As a bit of an experiment, I've created {{replaceable short}}. It's intended for experienced users who have uploaded a lot of fair use images (perhaps over a long time) and may get snowed in with warning templates. It's short, to the point, does the job. I don't know what would be involved in adding an option to your image warning script, and if it's not worth it then so be it, but I thought should at least come by and mention it (if people are interested, of course, I can create more like it). Chick Bowen 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. This sounds like a great idea. I can pretty easily make the script do this. Let me know when you short versions of all the warning templates. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is me so I can vote in the thing. I wanted to register a general anti-bug vote, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do that. Chick Bowen 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tune-up on ANI.

While I'm able to connect the dots mentally and justify to myself that I'd have done the same thing had I witnessed the events instead of being party to them, I'm also able to admit I'd tell someone else they shouldn't have done what I did. You're exactly correct "take it the noticeboard" is what I would ahve said.

Oh, and thanks for unblocking him as well, I now look at the timestamps and see he'd already issued the asked-for retraction when I logged off, making me ever-so-slightly-even-more red faced.

brenneman 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your graciousness and good humor. I've made an ill-advised block or two in the same situation, I'll readily admit--it's always easier to give someone else advice. Cheers. Chick Bowen 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your query: Your edit summary here said that Luttrell was an MP. I wasn't aware of this--do you have a source you could point me to, so I could put it in the article? Thanks. Chick Bowen 15:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Only Leigh Rayment 1, but he's generally reliable - lists a Narcissus Luttrell as MP for Bossiney 1679-81, and the birth and death dates match - there can't be two of them! Found him while setting up the MPs' list for Bossiney. Rgmmortimore 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that your prod of 1300 René-Lévesque Ouest has been contested. QuiteUnusual 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And has unanimity to delete at AfD. Thanks, though. Chick Bowen 03:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has started with me already I'm staying clear and he up in my shit again. [1] --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 18:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heres the original == redirect deletion discussion ==

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#WP:卐 → User:knowpedia. — coelacan talk — 06:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He should leave you alone, yes. But that redirect was pretty clearly not within policy, and I don't think you can defend it. I'll leave him a message, however. Chick Bowen 19:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant nothing offensive with the Swastika in fact it was a referance to (Hinduism) my own self spirituality. Thank you. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 19:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, though I'm sure you can understand why others were bothered by it. It's still a cross-namespace redirect, though. Chick Bowen 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a cross-namespace redirect, which I was not but now I'm aware of existence. My only problem was the User bringing this to my attention. I have no need be involved with User:Coelacan at any point. He is unproductively going through my contributions in attempt to keep me motionless on Wikipedia. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 21:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him not to do that. You have to settle down, work on articles, and put this all behind you, however. Chick Bowen 00:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you explain to me what the hell is wrong with this sentence:

A number of Andrade's photographs were published alongside the column, showing the landscape and people and, occasionally, Andrade himself, usually filtered through the landscape, as in the self-portrait-as-shadow on this page.

I am very disappointed with your brusque fair use policing here. Every image in that article has been thoroughly vetted for fair use concerns, as you can see at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mário de Andrade and Wikipedia:Peer review/Mário de Andrade. Chick Bowen 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the sentence is that it's not a critical commentary on the copyrighted artwork, and as such, does not justify it's use in the article. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the sharpness of my comment. But I'm afraid I still have no idea what you're talking about. The article discusses Andrade's relationship with the landscape, and asserts that the photograph demonstrates that relationship by showing his own body in the landscape. The photograph is necessary to illustrate the point. This is as clear fair use as you can get. Chick Bowen 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the shadow picture, I confess I overlooked the passage on the text that mentions the work (maybe because it's too brief to deserve an image?). I'm still concerns about either we need/can use such a copyrighted image just because it's mentioned. But it's surely not that straightforward to deserve the removal i did. Sorry.

About the Lasar Segall painting being used to identify the biography's subject as the lead image, I would say it's a clear copyright violation with no fair use grounds. As a rule of thumb, we use works-of-art images to talk about that specific works-of-art (or it's style, school-of-art, etc), and not to take advantage of what's depicted on the work-of-art. See the counterexample #4 on #Counterexamples for a very common case.

For now, I would suggest removing the leading image. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a few days to see if I can find more info about the painting. It's an important painting, one of two iconic paintings of Andrade, and it certainly belongs in the article. You are right that it is too sparsely treated right now, but let's see what I can come up with. Chick Bowen 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BoxingWear is back. He’s doing revisions under a few different IPs [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and leaving me messages posing as an administrator and “warning” me that I’ll be banned [7]. I’m not sure what you can do, but I thought you should know. MKil 00:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Thanks--I figured he would be. As you can see, he's able to change his IP very easily, so there's not a whole lot I can do about that. Please do let me know (or post at WP:AN/I) if you see a logged-in account that fits the pattern. If any particular article needs to be semi-protected, let me know or post at WP:RFPP. This applies to your talk page as well, if it becomes absolutely necessary. Chick Bowen 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. The only pages he seems to be hitting are the Rocky Marciano (as well as Marciano's talk page), Nino Valdez, Bob Baker (boxer), and Floyd Patterson. Semi-protection may be in line for those pages if he continues to visit them (which I'm sure he will). MKil 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

They're open proxies, except for the 64.107, which is at Triton.edu. I blocked them. Interesting: he hasn't used proxies since he was the "Squidward" vandal, as far as I know. Antandrus (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh--yes, that is a change. Thanks. I'll start looking for open proxies as well. Chick Bowen 02:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm terribly confused with [8], for two reasons: I have had no prior involvement in the dispute, and frankly I have NFI what is going on (and that long comment on my userpage does nothing to alleviate this lack of understanding). I'm only asking here as I saw Chick Bowen protected the userpage on Feb 3, and when I came here I saw this thread which, using the bare minimum of understanding I got from that IP comment, I believe to be related. Could someone swing by and give me a quick run-down of what this actually is (and what's actually going on), and if I am in some way involved, which was is that? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the "this page may not be created until $date" removed and protected as to never allow recreation? It was decided by a Wikipedia admin that the page may not be recreated before Feb 2007, and if it's still popular then, the article may be allowed, to prevent it just being a fad. Starblazer 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales, who is a hell of a lot more than an admin, decided it should not be recreated before February 21, 2007, and that it should be discussed, not necessarily allowed, at that point. The appropriate venue for that discussion is Wikipedia:Deletion review. We've asked Jimbo recently to clarify his feelings about this, and he said he would allow a deletion review discussion. So that should take place some time after the deadline. As for the change in the format, that's just part of our general revamping of the system for pages protected against recreation. It's no more permanent than the old system--that is, it can be reversed by admins at any time, if there's consensus to do so. Chick Bowen 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is this article a NPOV? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after just a brief read, I'd say it could be. I looked over the AfD too, and it's clear that the consensus is to keep it, so it needs to be improved from its current state. A controversial topic like that needs to be better sourced--many times better sourced. A source for the poem is desperately needed. The lead isn't so great; I might recommend adding a sentence like, "Since the word "homosexual" was not used until after Lincoln's death, however, it is not clear to what extent modern concepts of sexuality apply." That could be sourced using footnote 1 at homosexuality. Note that this is just my opinion--which is all you asked for--it's obviously not an admin issue, as a content problem, and I'm speaking here as an ordinary editor. Chick Bowen 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy the article. After my first read, I found it cogent. On such a contentious topic the reader should not be convinced by its context. I uderstand the infancy, and would like to improve the article. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your assistance in getting that cleared up and fixed. Perhaps you can offer some advice, as there is another subject requiring administrative attention and again am not sure if I need to put this in the noticeboard or just leave it be. It is the deletion of Regulation SHO, which I proposed some days ago. --Samiharris 17:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]