User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive9

This is an archive. Do not edit it.

I appreciate you taking the time to evaluate the case I made on behalf of the MediaZone article and its AFD status. In no way was I attempting to bypass or ignore Wikipedia standards. If there are suggestions you could provide regarding re-creation, I would be grateful for the insight and advice. I have great appreciation for the site, its editors and administrators. I will accept whatever decision is rendered with respect and professionalism.JohnRobertCrowley 00:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks the deletion will be overturned. I think you need more sources that speak to company organization and management, market share and strategy, etc. Here are a couple possibilities: [1][2].

Chick Bowen 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your advice and the links. JohnRobertCrowley 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for this - clicked one line too high :) Cheers, Daniel 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For telling me how to sign a comment! I feel better about posting now that people can see who I am. I also feel a little more competent knowing the basics of the basics. Foisenolk 13:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please hear me out. There was no Copyright violation. IrishGuy only made that up after I disproved his first reason, and he made up another that I disproved. He would not listen to reason because he became biased. Please let me defend my first article. If you think there is any Copyright violation, please list it, so I can discuss it with you. --JRTyner 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not close the DRV based on IrishGuy's comment. As an admin, I can view all deleted content. Several sentences were virtually identical to the blurb about the book on Lulu. It is not enough to change a few words--it is a copyright violation if long sequences of words are copied.

Chick Bowen 19:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't know about that article. My article was based on the book and the newspaper article. I did cite the book at the bottom of the page, and I was trying to figure out how to properly refference the newspaper article when the wikipedia article was deleted. I am truly sorry if you consider that a copyright violation, I did not mean for it to be, and I thought I had referenced it correctly. I want to make it right, it is my first article afterall. If you undelete it, I will do what ever I need to do to fix any mistakes. Will you please work with me? --JRTyner 19:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think it's worth your trouble or mine. This book was published by an utterly obscure press, Karitas Publishing. An article on it would never pass

Chick Bowen 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry if you feel I have wasted your time. I just wanted to tell people about this book because it really moved me. This was my first article, please don't hold it against me that I wanted to defend it. --JRTyner 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize; you haven't wasted my time--I just think it would a waste of your time to keep pushing it. I'm certain your next article won't cause such a fuss.

Chick Bowen 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I was trying to look over the article to see how simular it was to the Lulu one, but the cache button didn't work. Could you do me a favor and look and copy the wiki code from the last revision to my talk page? Now that I know about the Lulu page, I would appreciate being able to see why people said I copied it. Thank you for your time. --JRTyner 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text e-mailed to you.

Chick Bowen 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You undeleted and relisted for AfD Kēlen.

Please do the same for Talk:Kēlen as well.

Thanks! Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep--thanks for reminding me to do that.

Chick Bowen 13:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the help. :) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muddy was one of the teams everyone agreed to delete. Thanks Jbeach ^sup 04:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just want to tell you that I think you made a good job closing that AfD. I'm the one who started the article, so I'm somewhat biased to say this, I know. Anyway, I think you made a correct evaluation. Thank you! A.Z. 04:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a

Fine with me. A tough AfD like that needs multiple eyes. I certainly stand by my comment in closing it, however.

Chick Bowen 21:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Chick. I closed the Darren Heitner AfD, now being addressed at DRV. As the AfD closing admin, I now agree that Darren Heitner should be listed anew at AfD. Please close Darren Heitner DRV. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done by GRBerry. I'm glad to see this amicably resolved, since the new AfD looks clearcut.

Chick Bowen 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It seemed easier at the time than doing both {{

Chick Bowen 05:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, it's not that bad :-) Although I fixed some other things, I think the only thing that caused the error was that the wrong terms were in the result field (and you didn't use the closing date but that's not what caused the error). You don't have to supply the oldid; I just did that because I have the script that picks them up. You might want to give it another try! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think I do see it. Well, the next time I get another mass nomination like that I may give it a shot. Thanks again for stopping by--quite helpful.

Chick Bowen 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

No prob, drop me a line if you need help on one in the future. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to message on my talk page) - If I were to run for adminship again, would you support me? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to message on my talk page) - If at all possible, I would like to address your concerns now so that I can reapply as soon as possible. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you helped restore these articles after their deletions was overturned, but they are all missing their former dicussion pages--assuming they had one. Someone should be able to restore them. Thanks Hmains 01:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the reminder. The Belgian list had no talk.

Chick Bowen 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

When deleting, please don't forget to delete/delink it from other articles. `'Míkka 00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I understood why you left it. `'Míkka 00:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just delinked the list of parties entry, which is consistent with some other tiny parties. But the others are some kind of funky template system.

Chick Bowen 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That picture is needed to support a factual point that had once been disputed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be cited as an external link. Regardless, all discussion should take place at

Chick Bowen 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The logo for the manufacturer of the article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_stove , has been deleted by a bot (I think). I think it happened because I didn't know to set it up properly.

The logo is important to the article, as it gives a visual that is instantly identifiable, much as the "Ford" logo is for Ford.

How do I do this the right way? I've tried reading through the rules, but am getting confused, and I don't want to do it wrong a second time.

Can you help?

Thanks!

John E. Chambers —Preceding comment was added at 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've restored it, shrunk it down to a smaller size (which is one of our rules for non-free images), and provided a fair use rationale. Feel free to edit what I've written. I removed the bit about permission, though, because your permission statement here applies only to your web site.

Chick Bowen 19:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Having said that, I may start closing them with this wording -- it is impressively diplomatic! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you allowed the previous versions of the article to trump the purpose of deletion review. Is there a Deletion Review review? On a side note, I posted a request to have the article posted to my userspace that has yet to be addressed. Can you please transfer it? Thank you.

• The request appears here
  Pdelongchamp 06:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I want you to know that I disagree with your decision to table the review of the Zeitgeist movie. There were six people arguing for the deletion, and five people arguing against the deletion, which is nowhere near a consensus. Consensus is a process wherein parties from various sides of a topic make concessions to come to a point of mutual and total agreement. There is obviously no consensus within the community about whether or not Zeitgeist the Movie deserves its own article because it continues to be reposted under different titles and subsequently deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foisenolk (talk • contribs) 10:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A draft userspace article has been created. Please see

That's incredibly cool. Yeah, I've sometimes fantasized about making something like that, but it seems unlikely ever to get beyond fantasy. Also an automatic sheet music page-turner. . .

Chick Bowen (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren ^(talk) 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Sorry for the belated answer, somehow your question just fell through the cracks. The template is correct, as far as I can see. However, it does not account for the earlier legislative history in Brazil. The previous law Nº 5.988 of December 14, 1973 granted photos a copyright term of 60 years since their creation (article 45). The 1998 law applied only to works that had not yet fallen into the public domain by then (article 112 of the 1998 law). Hence, photos published more than 70 years ago or taken before 1938 are PD in Brazil. (Important for photos published long after they were taken.)

For the situation of Brazilian works in the U.S., we have to consider the

The template could be updated to reflect this. HTH, Lupo 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is extraordinarily useful. I'll see if your post at

Chick Bowen 04:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Chick, would you revert your closing of capture-bonding long enough for me to post and get a bit of comment on a new version? I was right in the middle of editing the *requested* new version when you closed it. Keith Henson (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so, since I did close it about 11 hours early. Note, though, that this gives you very little time, and I'm sure that someone else will be along to close it shortly.

Chick Bowen 06:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Draft is up if you want to look at it. Keith Henson (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your comment on my talk page. The article was deleted and the review closed in less than 8 hours. I was somewhat annoyed at being requested to do a new version that got no consideration at all. Keith Henson (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The timing was bad, yes. Sorry about that. Jreferee should have made clear that the odds of getting an overturn on a new version during the same DRV were quite slim.

Chick Bowen 23:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I am currently nominating it for AfD. I see no other way to resolve this satisfactorily.

Chick Bowen 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I'll be there. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, shouldn't that page have been moved to something like

talk I 02:54, December 4

, 2007

To be honest, I wasn't sure how that DRV was going to be closed. I think you captured the best of both worlds with your closure. And if Xoloz's point is correct, then that will come out in individual discussions (rather than a general, unspecific group nom). - jc37 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! much appreciated. The only other choice I could think of was to flood CfD by relisting them all individually, but, in addition to the NPOV problem, having them all in a row seemed like it would bring up the same problem we've been dealing with all along--that they're not all equivalent.

Chick Bowen 05:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a note to advise you that I have answered your question in the Arbitration Committee elections. I like to leave the questions to think about them for a while, and hopefully produce a more thoughtful answer rather than jumping in with first thoughts only. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm continuing to think about this as well. As you say, I think this is likely to be one of the principal topics of concern for Arbcom for the forseeable future.

Chick Bowen 23:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, that seems like it might be a good candidate for an individual relist. The existence of the BJP demonstrates the importance of categorization by that means.

Chick Bowen 02:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I will relist a bit later, as it seems the argument has been a bit tiring on both sides.Bakaman 03:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. :)

Chick Bowen 05:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you in advance : ) - jc37 10:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cheated and read Xoloz's reply. I agree with him that the timing was a problem--my rule of thumb is certainly that the more disagreement at a DRV the longer it has to remain open. As for the closure itself--we've seen a lot of debates at DRV recently that hinge on

Chick Bowen 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you.

I would have to agree with most of what both of you said.

It shouldn't have been speedy closed, there was an apparent bias of the closer, this should have been about category issues, etc.

That said, I'll let you in on a secret: this comment refers to several things, but included this DRV. I'm a big fan of scouting, but that shouldn't have anything to do with closing a discussion.

It's SO tiring to have people who are obviously POV-pushing accuse you of having no clue, or being a deletionist. this comment in particular I found very offensive.

I was all set to give whomever closed the discussion a Barnstar. (Regardless of endorse or overturn) because I knew what kind of discussion it has been. However, I really didn't expect what ended up (as noted above).

Anyway, to answer my own question (presuming that nothing further would have been added over the next day or so):

If I treated DRV as merely discussing the closure, it would have been "endorse". Those endorsing just had stronger comments, in that they addressed the closure, and the question of categorisation, rather than just the notability of the topic. Too few of the "keep" commenters dealt with that, Staying instead in a

WP:WAX

mode, or whether this information should exist at all on Wikipedia. (I was surprised when the featured list was even attacked.)

But if I took some of the comments in the DRV discussion under consideration (since at least a few comments actually did address categorisation), I would probably have closed it as Overturn Eagle Scout, listify/merge Distinguished to Eagle Scout, and listify/delete fictional. "Distinguished" is (roughly) the same as "famous" or "notable", and we don't categorise that way. Fictional was dead as a category, by all sides. And "notability" aside (in the last several months I've grown to really dislike that word), leaving Eagle Scout as a category seemed to be the best compromise, and would be the least likely to be abused due to lack of references.

I may renominate Distinguished Eagle Scout for listification, but I haven't decided yet.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and insight : ) - jc37 01:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unfortunate that these things turn personal. Categorization is a complex issue and there is, in general, far too much turfsmanship and far too little willingness to work toward a set of definitions and standards that would be broadly applicable.

Chick Bowen 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

One of these days, I'm going to finish writing a proposed addition to

WP:AADD: WP:IWANTIT/WP:IDONTWANTIT : ) - jc37 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You're quite right--a temporary brain failure on my part. I've corrected the DRV close.

Chick Bowen 17:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The company has estbalished itself as the predominant provider in this niche market, and Susan Sanders has been featured in an article in USA today in the past. it is unfair to subject smaller companies without huge PR budgets to the same "Sources" requirement as larger companies...thus the very idea of "Notability" is subject to the interpretation of the individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.97.161 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me this? It is not my decision. It will be decided as the result of the debate at

Chick Bowen 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I am very new to how this process works and where you are supposed to put what comments... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.97.161 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is very bad practice, but I modified your comments here [[4]], as I feel it gives a fuller picture of the situation Fasach Nua (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine--not a substantive change.

Chick Bowen 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, that's being light on them. The same cow could go swimming in toxic waste and would still not be as bad as ED. Will ^(talk) 00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how would you describe it? You can't call it satire or parody because they have to be, you know, funny. "Hellhole" would be adequate (if winner of Understatement of the Year, and we're only 48 hours into) and civil. (By the way, pardon me if I get all pissed off. You should know why.) Will ^(talk) 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're a hate site. I just indef blocked the troll. I'd say they are to an encyclopedia what fake vomit is to knowledge. Antandrus (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it is--I'm the one who originally reverted Namescases. Blocking him is fine--he was heading in that direction anyway.

Chick Bowen 01:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ciao! Thanks for that correction in Matthias Corvinus article. I've recently expanded very much taking material from 1911 Britannica, but hadn't noticed that detail, which belonged to the former version. Did you check the whole new article? I always doubt of my article as I'm Italian motherlanguage. Aloha and good work. --Attilios (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie! I made a few tweaks. And aloha to you too--your message is trilingual, I like that.

Chick Bowen 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Just playing around with the best unicode character ever D: --f f r o t h 05:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a good close in my view. In terms of raw numbers I count 6 keep, 9 delete, 4 merge; that's 2-1 in favor of deletion or merging. A curious total for an AfD closed as a flat-out keep rather than (at best) no consensus. Is there a preponderance of argument on the keep side? Not in my reading there isn't. I don't understand how this was not closed as no consensus. This continues to be a bone of contention to this day. If you'd like to clarify your intent at the article talk page that would be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Herostratus, but I will not. This has already been through a

Chick Bowen 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please note that Herostratus has just unilaterally changed the name of this article. My understanding of his comments on its talk page are that the topic described by the original title is taboo and so we should make the article talk about something else. The content of the article now does not match this new title. This action seems wrong in several ways, not least in that it challenges your ruling about the content above. My impression is that editors are reluctant to challenge Herostratus directly because he is an admin - the power that this gives him is certainly holding me back. This seems to be wheel-warring or something of the sort - please take a look. Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My close indicated that the content should be kept, but that consensus did not exist about the name. Obviously, it still doesn't. If editors are reluctant to challenge him, they should get over that--this is a content dispute, and it should be dealt with in the usual way (see

Chick Bowen 06:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

My personal fear stemmed from Herostratus' statement which indicated that his peremptory renaming was a matter of Foundation policy and a fait accompli. I anticipated that if I reverted this change, that I might then be banned. Are you aware of any special policy in this area? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mess. But there is no such thing as a fait accompli here (other than, in certain rare situations,

Chick Bowen 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I encourage you to revisit this edit. I was not a participant in the discussion, but by my count, 7 users advocated endorsing the deletion and 8 advocated overturning the deletion -- that does not constitute consensus that the deletion should be endorsed. Fireplace (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also question your edit. Your failure to count votes or cite policy is a failure to "document consensus" and indicates that your closure of the debate was inappropriate or incomplete. Hyacinth (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a multiply reviewed deletion. Thus, the deletion review constituted a contention that consensus has either changed since the previous review, or that the previous review was closed incorrectly. Neither of these was established, not by a long shot.

Chick Bowen 06:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Similarly, the last review was also closed without documentation of consensus. Please document the consensus. Hyacinth (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been closing DRVs a long time. So has Xoloz, who closed the previous one. There's nothing wrong with either of those closes. Look, Hyacinth, I know you wanted this to go the other way, and I sympathize, but I just don't think you have the will of the community behind you. We've been through a great many of these user categories, and they are always passionately defended by those in them, but it does appear to me that the community is moving towards a stricter definition of what can be permitted. I neither agree with that movement nor disagree with it; I don't have strong feelings about it. But the overall direction seems fairly clear to me.

Chick Bowen 06:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Your lack of strong feelings in regards to this issue will assist you in reviewing this deletion review, which was carried out incorrectly. Per Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Closing_reviews consensus must be documented before a review is closed. You have failed to document this consensus thus far and thus closed the review in violation of policy or guidelines. You're experience with the process and policies should assist you in documenting that consensus. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 8. Hyacinth (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to let my close stand as it is, but thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Chick Bowen 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Why do you refuse to even count the votes you claim to have documented? Hyacinth (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A

Hyacinth, I think you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding my position here. My point is that there has always been considerable latitude in the way DRV closes are worded, depending on the situation. I think that's very important for the process, and I'm going to defend it, and I'm not going to be bullied into something different--the process simply does not require counting votes, it never has, and I sincerely hope it never does. In any case, you've already listed at DRV for yet a third time, and it's been endorsed again, so you really need to let it drop. Soon this will be considered disruption.

Chick Bowen 04:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

When I questioned you in regards to the closure you dismissed my concerns. That is far more disruptive than my concern for the process, which you are foolish to question. Hyacinth (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will respectfully request that you retract the above statement, especially the usage of the word "foolish". - jc37 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine why this nearly three-week old thread is still going. My original close has been mooted by the subsequent DRV anyway. No one needs to retract anything, but surely we can just let this drop?

Chick Bowen 19:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe that we have no need to just let this drop and that we can actually resolve the issue. You may be interested in the discussion at

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions#Review closure: bare minimum. Hyacinth (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You may be interested in participating in the discussion at User talk:Hyacinth/User categories#Proposal. Hyacinth (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tom. I'm actually very glad you drew my attention to the

Hi Chick, I was actually asking about that(sic) persons perticular ethnicity and not as a race as a whole, but thank you for the heads up. If I removed a useful internal link, I will try to fix that too. Cheers --Tom 03:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The haters are back at Rachel Marsden. Time to kill it and salt it. Mike Bate (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It's fine, I endorse the current version. Will ^(talk) 16:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely why I'm asking arbcomm to de-sysop all admins who tolerate and encourage this type of smear. I'd talk to the (Now-desysopped) CrzRussian and the almost-desysopped Bucketsofg about how close they came last time. I"m also talking to Jimbo via Facebook. Apparently he and Marsden are close friends Mike Bate (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second Mike Bate. People are back on that page printing baseless allegations and linking to unsubstantiated gossip as "sources". Saying that someone was "investigated" when they were never charged or even arrested for something is very dangerous territory and certainly doesn't adhere to the ARBCOM ruling for this page. In my view, the page should be deleted permanently, locked, and the key thrown away, as people editing it have repeatedly proven to have ulterior motives. Rainmaker2005 ^(talk) 16:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently full-protected, which is appropriate. I may remove some material while it is protected.

Chick Bowen 17:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Guess I didn't get what you were saying. The image is deleted -Regards