User talk:Rama

Archives : 1 - 50 | 51 - 100 | 101 - 150 | 151 - 200 | 201 - 250| 251 - 300 | 301 - 350 | 351 - 400

---

Unidentified minerals

Could you please tell us at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Minerals what to do with this images, and if you'd like to keep them, update their image description pages to explain what minerals they do show? I'm afraid with the nondescript names, these images are rather useless. Many aren't used anywhere, either. Lupo 15:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bah, they're all rather blurry, also. Anyway, maybe I'll take some time to go back there and see if I can identify these. Rama 16:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A new article and the category

Hi, Rama. I started a new article on Anne Queffélec‎. I hope the categorization does not worry you. Regards. E104421 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Fr-compu-bio-stub}} and {{De-compu-bio-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first (as it says at the top of the two categories you created!) Grutness...wha? 02:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Heinz Waaske

On 15 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heinz Waaske, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:LHC1.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:LHC1.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 02:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image resizing on Nut (goddess)

I saw your edit comment "Do not override user's preferences for thumbnail image size" when resizing the original image on Nut (goddess) back to a width of 200px. Could you please point to a Wikipedia policy statement on that? Thanks to Babelfish I read the earlier query here that another poster had asked you about in French, and while I understand the reasoning, a 100px difference in size is unlikely to upset anyone even on systems using 800x600 screens. To me it seems like an arbitrary edit without good precedent (that I am aware of). I see from your talk page and history that you have done this before to other article, and this concerns me since I can think of pages where it is a good thing to override the original image size in order to reveal detail that would not be possible at the default 200px width.

So, is there a Wikipedia policy statement on this you can point me to as reference? Cheers! Captmondo 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For a start, this is a wiki. We do make arbitrary edits, else we'd go nowhere. You value of 300px is also totally arbitrary, incidentally.

Then, it is always good computer practice to avoid hard-coding things and putting unnecessary code. Hence, "thumb" is fundamentally better (and less "abritrary") than "thumb|right" or "thumb|300px".

To finish, from Wikipedia:Extended image syntax:

“ From MediaWiki 1.5 the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so it is recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences). ”

.

If you have details to reveal, a good practice would be to produce enlargements, either by close-up or macro photography, or by simply cropping images. But then, as you said, a 100px difference is unlikely to produce dramatic improvements. It is, on the other hand, going to be problematic on very small screens like PDAs or sub-notebooks, and will upset people focused more on text than on images.

Rama 05:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and for the link to Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. The latter led me to a discussion that occurred back in December 2006 on this issue, and what came out of it was the wording that can now be found in Wikipedia:Extended image syntax, beginning with the line "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended". On the whole the rest of it supports what you say, and also allows for certain conditions when it is okay to override it (similar to the concerns I outlined above). I don't think any of those conditions relates to the images in Nut (goddess), so in the end I learned something, for which I give you my thanks. Cheers! Captmondo 18:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually, you obtain vastly better results by tweeking the image itself than by fixing the thumbnail size:

• For a close-up, produce a photography which focuses on the detail. For instance, the images which illustrate Gebel el-Arak Knife are not the same as used on Confronted-animals because one show the whole object and the other a detail of it.
• For images of extreme aspect ration, it's better to add a background (like on Kohl (cosmetics)). If possible, it's also better to put the object in a diagonal as much a possible to take advantage of the ${\sqrt {2}}$ factor (like on FAMAS for instance).

There are indeed instance where it's better to fix the size, but they are really rare. One example I'd think of is panoramas of cities. In such cases, the image cuts the text completely (rather than having the text flow around it).

In any case, you've been gracious about this little snag and I appreciate it. Thanks and cheers ! Rama 08:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed response! I am familiar with much of the points you make above (like your "other" self, I am also active on uploading images to the Commons and try to PhotoShop my pics with Wikipedian thumbnail images in mind whenever possible).

Forgive me if I originally came off sounding combative, but in the end I wanted to be sure the reasoning for restoring the default size was on a solid grounding Wikipedia policy-wise. Cheers! Captmondo 20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

French Resistance = terrorists?!

Given your knowledge of Frnch issues, please have a look at Talk:Maquis du Vercors and the category that the Maquis du Vercors article has been placed. Your views would be useful. Folks at 137 21:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Labelling the French Resistance "terrorists" is just a symptom of the fact that "terrorist" doesn't mean anything. Indeed some resistants, particularly the Communists, did attack civilians and did play on the classic "provocation/repression" cycle to rise the stakes (attacking German personnel in the deliberate aim of having French hostages executed by the Germans so that the population would grow to hate them). These are typical "terrorist" tactics, and are rarely labelled as such because the French resistance is considered to be the "goodies".

This being said, the Vercors uprising was another matter, with clearly identified insurgents rising up against the Germans and fighting their troops by conventional means. This comes in the framework of the laws of war (fthe Geneva conventions for instance) and is absolutely not comparable to terrorism. Rama 11:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A balanced view that I'd support. I added other, more suitable (IMO), categories to the Vercors article. You may like to view the other editor's contribution list - there seems to be an agenda. Folks at 137 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously.

Beware, I see that you seem to be mixing up the "Free French" with the Maquis of Vercors:

• The Free French ("FFL", Force françaises libres) were a group of people gathered in London around De Gaulle who claimed to be maintaining the legitimacy of the French government after Pétain took power in mainland France, and which ended around 1943 when the French colonies of Northern Africa joined the Allies.
• The maquis were more or less coordinated groups withing mainland France, some of them commanded from London and later from Algiers ("FFI", Forces françaises de l'intérieur). The Vercors maquis was part of the FFI.

The Vercors was an attempt at restoring an island held by supporters of the French Republic (as opposed to Pétain's "French State"), but they recognised De Gaulle as the temporary leader of France, in continuity with the last government of the 3rd Republic. They were not really a State by themselves. Rama 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Paine's Rights of Man

This was a famous book which supported the revolutionary aims of France and the United States. I am sure the French ship Droits de l'Homme (1794) was named after the book rather than the modern concept of human rights. Dabbler 12:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very much enclined to believe you, since you are obviously knowledgeable, but (no offence) would you happen to have a source stating so ? Not that I have one stating otherwise, but I think that most Frenchmen will think of the concept rather than the book, so it's an interesting fact which would be best backed up by sources. I'll have a look at my own sources and see if I fond something. Thank you for the notice, it's interesting, as always. Cheers ! Rama 12:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I do not know of any sources, but to me it seemed so obvious an origin for the name of a Revolutionary French ship. The English Wikipedia article on Paine expounds on his influence on the French Revolutionary government. If you google French sources for the phrase combined with Thomas Paine you get a lot of references which my inadequate French indicates that his work was well known and popular at the time in France but I can't think of the key words which might link that to the French Navy. Also Herman Melville (author of Moby Dick) used the name for Billy Budd's ship but that is another story.

A further thought and one that had not occurred to me before. The ship's name may actually have come from the 1789 La Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen by the French Constituent Assembly. Dabbler 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what seems most likely at first to me. It was what I meant to mention, apparently I didn't use the proper link. In French, "Human rights" translates Droits de l'Homme (only recently have a minority of politically correct speakers started using the (cretinous) term Droits humains). Rama 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Either way Human Rights would not be an appropriate translation of the name. I am happy to have it changed from Thomas Paine's book to the French assembly declaration, but I do agree that finding a historical reference would be best. I hope that you can find one and I apologise for my Anglocentricity in assuming Paine as the origin. Dabbler 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the La Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen is probably a more likely guess, yes. Anglocentricity is rather refreshing to me, the French naval accounts about this period are often sickening, I don't mind having some other perspective at all. Cheers ! Rama 15:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Camerapedia scrapes

I'm puzzled by your "creation" of Cosina Voigtländer and other articles, in which you seem to have done little more than copy and paste from Camerapedia. Here is Cosina Voigtländer as you left it; here is Camerapedia's article as it was at the time. You didn't even bother to change the Camerapedia-specific categories. If it's worth copying this material from Camerapedia, isn't it worth doing so intelligently? -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's worth whining on my talk page, isn't it worth fixing it ? Rama (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. So fix it. I see no reason to spend my time attending to your laziness. -- Hoary (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, pestering people is obviously both less time-consuming and more constructive... Rama (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The worry is that Wikipedia is not a data dump. Although I see nothing but good faith and your wish to help the encyclopedia, these articles, as copy-pasted, stray so far from many of our writing and formating policies that they cause a net loss to the encyclopedia when added this way and only cause other Wikipedians hours of needless work. I think articles should be created from the beginning to Wikipedia's standards of notability, sourcing, organization, length and format. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

French ensign during the Revolution

It is yes, but if you read down a bit on that page it is noted that it was thicker than shown, and actual proportions are stated, which I followed. Glad you like it anyway! Martocticvs (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

An image

Hi, Rama. I see you deleted an image with the note Irrelevant image. Already on Commons.[1] Jaakobou asked me to contact you about that. You see, that image is scheduled for deletion because Commons doesn't host fair use copyrighted material. But Wikipedia can. He thinks there's no suitable free image that could serve its function. Would you be willing to reconsider your decision on that basis? Thanks, Durova^Charge! 08:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No.

Fair use is a precise legal term. It does not amount to a "licence to upload anything I find decorative".

Claiming "fair use" on an image that is hosted on Commons [2] as "copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification" is wrong an irresponsible.

Furthermore, I fail to see the problem, since you can link from Image:Heil.jpg. Rama (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: The "scheduled for deletion" matter is properly addressed by uploading the image under Fair Use on en: after the image on Commons is deleted. Rama (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you object to a content RFC on image use for the article if that proper procedure is followed? The topic itself is something I'm not familiar with. Durova^Charge! 10:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean, so I assume I won't object :)

Incidentally, the "proper procedure" I am describing is probably a bit pedantic (even "-Wall --pendantic", if you see what I mean). But one is never too careful on licencing matters, and easily too reckless.

I am not really familiar with the topic itself, though I already know more than I wanted to know. In any case, "fair use" is precisely for this sort of things: discussing a work and showing a sample of it (and not for showing photos of people as it is too often used). But claiming an image that is freely licenced under fair use leaves a taste of indifference to complicated matters that need to be studied (though the question of whether the author has a right to freely licence this particular work changes the question somewhat).

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer, so of course I'm no expert, but I studied writing in graduate school where a course in related law was required curriculum, mainly for practical purposes of covering our own behinds. So I understand a bit more than the average bear about text copyright, but image copyright is a different animal. Either way, I appreciate enough to treat these matters conservatively. When you showed me that Commons license my eyes widened. It shouldn't have been on that project in the first place.

The editor's opinion, the way I understand it, is that no free image would be a good replacement for this one. I explained that free images tend to win out at Wikipedia over fair use ones, no matter how dreadful the only free image is. He responded with a content-based argument that's outside my knowledge, so I suggested a content RFC on how images should be presented in that article. Durova^Charge! 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the presence of the image on Commons is a rather interesting thing: the author of the photo editing, Carlos Latuff, apparently does not understand that while he has a copyright on the edited image, the author of the portrait of Sharon retains copyright also. So Latuff is not free to licence his edited image as he please. What I have seen of Latuff's work did not impress me by taste not by subtle understanding of complex matters, so I daresay that the uploader, Jaakobou, could have been more careful here.

As for the content, an RFC would probably be a good idea. There seem to be a few correctly free-licenced images on Commons that I would consider to be adequate replacements, for instance Image:ArielSharon.gif or Image:Arielsharonsecretlove.gif. But Jaakobou's discourse on the topic has not struck me as particularly articulate or, like Latuff's, very mindful of accuracy and nuances. So it might so be that Jaakobou does not consider these images as good replacements for reasons I do not understand at the moment. Rama (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fast battleship image resizing

Hello, Rama!

Thanks for your interest in the Fast battleship article. I must confess to being puzzled by this edit. Your edit comment was Do not override user's preferences for thumbnail images without good reasons. Lead image. Which user's preference do you refer to? Why do you refer only to the lead image, when you resized every image in the article? What was the point of this resizing? Does sizing images at 300-350px violate any Wikipedia policy or guidelines?

Pending a reply, I have restored the images to what appears to me to be a more legible size. If you still have a problem with this, can I suggest that you post your objections to the Talk page? Otherwise, feel free to reply here; I have added this page to my watchlist.

Regards, John Moore 309 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This questions seems to pop up on my talk page regularly, I should really find a more explicit edit comment...

The point is that, to quote Wikipedia:Extended image syntax:

“ From MediaWiki 1.5 the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so it is recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences). ”

.

So forcing a size of 300px overrides the preferences of users who would have set another size. It is going to be problematic on very small screens like PDAs or sub-notebooks, and will upset people focused more on text than on images, for instance.

It is an oft-forgotten fact that rendering of HTML pages differs greatly depending on the size of the screen, its resolution, the fonts used and the size of the window. I have seen people arguing on talk pages about how to have images fit the vertical size of the introduction of an article, for instance, which obviously makes no sense at all.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a very full and courteous reply. I see now where you are coming from - and, now that I know, I have set my own default to 300px, which better suits my ageing eyes. I am still a little puzzled, though. As was pointed out in the debate at Image_use_policy/Archive_8#Forced_image_size, if the image size for a thumb is not specified, it forces the default image size (currently 180px) on any user who is using Wikipedia solely for reference and does not have an account. Whose preference does this reflect? For many images, 180px is simply too small for the image to achieve its illustrative purpose; moreover, this possibility is explicitly recognised in the full text of the recommendation you quote above (unless ... a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences).

Also, a recommendation is, by definition, not a policy. Surely, then, it is not appropriate to "enforce" it retrospectively on other editors' work?

You will see that I have now read up the debate on this issue. So far, I have yet to read anything to convince me that my views are unreasonable; however, I am still open to persuasion. Thanks for your time & patience. Regards, John Moore 309 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

French ship Vengeur du Peuple

Hello!
I notice you’ve made a few edits to this page (nice work, by the way).
I see that now the launch dates don’t agree; also that you’ve given a different number of survivors, amnd asked for a citation for the original figure.
The citation would be the references originally given;
Verne gave the launch date and early history, Mahan (from memory) gave the rescue details.
So, can I ask what your sources are?
Also, a minor point; you’ve made the previous name Marseillois; Verne gave the name as Marseillais, so if I’ve translated it badly/wrong, please blame my poor French.
Xyl 54 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I am using the Dictionnaire des bâtiments de la flotte de guerre française de Colbert à nos jours [3], written by a French Navy officer who apparently toured French shipyard and write down their records. Note that it is very possible that original sources from this time do not agree and that there's no real way of acertaining which date is more correct.

I'd like to say that though I very much love his work, I wouldn't consider Jules Verne as a very reliable source for this sort of details. It might be worth mentioning what Verne says, though.

For Marseillois, you are not to blame, it's tricky: "-ois" is an old writing of what is now written "-ais" (for instance: "French" is written Français now, but was written François in the 1780s. You can still see it on Image:Declaration_of_Human_Rights.jpg at the bottom: "Aux représentans du peuple françois". In 1760s, the spelling would have been spelt "Marseillois", hence my edit (by Verne's time, the modern spelling was fixed, hence his spelling). Now you mention it, maybe a footnote is in order.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks;

So the Dictionnaire has the name Marseillois, and the 1766 launch date? If so,that should be the main reference source. The Verne reference also relates to the legend section, though, so I’d leave that in.

I think it’s better if the text agrees with the source given, even if it’s debateable; discrepancies can always go in a footnote.

Does the Dictionnaire also refer to the rescue? I’ll double-check the Mahan reference next time I’m in the library.
Xyl 54 (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PS; I was going to put a bit on the talk page about the name anyway, so I’ll add the point you’ve made. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Dictionnaire simply refers names, dates and main events like participation in a battle, but does not go at length on stories about famous ship ("not to rewrite thing already better written elsewhere", as the author has it; a bit like our NPOV policy). Though it might gove the number of survivors. At worse, we can cite contradicting numbers and attribute the sources.

Regarding the sinking, most modern sources (since the 1950s) seem to agree that Vengeur du peuple stroke her colours rather quickly in fact, the first of the French to do so. Apparently she put on a gallant fight in a gunnery duel with a British ship, which damaged the gunport covers of both ships, which started taking in water through the lower gunports (Vasa-style); while the British were closing the gunports with improvised covers, the French tried to pump the water outside, taking in more and more until the entirety of the crew was pumpig out water (gunports still opened...), at which point the Vengeur declared herself out of the fight and stroke. A sadly common display of incompetant enthusiasm by French sailors of the time. The fairy tail of nailing the flag is regarded as a remarkable example of propaganda, and if the singing of the Marseillaise did occur while the ship was sinking, it was probably done by wounded crewman that could nor be evacuated, rather than by fit men willing to die in combat.

I'll check the spelling in the dictionnary, though it'll probably list the ship under the modern spelling. I've got no problem with citing the name Marseillais and putting a footnote, for instance; let's not be too unsetling for English-speaking readers.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

French Battleship

Okay! Thanks for bringing that to my attention. :) Regards, Rudget.talk 18:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mysterious Cities of Gold

Hi Rama. I have recently been seeking sources for a lot of the material on MCOG and have it down to a couple of unreferenced statements. One of them is the claim that the documentaries were funded by NHK, which was first inserted in one of your edits. Do you have a source please? --Ross UK (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It probably stems from reading [4]. It is a good source on the topic, but has the drawback of being in French.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that; it looks like a good resource. --Ross UK (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is for French readers. I assume that you have notions, but if I can be of help, don't hesitate to ask me to clarify details.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Merci

Salut, et merci pour des commentaire dans la talk_page cocernant l'affaire des emeutes actuelles. A lire les commentaires anglosaxon, on se croirais dans une France Medievale... -__-" Yug 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bon, le système américain es ttrès différent du système français, la mentalité est différente, le problème des banlieues est un problème complexe, je comprends que ça soit déconcertant et qu'il y ait des commentaires naïfs. Mais c'est vrai que le néo-conservatisme semble avoir sérieusement attaqué les facultés cérébrales de certaines personnes. Rama (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

En fait, ça y est notre ami a rajouté le même commentaire sur les pays où seront enterrés ces deux garçons. Voudrais-tu bien le retirer de nouveau ? Merci d'avance. --Zantastik talk 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ca commence à m'agacer, ces attaques personelles continuelles. Que ces gens soient frustrés parce que leurs vision des choses n'est pas partagée, je le conçois. Je suppose que la réalité les contrarie déjà beaucoup quotidiennement. Mais le côté "village d'Astérix" en plus haineux, c'est inacceptable. Rama (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Caption help

We have a little three way battle going on at Anti-nuclear movement about the caption on the image at the top. One person wants to generically describe it as "Commonly used image in the anti-nuclear movement." I don't see any need for a caption, other than providing the Alt text "Nuclear Power? No Thanks", and another wants to provide ordering information for the pins (my interpretation). What is your opinion on the best caption? I don't see that any is needed, as "the picture serves as the typical example of the subject of the article and offers no further information - no caption needed." Cheapthrill 00:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in the article itself; hence I have no idea of what would be a good caption, and frankly speaking, I do not wish to have any.

In general terms, I think that it is a good idea to use the "thumb" syntax and describe what the image shows, or to provide context on the image. I don't know if this is helpful.

Cheers ! Rama 00:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheapthrill 01:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Paternité de la croix de Lorraine

Bonsoir Rama,

La paternité de la croix de Lorraine est très nettement attribuée à l'amiral Muselier et en particulier par Thierry d'Argenlieu lui-même [5]. Ceci à été largement débattu et sourcé sur les articles Wp fr : Croix de Lorraine, Thierry d'Argenlieu, Émile Muselier sur lesquels on a laissé la source de Gaulle mais cité également les autres. J'avais corrigé en faisant par erreur référence à l'article France libre. Cordialement, 90.35.31.73 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (Daniel•D sur fr: )

Free French Forces dit que d'Argenlieu a lancé l'idée, et que la conception a été faite par Muselier. L'idée de la croix de Lorraine y est attribuée à d'Argenlieu, là-dessus je pense que tu as les détails mieux en tête que moi.

Au fait, quand on cite le nom de famille seulement, on dit "Argenlieu", ou "d'Argenlieu" ? Rama (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

C'est une erreur par omission de De Gaulle qui ne cite pas Muselier sur cette question dans ses Mémoires de guerre. Cette erreur est connue et les historiens (R. Aron, et de nombreux autres cités en référence et aussi sur les pages de discussion des articles et des intervenants : user:Attis principalement [6] et moi-même [7]) l'on depuis longtemps rectifiée. La raison principale de cette omission vient sans doute de la brouille entre de Gaulle et Muselier consécutive à l'affaire de la prise de Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon par les FNFL (Muselier ayant été obligé de se plier aux ordres du Général, en dépit de sa parole donnée aux Américains) et à l'attitude de non-subordination de Muselier vis-à-vis de De Gaulle qui en suivit. D'Argenlieu (on dit d'Argenlieu) à toujours reconnu, écrit et laissé cette paternité à Muselier. D'ailleurs de Gaulle n'a que quelques mots sur la question : « Entre-temps, tous nos éléments, suivant l'idée émise par d'Argenlieu, adoptèrent comme insigne la Croix de Lorraine [...] ». Les ordres de création des FNFL et FAFL et la création de l'emblème Croix de Lorraine sont bien de Muselier qui est resté dans l'Histoire principalement pour cela. Comme cette erreur est depuis pas mal de temps dans Wikipédia (était pour fr:), elle est reprise partout sur Internet. Mais les sources papiers sont profusion. Daniel•D 90.35.31.73 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Donc c'est bien d'Argenlieu qui a eu l'idée au moins d'un insigne, et Muselier qui l'a dessiné. Rama (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolument pas ! C'est Muselier et lui-seul en référence à son père Lorrain d'origine . [8]. Daniel•D 90.35.31.73 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

D'Argenlieu était Carmelite, je ne sais pas s'il se serait vanté de ce genre de choses. Je ne sais pas si je suis très clair, mais la thèse que je comprends, c'est que d'Argenlieu a suggéré l'idée d'un insigne distinctif, et que Muselier l'a produit. Je ne sais pas trop qui aurait eu l'idée de la croix de Lorraine, mais quelle qu'en soit la réponse, ça n'empêche pas et a l'avantage d'être cohérant avec toutes les sources. Ou y en a-t-il qui écartent explicitement toute participation de d'Argenlieu ? Rama (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mais lui-même. Toutes les sources, sauf de Gaulle, ne retiennent pas d'Argenlieu mais Muselier, les historiens ne font même pas mention de d'Argenlieu pour la croix de Lorraine. La solution retenue après discussions sur fr:, comme tu peux le voir dans les articles déjà cités et dans les liens que je t'ai postés, a été de citer prioritairement Muselier avec suffisamment de sources et de mettre la source de Gaulle avec l'explication ad hoc. 90.35.31.73 (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Je crois qu'il serait bon de mettre préemptivement un terme à l'idée que fr: pourrait faire autorité en une quelconque manière sur en:. fr: représente l'état d'avancement de en: il y a trois ou quatre ans, a beaucoup moins d'utilisateurs, dont la plupart ne savent pas écrire de façon scientifique et ne s'en rendent même pas compte; elle est lourdement franco-centrée, ses institutions sont immatures, le climat y est détestable, et elle refuse d'implémenter les mesures prises sur en: il y a des années pour inventer les siennes. Il n'y a donc aucune raison pour que des décisions prises là-bas soient implémentées ici.

Pour le reste, la question n'est pas de savoir si d'Argenlieu revendique l'idée d'un symbole distinctif, mais de savoir si des sources disent explicitement que ce n'est pas le cas. Nous avons des sources qui disent que ça l'est, et ça n'est pas incompatible avec la suite. Ca n'est pas Muselier XOR d'Argenteuil, et du reste l'article mentionne bien Muselier comme créateur du symbole. Rama (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sur fr: versus en:, j'ai un avis, mais c'est hors sujet. Pour ce qui nous intéresse, je citais les articles en question sur fr: pensant que tu daignerais prendre connaissance des discussions sur le sujet et des sources que nous sommes plusieurs à avoir apportées. Au vu de tes réponses, j'ai quelques doutes. Maintenant si tu préfères le capitaine de corvette d'Argenlieu au vice-amiral Muselier comme initiateur de la croix de Lorraine en dépit des écrits de d'Argenlieu lui-même, c'est comme bon te semble, Wikipédia (en général) n'est pas à une connerie près. Et si, c'est Muselier ou exclusivement d'Argenlieu. Daniel•D 17:10 14 décembre 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.27.20 (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Moi, ce que j'aime, c'est les sources qui correspondent aux affirmations. Je n'ai pas d'avis pour le reste. En l'occurence, j'ai l'impression que tu n'es pas au clair sur ce que tu affirmes, et tu ne donnes pas de source. Rama (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Il n'est pire aveugle que celui qui ne veut voir :

• francelibrebdr.fr, Croix de Lorraine
• Ordre de la Libération, Émile Muselier
• Le général de Gaulle ne retiendra que le nom de Thierry d'Argenlieu dans ses mémoires. Le texte exact de L'appel de De Gaulle est : « Le 21 juillet [1940], j'obtins que plusieurs de nos aviateurs prissent part à un bombardement de la Ruhr et fis publier que les Français Libres avaient repris le combat. Entre-temps, tous nos éléments, suivant l'idée émise par d'Argenlieu, adoptèrent comme insigne la Croix de Lorraine. » (Charles de Gaulle, Mémoires de guerre, L'appel (1940-1942), chap. « La France Libre », Plon, 1954, (ISBN 978-2-266-09526-6), (repris par édit. Pocket, p. 99).
• « Sous le signe de la Croix de Lorraine », article publié par France d'abord, journal brazzavillois dans le n° 18 du mercredi 5 novembre 1941, p. 11-13, reproduisant, comme indiqué en en-tête, « des extraits d'une conférence faite dernièrement à Londres par l'amiral Muselier ». L'amiral explique, paragraphes 4 à 6 de l'article, p. 11 « Dès le début, il m'a paru nécessaire de différencier de façon apparente, les bâtiments de guerre de la France Libre et ceux restés fidèles au Gouvernement du Maréchal Pétain.

Un de mes premiers ordres – du 2 juillet, si j'ai bonne mémoire – précisa que les bâtiments des Forces navales françaises libres porteraient à la poupe les couleurs nationales françaises et à la proue un pavillon carré bleu, orné d'une Croix de Lorraine rouge. Et ce fût (sic) l'origine de l'insigne du Mouvement de la France libre. Pourquoi j'ai choisi la Croix de Lorraine? Parce qu'il fallait un emblème en opposition à la Croix Gammée et parce que j'ai voulu penser à mon père qui était Lorrain. »

• « Dans la nuit du 2 au 3 juillet 1940, seul dans sa petite chambre du Grosvenor Hotel, à Londres, il prend d'autres décisions, sans référence à personne. Pensant à son père, un Lorrain, il rédige un statut de la Marine française libre, prescrivant d'arborer l'insigne qui deviendra légendaire : « Les bâtiments de guerre et de commerce [...] porteront à la poupe le pavillon national français et à la proue un pavillon carré bleu, orné en son centre de la croix de Lorraine en rouge, par opposition à la croix gammée. » » Robert Aron, Les grands dossiers de l'histoire contemporaine, « Le putsche de Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon », Éditions CAL, p. 197, (repris de Librairie Académique Perrin, 1962-1964).
• Françe Libre, « Les origines des FNFL, par l'amiral Thierry d'Argenlieu », article tiré du n° 29 de la Revue de la France Libre de juin 1950, p. 17-20.
• Bruno Leroux, article Croix de Lorraine dans Dictionnaire historique de la Résistance, dir. François Marcot, Robert Laffont, 2006, p. 925-927.

Pour plus de détail voir : fr:Croix de Lorraine
Ainsi que les liens déjà postés.
Je suis très au clair. 90.2.27.20 (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Daniel•D

Et tiens je te recopie juste la fin du lien que tu feins de n'avoir vu : http://www.france-libre.net/temoignages_documents/1_6_1_6_origines_FNFL.htm :

« [...] Proposée par l’amiral Muselier au chef des Français libres et de lui agréée, dès juillet 1940, pour être l’emblème distinctif des Forces navales renaissantes à la vie, la croix de Lorraine devint immensément plus qu’un signe distinctif d’unités combattantes. Elle devint par acclamation le symbole de la résistance d’un peuple.

Le symbole de son honneur, de son courage, de son espérance contre toute espérance, en bref de son invincible foi dans les vertus de la race et les destinées du pays.

Dix années ont passé!

Croix de Lorraine qui scella la victoire et le rétablissement de nos libres institutions, à toi, notre fierté!

Croix de Lorraine, joyau de notre patrimoine, devenue à jamais croix de la Libération, à toi, notre fidélité.

G. d’ARGENLIEU  »

Daniel•D 90.2.27.20 (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Si tu mettais moins d'énergie à mettre ma bonne foi en doute, tu te rendrais compte que là n'est pas la question. Mais j'ai déjà eu la mesure de ton sérieux avec les photos de Guy Môquet, je ne suis pas surpris. Rama (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

C'est réciproque. Et tu peux garder tes attaques personnelles pour toi, merci. Daniel•D 90.2.93.202 (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Ps : Tous les éditeurs se doivent de rechercher une exactitude aussi grande que possible. (voir Wikipédia:Pertinence)

Ca ne peut pas être réciproque, dans la mesure où le Droit du copyright va dans un seul sens, celui où tu avais tort. Ne pas connaître le Droit en vigueur n'est pas une tare irrémédiable; ne pas accepter quand on a eu tort peut le devenir.

L'exactitude n'est pas la fidélité à une version décrétée vraie en sélectionnant des sources, surtout pas par un comité de Wikipédiens auto-constitué violant allégrement WP:OR. Rama (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Commence par lire un peu sur le sujet, les bouquins cités en référence sont en vente libre (de source sûre, la plupart dans ma bilbliothèque). Sur ce, le taré et violeur te souhaite bonne continuation. Daniel•D 90.2.93.202 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:International Brigades casa del campo.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:International Brigades casa del campo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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 have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:International Brigades training.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:International Brigades training.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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 have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Guillaume Dasquié

A tag has been placed on Guillaume Dasquié requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Guillaume Dasquié

I have nominated Guillaume Dasquié, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guillaume Dasquié. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year and all the best in the new one my friend!!! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Flynn robin hood.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Flynn robin hood.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) 05:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Affiche rouge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Affiche rouge.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) 07:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MCoG pedro sancho mendoza.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MCoG pedro sancho mendoza.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MCoG title.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MCoG title.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MCoG condor.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MCoG condor.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MCoG pedro sancho mendoza.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MCoG pedro sancho mendoza.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MCoG solaris.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MCoG solaris.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MCoG condor.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MCoG condor.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Glorious First of June

Hi, in reverting my edits to images on the above page, you wrote "(Do not override user's preferences for thumbs, per WP:EIS. If the images are too small, change your settings in preferences.)" I'm afraid that I don't understand any of that and didn't understand any of WP:EIS and consequently fail to see why it is necessary. When I changed my preferences as you suggested, it resulted in all of the images on the page switching to a variety of bizarre sizes (some huge, some tiny) which made the article confusing to look at. What exactly is going on here and why has this issue never been raised in any of my previous articles (four of which have passed FAC)? Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The rendering of a web page depends on the browser, screen size, resolution, font, etc., so it is pointless to tweak details so that they look good on your computer, because in most cases they will yield different results on other computers.

The solution to this problem is make parameters customisable. In this case, the size of thumbnails is set in the user's preferences. By giving a value (for instance 250px as you did), you merely ensure that people reading on small screens (subnotebooks, for instance) will have disturbingly huge images, will people reading on large, high-resolution screen will see tiny, difficult to read images. On the other hand, by leaving the parameter free and setting only "thumb", the users will see the images to the size of their preferences (typically 120px for the first, and 300px for the second).

the "variety of bizarre sizes (some huge, some tiny)" to which you refer is probably due to some of the images being vertical. Indeed, "thumbs" are defined by the horizontal dimension of the image, so a 200px-wide vertical thumb will be much larger than a horizontal one. The solution is to set the "upright" parameter for the vertical images; this will make the vertical images smaller by a fixed factor.

The reason why is was never raised in other articles is probably because people are insufficiently aware of this. In the general rule, it is always a bad computer pratice to hard-code values. The language allows it, but it should nominally be used only for specific cases like landscapes or headers.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, that explained the problem perfectly. I notice you have added information about the siking of Vengeur du Peuple to the Glorious First of June article. Could you please provide a reference for this with a page number. Thanks --Jackyd101 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it as soon as I get the book handy. By the way, I wouldn't consider it an authoritative source, certainly not my modern standards, but this author can be quite lyrical at times, so his critical appreciation of the incident seems all the more worth noting to me ("even him" agrees that...).

I'll need to find myself good French books, it's amazing what one can reconstruct with access to references of both sides. I remember a captured ship whose entire career was reconstructed this way, while no unique source told it in its entirety.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The source repeats the story, so it is an example of the legend of the sinking of the Vengeur, whatever the truth may have been. I've noticed that you are filling in the ship red links on the order of battle and well done on tracking down Juste. Can you help me with one other thing though, Trente un Mai was formerly called Mont Blanc, but there was another ship with the fleet also called Mont Blanc, and I can't track down which ship it was. It returned to France on the 29th. Part of the problem is that French records are patchy and its not completely clear which ships were engaged on which days, which order they were in and what they were even called at this period as names changed so suddenly. Thanks for creating these articles, it was a bit beyond me. Perhaps if you are able there is one other thing if you can translate French - Pierre Vanstabel, admiral in charge of the French convoy has no article, but there seems to be information on him here in French. My French is awful but this might be the basis for an article. Its just a suggestion, if you can't do it then no problem. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have access to documentation given as reference by the service historique de la Marine, so there's little prowess on my part. I'll be doing all the remaining ships systematically in the next days.

I'll draft something on Vanstabel, but we must be wary of copyright when creating an article from one single source. Maybe my Histoire de la Marine by Farrère also has something. Besides, I'll need to find myself better sources in French.

Thank you for your interest, and do not hesitate to ask if you need something else of the sort. Cheers ! Rama (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll also complete French ship Mont-Blanc so that you can have a complete list. Don't hesitate to ask when such problems occur (though I've noticed that merely putting accents properly and spelling Redoutable correctly would suffice to fill lots of red links ^^) Rama (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mont Blanc

The reference to Mont Blanc definately comes from William James, p. 145, I have it in front of me. James is unusually authorative on such matters, but given the great confusion surrounding the names of the French ships in contempory English accounts, its more than likely he is mistaken on this point. If the ship was not Mont Blanc then I have no idea what it might be, no source I have avaliable offers an alternative. Quite puzzling.

On the same subject, are you able to find out the full name of Admiral Cornice, mentioned at the bottom of the French section of the order of battle? I spent some time looking out for his full name, but couldn't find it. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Mont-Blanc, maybe this should be read as "the ship which had born the name Mont-Blanc, in which case he is quite correct, and we could simply replace Mont-Blanc with 31 Mai. Does the number of ships check out?

The French ships were renamed almost everytime the political trend changed, which it did quite often, so I can imagine a British officier identifying the ship and writing the old name. He couldn't be blamed.

The admiral is probably Pierre-François Cornic (1731-1801; aka Cornic-Dumoulin). It's a Breton name.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It couldn't have been the 31 Mai, because that ship was present at the battle two days later. James says "Villaret took this opportunity of sending home the crippled ship Indomptable, attended, as it would appear, by the Mont Blanc 74, to see her safe into port". No other source I have provides a name for the ship which escorted Indomptable back to France so presumably the ship was misidentified by British officers at the time and the true identity of the ship is unclear. I'll add something to this effect to the list. Cornic sounds about right, one of James's weaknesses is in the spelling of French names (he tends to anglicise them), so that probably is the man.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good clue ! The Indomptable was taken in tow by a 74-gun Brutus [9] [10]; I think that she was the ex-Diadème (lead ship of the class). Since we don't have presently have a Brutus in the order of battle, we keep the same ship count if we substitute Brutus for Mont-Blanc. Rama (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: what I find odd is that we have a name (Thévenard) for the captain of an uncertain ship :p Rama (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats a very good point. I checked on James's order of battle and sure enough, Mont Blanc was listed as being with Villaret's fleet in May 1794 under Captain Thevenard. On p.145, as mentioned, Mont Blanc is listed as leaving with Indomptable and Trente-un-Mai under Honore Guanteaume joins (although where exactly the latter joins from is not clear, the impression is that she was cruising independantly in the Bay of Biscay, which seems a little unusual). Brutus is not mentioned at all. The ship may therefore be Brutus, do you know what sources these websites were based on? This could shed some light on this problem.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found an interesting site [11] which details the French order of battle. Their sources are listed at [12].

I've made a list at User:Rama/Combat de Prairial, with a comparative list from our own article, and it seems that Order of battle at the Glorious First of June has one ship too many (31 ships of the line, while this source lists 30).

It also confirms Brutus as being the former, razeed Diadème, and gives a list of the smaller units (I'd be delighted to get rid of the paragraph which claims that precise data about smaller units can't possibly be acquired).

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Sorry it took a while, I have been extremely busy in real life and will be for the next few days. This website fills in a lots of gaps, so if you can and if you consider it reliable, please edit the wikipedia pages concerned to reflect this new information (remember to inline source correctly as you go). The pages are on my watch list and i will monitor it when I can to check and make sure that there are no discrepancies. My French is awful, but the page seems to give a complete list of french frigates and brigs (which would fit well in the bottom section) and also information regarding the various captains (something that British sources are very vague on). Perhaps you could add full names for captains where applicable and see which might deserve future articles of their own? As for the extra ship, can you see which one it is that is on our page and not on the external one? Then we can compare sources and see where the problem comes from. Since there is now a source explaining the Mont Blanc appearance, that can be changed to reflect this new information. Finally, the external page divides the French up in divisions in an interesting manner, but does not reflect the actual French line at the time as Villaret mixed the divisions up on the morning of the battle to even out the provision of first rates in his battleline. Thus the order of ships in the order of battle article is probably more accurate (running west to east). I realise I am asking you for an awful lot and I don't expect everything at once, but my hectic worklife at the moment coupled with my dreadful French means that I won't be able to get to this soon and when I do my understanding of it won't be the best. Please do what you can and thankyou for your interest. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Well I hope things are running fine for you. Best wishes in any case.

Regarding Mont Blanc, I've been having an interesting discussion with a dedicated amateur on the French Wikipedia, who has access to interesting books, including accounts of the battle by Troude (Les batailles navales de la France, capitaine de frégate Onésime-Joachim Troude, Paris 1867, tome 2, pp. 328 to 363). Turns out that a 74-gun ship Mont Blanc, under captain Alexandre Thévenard, is reported as escorting Indomptable back to Brest! As we suspected, Indomptable was dismasted and towed by the frigate Brutus.

On the other hand, the 31 mai is not listed as part of the fleet that sailed from Brest on 16 Mai, but she is listed as taking part in the fight of the 1 June. fr:User:Rled44 might be able to tell use more from Saturday.

I think that it is strange that the Dictionnaire des bâtiments... would have let a 74-gun ship through, since it's usually fairly torough even for smaller ships; on the other hand it's not infallible (especially when it comes to citing enemy ships: the spelling is often highly inventive, to the point that there are things that I have been unable to confirm at all), so maybe we've just hit a little snag here.

In any case, the game is still afoot, and it's getting quite interesting. Cheers ! Rama (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine thanks, just busy. That does sound interesting. I can help with the 31. Mai thing though, William James clearly states that the ship joined the French fleet on the 31st May, the same day that Indomptable and the mysterious Mont Blanc left. What is not clear is where she came from. She is not listed as sailing with Nielly, Vanstabel or Villaret's forces but there were at least two French squadrons in the Bay of Biscay during May 1794 which did not participate in campaign directly. What exactly they were doing in the Bay and where they came from I also do not know. Audacious saw one squadron in the distance on her way back to England alone, James posits that this was the force under Jean-Joseph Castignier but gives no more information about it. It is possible therefore that 31. Mai was detached from one of these and joined the French fleet independently. Its very curious.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked fr:User:Rled44 about this, maybe he'll find something. One thing that puzzled me is that the 31 Mai would have arrived on the 31 May. Maybe a coincidence, but it's fishy, especially since I'd be quite embarrassed to think of what happened on a 31 May that the Convention would have honoured by naming a warship. On the other hand, we have confirmation that Ganteaume was her commanded, and his career is not difficult to trace. Rama (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured List

Just to let you know that the Order of battle at the Glorious First of June article is now a featured list. I realise there is more work required on the French side of things, and will not neglect this, but I just wanted to say thankyou very much for all the work you put into the article, research and into the creation of so many articles on French ships. Many thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A huge thankyou for all the work you put into the Glorious First of June article which has just passed FAC. The work you did in preparing this article for FA standard and working on associated articles and red links was hugely appreciated. Thankyou. On another note, if you are interested I am working on a new article about a later battle which has several French red links that I cannot fill myself. If I bring the links to you, would you be able or interested in filling them in?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't certify that I'll be able, but I surely am intersted. Cheers ! Rama (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if you get a chance, the list is at User:Jackyd101/Workbox7. It'll be up there a while as I am waiting on a book. If you can help, then fantastic, if you can't then don't worry. And thankyou very much for all the hard work you put into the featured articles above, it was hugely appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Massively appreciating the work you did on creating these articles, they look really nice. Thankyou very much.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sierra de Terruel poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sierra de Terruel poster.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) 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the illustration in Impressment

The 1780's cartoon at the start is a nice improvement to the article. David (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

unlawful combatant

Please cool it. Your comments are becoming personal and could be seen as a breach of Wikipedia:Civility. Your comment did nothing to improve the article and does not engender consensus building. I strongly suggest that you revert the edit to the talk page and replace it with something more helpful. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Americanophobia

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Americanophobia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

L'Orient/Orient

Hi, I wonder if you can tell me your source for changing the name of the ship. L'Orient is the more common name for referring to this ship that I can see, and sources like David Cordingly's 'Billy Ruffian' use L'Orient. If she was actually called Orient and not L'Orient then I would indeed prefer the name to be correctly titled. But I'm a little confused at this apparent disparity in the sources. Benea (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is not part of the name of the ship itself. It's especially bizarre when one says "the L'Orient", which occurres several times.

Be wary that English sources often come from people who are not native French speakers. They often grossly misspell French names ("Redoubtable" instead of "Redoutable", for instance, is a classic). Incidentally, French sources also misspell English names to the point that I have had trouble recognising some ships even in recently published books.

There are instances in which it is debatable whether the article is part of the name, typically substantified adjectives: Le Redoutable would mean "Daunting one". But even French sources are not consistant in this and in fact tend to write "le Redoutable", which translates as "Redoutable" or "the Redoutable", but not "Le Redoutable" or "the Le Redoutable".

I suspect that English sources tend to add the French article because French ships do not have prefixes like "HMS", and some names were used in both navies. But adding an article is only a folkloric way to give a "French touch", just like Tex Avery gives a "16th Century touch" by writing "Ye Mayflower" on a ship in one of his cartoons.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Invalid delation of image

You deleted the image Noisettesband.jpg' and said ‎: 'irrelevant faire use. Also bollocks, the image is not the subject of the article Although it is completely relevant fair use, and the image IS the subject of the article, do you even know the article?!--Sugarcubez (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to know the article, so I don't see the purpose of your last question.

For the rest, you are deeply wrong. The image is not the subject of the article. The image represents the subject of the article, which is Noisettes. The band.

The fair use is also irrelevant because the band still exists. As such, there is no excuse to use a fair use image rather than a Free one. If the Free one doesn't exist, go make it. But don't invoke fair use in such cases, because, besides hindering the creation of Free content, it can be downright illegal. Rama (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of reading the article, you might have noticed that it links to a category on Commons are Free images are in fact available.

Did you read the Fair use template ? Did you notice the phrase "the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it", in bold ? Rama (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Affiche rouge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Affiche rouge.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) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:2001-discovery-inside1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2001-discovery-inside1.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) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of DMC-LZ1

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on DMC-LZ1, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because DMC-LZ1 is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting DMC-LZ1, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Minolta 5000i

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Minolta 5000i, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of wine.png

Hi! I saw that you uploaded wine.png. Can I use it for the teplate of the Hungarian Wikiproject: Wine? That would be very good. Thanks: Fifuszfc (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the image is made available under a Free licence, you can. Cheers ! Rama (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Meteor3.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Meteor3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Free French

Kindly quote me a passage from the Memoires where de Gaulle refers to the Free French movement as a "government" before June 1944. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"le Comité serait le gouvernment". Mémoire de Guerre, L'Appel, Plon 1954, p.219. Rama (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Future of the French Navy

I have nominated Future of the French Navy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of the French Navy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi there, I have a couple of requests of you if you have the time. Firstly thankyou very much for the ship articles you created in relation to Battle of Tory Island, they were much appreciated and the article has finally been moved to mainspace. I was wondering however if you might be able to create stub articles for me for two French officers. They have stubs on the French wikipedia, but my French is so awful I cannot translate them. The articles are Jean-Baptiste-François Bompart (on the FW as [13]) and Daniel Savary (who appears as [14]) any help you can give towards this would be hugely appreciated, although if you are too busy then please don't worry about it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'll schedule this for my next pause. Cheers ! Rama (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, great job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Wine.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Wine.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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 have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Permission to use sexual images

Hello Rama,

My name is Max and currently I'm working on a website about sex, sexuality, contraceptions, etc. Your images are really good and I would like to use them on this website.

I've read the license for the images, but I'm still not sure, so I'm asking your permission if I can use them on my website. With credits, of course, to Wikipedia or to your personal page.

These images will be vectorized - those that doesn't have a SVG version - and will be modified a bit for the website. I would like to add a white-yellow colour on the man from theimage.

I can provide you with the URL of the website, but for now I would like it to remain hidden :-).

This is my first time on writing something on Wikipedia, I hope this message goes to you.

Thank you -- Maaxxu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maaxxu (talk • contribs) 13:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The licence of these images allows you to use them for any purpose, modified or unmodified. In return, your website should mention the original author ("Rama") and the licence of the image; derivative of the original images should also be licenced under the same terms as the originals.

I hope this answers your question. Cheers ! Rama (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rama,

Your drawings are very beautiful. I'd like to know if you'd be interested in doing some more drawings of other sexual positions, possibly as commissioned work.

-Tony Tonymartez (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

I am open to suggestions, though I cannot guarantee that requests will be fulfilled very quickly. But you are welcome to ask.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rama,

It would be very interesting to see what you would draw for what is typically known as the "piledriver" position, as well as another position where a woman is performing oral on a man (fellatio/blowjob).

-Tony Tonymartez (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 04:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lori Berenson

I am noticing that you have systematically removed all of my revisions from this article. Could you please explain why? Words like "dropping out", "terrorists" are violating the POV guidelines.--rivolad (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The diff [15] shows that you replace "terrorist" with "counter government organization" to refer to the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement. While I typically do not condone the use of the term "terrorist", which I deem overused and and stretched to the point of irrelevance, I certainly do not condone waterdown terms like "counter government organization" to refer to violent criminal bands.

"Dropping out" is not POV. Your version gives less information than the other one.

The rest of your edits is of the same vein: either removing valuable information, or rephrasing factual descriptions in a tendentious (watered down or apologetic) fashion. Rama (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

blocked

Rama, you have just been blocked for a period of 24 hours due to your use of the rollback tool in an edit dispute. Please see here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry about rolling back. I should have reverted manually and added a comment about template not to be used to cheaply discredit articles. My bad.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked as per this discussion. Please make good use of the rollback button. Happy editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it! Thanks again, Fayssal. El_C 12:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Article canard wikipedia.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Article canard wikipedia.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Regarding this, I truly appreciate it! Thank you! Made my day.  :) Antandrus (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

More French ships?

Hi Rama, haven't spoken in a while as I have been away from Wikipedia for a period, but I hope you are doing well. I was wondering whether you might have the time and inclination at some point to create some more of those excellent French ship articles you fill in my redlinks with? The articles in question are three I'm working towards a featured topic listed below, the French ships requiring articles clearly indicated by the redlinks. There are two more articles in this sequence, but I haven't finished with them yet. If you are too busy to help then please don't worry about it. The articles are Battle of Lissa (1811), Action of 29 November 1811, Action of 22 February 1812. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Gladly, I was actually pondering coming back at this, but couldn't find a place to start. Maybe I'll do the Revenant too (a corvette you might know as Victor, took part in the Battle of Grand Port). I will not be of much help for Italian ships, sadly. Cheers! Rama (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the Italian ships might be a bit tricky. I'm not really sure what to do about those. As for Grand Port, the Mauritius camapign is on my to do list once I've finished this series, so any ships from that you create will aid me in long run as well. By the way, if you have any information on any of the French officers mentioned in the article that you think might deserve their own articles then by all means create those too, although aside from Dubourdieu I'm not sure if any are that notable. Thankyou in advance, if there's every anything I can do for you then drop me a line. --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah ah, thanks to you, I finally put my photos of the Flore to good use, and created the articles which connect her to the Flore américaine. I though that this names rang a bell... Rama (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The tale of what happened to colonel Gifflinga's party seems remarkably different between French and British sources... I wonder whether I still have thick elements of gross propaganda in my sources. Rama (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I noticed this difference too. The Gifflenga story currently in the article is commented on by at least four of my sources (all English in origin, but all broadly reliable), so I think that is probably the version closest to the truth, but what surprises me is how completely different the stories are. One must be a total fabrication! Bizarre.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the battle of Trafalgar was long presented as an "inconclusive engagement" in France. I wouldn't be surprised that similar propaganda in present in the very fabric of the sources of the time, and for such details, complete fabrications could well not be corrected. These were times during which the task of a historian was not so much to tell and analyse facts, than construct the national identity of his people around myths. I encourage you to eliminate such implausible tales if you spot them in my articles. Rama (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rama, when you created the French ship articles for Action of 29 November 1811, you added "On the French side, the flight of Pauline was deemed cowardly. Captain Monfort was court-martialled and relieved of command." Can you give me the source you used for that? I'm sure its true, its just that it is the kind of thing that needs to be referenced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That comes from Roche's Dictionnaire des bâtiments de la flotte de guerre française de Colbert à nos jours [16]. Rama (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, can you provide a page number? Then I can reference it in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

p.344 of volume 1. Lieutenant de vaisseau (full lieutenant) Jean-Michel Roche. Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

French presidential election, 2007

Here is the discussion for your revert on my modification:

[[17]]

--Blanchisserie 11:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Aster article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MBDA_Aster#User:Rama 81.109.190.136 (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Enderlin - request for your views

I've (again) removed the poorly sourced/unsourced list of quotes from Charles Enderlin, which I noticed you'd edited recently. Could you take a look at my explanation at Talk:Charles Enderlin#Quote section and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote that has been restore is in my idea the least interesting of the four (but I see why some people love it). If it must be kept, however, I would advise not linking to that Frum person. This is giving undue weight to fringe views, and what Frum says is wrong in all sense of the term. israelinsider.com is of the same vein, strongly insinuating that the boy was not shot.

However lyrical some Palestinian journalism may be, the boy was killed. Period.

In any case, quoting a neo-conservative who defends the invasion of Iraq on matters of honesty and accuracy in reporting strikes me as highly comical. Rama (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

FS Améthyste

I've noticed on the article for French sub Améthyste you've added some interesting details about her operations during the 1999 Serbian war, but you have not cited any source for it. Being an avid researcher of submarine operations and there history, I am interested in knowing the source of this information, and if it is coming first hand than can you please provide some additional information about her past operations. Thanks in advance. Badkhan (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added the sources, but they are in French. The site is quite reputable and serious, though. Cheers. Rama (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bruce E. Ivins

If you don't like the rationalization, emend, don't delete. It meets every criteria for Wikipedia fair use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No it does not. It is a purely decorative image. A "fair use" use of the image would be made to discuss the image itself -- like what you would find on a significant image by a famous photographer.

The rational for the so-called "fair use" also contains the blatently false claim that the image cannot be replaced. I very much doubt that this image is the only one ever taken of Ivins in his entire lifetime. Inability to contact people of the entourage of the subject and ask them for Free images does not equal impossibility, especially when no attempt is even made. Nor does it make it impossible to draw a portrait.

Your claim is not only legally misguided and factually wrong, but it is also quite cavalier towards people who actively work to procure Free images. Rama (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• By your definition, every image used under fair use can be deleted and replaced with a stick figure drawing, and every DVD cover art can replaced by a crude drawing. Even then under American law the derivative artwork is still copyrighted per Rogers v. Koons. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No. This image, for instance, cannot be replaced by a stick figure. Notice how it is used on the page of the author, accompanied with text describing the image, rather than for purely cosmetic purposes on, say, casualty ?

Incidentally, your reference to stick figures in needlessly insulting. There are people out there devoting their time to produce drawings to procure legal and free content. Some of these drawings are of a very high quality. Noone will blame you for being incapable of doing so, nor for failing to contact people and ask them for Free images. But just don't insult the people who do.

Yes, derivative work is still copyrighted to the authors of the original work. That means that you cannot simply take a photograph, draw over it, and call it your work. Just as you cannot copy-paste text from randown sources and call it your article. One should use photographs for documentation and produce original art from that. I don't presume you are discovering that producing content entails some work, are you? Rama (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it insulting to use a crude caricature to depict an historical person, and make a claim that is serves as a legal substitute. Not everyone can create art on an equal basis. To assume so, is, well, just silly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you find an image to be a "crude caricature", discuss it for its artistic merits. The legal question, on the other hand, is a matter of fact.

I never said that everybody can create art on an equal basis. I said that everybody should respect the law. Rama (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:01anthrax2-190.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:01anthrax2-190.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Selenium meter

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Selenium meter, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://camerapedia.org/wiki/Selenium_meter. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bessamatic

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bessamatic, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://camerapedia.org/wiki/Bessamatic. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:R/CH

Salut,

Des fois que tu n'aurais pas vu le message laissé sur ta page :fr, voici.

A dimanche, Popo le Dog ^{throw a bone} 07:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior

I see you removed an image from this article with the edit summary "rm deleted image". However, the image you removed (Image:Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior.jpg) is clearly not deleted, nor does it appear to have any problematic tags at present. However, since it is a fair use image, it will probably be deleted in the near future as unused if it is not restored to the article promptly. Fair use images are not my area of expertise on Wikipedia, but I cannot see why this image was removed from the article.-gadfium 09:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I botched the deletion of the image, thank you for reporting. The "fair use" arguments for this image are invalid. This image clearly can be replaced by a free alternative, and was featured in the article for decorative purposes. "Fair use" are image that are discussed in themselves, like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Rama (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Alsace class battleship

Image:Alsace.svg

You have been kind enough to add an image to Alsace class battleship. Please could you add some sources. I assumed you must have some pretty good sources to be able to generate an image like that. It would really help the article a lot, it you could add sources as online citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

The drawing is based on an enhanced Richelieu, but it is not extremely precise (could be improved, though).

I used [18], [19], [20] and [21] for inspiration (the drawing I did is the single-funnled version). There is another sketch here. You can see a discussion about these ships here.

I think that these drawings come from Éric Gille, 100 ans de cuirassés français, 1999, Marines Editions, (ISBN 2-909-675-50-5). I'm trying to confirm this. Rama (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Brennus and Charles Martel=

If you ever come across drawings or other additional data on the Charles Martel class battleships (1883) please tell me.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We have articles and images of both ships. They are not always considered to be a coherent type, they belong to the series of "prototype ironclads" that the French Navy build in the late 19th Century.

I have taken the liberty to convert the units into metric, not only because it is better according the the MoS, but because French engineers work in mm and converting back and fro from imperial units entails bizarre and imprecise numbers. Rama (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You have assumed that the Brennus and Charles Martel completed in the 1890s were the same ships as the Brennus and Charles Martel laid down in 1884 and 1883. They were not. According to Conways, your Brennus and Charles Martel were laid down in 1889 and 1891 respectively.

The reason for quoting the measurements in Englisxh units was that the source quoted them in English units.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, these are indeed the same ships. Their design was already obsolete when they were laid down, so their construction was interrupted several times between 1882 and 1890 as plans were modified. This is also the reason why their construction took so long. 1891 is the launch date of Brennus. Rama (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Operation Stone Age

You removed "successful" from the description of this op as "POV" and therefore not neutral. Not sure why. All the transports reached Malta, which would have been the objective, so surely that is "successful", from whatever point of view. Particularly in the context of previous operations. Folks at 137 (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not dispute this, the writing is neither tendentious nor inaccurate. But it places the reader in a position of supporting Allies operations, which is taking sides, or taking a non-neutral point of view. Cheers! Rama (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As anative English speaker, I don't read it in that way. Perhaps other opinions should be sought via the Milhist project. We do describe military activities in infoboxes as victory, defeat, successful, etc and that is only argued about on the basis of accuracy. If a description is "neither tendentious nor inaccurate", then how can it be POV? I won't fight over this, I just think that the original phrasing was objectively correct. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, tendentious and inaccurate would be telling something else than what actually happened: for instance, French textbooks of the mid-19th century called Trafalgar an "inconclusive action"; that is inaccurate because Trafalgar was a very decisive action, and tendencious because it bends reality towards a tale more favourable to French propaganda.

On the other hand, saying that the battle of Trafalgar was a victory makes sense only if you side with the British. For the French, it was a defeat. While accurate, it would be taking side.

Now, the sentence about Operation Stone Age was "This successful operation is seen as the end of the 2-years old siege of Malta" ; now that I see it, it is clear that is refers to Operation Stone Age itself, so "successful" would be correct. When I read it the first time, I understood it as something like "This successful action is seen as...", where "action" comprises both the British convoy and the Axis attempts at detection and interception; understood like this, I think that it would be POV to say "successful" because the British reached Malta, just like it would have been to say "this unsuccessful action is seen as..." because Axis forces failed to destroy the convoy.

Perhaps saying "This successful British operation is seen as ...", or "the success of Operation Stone Age is seen as ..." would completely aleviate any doubt.

Sorry for the lengthly explanation. I assume, as you tactfully suggest, that most of this matter is due to my less-than-totally-perfect command of English, and I will fight over it less than anyone else. Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates

I noticed that you have recently made some edits linking dates, citing MoS in your summary. Per WP:MOSNUM, linked dates are deprecated. --Elliskev 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Rama (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons

Hi Rama,
Thx for your comment on the fr:BA. I don't want to polemicate on that story on commons but what you write doesn't convince me at all.
I perfectly understand what you mean by "grandiloquent" and I see the possible misunderstanding that there were in my comments at that time BUT the only issue in written communication is the way people READ, the head they put behind the text, the perception they decide to have, not the way people WRITE.
That would be a little bit easy. A little introspection is not bad at all for anybody. Good continuation on wp:fr, wp:en, wp:commons and the other ones. Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but don't you have like a vague feeling that what people read is sort of influenced by what other people write? As I understand it, that's a bit what writing is about...

Misunderstanding do occur, especially with the informal way of Internet where people write like they talk, simply removing the non-verbal expressions that normally nuance and sweeten what they say. I have deplored that numerous times. But you have to ask yourself questions when most people all understand the same creepy thing after reading what you write. Rama (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course.

I am 100% aware of that.

But please, have a look at the last testimony of Touriste on the Alvaro/Aliesin arbitration... "comment on devient méchant" and, additionnaly, just expand by yourself the reasonning on a long period of time.

You will also understand the (unfair) reaction of the "community" towards you. (I don't try to put us both in the same bag ; issues are completely different - on the same way, let's not mix the way I decided to write email to some people and what I write on the wp non-encyclopaedic space or on the internet)

My point is that the first thing to understand properly what somebody writes is the context and the context is usually put... by the reader, not the writer and is built itself step by step a strange way.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion

I see no basis for your deletion of an image with proper fair-use rationale given from Wikipedia's Wilhelm Brasse; please explain precisely why you deleted it. It appears to me to be a mistaken deletion. --NYScholar (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The fair-use rationale was not proper. Fair use exists to allow quoting of works being discussed, like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. It is not a licence to upload something copyrighted to decorate an article.

Usually, on similar matters, the excuses people use are that the image is "irreplaceable" and that the subject is dead. The first is false and the second is irrelevant. But in this case, it is not even so: the subject is "old" and the image was said to be "unlikely" to be replaced.

What prevents someone from contacting this Wilhelm Brasse chap, arrange for a photo session, and do a Free portrait? Nothing. "Requires some work" and "impossible" are not the same thing. Rama (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not "decoration"; read the article; the very film from which the image is a still is discussed throughout the article and even in the lede (opposite the infobox). It is properly placed. There is nothing false here. The subject is too old to be photographed privately and that is why it is unlikely that one can find a free photograph to replace this one with; you've misconstrued the rationale; I think it was clear and follows normal Wikipedia language about replacement: Is is likely to find a free' photograph to replace this image of the "portraitist" (subject of the film is Wilhelm Brasse, being called "the portraitist") holding some of his "portraits" (entirely relevant to whole article and lede. --NYScholar (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to revert your deletion of this image. --NYScholar (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the reply to you in my talk page; you have misinterpreted both the subject of this article (the person = subject and he is called "the portraitist" in a film about him; entirely pertinent to the article about him; read the lede and rest of article. --NYScholar (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm Brasse is a person, not a film. You are using the film as an excuse, and that is not acceptable.

It is not impossible to make a photograph of Brasse today; it is not impossible to find old photographs of him and ask their author to release them under a Free licence; it is not impossible to draw or paint a portrait of Brasse and release it under a Free licence; etc.

Fair use is not here to allow just taking anything and use it until we obtain a Free image. It is for discussion of work which are impossible to replace. Would any other image of Brasse be as good as the one you had uploaded? Yes, and that proves that it is not irreplaceable in the sense of Fair Use. Could another photograph be used to illustrate Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima? Clearly no, and that warrants the Fair Use. Rama (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your claims about what I am doing violate WP:AGF; I am doing no such thing. The image is from the press kit relating to Wilhelm Brasse as the subject of The Portraitist; it is acceptable use in Wikipedia to illustrate the subject of the article Wilhelm Brasse holding a photograph that is among photographs discussed in the article (right opposite the infobox in the lede); his photographs are the source of his notability and the reason for there being an article about him in Wikipedia. The photograph is a common one featured in news articles about him for the same reason that it is featured in this article. These are absurd and totally warrantless claims about the purpose of my uploading the image and it is a clear violation of WP:AGF. I uploaded the image in good faith and only in good faith. The fair use rationale that I provided is totally above board and perfectly clear about the source used and the purpose of the image used from it. This user does not comprehend the subject of the article (its notability) or the fair use rationale provided on the basis of the subject's notabiity. I will upload the image again later when I have more time to do so. --NYScholar (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please see Wilhelm Brasse. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, please refrain from re-uploading deleted images.

As for the core of the question, again, your image is not significant in itself. It is not a famous image, it is not the one image that we must use for the article. It is in essence different from Raising the flag.

I am not questioning your good faith with respect to Wikipedia. However, I see your behaviour with respect to this image as indicative of a very general lack of understanding of the nature of Fair Use, and of the need to act in genuine good faith, for instance with statements like "image not replaceable". Rama (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not re-upload it. I moved the still-uploaded image to a different part of the article, where it clearly illustrates the content (given your objection above), and I added the "free image" male.svg image in the infobox. I edited out the image after you deleted it. If you want to delete the reference to the now-deleted image entirely, then do so. But you left it there, so I edited out so that red-linked image would not interfere with the content of the section. I still do not think that there is any basis for deleting this image; fair-use rationales (revised since your template) have been provided in full. --NYScholar (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry I was referring to another image that you more recently [nominated for deletion from] Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC) [Sorry for that confusion between the 2 images. --NYScholar (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)]

This image is from a press kit and the template used for the license emphasizes that. I don't know how this image is going to be replaced with another image illustrating Brasse holding up this photograph as part of the promotion for the film. The section is about the Auschwitz photographs that he took and he is holding up one of them, showing the connection. How is this replaceable? With what? If you mean that someone can ask him to do the same thing and hold up the same photo for their personal photograph, that is not very likely. The rule is what is likely to be replaceable not known to be replaceable. This is not likely to be replaced with a non-press promotional photo. It's featured in reviews of the film and featured articles about him because the writers and publishers were given the photo to publish by the distributors of the film (hence, press kit). It is also featured for advertising (promotional) purposes on the distributor's website. The license refers to that and the fair-use rationale makes this clear. I still don't think that the photo should be deleted. --NYScholar (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here, you are being dishonest: we do not need an image of Brasse holding up this photograph as part of the promotion for the film. We need an image of Brasse. Period. Your image (well, the non-free, promotional image of the production, actually) is replaceable, for the much better, with any Free image that can be done by a Wikipedian, given by an accointance of Brasse's, painted, etc.

You probably do not realise that, but your insistence in saying that it is impossible is quite insulting to the thousands of contributors who, daily, take photographs, make interviews, request Free photographs, invest their work and time in procuring Free media for Wikimedia projects. Just because you do not care to do it does not mean that it is impossible. Rama (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I said it is not "likely": that speaks to Wikipedia policy; likelihood not impossibilty. And I strongly object to the personal attack on my honesty; I am being entirely honest. WP:NPA please. Why on earth would I go to all this trouble to respond to you if I am not being honest. I could just ignore the points. I addressed your point directly: I said it is not likely that such a photograph exists to replace the one I uploaded, because the subject is 91 years old, and is holding up a very specific photograph; the entire photograph (cropped for uploading) is a publicity photograph posted on the website of the film's distributor and provided free in a press kit to the media. The fair use rationale states all of that. I suggest that you not claim that other Wikipedia editors are dishonest. I am being entirely honest and I am offended by your statement otherwise. WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The photograph that he is holding up in the promotional photograph provided free to the media by the movie distributor illustrates the content discussed in the section on "The Auschwitz photographs". That is the relevance, not what you are suggesting, which makes no sense to me as the uploader or one who has spent a lot of time researching this subject and creating the entire article and its source citations. The lede, where this photograph used to be, also discusses the Auschwitz photographs, so it was relevant there too, opposite the lede. I moved it to the section expanding that topic; illustrations are placed opposite sections that discuss what they illustrate. (Wikipedia editing policy re: images in WP:MOS.) --NYScholar (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not insult these hypothetical other possible future Wikipedia editors; but you have insulted me (an actual editor who uploaded a photograph) by impugning my honesty. Please don't do that again. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One more time, you are not being dishonest towards Wikipedia, but you saying that the photograph cannot be replaced because it is "Brasse holding up this photograph as part of the promotion for the film", and that is ridiculous. You are certainly well-meant, but you have to understand that you (and the numerous other editors who act like you) are rendering no service to Wikipedia by gaming Fair Use like this.

That the image is a promotional image is irrelevant. It is not Free that is what matters. Write to the production of the film and ask them to release it under the Cc-by-sa, then it will be fine. Rama (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you simply do not understand what I am saying. It seems a waste of time to try to explain it to you any further. Your paraphrases just do not restate what I have said. That's it for me now. --NYScholar (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Same here, if that can comfort you. Rama (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you...

...draw up "line drawings" to replace the ones in this image? Thanks for any help, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 22:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to do that? (I don't know if you have been on since I left that message before, so I'm sorry for being pushy...) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I might be able to give it a try, but the really talented person out here is User:Alexpl, who notably authored Image:Musashi1944.png. If I ever come up with something, I'll let you know. Cheers! Rama (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I will leave a message for him on the commons...thanks! And if you do get to it, thanks to you! Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He can't do it, so I'm coming back to you. =) If you can't it's no problem, though. Thanks and cheers! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a try, but I cannot actually schedule it, it will come when is does. Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 13:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, that's awesome! Thanks a bunch! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 19:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is just a first batch, the top view is still lacking notably. But at least we have something. Cheers! Rama (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's about 99^{137563/137564}% better then what I could do....Thanks again. Cheers to you too, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 19:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image of penetrative position

Hi Rama!

There is currently a discussion on Talk:List of sex positions about this image by David Shankbone, used in the article to illustrate a topping position in which the penetrating partner stands and the receiving partner lays. While the image indeed illustrates it very well, some, including me, consider it a bit too graphic. I think a drawing of the position would do better, certainly if it fits with the rest of the drawings used in the article.

I have always prefered your drawings of positions over real pictures of it, because they are informative and lack the 'shock value' of real photographs. Unfortunately, I don't see a drawing on this page which resembles the position used in Shankbone's image. I was wondering what your opinion about this is. Perhaps you could draw something new?

Cheers, Face 15:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Enriching the collection of available drawings of gay sexual positions has been in the "not urgent" column for some time. Maybe I'll give it a try. Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! This is indeed not in any way urgent. I would just appreciate it if you could create one some day. Thanks, Face 17:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

thumbnail size per WP:EIS

You recently removed a size attribute on an image on the page Alan Stivell. I have just checked the guidelines on WP:EIS and am unable to find any logical justification for your change! Can you please point it out to me? -- Maelor  11:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's on top of the page, "Only [[Image:{name}]] is required. Most images should use [[Image:{name}|thumb|Example image caption]] (and should not specify a size).".

The reason is that hard-coding the size will optimise the image size for your browser on your screen, but will force it to be too large on some settings, and too small on others. Image size should be left by default as much as possible, and set in your preferences for your own convenience.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case the entire guidelines need re-writing! I believe that the text you quote from the page does not match any of the guidelines given on the rest of the page! There is no further mention of not using the size parameter anywhere on the page, indeed in nearly every other example on the page the size paramiter IS used! I suspect that it has been slipped in by some sad pedant running a personal, and irrelevant, campaign. Do you intend removing every other size parameter for every other image on Wikipedia??? -- Maelor  10:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of them, yes, absolutely. It is very obvious that hard-coding values is an awfully bad practice. It is a common mistake, but there is no reason why someone would want to do that in a usual case. Rama (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Image-Warriors-DVD cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Warriors-DVD cover.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 01:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves block?

Hi. It seems you've blocked LeaveSleaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours, block summary "Vandalism". I'm rather confused. You've not left LeaveSleaves a block notice informing him of the reason for the block, and there's no evidence of warnings on his talk page. I can't see any obvious vandalism in LeaveSleaves recent contribs; on the contrary, he's a prolific and effective recent-changes patroller. You have left a block message for 194.217.93.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here), but you didn't block 194.217.93.116. Did you perhaps block the wrong account? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Darn, thank you for reporting it! Of course that was a mistake, I'll fix this and appologise to LeaveSleaves. Thank you again. Rama (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Action of 13 January 1797

Thanks very much, I was going to ask for your help with links, but you have already created almost all the ones I need! (If you can by the way, the two remaining red links in the article are French ships) Next up, the Mauritius campaign of 1810!--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am on Fraternité as I speak :) Rama (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you! Incidentally, I am thinking of starting an article about the French attempt at invading Ireland, if you have material about this... Cheers! Rama (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was planning something similar myself at some point, I have a lot of source material and would be very happy to participate. Let me know when you begin.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, does this event (or lack thereof...) have a name in English? Rama (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking, and I can't find an agreed one. The event is often described but without an accepted title.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised that I had done that a while ago: Croisière du Grand Hiver. Unfortunately it is nowhere near as good as your typical article, if you have something to contribute I would be delighted. Rama (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats a different event. The Crossiere was in the winter of 1794-75, the disastrous expedition to Ireland was in 1796-97. Both are similar in character - A French fleet tried and failed to perform a significant operation during an Atlantic winter when any sensible navy would have remained in port. As a result, both expeditions suffered massive losses in ships and men and severely undermined morale in the French Navy. I'll look to sort out articles on both the Crossiere and the Ireland expedition once I have finished the Mauritius campaign (probably in the new year), although if you want to sart sooner I'll be happy to assist.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I mixed up the dates. I also was wondering why the names of the commanders did not match and why Séduisant was not mentioned. My bad again. Rama (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have drafted something at Expédition d'Irlande, by assembling details scattered across individual articles of several ships, and your excellent background on Action of 13 January 1797. Rama (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good start, I'd be happy to help out although at the moment I've begun work on a new project and that will be my primary wikipriority for the moment. As I mentioned, the subject is the Mauritius campaign of 1808-1811 and I'm drafting a main article and creating articles on the small actions as I go along. The first is at Action of 31 May 1809, and if you can help during this process with articles on French ships or officers I'd really appreciate it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that most of the text is yours, do you? :)

Ah, the Victor, it had been a while since I last met her. I had been thinking of writing her article for a while, but now I think that this is it. Rama (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hull profile image

Thanks for touching up the photo of the hull cross section that's used at Vasa (ship). I reverted the spelling changes and some of the image tweaks, though. The spelling has been American for as long as I've worked on the article, and I thought some of the image became too small for comfort. If you think the reverting was uncalled for, just let me know at my talkpage or at talk:Vasa (ship).

Peter ^Isotalo 08:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome about the image.

About the spelling, the point is not that it should be British, but that it should be consistent. If US spelling is chosen, then instances of British spelling should be removed.

The images should always be left to their default size. If they appear too small, you should change your settings and preferences. By specifying a size for the images, you are forcing everybody's setting to comform to what is best for your screen. Rama (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I could only find two spelling inconsistencies when I looked now. There might be a few more, but I still think it's appropriate to check how many instances of standardizing one makes before performing such a correction. One should always attempt to conform to how the majority of the article is written. If you can spot any more inconsistencies, do please point them out or iron them out.

I'm not up to date about what default size means. When you refer to preferences and settings, do you mean Wikipedia or browser preferences?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Default size" as in "[[Image:something.jpg|thumb|]]", as opposed to "[[Image:something.jpg|thumb|300px|]]". How "[[Image:something.jpg|thumb|]]" is rendered depends on your Wikipedia account preferences ("my preferences" link, between "my talk" and "my watchlist"). The default for this setting is set at 200px, but you can increase the size if you so wish. On the other hand, by forcing 300px with "[[Image:something.jpg|thumb|300px|]]", you make the image look huge on small screens and small on large ones, and this cannot be helped.

The correct practice is therefore to use "[[Image:something.jpg|thumb|]]" without specifying a size, and adapt with "[[Image:something.jpg|thumb|upright|]]" for vertical images. Rama (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I know it might not be an ideal solution to set image sizes, but all images can't be treated the same. For example, the map of Vasa's movements is more or less pointless at default size unless one adjusts the settings to a larger large default size. If this was a discussion about general browser settings, it would make sense to set all images to default size, but not if we're relying on Wiki account preferences. Only a tiny minority of readers have accounts and not even within that small group does everyone tweak image preferences (I know I don't). This satisfies only Wikipedia editors, not the general readership.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kirk Cameron in Fireproof.jpg

Could you explain to me why you deleted Image:Kirk Cameron in Fireproof.jpg? I followed all the processes that were required for screenshots. And is there anything I can do to fix it and still keep the image? I have never done this before, so I'd like some guidance. Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is not a way to gather unfree images. It is akin to right of citation; a good example of correct use is Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Use of an image for purely decorative purpose, as it was done, does not fall in the scope of fair use. Rama (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My intent wasn't to "gather unfree images." Fireproof just has no photos (besides cover) and I thought it should have one. Again, is there anything I (or you) can do to get the image back? Like fix a tag or something? If it's possible, could you? I am sorry for being a bother or imposing, but I do want the image on the article and have no clue about it. If it is all messed and can't and/or shouldn't be kept, that's alright. Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not doubt your good intentions. This aside, it is not possible to have an image from a film as decorative device, unless it is released under a Free image. You could attempt to contact the makers of the film and request them to release a photograph under the Cc-by-sa-3.0 licence, for instance. Rama (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)