06:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But its from an official learning institution and they made sure to confirm the copyright status of the pictures. They are professional they do not just go and take pictures. Most of them are well over 50 years old of official released photos to the public. I would appreciate to remove the tags because I really do make sure to get the copyright status correct on all the pictures I upload.

Thanks,

JJstroker 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sevlievo

Hi, I did a little work on this page before copyvio-ing it. Is it OK for me to restore that work? I've asked this again at Talk:Sevlievo: reply there? Ta, JackyR 11:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who r u? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.31.147 (talk • contribs) .

I'm Chick Bowen. Who are you? Chick Bowen 16:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge

hey Chick... thanks for giving some attention to Pingxiang. I was wondering if we could somehow merge Pinxiang with Pingxiang, Guangxi instead of the other way around? The reason being there is another bigger Pingxiang in Jiangxi which is a prefecture-level city. I'm still new to a lot of this stuff. How can we go about doing that? Also, do we need a dismbig page? Thanks.Mike 20:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply Chick. In fact there are potentially many cities in China named Pingxiang. The current situation deals with 2 different cities both spelled Pingxiang but completely different places. Could we revert that Pinxiang merge so we can have a Pingxiang, Jiangxi a Pingxiang, Guangxi and Pingxiang disambig page???? I can try and create the disambig page for Pingxiang... it'll be my first though. Thanks again for your help.Mike 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks!!!!Mike 01:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Feel free to delete the Daryl Williams image. We were trying to negate a copyright minefield for a couple of years, but I think we've all now just given up and allowed the MP images to be deleted. Feel free to unblock the old account too - it'd be good if you could reblock it when you're done, but it doesn't much matter. Ambi 07:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again. I was unaware that User:Ambivalenthysteria was, in fact, Ambi. I can just as easily program the bot to ignore uploads from that username. — Feb. 26, '06 [13:46] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Lipzydude

User:Lipzydude has promised me he's going to leave you alone. Please let me know if he doesn't. Thank you. Chick Bowen 17:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chick Bowen, i hope there would be no problem --Ugur Basak 22:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking the account you blocked

I now accept the pillars of Wikipedia and I agree to abide by all of the rules, regulations and policies of Wikipedia, including respect for consensus and NPOV. Further, I have given up my attempts to provide any input for the Big Spring, TX article. I have prayed about my actions and have been guided to seek forgiveness and change my ways. And I agree to cease making POV edits. I give my 100% word that I will not revert to my old ways and will strive to be a model citizen of the Wikipedia community. Therefore, I most sincerely ask for you to please give me another chance and to unblock my account. I assure you that I will not let you down. Thank you - Happyjoe 24.232.183.52 06:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE!!!

Image Tagging Image:Walterulbricht.jpeg

<standard no source message removed> Ta bu shi da yu 11:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shrunk it--I neither uploaded it nor endorse it. Chick Bowen 12:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Composite Images

Why are composite images like Image:Crts3.JPG listed for deletion? There are numerous composite images with different licenses all across wikipedia; it is no different than putting two images of different licenses close to eachother on a page? 72.144.183.254 20:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think our Image use policy explains it quite well: Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo montage, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis). So mixed licenses isn't really the issue--it's the presence of fair use images at all. Are there indeed more composite images with different licenses? If so, let me know and I'll make sure they're deleted. Chick Bowen 20:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I see. Well, why not just separate the fair-use image from the composite and display it separately rather than just deleting the entire image? So basically, its ok to have different licenses just not a fair use one in a montage. I understand, yes? 72.144.183.254 22:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think the fair-use images in the Czh.JPG composite may actually be public domain. The two supposed fair-use are Frantisek Palacky (died over 100 years ago) and Karel Capek (died 70 years ago). Whoever took the images, if not released for free use, died probably around the same time as the two (if not outliving Palacky by 50 years and Capek by 20 years which would still make it PD). It may be entirely unnecessary to list it for deletion. 72.144.183.254 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Palacky one is fine, as you say. The Čapek is not. Since Čapek died at 48 and the photographer may have been younger than he, there's really no way to know, without knowing who the photographer is, whether it's public domain. If it was taken by a young photographer in, say, 1925, when Čapek was 35, the photographer might have died within the last twenty years. This is why Image:Karel capek.jpg is tagged, appropriately, as fair use--we can't make assumptions about its copyright status unless we have verifiable copyright information. You're welcome to download the montage, divide the images, and upload them individually if you get an account. But the montage would have to go either way. But I see no reason why the montage couldn't be made from all PD images. I've left a note at Talk:Czech people to this effect as a courtesy. Chick Bowen 23:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to answer your other question--yes, different free licenses would be fine. Combining GFDL and PD, for example, would be quite appropriate. Chick Bowen 23:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I went ahead and cut up the composites in Croats, then formated it to make it look like it was just one picture. I'll see what I can do for the Czech composite one. I'm attempting to find the photographer to see his death date. Tell me if there are any other images I can fix like this. ImageRepairer 03:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you could just tell me to put a source on the image. I would have. ImageRepairer 03:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which image in particular on Croats needs to be replaced? Ivan Mestrovic? Strangely enough I think that the picture of the statue may in fact be a free image. Someone seems to have uploaded it not from a source, but from their personal collection and it has since gone from one wiki mirror to another. So, theres a good chance it qualifies as GFDL. ImageRepairer 04:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bust is of Marko Marulic, by the way. In case there appears a public domain image that can be used of him. I am unsure how to proceed with Mestrovic; it looks like he will have to be replaced. ImageRepairer 04:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the problem; the original image that was uploaded to wikipedia was already long deleted, and I don't know where to start looking for the uploader. I'll help out some more tomorrow. Got to go. ImageRepairer 04:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I researched the Romanians image and I think we can put it in the OK file. The second to last image was revealed to be public domain, and the very last is quite old (the portrait was taken when the man was young and he died in 1912), so it's very likely to be public domain too. The Macedonians image could be ok too. The two images from the website appear to be free images - and the black and white one I know is old. However, I am unsure of the last. The Slovenians image on the other hand is all fair-use (which is ok, no? Or are all fair-use images bad too?). Finally, the Slovaks image is half and half. I can split that one up just like I did on Croats if you wish. ImageRepairer 21:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found sources for the two missing Macedonian images. They both appear to be public domain because of their age. I think the last image on Romanians may in fact be a photograph: [1] photograph?

Some of the images on Slovenians may be copyrighted but free to use. Are those types ok? ImageRepairer 23:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, all we need to do is replace Dubcek with someone else on the Slovaks image, and that will take care of that. I'll do so a bit later. ImageRepairer 23:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2

Hi, I noticed that you supported Ta on WP:AN/I. I've filed an RfC against him, so I'd appreciate your comments on it. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 22:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Brecheret

Please, I'd like to know your opinion about my explanation here. Thanks! --Dantadd 23:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some comments there... --Dantadd 00:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK English or US English?

What is the standard for English Wikipedia? Do we use UK English or US English? For example, "authorise" vs. "authorize"? Hong Qi Gong 22:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: JillandJack

Regarding what to do with a crapload of suspicious images, I've just discovered this page which might be of significant interest. — Mar. 3, '06 [11:42] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

1992 Phish tour

Thanks a lot for deleting hours of work created by the people that unearthed those setlists. There were plenty of other ways you could have handled it besides being an asshole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lizards (talk • contribs) .

Hist of Firefly Universe

Thank you for handling the History of Firefly Universe copyright violation. The user who posted the copyrighted material also posted it to his user page at least twice, where it still resides, at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Voldemort&oldid=40960335 and http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Voldemort&direction=prev&oldid=40209774 -- Shsilver 11:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Chick—you're very welcome. Tony 01:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catapult and images

Yep, thanks for the note! I have it on my watchlist, and probably when I feel up to it I'll try and help out. Thanks again for the note :-) --HappyCamper 17:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Lost

Hey, I saw your post at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Now_Hold_Up, and thoroughly enjoyed the poetry. I was uncivilized enough to not know where it came from, but certainly interested enough to look it up immediately. I love poetry, and perhaps this would be a brighter place if we were required to end every single post with some. :o) Anyway, keep up the good work!

O, hark, O, hear! how thin and clear,
And thinner, clearer, farther going!
O, sweet and far from cliff and scar
The horns of Elfland faintly blowing!

E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DW/Jill and Jack

Since DW was banned for uploading copyrighted images, I think it's safe to speedily delete anything uploaded by DW or Jillandjack. Adam Bishop 02:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

Thanks for your prompt response on the RfC/All cleanup. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people in Playboy 1990-1999

This is a toughie. I say pre-emptively remove the images from the article, and mass IFD them in one nom at IFD (just link to the last revision with all the images in it; I think that should be enough). That's playing safe, which is what I'd do. If I were a bit on the rouge side, I'd just speedy them all. HTH, Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention you probably ought to check first if any of the images are being used properly in other articles; it's unlikely, but possible. Johnleemk | Talk 15:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images in Kelly Clarkson page

You commented on the adminstrators incident board yesterday about the supposed 'fair use' issue with the pictures I uploaded on the Kelly Clarkson page. They all have fair use rational listed yet my images have been taken down by Eternal Equinox, a user who feels it's his duty to police the page and lecture other users. The images in question are these:

What I would like to know is is it correct for him to constantly be taking the images down, and if so what would I have to do add to the image pages for fair use to apply. Also, this image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Since_You%27ve_Been_Gone.jpg

was uploaded by that user, if fair use doesn't apply to my images and it does to his can you explain why? Thank you.

OK, great! Thanks for getting back to me so promptly! I included the high school yearbook picture because the article discusses her early life, and while the picture itself isn't discussed it was taken during the time of her life written about in that portion of the page. I do feel though, that that image adds to the page since it shows what Kelly was like before American Idol. What could I do to include that image in the page without violating fair use. And finally you said I could include the Grammy image and the SNL image if her appearance on the show was discussed, what would I have to include in the fair use rationale on the image page so that it wouldn't be removed by Eternal_Equinox? HeyNow10029 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images at Kelly Clarkson and FAC

You're welcome! —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]